April-May 2025 Q&A

Q: I’m a municipal utility substation engineer, and I’m hoping you can help me with this question: Does an engineer taking photos in a substation fall under the OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269 work rules?

A: The simple answer is yes. No matter your training or education, if you must be inside the fence to take the photos, you are required to meet the 1910.269(a)(2) qualification standards.

The error people often make is assuming a degreed engineer is automatically exempt from the (a)(2) standards. The issue is found in the employer requirement to ensure the employee’s qualification. Educational degrees notwithstanding, the first employer rule is 1910.269(a)(2)(viii), which states that the “employer shall ensure that each employee has demonstrated proficiency …” Demonstrated proficiency is not ensured by any degree alone. The rule also includes the following note:

For an employee with previous training, an employer may determine that that employee has demonstrated the proficiency required by this paragraph using the following process:

1. Confirm that the employee has the training required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
2. Use an examination or interview to make an initial determination that the employee understands the relevant safety-related work practices before he or she performs any work covered by this section, and
3. Supervise the employee closely until that employee has demonstrated proficiency as required by this paragraph.

Notice that the rule doesn’t state “one of the following” or “any of the following.” An employer must follow each step of the process.

In short, all employees – no matter what their training consists of – must be evaluated to ensure their skills and knowledge satisfy the 1910.269(a)(2) requirements. Before an employee is permitted inside a substation fence, they must know how to identify what is and is not energized; apparatus and hazardous conditions related to the apparatus; the relative voltages of the equipment inside the fence; what they must do to maintain the appropriate safe distance from energized equipment; and what to do if something goes wrong. The employee is also required to wear a hard hat, safety glasses and possibly appropriately rated protective clothing depending on the employer’s arc flash hazard assessment.

Whether an employee is an engineer or a helper, the employer’s requirement is the same: to verify the employee’s safety-related knowledge as required by OSHA in 1910.269(a)(2).

Q: To deepen my understanding, and because there is a lot of industry confusion over this, can you explain why setting a power pole for a streetlight isn’t included in the OSHA exception? Also, does the exception apply to a utility setting its own streetlight poles?

A: OSHA did not address a utility setting its own poles. The agency only addressed the question that was posed and the comments from the comment period before the final rule was published. The interpretation of the agency’s exception was solely about setting poles for lighting; they did not define types of poles or how the light was powered. That’s because OSHA wanted to keep the exception very narrowly defined. The truth is, they didn’t want to grant an exception at all, but they were compelled to address the issue because Edison Electric Institute’s litigation was happening at the same time as the new minimum approach distances.

It is a fact that setting a light pole with a digger derrick is the same exact thing as setting a power pole, except for the various types of light poles, as OSHA mentions in the opinion. In the exception, the agency did not discuss the types or sizes of power poles. They highlighted that in the opinion, briefly mentioning several types of poles and pole bases. OSHA’s intent was – and is – to keep the digger-derrick exception very narrowly defined to power poles that carry distribution circuits and the equipment that is mounted on them.

It’s also clear that when OSHA defined the difference between a utility crew setting a streetlight and a streetlight contractor setting one, they had in mind those operators who only set or build streetlights.

Page 47925 of the preamble to the final rule includes this statement: “OSHA also declines to extend the exclusion broadly to installation of all poles for outdoor lighting along roadways …” (see www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-08-09/pdf/2010-17818.pdf).

On the same page, the agency also states that “some poles that carry electric and telecommunication lines also have street lights installed on them, and use of digger derricks to install such lights would qualify for the exclusion to the extent that the employer complies with either §§ 1910.268 or 1910.269.”

In addition, the preamble addressed the fact that commenters in the rulemaking were not streetlight contractors: “… the commenter asking for the exclusion to be extended to light poles represents equipment manufacturers, and no company that installs lighting poles suggested such an exclusion.”

Lastly, OSHA determined that exempting contractors who install streetlights would put them in a nonregulated work class: “To the extent that some light pole installation would not be covered by either §§ 1910.268 or 1910.269, extending the exclusion to such work would leave the excluded work without coverage by an appropriate general industry standard …”

Considering all the above, it seems OSHA intends to say that the exception does not apply to contractors installing streetlights. We don’t believe OSHA would cite a power company setting ball field lights, such as a cooperative performing a community service using a qualified digger derrick operator. Further, if a citation were to be issued, Incident Prevention’s consultants believe a power company contesting the citation would probably prevail, or the citation would be for a de minimis violation.

A member of Incident Prevention’s editorial advisory board had this to say in their review of this Q&A: “Although I personally agree with the assumption, I feel like it is giving an approval to ‘break’ the rule because it would be highly unlikely that OSHA would issue a citation for this type of work. However, if an incident were to occur while performing this work, it most likely would result in a citation from OSHA, and if it went to litigation, the impact could be much more significant.”

As consultants, until someone challenges OSHA, we can only make recommendations based on (1) the rule and (2) the preamble’s explanation of the rule’s intent, which is currently the only OSHA interpretation. We can pretty much assure readers that OSHA would issue an interpretation using the same resources we’ve noted here and not create additional defined exceptions.

Q: We’ve been under the impression that OSHA requires insulating foot protection for electrical workers. Is this true? Can you explain the rules?

A: Yes, we think we can help you with your questions.

Dielectric overshoes, rubber insulating boots or electrical hazard-rated boots alone are not a solution to step potential. In their rules, OSHA once pointed to electrical insulating footwear as a form of protection for employees, from electricians to lineworkers to substation personnel. That protection was explained as eliminating a path to ground through the worker’s feet. The agency eventually removed such language and began referring to electrical hazard (EH) safety footwear, insulating boots and dielectric overshoes as parts of a system of protection for electrical workers.

OSHA’s PPE section addresses foot protection as follows in 1910.136(a): “The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, or when the use of protective footwear will protect the affected employee from an electrical hazard, such as a static-discharge or electric-shock hazard, that remains after the employer takes other necessary protective measures.”

So, a system of protection allows the employer to make determinations about the relative hazard, analyze the mode of injury and take protective steps that may include some form of footwear.

We are familiar with the results of a 2019 report from the Electric Power Research Institute, some of which are described below. (Note: We cannot directly publish full report information from EPRI, which performs or coordinates science-based research to answer specific questions posed by utilities for a fee. However, anyone can purchase the written results of an EPRI study by paying the organization that same fee.)

The report I’m referring to is titled “Vehicle Grounding and Personnel Protection: Utility Distribution Guide” (see www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002016395). The study itself employed a maximum available voltage of 34.5 kV. (Another note: To use the report’s findings as part of a utility or contractor’s step-potential protection system, the entire report must be reviewed. Due diligence means no one should make company policy decisions based solely on this excerpt; reading the full report is necessary for context.) During testing, there was a maximum distance of 2 feet from the truck in the 34.5-kV exposure. The EPRI study confirmed that step voltages were lower when a truck was grounded to a system neutral. That’s expected since grounding collapses voltage in a contact event.

In a testing exposure, higher voltages were encountered when the test vehicle was not connected to the system neutral. We can assume that connection to a pole bond that is connected to both the system neutral and a ground rod would have a similar effect, contingent on impedances in the interconnected pathways. With a connection to the neutral, step potentials were below 3 kV, so use of dielectric or EH-rated work boots resulted in protection. EPRI’s report supports what many consultants recommend – that both EH-rated and dielectric footwear can offer protection from almost all real-life step-potential hazards when barricades are employed around equipment (the employer sets the dimensions), non-auto relays are disabled, and trucks are grounded.

As we have often stated in Incident Prevention, and as the dielectric boot manufacturers have often said as well, EPRI notes in the report that dielectric overshoes and EH-rated work boots “… have a common problem in that they are only tested when new. There is no guidance for in-service inspection or retesting, so the insulating value of used boots is unknown.” Put plainly, the voltage rating of your dielectric or rubber insulating boots is ensured by the manufacturer only if you never open the package the boots came in.

Here’s one more disclaimer because this is important for readers to understand: Incident Prevention is not making any recommendations here, only relaying information to readers that’s backed by industry resources. The employer is still responsible for the safety procedures used by their employees.

Q: How do we explain effective worksite hazard analysis to our crews?

A: Tailboards supported by hazard analyses are the first order of effectively preventing hazards and the injuries they cause, so your question is a good place to start reform.

With the exception of those individuals specifically trained in workplace safety, most observers performing a safety evaluation will not know all the rules for a safe workplace. If you approach a safety evaluation based on rules but with limited knowledge of them, you will focus on the issues that you’re familiar with – to the exclusion of areas you don’t know much about.

A person performing a safety evaluation approaches a workplace observation with broad concepts of what constitutes a safe work environment, not necessarily what the written rules state about specific tasks. And although it helps, an observer who learns to use safety concepts doesn’t have to know safety standards to perform an effective hazard analysis. Given a little guidance, most craft-workers will intuitively identify potential hazards even when they don’t know the safety rules specific to the situation.

Incident Prevention has previously published a system of hazard analysis referred to as “The Intersect Method.” In its simplest form, the observer considers three intersecting points to identify conflicts: (1) the intersection of the worker and their task; (2) the intersection of the worker and their tools; and (3) the intersection of the worker and their work environment.

The following paragraphs will provide information about conceptual tools you can use to identify conflicts and perform effective safety evaluations.

A hazard is essentially a condition or activity that, if left uncontrolled, could lead to an accident. To effectively identify hazards, the observer must develop a means of recognizing exposure. Hazard exposure exists at the intersection of the worker, the worker’s tools, the task being performed and the work area. Identifying those relationships is the beginning of effective hazard evaluation.

Some environments are fairly safe, such as a well-appointed workstation in an ergonomic space. Others – like power plants and power-line rights-of-way – contain high voltages, work position hazards, fire and explosion risks, airborne contaminants or pressurized systems that, by their very nature, create hazardous exposure potential for workers.

While all workplace hazards should be removed or controlled, it is also appropriate to classify them. We’re not aware of any official classification system, but here’s a reasonable one:

• Critical hazard: Immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to workers.
• Serious hazard: Immediate threat of minor injury to workers.
• Moderate hazard: Possible threat of minor injury to workers or damage to equipment or systems.
• Likely hazard: Possible threat of damage to equipment or systems.

Keep in mind that a safety evaluation is only as effective as the actions taken in response to the hazards discovered. The next logical step after identifying a hazard is to correct it. Classifying hazards is a reasonable management tool, but don’t let it minimize the attention given to making the workplace safe. No matter the classification level of a hazard, it is unacceptable to ignore any identified risk.

Use The Intersect Method to keep things simple. For each task to be performed, the worker should ask:

• What is it about this task that can hurt me? How do I prevent myself from being harmed?
• What is it about the tools to be used that can hurt me? How do I prevent myself from being harmed?
• What is it about the work environment that can hurt me? How do I prevent myself from being harmed?

Do you have a question regarding best practices, work procedures or other utility safety-related topics? If so, please send your inquiries directly to kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com. Questions submitted are reviewed and answered by the iP editorial advisory board and other subject matter experts.