Electrical hazards rarely get the same day-to-day attention as chemical exposures or biosafety risks. Yet modern laboratories run on electrically powered instruments, modified setups, and aging equipment that influence the lab’s overall risk.
According to Julia Means, CSP, lead occupational safety specialist at UC Davis, many laboratory electrical risks trace back to everyday behaviors. When asked about the most common electrical safety “don’ts” in university labs, she points first to risk perception.
“The most common ‘don’t’ I see is underestimating the level of risk associated with electrical hazards in the lab,” Means says. “Interacting with electrically powered equipment is so common in everyday life that individuals often take electrical safeguards for granted. Their perception of the risk does not match the actual level of risk they may be exposed to.”
That gap between perception and reality drives behaviors that feel routine: troubleshooting equipment without proper qualification or accepting modified devices without review, for example. Over time, these choices embed themselves into lab culture.
The hidden cost of “saving money”
Means points to equipment selection as one of the costliest missteps. “Ensuring that equipment being used in the laboratory is of sound design and tested is critical,” she explains. “Our policy is to select NRTL-listed equipment, even when other options are available for purchase.”
When labs bypass that standard, the downstream consequences mount. “Where the cost can become crippling is when a lab tries to save money up front by investing in a piece of equipment that is not NRTL listed and later finds out that they must have a third-party field evaluation done,” Means says. Field evaluations, retrofits, project delays, and potential citations often exceed the initial price difference.
“It is fairly common to see a mix of custom-made or modified equipment, international equipment, and/or non-NRTL-listed equipment in labs when the short-term cost is the only cost consideration,” she notes.
What a lab buys affects how safely it operates. Properly listed equipment minimizes compliance risk, avoids added evaluation costs, and reduces exposure to design or modification-related hazards.
Lab Safety Management Certificate
The Lab Safety Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Legacy and donated equipment
Inherited devices introduce another layer of uncertainty. “In these cases, there is little known about the condition of the equipment, whether it has been modified previously, or the history of servicing and maintenance,” Means says. “Again, this leads to equipment that may not be intrinsically safe.”
Organizations frequently require inspection or third-party evaluation before such equipment can be energized. That review protects staff and shields the lab from liability, but it also demands time and budget. Means encourages managers to address these realities early.
“If we know that a piece of equipment that will be inherited will have a large cost associated with getting it examined and updated, it can help save the lab time and money in the long run,” she says.
Collaboration as a control strategy
Technical controls and policies matter, but Means emphasizes collaboration as the most effective incident-reduction strategy across the UC system.
“Collaboration between EHS, Facilities, qualified electrical workers, and the department has proven to be the most effective means when it comes to helping our labs understand what needs to be done before an incident occurs,” she explains.
At UC Davis, that partnership includes close coordination with the electrical shop superintendent. “His staff act as the subject matter experts, helping EHS and the lab understand what needs to be done and how best to go about it,” Means says. “They also have contractor connections, so when we must outsource work, they help point us in the right direction and participate in discussions with vendors to ensure the lab gets the right assistance and avoids scope creep.”
For lab managers and principal investigators (PIs), this model reframes Facilities and EHS from gatekeepers to operational allies. Early engagement helps align project goals with code requirements, clarify responsibilities, and prevent costly redesigns.
Managing “we’ve always done it this way”
Cultural inertia can undermine even well-designed programs. Means acknowledges that lab leaders and PIs excel at solving problems under pressure, but ingenuity does not replace compliance.
“Our lab managers and principal investigators are problem solvers. They are extremely intelligent individuals that are passionate about finding ways to get what needs to be done, done,” she says. “That does not always mean it is done in a manner that meets regulatory requirements or campus policies.”
Her advice: start conversations before urgency sets in. “Work with your EHS team and qualified electricians at the start of the project or when you are learning about the potential to inherit the equipment,” Means says. “The more that we can communicate about the needs of the lab up front, or before a time crunch, the better we can help establish a plan.”
Rethinking electrical safety training
Training presents its own challenge. Labs differ widely in their electrical exposures, making generic, one-time sessions insufficient.
“Every lab and every department have different exposures to electrical hazards based on what type of research or teaching they are doing,” Means explains.
“[At UC Davis,] we are working on creating a fundamentals class that would be hands-on and help with the basic understanding of electrical hazards and controls,” she says. The course will also define “roles, responsibilities, and sometimes most importantly, restrictions on what type of electrical work can be done in-house and what needs to be outsourced.”
For managers, this means moving beyond awareness training and ensuring employees understand role limitations, approval requirements, and stop-work triggers.
Three actions managers can take now
Means outlines three priorities for strengthening electrical safety:
1. Identify and communicate hazards.
“Know your potential electrical hazards and make that information known,” she says. “Individuals are so used to electrically powered equipment working without risk in their daily life that they take chances in the lab.” Managers should document hazards, explain consequences, and provide clear protocols.
2. Treat equipment selection as risk control.
“The cost for the right equipment up front can save the lab money on the back end,” Means notes. Injury costs, citations, and property damage often outweigh the purchase premium for properly listed equipment.
3. Engage your internal experts.
“Collaborate with your team of experts,” she advises. Electrical systems involve many variables. Facilities staff and EHS require context from the lab to deliver workable solutions.
Clarifying qualifications and boundaries
Means closes with a reminder that even qualified professionals operate within defined scopes. “It is important for lab managers to remember that qualified electrical workers are not qualified to work on anything and everything,” she says. “An electrician may be qualified to work on one system but not another.”
As an example, she explains that a Facilities electrician experienced with AC systems may lack qualification for specialized DC technologies. “In EHS, our job is to make sure we do not trade one employee’s safety for another,” Means explains.
Understanding who can perform specific tasks informs budgeting, scheduling, and outsourcing decisions. It also prevents well-intentioned shortcuts that introduce unacceptable risk.
In practice, electrical safety reflects management priorities. Lab managers influence risk through procurement standards, maintenance planning, and the willingness to pause work when conditions fall outside safe limits. Consistent attention to these decisions does more to reduce incidents than reactive fixes after something goes wrong.
