The cable splicer’s role in the utility industry has broadened over time. Today, splicing work is performed by electricians, lineworkers and technicians, as well as individuals who have successfully completed manufacturer training programs. And while it’s true that many of these professionals are highly qualified within their respective disciplines, earning the journeyman cable splicer title demands more than just the act of splicing. Journeymen splicers have the requisite training and field experience to safely install, maintain, test, troubleshoot, repair and operate medium-voltage and network distribution systems. A structured apprenticeship – one that includes extensive classroom instruction, thousands of hours of supervised field experience, practical examinations and ongoing competency development – is typically necessary to achieve this level of expertise. My apprenticeship consisted of a four-year underground lineworker training program, during which I logged nearly 6,000 hours in the field and completed several formal training blocks. Program advancement required passing both written and practical assessments, culminating in comprehensive final exams. Depth and Breadth Relatively few electrical professionals who perform splicing tasks possess a journeyman splicer’s depth and breadth of relevant knowledge. Responsibilities extend far beyond installing a termination or a splice kit. Qualified splicers have studied the full range of tasks associated with building and maintaining underground electrical distribution systems, from cable installation and system construction to fault diagnosis, repair, testing and restoration. Thorough education on cable construction, electrical theory, insulation systems and failure mechanisms ultimately enables splicers to identify issues before they become outages and diagnose failures as they happen. Beyond cable-specific expertise, journeymen splicers are deeply familiar with underground distribution systems; network operations; transformer applications; grounding practices; switching procedures; and the relationship between primary and secondary electrical systems. These competencies empower splicers to safely isolate, test, repair and restore critical infrastructure. For some utility professionals, installing manufacturer-specific products is their only exposure to medium-voltage work. Journeymen splicers, on the other hand, routinely locate and diagnose faults; identify damaged cable sections; test cables; verify cable identification; and determine root causes of system failures. Doing so requires deep, ongoing learning about electrical system behavior, cable degradation mechanisms and operational factors that influence system reliability. My apprenticeship was purposely designed to develop these competencies. Structured classroom and field training covered fault locating; cable theory; network protector operation; system switching; grounding methods; transformer theory; metering; cable identification; continuity testing; hot-network construction; paper-insulated, lead-covered (PILC) cable systems; advanced manhole and vault construction; transition splicing; wye and H-body splices; underground residential distribution systems; throwover systems; and advanced switching procedures. Perhaps the greatest defining characteristic of a journeyman cable splicer is the ability to understand and troubleshoot an entire electrical system. When a cable fails, splicers must be able to analyze the problem, identify the cause, develop a safe repair strategy and restore service while maintaining overall system reliability. These capabilities are developed through apprenticeships and years of field experience that short-term training programs do not supply. Manufacturer and NCSCB Certifications Various manufacturers offer certification programs focused on proper installation of their medium-voltage cable accessories, which can usually be completed in one to three days. Prior experience with medium-voltage systems and cable preparation is often a must. This is worth noting. While a manufacturer’s certification program verifies an individual’s ability to correctly install certain products, it does not provide the comprehensive education, field experience nor system-level knowledge that quality cable-splicer apprenticeships do. In fact, manufacturer programs are commonly described as “product-specific installation training.” The bottom line? Certification indicates an individual’s proficiency with the manufacturer’s products but not necessarily mastery of the splicing trade’s full body of knowledge. There is one industry certification to know about because employers are increasingly seeking it out as they assess prospective employees. The National Cable Splicing Certification Board’s program validates a splicer’s knowledge and skills through written and practical examinations. Candidates are expected to possess relevant industry experience as no formal training is provided. The organization recommends at least two years of working experience in the medium-voltage cable industry before attempting certification. Passing an NCSCB exam demonstrates splicing task proficiency and related technical knowledge. On its own, though, the certification does not indicate completion of any industry apprenticeship nor extensive experience with troubleshooting, fault locating, switching, underground system construction or distribution operations. It merely verifies professional competence already gained through an apprenticeship. Inside Wiremen Journeymen inside wiremen are another subset of highly trained industry workers. Their apprenticeship programs focus on commercial, industrial and institutional electrical systems, cultivating expertise in areas including low-voltage wiring and troubleshooting; motor controls; conduit systems; lighting and fire alarm systems; industrial equipment; switchgear installation; and commercial or residential wiring. An inside wireman might perform medium-voltage terminations and splices, but the skill needed to accomplish this occasional work is not equivalent to a journeyman cable splicer’s level of specialization. Focus and depth are the primary differences here. A splicer’s apprenticeship zeroes in on distribution systems, providing rigorous training in cable installation; identification; fault locating; switching operations; network systems; transformer installations; cable theory; and troubleshooting. Armed with this knowledge, they can safely manage complex underground system failures, network protector operations and cable fault investigations. Journeymen Lineworkers Journeymen lineworkers are among the most highly skilled professionals in the electric utility industry. Apprenticeships focus on the construction, operation, maintenance and restoration of power transmission and distribution systems, delivering robust training on energized environments, hazard controls, switching operations, outage restoration and more. Underground tasks are sometimes assigned to these journeymen, such as installing elbows, terminations or pre-manufactured splice kits. However, organizational leaders must recognize that this work – which can also include connector sweating; single- and three-conductor PILC construction; transition, wye and H-body splicing; network protector operations; advanced switching procedures; and hot vault and manhole construction – represents a distinct industry specialization, one that requires extensive instruction and practical field experience beyond the scope of traditional overhead-focused apprenticeship programs. Conclusion Industry employers are wise to recognize the distinction between journeymen cable splicers and employees who perform occasional splicing work. Manufacturer certifications can provide valuable validation of product installation competency. NCSCB’s program independently verifies a splicer’s technical knowledge and practical skills. Both serve important purposes, but neither can replace the comprehensive education and field training that journeymen cable splicers received during their formal apprenticeships. About the Author: Mark Savage is the owner of DeadBreak, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business providing underground distribution and transmission training, consulting and field services. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran with over 25 years of experience in underground construction and emergency response, Savage is a credentialed journeyman cable splicer/lineman and qualified medium-voltage splicing trainer. Reach him at msavage@deadbreak.us.

The NFPA 70E standard addresses electrical safety-related work practices, maintenance methods and administrative controls. It is subject to three-year revision cycles, with the recently published 2027 edition now replacing the 2024 edition. Among the changes to the revised standard is one small but significant update to the conformity assessment requirements for arc-rated clothing and other personal protective equipment. Readers should be aware that the text is relatively easy to miss in the new edition, yet it has potential to greatly impact the arc-rated PPE marketplace. Also note that while this change applies to all PPE types, arc-rated PPE is this article’s sole focus. Testing and Oversight To understand NFPA 70E conformity requirements, it is helpful to be knowledgeable about arc-rated PPE testing and oversight requirements. ASTM International and the International Electrotechnical Commission primarily govern arc-rated product specifications and testing methods, although other standards organizations do exist. ASTM F1506 and IEC 61482-1-1 are the standards most widely used for these purposes. Each includes a list of test methods and associated performance requirements that manufacturers can use to assess product conformity. NFPA 70E references both standards in Table 130.7(C) regarding PPE requirements. A garment’s arc rating is determined by testing the primary fabric (or multilayer fabric system) to either ASTM F1959 or IEC 61482-1-1. Various other tests may be needed to achieve full compliance, including small-scale flame tests before and after laundering; colorfastness and dimensional change tests; and physical tests to gauge breaking, tearing or burst strength, depending on textile construction. Both ASTM and IEC require periodic retesting on subsequent fabric lots for continued compliance. Once a fabric’s arc rating is determined and garment creation commences, ASTM F2621 or IEC 61482-1-1 can be used to assess the finished product. Garments are placed on non-instrumented mannequins for the purpose of observing design performance, including ignition, melting and dripping. However, numerous manufacturers use these standards to demonstrate that their products do not contribute to injury, thereby satisfying a clause found in ASTM F1506. This process is commonly used with items that cannot be assigned arc ratings, such as sunshades and respirators. Neither the 2024 nor 2027 edition of NFPA 70E references these garment-related arc exposure standards. Historically, the compliance of most products in the ASTM F1506 marketplace has been self-declared by their respective manufacturers. To support those declarations, manufacturers could choose to (1) collaborate with ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratories; (2) conduct testing in their own in-house labs; or (3) work with unaccredited external labs. Some manufacturers went a step further, marketing dual-hazard garments that had been ISO/IEC 17065 certified to both NFPA 2112 and ASTM F1506. ISO/IEC 17065 is a conformity assessment standard for certifying organizations that use ISO 17025-accredited testing labs and site audits. Achieving certification results in a public listing and use of the certifying organization’s mark on the product label. This is the most stringent level of PPE oversight. It includes annual retesting and site audits performed by an ISO 17065 organization (e.g., UL Solutions, the Safety Equipment Institute). Note: The National Electrical Code (NFPA 70-2026) defines “listed” as “equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.” The onus is on consumers to request copies of any supporting evidence in cases of manufacturer self-declaration. Ask to see product test reports, including those that document required retesting. Conversations with hundreds of end users have revealed that most did not know they could review these reports; most were also unaware that arc-rated PPE must be marked in accordance with ASTM F1506. The 2027 NFPA 70E includes marking requirements as well. Three Methods, Two Revisions Changes to the updated 70E standard were driven in part by concerns regarding conformity assessment claims. To better understand this, readers should know that the 2024 edition offered manufacturers three methods to demonstrate PPE conformity with an appropriate product standard:

1. Self-declaration with a supplier’s declaration of conformity.
2. Self-declaration under a registered quality management system, with product testing by an accredited laboratory and a supplier’s conformity declaration.
3. Certification by an independent, accredited third party.

All three carried equal weight. Nothing on the PPE itself indicated the method employed to end users. This labeling gap was addressed by the NFPA 70E technical committee during the latest revision cycle. An initial proposed change required manufacturers to clearly identify to consumers which of the three conformity assessment methods had been used, either on the product packaging or in the instruction manual. A second proposed revision replaced the sentence in the initial revision with this one: “All arc-rated PPE shall be listed.” The technical committee explained in their statement that while most arc-rated PPE manufacturers are reliable, self-declaration is insufficient to guarantee a product’s promised protection level. Twenty-eight individuals were eligible to vote on these changes. The second proposed revision passed with 19 affirmative votes, one affirmative vote with comment, and four nay votes with comment. Four members did not return a ballot. Because the second revision eliminated any mention of the three conformity demonstration methods, one nay vote stated that the marking requirement was unnecessary. Two of the four nay votes used identical language, arguing that self-declaration under a registered quality management system with accredited laboratory testing has been used successfully in North America and globally; that it should not be deleted from the standard; and that a requirement to publicly list all arc-rated PPE (i.e., achieve third-party certification from an ISO 17065-accredited organization) would be unduly burdensome on industry. A third nay commented that listing may not improve product quality, noting that buyers should source PPE from established manufacturers that can supply testing documentation. The fourth nay pointed to ANSI/ISEA 125, a conformity assessment standard for safety and PPE, which sets three conformance levels: manufacturer self-declaration at levels one and two, comparable to the EU’s CE marking, and listed product at level three. Public Commentary Fourteen public comments were submitted after the first draft of the revised NFPA 70E standard was released. One explained that flame-resistant apparel manufacturers in North America most commonly self-certify to ASTM F1506, so third-party certification to NFPA 70E would also require third-party certification to F1506 – a program that neither standard gives certifiers any guidance to build. A second comment pointed out that the draft did not specify which information must be listed: the fabric, the garment or a component (e.g., a face shield). Others raised concerns about the absence of an effective date for the revised standard; the risk that listed products would not be available when the standard became effective; and the draft’s silence on arc flash PPE already purchased and in service. Second Draft Compelled by these comments, the NFPA 70E technical committee abandoned the second revision, removed the listing sentence and restored the 2024 standard’s language – with one change: the first method, self-declaration with a supplier’s declaration of conformity, has been struck from the text. The other two methods remain. The committee statement identifies that deleted first method as the original driving factor behind the listing proposal. This ballot passed with a vote of 23 to 2. No amending motions were filed. The 2027 NFPA 70E standard was issued April 16, 2026, and took effect May 6. Meaning for the Marketplace The option for manufacturers to self-declare product conformity still exists, but the revised standard’s new parameters require a registered quality management system and test data generated in an accredited laboratory. A supplier’s declaration of conformity must be present. Consumers who consider purchasing products with self-declared conformity claims are encouraged to verify claim accuracy. Request copies of the declarations and test reports. Users can also ask to see proof of a registered quality management system. Alternatively, manufacturers can obtain third-party certification from an ISO/IEC 17065-accredited organization. This approach enables consumers to search publicly available listings, via databases provided by the certifying organization, for verification that a specific product has achieved certification. The manufacturer is required to include information on the conformity pathway chosen. The updates discussed in this article differ slightly from the outline presented in ASTM F1506, which allows PPE manufacturers to either audit critical component manufacturers or accept the same items listed in NFPA 70E (i.e., ISO 9001 as a quality management system, and either ISO/IEC 17025-accredited test data or third-party certification by an ISO/IEC 17065 organization). In closing, the latest NFPA 70E standard contains small language adjustments that will prompt noticeable changes in the arc-rated PPE marketplace, including greater visibility into how manufacturers meet consensus standard conformity requirements. About the Authors: Zarheer Jooma, M.S., P.E., is a partner at e-Hazard (https://e-hazard.com). His work includes electrical safety training, accident investigations, safety audits, consulting services and arc flash engineering studies. A senior member of IEEE, Jooma is part of the IEEE 1584, ASTM F18 and IEC TC 78 working groups. He has also contributed to the NFPA 70E standard. Stacy Klausing, M.S., is the PPE project manager at ArcWear (www.arcwear.com), a division of Kinectrics. Her professional experience includes project management in testing laboratories, testing and evaluating fabric related to PPE, and execution and management of an ISO 17025-accredited quality system. She earned her master’s degree from the University of Kentucky and is a Six Sigma Green Belt from North Carolina State University. Brian Shiels, M.S., is the service line manager for ArcWear, a division of Kinectrics. His professional experience includes quality management as well as the development and testing of thermal protective clothing and equipment. Among other responsibilities, Shiels is vice chair of the ASTM International Board of Directors. He earned his master’s degree from North Carolina State University.

To read more about the NFPA standards development process, visit www.nfpa.org/for-professionals/codes-and-standards/standards-development.