“Foundations of Safety: Reducing Risk in Subsurface Utility Operations”

** THIS WEBINAR WILL BE RECORDED **

Sign Up today!

Sign Up today!

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

CM Labs builds hi-tech solutions to help clients design advanced equipment and prepare for skilled operations.

Developer of Vortex Studio, the industry-leading platform for creating real-time interactive simulations within virtual environments, CM Labs provides capabilities for training simulators, mission rehearsal, serious games, virtual prototyping and testing.

Optimizing Arc Flash Protection: The Crucial Role of Layered Clothing

A layered approach that includes FR/AR undergarments can enhance worker safety, comfort and compliance.

Read the article here – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/optimizing-arc-flash-protection-the-crucial-role-of-layered-clothing/

Arc flash incidents can happen in a split second, but the right preparation can make all the difference. In this episode of The Deep Dive, we break down the must-know insights from the article “Optimizing Arc Flash Protection: The Crucial Role of Layered Clothing” by Derick Sang, featured in Incident Prevention Magazine. From flame-resistant undergarments to outerwear strategy, we explore why a layered clothing system isn’t just safer — it’s smarter. Learn how layering improves protection, comfort, compliance, and even day-to-day adaptability in the field. Whether you’re in safety leadership or on the front lines, this episode delivers actionable takeaways you can put to work today.

✅ Key Takeaways:

1. Layered Clothing Enhances Protection: Combining base and outer layers boosts defense against arc flash energy more effectively than a single garment.

2. Comfort & Moisture Management Matter: Layering helps regulate temperature and sweat, improving field comfort.

3. Compliance Isn’t Optional: OSHA, NFPA 70E, and ASTM standards mandate FR/AR clothing and recognize layering as an effective strategy.

4. Base Layers Are Often Overlooked: FR-rated undergarments are critical for secondary protection and shouldn’t be substituted with just cotton.

5. Training & Maintenance Are Vital: Proper education on wear and care ensures PPE is used correctly and continues to perform over time.

❓ Five Questions & Answers:

Q1: Why isn’t a single flame-resistant garment enough in high-risk environments?

A1: While common, single layers can be uncomfortable and might not meet protection needs. Layering offers cumulative protection and energy dissipation.

Q2: What role do FR base layers play in arc flash safety?

A2: They act as a secondary defense, especially if outerwear shifts or fails during an event, protecting the skin and helping prevent burns.

Q3: Are layered systems recognized by safety standards?

A3: Yes. OSHA, NFPA 70E, and ASTM F1506 all support layered approaches and place responsibility on employers to provide proper gear.

Q4: How does layering improve comfort for utility workers?

A4: It regulates body temperature and wicks away moisture, keeping workers dry and more comfortable throughout changing weather conditions.

Q5: What training should accompany an FR layered clothing system?

A5: Workers should be taught how to wear layers properly, understand when PPE is required, and avoid compromising safety by adding non-FR outerwear.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#ArcFlashSafety #FlameResistantClothing #UtilitySafety #WorkplaceProtection #PPECompliance #IncidentPrevention #PPE

The electric transmission and distribution (T&D) industry often requires work in challenging environments. Whether crew members access tall structures by helicopter, use rope-access methods to climb lattice towers, or ride wire carts to install and maintain spacers along energized lines, their approach goes beyond standard ground-based operations. These specialized techniques can speed up projects, minimize ground disturbance – especially on protected and sensitive land – and reduce the need for site preparation (e.g., building roads).

Yet all of them present complex fall hazards.

Many readers may be familiar with the so-called “ABCs” of fall protection (anchors, body supports and connectors), but the tasks described above call for more advanced planning, training and equipment. The remainder of this article explores strategies to protect employees at height during such operations, with a focus on training, rescue planning, the competent person’s role, and equipment selection and inspection.

Understanding the Hazards
Using helicopters, rope-access methods and wire carts can be highly beneficial for T&D work. Helicopters allow crews to do their work without the need to build roads or clear land in sensitive areas, such as wetlands and wildlife habitats. Where it’s impractical to use traditional climbing methods or aerial equipment, rope access is often employed to perform energized tasks and move around transmission structures. Wire carts enable technicians to traverse energized conductors without making repeated ground ascents and descents, reducing outage times and worker fatigue.

Although these techniques can improve efficiency and shorten overall project timelines, they are not without their own specific hazards, described below.

Helicopter operations: When a lineworker is attached to the underside of a helicopter via a short-haul or long line, or positioned on an external platform, their harness can rapidly shift due to wind, rotor wash or abrupt maneuvers by the pilot. A momentary lapse in communication or an unexpected movement could become catastrophic if a harness, an anchor or another piece of gear fails.

Rope access on transmission structures: In environments that limit climbing or the use of bucket trucks, T&D rope-access methods are frequently employed to gain safe, controlled entry to lattice towers, poles and other structures. Crews rely on dual-rope systems (i.e., a working line and a backup line) anchored to secure points on the structure. If a rope system is poorly maintained or an anchor is inadequate, a single failure could lead to a serious fall. Rescue efforts could be complicated by proximity to energized parts and/or ground sources combined with changing weather conditions, increasing the importance of clear evacuation plans.

Wire carts: These carts enable workers to travel along conductors or messenger lines across multiple spans, greatly reducing climbs. However, carts can be suspended hundreds of feet in the air, so a sudden medical issue, equipment malfunction or shift in the line could cause a worker to lose balance. Teams must be ready to quickly rescue an incapacitated worker, especially if the span is long or the terrain below is inaccessible.

Training and Competency
Conventional lineworker training may not be sufficient for these advanced tasks. If that’s the case, workers and supervisors must receive additional instruction specific to the duties they’ve been assigned. Training should address:

• Method-specific fall protection: Crews must know how to inspect and don harnesses rated for dynamic or aerial loads and be able to manage the distinct forces associated with helicopters, rope work and/or wire-cart travel.
• Communication and coordination: Whether dealing with aviation or vertical rope systems, a single miscommunication can lead to dangerous movements. Well-understood hand signals, radio protocols and a clear chain of command help to avert sudden, unexpected maneuvers.
• Electrical awareness: Energized lines – or even de-energized lines with induced voltages – pose electrocution and arc-flash risks. Workers must be trained to understand safe approach distances, grounding procedures and how to use insulating tools.
• Rescue and evacuation: Specialized rescue training is vital to properly care for an injured or incapacitated worker below a helicopter, on a rope system or in a wire cart. Regular drills build familiarity and confidence.

Lastly, suspension trauma – also known as harness-induced pathology – must be covered in depth. Any worker suspended for an extended period is at risk if they cannot relieve the pressure on their legs; such pressure causes reduced blood flow that can lead to loss of consciousness and worse.

Suspension Trauma: Causes, Risks and Prevention
Suspension trauma occurs when a person suspended in a harness remains motionless, allowing blood to pool in their legs. In T&D tasks, this risk is elevated for helicopter workers, rope-access workers, and any worker riding a wire cart who could become stranded or incapacitated.

Here are four key considerations to help prevent suspension trauma:

• Proper harness fit: Harnesses with wide, padded leg straps or seat-like designs help to prevent blood vessel constriction. Ill-fitted straps can quickly cause circulation loss.
• Rapid rescue: Job planners must anticipate the need to bring a suspended worker to a safe platform or the ground within minutes. Frequent drills will confirm whether teams can lower or hoist someone rapidly enough.
• Suspension relief straps: Foot loops or relief straps built into a harness allow a suspended worker to briefly “stand,” encouraging blood flow to the heart and reducing fainting risk.
• Training and awareness: Workers should be taught to recognize the early signs of suspension trauma (e.g., dizziness, numbness, sweating) and how to assist a suspended co-worker until a full rescue can occur.

Equipment Selection, Inspection and Use
Helicopter-rated equipment: Recent proposals from the Federal Aviation Administration have suggested aligning fall-protection requirements by recognizing harnesses that meet ANSI/ASSP Z359.11 requirements as appropriate for human external cargo operations. It’s important to note, however, that this change has not yet been approved and remains a work in progress. Until the FAA finalizes any revisions, operators should continue adhering to the existing approved standards and guidelines. Additionally, keep in mind that use of a harness that meets ANSI/ASSP Z359.11 requirements does not ensure safety if the harness is poorly maintained or doesn’t meet the design requirements for the task. Any visible damage – including frays, broken stitching and rust – warrants immediate removal from service.

Rope-access systems: Rope access typically involves a working line and a backup line anchored to the structure. Clamps, ascenders, descenders and related hardware should be checked frequently for wear and damage. If any system component fails, workers may have little recourse, making redundancy and careful inspections crucial to worker safety.

Wire-cart attachments: Wire-cart setups must include secure attachments to the conductor or messenger line. A second tether or backup lanyard – ideally anchored separately – often is advised. Hardware such as bolts, cables and locking mechanisms should be inspected daily. Cart systems might experience significant sway or torsion when lines bounce or in windy conditions.

Oversight and Accountability
Industry regulatory bodies require a competent person to identify and address fall hazards, a critical role for safe execution of specialized tasks. This individual must be knowledgeable about the operation taking place and empowered to:

• Evaluate and approve gear. This includes verifying that the correct equipment is in use, from any FAA-recognized or -approved systems to properly rated anchoring devices and rope systems meeting OSHA, ANSI and manufacturer guidelines.
• Oversee training, ensuring that crew members are fully educated on method-specific fall protection practices, can identify signs of suspension trauma and are prepared for emergencies.
• Stop unsafe work. If conditions such as high winds, thunderstorms or equipment defects pose risks, the competent person must have the authority to halt operations until safe conditions resume.
• Record and investigate, keeping detailed logs of inspections, training sessions and near-misses to help pinpoint potential safety issues early on.

An organization that empowers the competent person to act encourages a proactive safety culture in which hazards are addressed immediately – rather than after an incident.

Effective Rescue Planning
Rescue capabilities are a necessity given the elevated risks involved in these specialized tasks. Possible rescue scenarios range from a worker who’s passed out in a wire cart to a jammed rope-access device on a tower to a lineman incapacitated under a helicopter. Here are some planning-related items readers will want to consider:

• On-site rescue gear: Rope systems, pulleys and even a designated rescue helicopter can be essential. Wire-cable backups or guiding lines allow rescuers to reach stranded workers.
• Rapid response to suspension trauma: Since circulation problems can intensify in minutes, teams must quickly be ready to free and lower a suspended worker. If a helicopter must leave the scene, ground crews should be prepared to take over.
• Dedicated rescue personnel: By including personnel focused solely on rescue operations, reaction times during high-risk operations can be significantly reduced. Regular drills and tabletop exercises further enhance crew readiness.

Conclusion
Managing fall hazards for helicopter operations, rope-access methods and wire-cart travel requires more than just the ABCs referenced at the beginning of this article. These tasks demand precise equipment selection, thorough worker training and well-rehearsed rescue procedures, particularly with respect to suspension trauma.

Leaders must invest in proper gear and training while fostering a “speak up” culture. Competent persons must be empowered to enforce safety decisions. And every worker – from those on the ground to those in the air – must carefully inspect their equipment, stay alert and promptly report hazards. To ensure both regulatory compliance and employee well-being, it’s also necessary for all personnel to stay current with industry regulations and guidance.

Ultimately, by blending modern, specialized equipment with proactive leadership and deep worker engagement, the T&D industry can continue to build and maintain essential infrastructure while keeping workers safe.

About the Author: Mike Starner, CUSP, CHST, has 30 years of combined operations and safety experience in the electric utility industry. He currently serves as the executive director of outside line safety for the National Electrical Contractors Association.

Photo: Courtesy of the National Electrical Contractors Association

As someone employed in the electric utility industry, would you be willing to consider that there may be incident prevention strategies yet to be discovered and tested? Are you open to the idea that a better model could exist to create change in our industry – change that could reduce or even eliminate significant injuries and fatalities (SIFs)?

If so, I encourage you to read further.

Here’s a logical equation many of us were taught in school: If A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. Tell me, do you believe the organization you work for takes a logical approach to workplace safety? This article will examine some of our industry’s current logic regarding incident prevention and whether there’s room for improvement.

Consider the logic Native Americans used in their attempts to fend off solar and lunar eclipses hundreds of years ago. Ancient Cherokee people, for example, believed an eclipse occurred because a frog was trying to eat the sun or moon. They would dance and make lots of noise to chase away the frog. It worked every time – the sun or moon would always return.

Before we understood the science behind them, eclipses and other natural events like earthquakes terrified the planet’s human inhabitants, who often blamed them on witchcraft or sins they had committed. This is one example of a fundamental attribution error, a common mistake many of us make repeatedly throughout our lives. When humans don’t understand an event’s true cause, we can be quick to place blame, and we often attribute it to someone or something other than ourselves.

Assessing Our Logic: The Job Briefing
“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” is a Latin phrase that translates to “after this, therefore because of this.” Put simply, it’s the logical fallacy that occurs when a person believes a second event was caused by an earlier first event – even though there’s no other evidence to suggest that.

You may have witnessed this fallacy in action, both in your personal life and at work. For example, has a near-miss or incident ever occurred at one of your jobsites that was later attributed to the job briefing delivered earlier in the day? If so, what happened next? Did management make changes to the job briefing document?

If you’re nodding your head, know that you’re not alone. When a near-miss or incident is attributed to a job briefing, logic indicates that the briefing should be amended to improve future outcomes, right? That may explain why nearly every organization in our industry has a different briefing document. Think about that for a moment: All of us use the same tools to, say, tighten a nut – but there’s no standardized briefing document. Does that seem logical to you?

Acknowledging SIF Statistics
The typical structure of a near-miss program is strikingly similar to the typical structure of an incident analysis program. Both programs focus on studying work-related events to determine causal factors and lessons learned. To perform an analysis, an incident must have occurred. Likewise, a near-miss can only be investigated and analyzed after it’s happened.

These programs help us search for and identify event causes, which are critical endeavors. Still, it’s painful to recognize that industry SIF statistics have not meaningfully changed in more than a decade. This begs the question: Could we – as safety leaders – be making attribution errors, just as humans have done throughout documented history? As I noted earlier, those errors are more common than many of us realize.

In the past 10 years, the response to nearly every SIF event has included an incident analysis, a safety stand-down and changes to the organization’s job briefing document. We are skilled at identifying lessons learned, but the persistent statistics are flashing red lights signaling that we need to adjust our approach. As an industry, it’s imperative that we improve our ability to translate lessons learned into actionable changes at work.

How do we do that? Well, consider this: What if there’s more that we can do to prevent incidents and near-misses altogether? Instead of using the bulk of our resources to prevent recurrences, what if we used those resources to ensure incidents and near-misses never happen at all? That’s where the prediction model comes into play.

The Prediction Model
You may not feel comfortable with the connotation of the word “prediction.” Even so, if part of your work includes job planning and/or scheduling, you’re already making predictions about the future. Not convinced? Check out what some subject matter experts have to say:

• According to a TED Talk delivered by psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, “Predictions are basically the way your brain works. … Predictions are the basis of every experience you have. They are the basis of every action you take.”
• In “The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence,” security specialist Gavin de Becker writes the following: “If we can’t imagine it, we can’t predict it.”
• Neuroscientist Tali Sharot, in “The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain,” offers this notable quote that all safety managers will want to keep in mind: “We don’t prepare for anything we don’t believe can happen. So, if we can’t imagine it, we can’t predict it. And if we can’t predict it, we will do nothing to mitigate it.”

Organizations that highly value and prioritize the safety of their workforce must continuously strive to improve their ability to predict jobsite hazards – particularly those that have the potential to severely injure or kill employees. The energy wheel is one of the industry’s most well-known prediction models; discussion of each wheel section before work begins can trigger worker concerns, which are predictions of unwanted potential outcomes. A dismissed concern could lead to a near-miss or an incident.

Triggering the Activation Phenomenon
Does your organization actively encourage field crew members to share their concerns with each other before work begins? If not, leaders may be interested in reading Atul Gawande’s “The Checklist Manifesto,” which details the results of a study conducted in the operating rooms of The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

During the study, medical professionals who were scheduled to work together met before their patient’s operation. Each person stated their name, role and any concerns they had about the procedure ahead. In doing so, the group experienced what’s called the “activation phenomenon,” which created stronger connections among the group members – and made them 80% more likely to speak up when they noticed a problem during their patient’s operation.

Here’s the thing: Once a person expresses a concern to the rest of their team, it’s nearly impossible for them to forget about or “unsee” it. It also becomes easy to imagine the outcome of that concern if it’s not addressed, making the team much more likely to identify a mitigation strategy.

Remember, the more often crew members discuss their job concerns, the more opportunities there are to mitigate or eliminate hazards for the safety of our workers and the public. Over time, these conversations also typically improve team dynamics, helping to create and sustain a psychologically safe environment in which workers feel comfortable sharing their thoughts. Leaders might even consider printing and hanging posters that read, “At [Company Name], we listen to and share concerns – because a concern is a prediction of an unwanted outcome.” This psychologically primes workers, encouraging them to actively engage in the practice.

Testing and Evaluation
Now it’s your turn. Directly after the next daily job briefing, stand in a circle with your team. State your role and any concerns you have about the job and then ask each team member to do the same. Eye contact is strongly encouraged during these conversations as it’s been proven to synchronize brain waves, improving connections among team members.

Try this tactic every day for a month. Each week, your team should test, evaluate and provide feedback based on their experiences. At the end of the month, ask if they’ve found any value in the practice. If they have, the team now has another tool they can use to prevent incidents and near-misses.

Our frontline workers are the ultimate market in which to test safety improvement tactics. They have skin in the game plus the skills and experience to notice potential hazards that others may not. Imagine an environment in which the entire workforce is always on the lookout for safety concerns. Perhaps those bad things that could have happened will never get the chance to happen at all.

About the Author: Bill Martin, CUSP, NRP, RN, DIMM, is the president and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC (www.thinkprojectllc.com). He has held previous roles as a lineman, line supervisor, project manager and safety director.

Utility workers perform essential tasks that touch millions of lives every day. The critical nature of the services they provide coupled with the perilous nature of their tasks exposes these workers to life-threatening hazards. This is why the industry highly values and prioritizes safety.

Many utility companies operating today have made significant strides in improving their safety culture. Critical risk management programs and a human performance mindset have become increasingly common as organizational leaders more fully understand the link between human behavior and risk. These companies have moved beyond the traditional safety model that primarily focuses on accident prevention, opting instead to embrace risk reduction strategies.

Use of tools like the energy wheel and the hierarchy of controls continues to help leaders shift their focus from lagging indicators (e.g., injury rates) to leading indicators, enabling them to better predict and prevent potential harm. This proactive approach has become a hallmark of forward-thinking safety strategies – but there’s still more to be done.

Individual well-being is one topic that industry organizations don’t always include when developing safety programs, in part because not everyone understands what it is. “Wellness” often conjures thoughts of a person’s physical state, a definition that fails to capture the complex, multidimensional nature of well-being and the ways it directly impacts safety outcomes. When we talk about worker safety, we must consider the entire individual, which includes their physical, mental, emotional and social well-being.

Shifting From Process to People
Workplace safety is often framed as a process. We first design programs and policies, and then we train people. But when it comes to safety, people should be the starting point – so we must do a better job of starting with them. As safety professionals and leaders, we have an obligation to study and understand the human factors that influence how our workers show up each day.

Imagine that you’re preparing to deliver an important presentation to the president of your company. You’ve spent weeks perfecting your slides, rehearsing answers to difficult questions and preparing yourself for a successful delivery. But when the morning of the presentation arrives, you’ve barely slept, you’re dealing with relationship stress, you haven’t had time to eat, and you’re feeling mentally overwhelmed. Now ask yourself, how will these factors impact your presentation to the company president? Do you think you’ll be able to perform at your best?

The situation is no different for our frontline workers. They show up to work as multifaceted people, more than just skilled operators or safety-conscious team members. When they are struggling with personal challenges, sleep deprivation or other types of stress, that stress can directly affect their ability to successfully complete safety-sensitive tasks.

Total Well-Being: A Safety Essential
This brings us to the crux of the issue: Total well-being is not a luxury in the workplace – it is a necessity. Today more than ever, the utility industry workforce is multigenerational, with varied needs, experiences and expectations. Older workers may require support for physical conditions, while younger workers may demand greater attention be given to their mental health and work-life balance. The simple fact that numerous generations with differing values are working side by side creates its own bucket of needs for people of all ages. Honestly tell me you aren’t struggling with this, and I’ll buy you a coffee. We must alter our approach to workplace well-being to support the needs of a truly diverse workforce.

Maslow’s well-known hierarchy of needs provides a helpful framework to understand how workplace well-being affects safety. Typically depicted as a pyramid, the hierarchy illustrates our needs as humans. The bottom two levels of the pyramid represent physiological and safety needs. As an industry, we’ve made great strides in meeting these needs through physical safety programs, equipment and policies – but those items only address survival. If we want our workers to truly thrive, we must look beyond the basics to support them in ways that promote overall flourishing.

Here’s a phrase that irks me nearly every time I hear or read it: “We want everyone to go home the same way they came to work.” I understand the intent, but given that the average American spends tens of thousands of hours at work during their lifetime, can’t we find ways to invest in employees so that we send them home even better than when they arrived?

Once reserved for large corporations with deep pockets, today’s comprehensive workplace wellness programs successfully address physical, mental, emotional, occupational, financial, social, environmental and spiritual aspects of workers’ lives – and they don’t require organizations to invest millions of dollars.

However, to ensure maximum program effectiveness, organizational leaders must fully understand the intrinsic link between well-being and safety. A worker’s physical health can directly affect that individual’s ability to perform safety-critical tasks; the same is true of their mental and emotional health. Employees who feel mentally and emotionally supported in the work environment typically experience greater engagement in their tasks, improved focus and a lower risk of making poor decisions. Leaders who recognize the direct connection between safety and wellness can use that knowledge to improve and expand their programs, further enhancing workplace safety and efficiency.

Recognizing Hidden Hazards
Sleep deprivation, mental health challenges and poor nutrition are among the most common – and often invisible – hazards workers bring with them to the jobsite. Research has repeatedly shown that sleep-deprived workers are more prone to judgment errors, impaired memory and delayed reaction times. Similarly, workers who are mentally stressed or emotionally drained are likelier to engage in risky behavior and make unsafe decisions. These are not minor issues, particularly in high-risk environments. The effects of these hazards can be catastrophic.

Consider the highly skilled and experienced employee who had a difficult night at home and skipped breakfast because he was running late for his shift. Although he was a talented safety leader, no human is fully exempt from the effects of sleep deprivation, emotional stress and hunger. This worker’s less-than-ideal state of being contributed to a poor decision-making moment during his shift that resulted in serious personal injury as well as equipment damage, demonstrating once again that individual well-being directly impacts job performance and personal safety.

Holistic Risk Reduction
The good news is that utility organizations can significantly reduce their safety risks by focusing on the total well-being of their workers. This requires leaders to consider how physical, emotional, mental and social factors contribute to overall wellness.

Here’s even better news: Employers don’t need to immediately overhaul their safety programs to improve employee well-being; smaller changes can be made over time. For instance, an employer could integrate well-being topics and exercises into safety training sessions, providing workers with resources to help them manage stress, improve their sleep and address nutritional needs.

Leaders who support workers in all areas of well-being help to improve their quality of life, job performance and personal safety. We must be intentional about providing these resources and creating workplaces in which all employees can thrive.

Conclusion
Total worker well-being isn’t a passing trend – it’s a critical component of workplace safety that significantly impacts organizational performance. When we invest in the holistic wellness of our workforce, we help to lower incident risks while also fostering an environment in which people can innovate and perform at their highest level.

For those readers interested in learning more about the practical application of the information presented here, I’m currently writing a follow-up article – to be published in Incident Prevention later this year – about additional steps organizations can take to improve total worker well-being. Stay tuned for more.

About the Author: Summer Rae is a speaker and culture coach with more than a decade of experience developing and implementing comprehensive safety strategies. She specializes in transforming safety culture using a people-first approach. Native to Mississippi, Summer Rae currently resides in Costa Rica. Reach her at summerrae2024@gmail.com or via WhatsApp at +1-228-297-7447.

In the first part of this six-part series, I discussed the reasons why it’s important for utility organizations to develop safety systems that align their safety initiatives. This article will address employee involvement, an often overlooked yet fundamental component of any effective safety system.

According to ANSI/ASSP Z10, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems,” the phrase “employee involvement” refers to the active participation of workers in the planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement of an organization’s occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS). The OHSMS is a key element of the Z10 standard, highlighting the value of worker input and engagement to appropriately manage workplace risks and promote a culture of safety.

A successful safety system thrives with the active participation of all workers, including senior leadership, line management, frontline leaders and line employees. When everyone aligns their actions and communications regarding safety, the organization fosters a strong, cohesive culture.

Senior Leadership
Senior leadership is critical to establishing the tone and direction necessary to achieve organizational safety success. ANSI/ASSP Z10 emphasizes that these leaders are responsible for providing clear direction to establish, implement and maintain an OHSMS. They must ensure effective employee participation at all levels, which requires senior leaders to actively engage in safety initiatives, allocate essential resources, define roles and responsibilities, and integrate safety considerations into all business operations.

It’s important to acknowledge that senior leaders encounter a variety of challenges in their roles that may go unaddressed. In my consulting experience, I have worked with many leaders across organizations of all sizes who consistently stress the value of safety within their companies. They frequently point out that safety is paramount, that they fully support it, and that their ultimate goal is to ensure that every employee goes home at the end of the day just as they arrived – safe and sound. While I genuinely believe in their intentions, these leaders are disconnected from safety, and their commitment tends to prioritize words over meaningful action.

Numerous senior leaders have a limited understanding of safety, which helps to explain the disconnect. This is a key factor to consider when examining why senior leaders may not be fully engaged with safety. Because the electric power industry has traditionally defined safety success based on OSHA compliance, low incident rates, and delegating responsibility to a safety department or specific employees, some senior leaders define safety success the same way. They believe their protocols are effective – until an incident occurs. When a worker is seriously injured or killed, these leaders often find themselves asking, “How did we get here?”

Senior leaders must be educated on the fundamentals of safety, or what I call the “look of safety.” These fundamentals include hazard identification, risk evaluation, and implementation of controls to eliminate or adequately manage risks. Leaders need to fully understand, support and participate in safety initiatives, moving beyond spreadsheets, incident rates and assigning safety responsibilities with a hands-off approach.

Conducting an engaging learning session with senior leaders is an important first step for every organization. The goal of the session should be to ensure that words align with action items, particularly concerning the organization’s hazards and threats.

Recently, the safety manager of a medium-sized utility asked me how to achieve safety buy-in from the utility’s senior leaders. The answer to that question invariably involves educating senior leaders on the extremely high risks associated with the work being performed and then asking, “As a senior leader, are you willing to accept this level of risk?” A leader who isn’t willing to do so must then determine the risk level they are willing to accept and collaborate with colleagues to design safety initiatives that support and insulate the organization and its employees.

Senior leaders must clearly understand their organization’s safety initiatives, the objectives of those initiatives and how each initiative’s impact will be measured (e.g., by using key performance indicators). This approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement, which is vital for the success of all safety initiatives. As management consultant, educator and author Peter Drucker stated, “What gets measured gets improved,” highlighting that without performance measurement, initiatives may become ineffective and provide little value.

Middle Management
Middle management personnel face a challenging leadership role in electric power organizations. They are typically responsible for operational success, which directly correlates to safety outcomes. Therefore, organizations must evaluate middle managers’ comprehension of the “look of safety.” Are these managers actively involved in identifying potential hazards and developing effective controls?

A fair number of middle managers that I’ve spoken with have said something like this: “I’ll provide employees with anything they need. We purchase the best safety supplies and ensure they’re available when needed. Employees know all they have to do is ask.” That’s a highly troublesome statement as there appears to be a disconnect between the “look of safety” and how these middle managers actually view safety. As a consultant, I frequently notice that middle management can create significant barriers to the achievement of organizational safety success. By engaging with and empowering this level of management, we can transform such challenges into opportunities for improvement.

Middle managers directly influence safety planning and execution within their departments. They are responsible for leading their teams and translating safety policies into safe work practices. When middle managers fail to perform these essential tasks, the results can include employee distrust, confusion, poor attitudes, weak safety practices, inadequate communication and an increased number of incidents. These factors are indicative of ineffective leadership.

During a corporate meeting years ago, a large utility posed a question to me. They wanted to understand why two divisions of their company had vastly different numbers of backing incidents. Division 1 had a notably low incident rate. When corporate employees visited the division, they were greeted with warm smiles and genuine inquiries about their families. In contrast, Division 2 had a high rate of backing incidents, and corporate employees were often met with a cold reception, as if their presence was unwanted. I explained that Division 2 almost certainly faced a significant leadership issue that poorly impacted the entire workforce, including safety. The senior leaders were shocked by my response.

Because effective leadership is essential to the achievement of safety success, companies focused on such success must address ineffective leadership. Effective middle managers play a vital role in enhancing workplace safety by bridging the gap between senior management and frontline workers. They must possess strong leadership skills and actively promote safety as an integral part of the organization. This approach helps to cultivate a positive organizational safety culture.

Effective middle managers also strive to ensure that their actions reflect the values and vision of the organization’s senior leaders. To support this alignment, senior leaders should evaluate middle management’s performance using key performance indicators (KPIs) that correspond to their values and goals. This will help to align safety initiatives and promote employee well-being. “Busy” safety initiatives that deliver little to no value will fade away as senior leaders and middle managers take active roles in identifying weaknesses and improving initiatives to meet organizational needs.

Frontline Leaders
From my perspective, frontline leaders are an organization’s heavyweight champions, responsible for planning and executing safe work practices – yet they often receive little to no training on how to achieve those goals.

To ensure their success, organizations must equip these employees with strong leadership and safety skills. It’s necessary for frontline leaders to understand their roles and how they will be held accountable for maintaining safe job performance. They must also align their safety efforts with the vision and values set by senior leaders. It’s a tough job!

Middle managers have an obligation to (1) demonstrate that they recognize the hazards and threats their frontline leaders face and (2) work collaboratively with those leaders to prioritize and support daily safety efforts. “Support” means active participation in those efforts as well as regular evaluation of frontline leader performance based on KPIs. Note: KPIs should address the execution of the “look of safety” based on field applications, not “busy” initiatives that are based on a checkbox.

Collaborate and Innovate
ANSI/ASSP Z10 highlights the indispensable role of strong employee engagement in enhancing an organization’s safety system, encouraging active participation from every worker in system planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement.

Think of employees as essential “cogs” in a well-oiled machine; their full engagement is critical to smooth operations and allows employers to tap into unique perspectives to better identify and tackle potential risks. Additionally, employees have a high likelihood of supporting and adopting safety solutions developed by those directly performing the work, underscoring the value of seeking such contributions.

Together, we can create safer work environments in which everyone feels valued and invested in the safety mission. Let’s embrace this opportunity for collaboration and innovation in our safety practices.

About the Author: Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, is president and CEO of SET Solutions LLC. She is a 40-year veteran of the electric utility industry, a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network and past chair of the USOLN executive board. Tompkins worked in the utility industry for over 20 years and has provided electric power safety consulting for the last 20-plus years. An OSHA-authorized instructor, she has supported utilities, contractors and other organizations operating electric power systems in designing and maintaining safety improvement methods and strategies for organizational excellence.

I’ve written about equipotential grounding for Incident Prevention magazine dozens of times over the past 15 years, both in this column and in the Q&A. Those articles have had thousands of views on Incident Prevention’s website, which suggests that their messaging should be getting through to industry employers and lineworkers – but my experience says otherwise.

As I’ve mentioned in past articles, my consulting work includes serving as an expert witness in the litigation of both OSHA and civil cases. I’ve consulted on more than 40 cases overall; currently, I have 16 open fatality cases. These facts put me in a unique position to know exactly what is killing our lineworkers, no assumptions necessary. Most disturbing to me is that in more than half of my consulting cases, the lineworkers were killed by the grounding that they’d installed for their protection.

I want to take a moment here to repeat that: In more than half of my consulting cases, the lineworkers were killed by the grounding that they’d installed for their protection.

Yes, my colleagues and I at the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction (ISPC) know why grounding caused these fatalities. The unfortunate reality is that we have clients – utilities and contractors – who still don’t use equipotential grounding, which is a violation of the law. You don’t have a choice whether to use bracket grounding or equipotential grounding. ISPC has never consulted on a case in which a worker using equipotential grounding was injured or killed. The law clearly and expressly states that grounding installed for personal protection must be arranged to ensure employees are not exposed to hazardous differences in potential. You can read the law’s full text at OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(n)(3) and 1926.962(c). Additionally, Appendix C to 1910.269, “Protection From Hazardous Differences in Electric Potential,” is entirely dedicated to meeting OSHA’s equipotential grounding requirements.

So, why aren’t 100% of employers complying with the law?

Bracket Grounding Does Not Ensure Protection
Our industry has known for decades that bracket grounding does not ensure worker protection. In 1955, Bonneville Power Administration certified that bracket grounding does not ensure worker protection where an equipotential arrangement does. The value of using equipotential grounding was again demonstrated in a study of Puget Sound published by IEEE in 1988. Incident Prevention magazine has published articles written by Brian Erga, a now-retired principal engineer who worked on the Puget Sound study and was instrumental in establishing both the OSHA standards and industry consensus standards regarding equipotential grounding. Erga also facilitated educational sessions on grounding at past iP Utility Safety Conferences. The point here is that this information is available and easily accessible, so again, why do some employers continue to ignore the law?

The objections to equipotential grounding that I’ve heard over the years have primarily been based on fear that use of equipotential grounding would mean ending bracket grounding. That’s not the case; using brackets is fine so long as the structure you’re on is in an equipotential zone.

Still, why do so many people believe in bracket grounding to ensure worker protection?

It largely appears that the long history of brackets as protection makes it difficult for some employers to consider dropping their use. At ISPC, we’ve heard more than one client say something like this: “Every couple of years, somebody comes along with a new procedure, claiming that the old one was wrong. How long will it be until someone else tells us you were wrong and that they know better?”

I know there are numerous experts who are still getting it wrong because I frequently encounter them in my litigation consulting work. They author erroneous opinions – based on either incorrect interpretations of case documents or mixed assumptions about case details – that confuse the people reading or listening to their opinions.

With that said, let’s spend some time gaining a better understanding of grounding principles for worker protection.

The Electrocution Threshold
Here’s a relatively common question I receive: “I heard about an incident that happened while a crew was using brackets. Nobody got hurt, so how can you say that only equipotential grounding will ensure protection?”

My answer is that it’s entirely possible that no one was injured during that incident. “Ensure” is the key word here, and that’s where the electrocution threshold matters. That threshold varies with every exposure. We can’t even be precise as to how much voltage must be present to penetrate a worker’s bare skin and allow a deadly level of current to flow. This is essential knowledge: If voltage cannot penetrate the worker’s skin, current can’t flow, and the worker won’t be injured.

The natural resistance of a worker’s skin combined with their clothing and gloves increases impedance to voltage penetration. The same applies to potentials rising on a jobsite. We work in a multigrounded electrical environment. Neutrals, statics, pole bonds, wood and steel poles, and their ground rods are all bonded together, forming multiple pathways to ground as well as multiple circulating ground currents through varying resistances in the multiple pathways. These connections create a redundant grounding system for improved fault relay while also establishing a semblance of incidental bonding, which means that the interconnections may reduce potentials among the varying pathways – but not with any assumed assurance.

So, it’s possible that a bracket arrangement grounded to a system neutral one or more spans away – and where that system neutral is bonded to your work pole – could put the phase conductors at your pole close to the potential of the pole you’re on. But remember, both that system resistance and the fault current imposed upon it create a voltage drop across those grounds that’s the same voltage you’ll be exposed to in a fault. This is also essential knowledge: The voltage you’re exposed to is the voltage drop across the bonding path between your grounds and the pole you’re on. With brackets only, your voltage exposure is determined by the resistance of the neutral-to-pole connections; the distance from your pole to the brackets (conductor distance impedance raises the voltage); and the resistance of the phase grounding connections. “Crapshoot” is the technical term for this coincidental protection because you’re gambling that the incidental benefits of a 40-year-old grounding system will work in your favor.

A Better Plan
A better approach is to use a reliable, law-based plan. Here’s a third piece of essential knowledge: You must know the difference between incidental protection and intentional protection. Install an electrical bond between the neutral and the pole and ground at the work area. Avoid creating any risk to yourself or your co-workers by using the shortest ground length possible; this will limit ground impedances and keep voltage low across that intentionally installed protection.

Keep in mind that ground brackets serve to trip the circuit. The OSHA rule states that “temporary protective grounds shall be placed at such locations and arranged in such a manner that the employer can demonstrate will prevent each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential.” Note: Hazardous potential is potential great enough to penetrate an employee’s work gloves and skin, somewhere around 100 to 200 volts. Potential great enough to penetrate bare skin has been universally established at 50 volts.

A lawful equipotential zone can be accomplished in two ways. One approach is to hang properly arranged grounds at the pole you’re on. To ground on a nearby structure, you can create a “near” equipotential zone by adding the neutral connection at the pole you’re on. If you keep brackets a span away and only bond the neutral to the pole you’re on, you’re bonding in, but there will still be a voltage rise created by the conductor span length between the phases and the neutral bond below your feet. Your engineers must calculate how far away bracket grounds on your system can be while still providing low potential in your equipotential zone. The sketch below illustrates the use of remote grounds for old hands that don’t feel protected without them or to satisfy some state rules, such as California’s rule that still requires a bracket ground between the work location and every open point – but you still must bond your pole.

Additional Items of Note
Here are a few other tidbits. Your engineering study may suggest using a parallel set of 4/0 to manage high fault current. Two bracket grounds, one on either side of your work location, are equivalent to a parallel set. Electricity travels at the speed of light, so separation of a pole span or two would have little effect. On the other hand, if I parallel a set at the same location and don’t put the clamps within an inch of each other, a reactance occurs, resulting in an unequal division of current between the two paths. This can reach a high enough imbalance to cause thermal failure of the overloaded path. More than an inch or so of space between parallel clamps limits the performance of the parallel grounds set.

Sticking with brackets and grounding both bracket poles (phase to phase to grounded neutral) reduces the total combined resistance between the worker and the path to the equipotential zone at the work pole. This increases protection by lowering the total voltage drop across the combined pathways. However, you’ll get the same result if you establish an equipotential zone at the pole you’re working on and simply ground the phases to the neutral in the brackets. It’s the neutral connection to the working pole that creates the equipotential zone.

Lastly, when we ground three-phase, we must short-circuit the three-phase bus. Doing so causes a more reliable relay trip, but a good bus short-circuit using minimum-length ground cables keeps much of the fault current within the three-phase system, thereby limiting the current going to ground in your work area.

About the Author: After 25 years as a transmission-distribution lineman and foreman, Jim Vaughn, CUSP, has devoted the last 28 years to safety and training. A noted author, trainer and lecturer, he is a senior consultant for the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction. He can be reached at jim@ispconline.com.

The pastor of the church I attend recently delivered a sermon that deeply resonated with me and inspired the title of this article. Around that time, I’d been ruminating on some incidents I was investigating as part of my consulting work. I’d read the accident reports and conducted employee interviews, all the while wondering why these events were given the opportunity to occur. Then I heard the pastor’s well-timed sermon and was reminded once more that what’s going on – or not going on – in a worker’s mind can significantly impact their personal safety and the safety of others.

Fallibility is an inherent part of being human. We make mistakes regardless of our years of experience performing specific tasks. We can be easily distracted from our work by any number of things, from equipment noise to conversations going on around us to the presence of new employees. Not to mention, the human brain naturally drifts from time to time on any given day, no specific distractions needed. These facts can increase safety risks, especially in our line of business.

Here’s a real-life example. An employee was installing a mechanical jumper to jump out metering equipment in a substation. He first connected the jumper to a primary on an insulating standoff and then to a neutral on the opposite side of the frame. Returning to the standoff location, the employee removed the mechanical jumper and attempted to make a connection with the primary conductor; this resulted in a 7.2-kV phase-to-ground flash. When I was notified that the mechanical jumper had failed and inquired about the circumstances, I was told the failure occurred when the jumper was moved from the standoff to the conductor. That explanation seemed incorrect to me; there was no load on the jumper when it failed. At that point, I asked the crew to closely inspect everything once the injured lineman was on his way to the hospital.

So, what events led to the lineman’s accident? That’s still somewhat nebulous. At the time he was injured, 10 other workers were with the lineman in the substation: three supervisors, a substation foreman, an engineer, three substation technicians and two other linemen. None of them realized why the flash had occurred until at least 15 minutes after they’d rescued the injured lineman. Later, during the root cause investigation, it was difficult to get answers from the workers as to why the accident had been allowed to occur. Investigators eventually concluded that given the event’s various contributing causes, it was highly likely the job had not been planned thoroughly enough.

Did I mention that this job was an anomaly – an unusual task that no one at the company had ever attempted to perform? That should have clearly indicated the need for robust job planning and increased oversight during execution of the work. Why didn’t either of those things happen? That’s the question I posed to witnesses during our interviews. What was going on with them from the neck up?

Understanding Ourselves
Given the life-threatening hazards that exist in our line of work, we must offer guidance to crews about how to clear their minds, regulate their inner chatter, and stop the “stinking thinking” that can lead to poor safety outcomes. We have the power to influence others through what we say and do. Conversations among employees can cause significant changes to work practices. We must make it our goal to ensure those conversations and changes strengthen the organizational safety culture.

Some of you know Billy Martin, an extremely intelligent and passionate safety consultant who I consider a friend and an industry comrade in arms. He incorporates the latest neuroscience research as well as his own medical expertise into his work, helping industrial athletes better understand their minds and bodies – and coaching them on how to leverage that knowledge to improve safety outcomes. I cannot underscore enough the importance of understanding human physiology and strategically applying that knowledge to mitigate risk.

I’m a simple old lineman, but after spending decades in the industry, it’s my belief that people typically make errors either because they didn’t know any better or because they willingly engaged in an incorrect, unsafe approach to their work. As safety leaders, we must regularly assess whether our employees can skillfully and safely perform their tasks. If a worker who has demonstrated such proficiency makes repeated mistakes, we must then determine if they are purposely ignoring their training and take correction action.

Designated Observers
I recently investigated an accident that involved two linemen who had graduated from a lineworker development program six months earlier. They were unloading poles together, with the truck set up at a different location than usual. At one point, they raised the truck’s boom into a 115-kV transmission line feeding a substation. The conductor was 23 feet above the ground at the point of contact, just outside the substation fence. If a knowledgeable employee had been assigned to watch the work in progress, they could have warned the linemen and prevented the incident.

Lack of a designated observer on the ground is one failure often identified during incident investigations. While observers are rarely mentioned in the OSHA standards, 29 CFR 1910.269(p)(4)(ii) states the following: “A designated employee other than the equipment operator shall observe the approach distance to exposed lines and equipment and provide timely warnings before the minimum approach distance required by paragraph (p)(4)(i) of this section is reached, unless the employer can demonstrate that the operator can accurately determine that the minimum approach distance is being maintained.” An observer must be on-site to act as a spotter and assist equipment operators as needed to ensure adherence to minimum approach distance requirements.

Naturally, not all accidents are so easily explained; just consider the one I described toward the beginning of this article. Even the most skilled employee can be injured or killed due to poor job planning, distractions, complacency or any combination of those factors. Use of a designated observer in the field, however, increases the likelihood that unsafe conditions will be identified and eliminated or mitigated before they can cause harm.

Conclusion
If our goal is to make 2025 the industry’s safest year yet, then we’re obligated to perform regular checkups from the neck up, integrate tactics into each workday that help crews stay focused on their tasks, and ensure safety rules are followed 100% of the time.

About the Author: Danny Raines, CUSP, is an author, an OSHA-authorized trainer, and a transmission and distribution safety consultant who retired from Georgia Power after 40 years of service and now operates Raines Utility Safety Solutions LLC.

Learn more from Danny Raines on the Utility Safety Podcast series. Listen now at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com!

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.

If you’re like me, you’ve only encountered sheep at a petting zoo, so here’s a fun fact about them: sheep have rectangular pupils. I included that to make sure you learn something today and to challenge us to explore other sheep characteristics and what we can learn from sheep-shepherd relationships. In doing so, we’ll use the C5 safety leadership model from the Incident Prevention Institute’s Frontline training program to establish what it means to be a good shepherd and then apply that understanding to enhance our roles as safety leaders.

Sheep and Shepherds
Sheep are valuable assets that need protection. Because it’s easy for them to get lost or deviate, they require direction, feedback, and correction when they are off course. They make other mistakes, too. For example, a cast sheep (i.e., one that’s rolled onto its back) can’t get up without help. Sheep need good shepherds.

Shepherds provide for, lead and protect their flock. They do that by being competent at their job; staying committed to the safety and well-being of their sheep; caring for the flock and each individual member in it; being courageous, especially when wolves show up; and gaining credibility with their sheep. That sounds a lot like the definition of a great safety leader, doesn’t it? Shepherds must also be great at their work because a shepherd whose sheep don’t follow them is just a person wandering in the wild. Shepherds need sheep.

Competence
Competence is how well you can do a job, and good shepherds are skilled at their job. They are strong navigators who know how to find green pastures and still waters. To keep the flock together and protected, a shepherd will use their staff situationally and strategically – sometimes for support, sometimes to correct and guide, and sometimes for defense. In challenging times and difficult situations, shepherds are competent enough at the technical aspects of their role to develop solutions to their problems.

Commitment
It takes commitment to be a good shepherd. Commitment is how passionate you are about achieving individual and TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More) goals and investing in and developing yourself and others. Shepherds lead nomadic lives devoted to the flock. If they have 100 sheep and one strays, they will search for the stray and do all they can to ensure its return to the flock – because they know and care about each sheep.

Caring
Caring – that is, how much you want to help prevent harm and encourage growth – is in the middle of the C5 list because everything you do should revolve around how much you care. And what greater example of caring exists than the willingness to sacrifice yourself for the good of others? If you care enough and are intently focused on preventing harm and encouraging your TEAM’s growth, the other components of the C5 list and everything else you do as a leader become automatic.

Courage
Courage is how often you act, and it takes a wolf to find out how much courage a shepherd has. Shepherds staring down literal wolves must demonstrate the brave, reactive type of courage that typically comes to mind when we consider the word’s meaning.

As safety leaders, our wolves are difficult people, challenging and stressful situations, finite resources and uncertainty. Demonstrating courage in safety leadership can be as simple as being the first person to turn on your camera during virtual training or as challenging as being the newest person on your TEAM to exercise stop-work authority. Your responses to successes and errors play a huge role in your perceived credibility, and it often takes courage to respond appropriately. See something, say something, do something.

Credibility
Credibility, or how trustworthy you are, is at the bottom of the C5 list because it’s the foundation upon which your safety leadership is built. Sheep recognize and follow their shepherd’s voice because they trust the shepherd – not because of the shepherd’s positional authority but because the sheep believe the shepherd to be competent, committed, caring and courageous. Your TEAM will trust and follow you if they consistently see that you possess the same qualities.

Conclusion
Pastor and leadership author Andy Stanley has wisely said that “leaders who don’t listen will eventually be surrounded by people with nothing to say.” That’s your C5 safety leadership barometer. You can tell a lot about culture and relationships by how comfortable people are communicating their thoughts and how they interact with and respond to each other.

The next time a proverbial wolf appears, think about this quote from Pastor Charles Swindoll: “Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond.”

Sheep need shepherds, and shepherds need sheep. The dynamics of the sheep-shepherd relationship offer us an example of what happens when a servant leader displays the C5 characteristics. By challenging yourself to increase your competence, commitment, caring, courage and credibility – remembering that your leadership matters most when a wolf appears – you will enhance your safety leadership, culture, relationships and TEAM performance.

About the Author: David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM, is the director of professional development for Utility Business Media’s Incident Prevention Institute (https://ip-institute.com) and the author of “Frontline Leadership – The Hurdle” and “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle.” He has extensive experience and expertise in leadership, human performance, safety and operations. McPeak is passionate about personal and professional development and believes that intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are key to success. He also is an advanced certified practitioner in DISC, emotional intelligence, the Hartman Value Profile, learning styles and motivators.

About Frontline Fundamentals: Frontline Fundamentals topics are derived from the Incident Prevention Institute’s popular Frontline training program (https://frontlineutilityleader.com). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

Webinar: The Good Shepherd
May 7, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

When working at height, comfort and security are as important as durability and compliance. That’s why Buckingham developed the BuckSeat Body Belt, part of the company’s trusted line of work-positioning belts. Designed for lineworkers and utility professionals, it provides all-day support with a built-in bottom cushion – or “seat” – for enhanced comfort while climbing and working aloft.

The BuckSeat features patent-pending multi-hole D-rings, allowing both a wood pole fall restriction device (WPFRD) and a secondary lanyard to connect in one compact design. These D-rings are positioned on the lower seat section, pulling the seat into the body for added support. Additionally, the self-tensioning D-rings apply light tension to the WPFRD, helping it stay snug against the pole for better positioning while working.

Built from premium leather with reinforced nylon stitching, this full-float body belt includes a 5-inch foam-cushioned back and bottom pad for optimal weight distribution. With a 350-pound weight capacity (fully equipped) and compliance with OSHA and ASTM F887 standards, the BuckSeat Body Belt delivers superior comfort, safety and performance. https://buckinghammfg.com/products/buckseat/

DICA, a leading provider of high-performance outrigger pads and ground stabilization solutions, has expanded its award-winning LevelRight Outrigger Pad product line. First introduced in 2024, LevelRight has quickly become a trusted solution for safely setting up specialty equipment – including bucket trucks, cranes and aerial lifts – on unlevel terrain.

The LevelRight Outrigger Pad is now available in four sizes (12-inch, 24-inch, 30-inch and 35-inch) while maintaining the same high standards of durability, safety and ease of use. With the ability to adjust angles up to 10 degrees in multiple planes and support rated capacities of up to 350,000 pounds, the expanded line provides tree care, vegetation management and utility professionals with a reliable solution for achieving stable, level equipment setup in a variety of outdoor environments.

Made from DICA’s durable SafetyTech material, LevelRight features proprietary SafetyTexturing for enhanced grip and a built-in bubble level for precise adjustments. The expanded sizes accommodate larger outriggers and specialized equipment. LevelRight can also be used with DICA’s ProStack Cribbing Blocks to provide additional height while maintaining a level foundation. https://dicausa.com

Petzl’s factory-assembled mobile elevating work platform (MEWP) kits provide a simple, ready-to-use, ANSI- and CSA-compliant fall protection solution for workers operating a boom lift, scissor lift, bucket truck or other MEWP.

Each kit features a fall arrest harness, a fall arrest lanyard with connectors pre-installed on each end, and a bag for easy transportation and storage. Installation is quick and easy; simply attach the carabiner on the shock-absorber end to the fall arrest attachment point on the NEWTON harness, and the carabiner on the other end to the approved fall arrest anchor point in the MEWP.

Depending on your needs and harness size, there are three kits to choose from: the NEWTON MEWP Kit, the NEWTON FAST MEWP Kit or the NEWTON EASYFIT MEWP Kit. www.petzl.com/US/en/Professional/News/2025-2-5/Petzl-Mobile-Elevating-Work-Platform-(MEWP)-Kits

J. J. Keller & Associates Inc., a leading provider of safety and compliance solutions, and the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) recently joined forces to conduct a comprehensive study on top challenges when managing PPE procurement and proper usage. The study results, documented in “2025 PPE Pain Points Study: Top Trends and Challenges,” are available to the public here. ISEA members can download the report on the association’s website.

On April 17, Keller and ISEA experts will host a free webcast on this topic, during which they’ll examine the greatest paint points and practical ways to address them. Members of the public can register at https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/4886083/1C1F18BCC8C823DEADE0AEA7E5889CAC.

Both ISEA and J. J. Keller are dedicated to promoting worker safety. Through their collaborative efforts, they aim to enhance overall safety through education and outreach. www.jjkeller.com, https://safetyequipment.org

Barry designs fall protection safety nets that go beyond traditional methods by completely eliminating fall risks in many scenarios.

Unlike harness-based systems that only arrest falls, these nets prevent falls from occurring in the first place, significantly reducing injuries and simplifying rescue operations.

Designed with high-strength, durable materials, Barry safety nets provide exceptional energy absorption and superior protection against falls and debris hazards. Used in construction, at industrial sites and in maintenance operations, they offer a comprehensive safety solution that enhances efficiency and peace of mind.

By reducing fall incidents to near zero, Barry safety nets minimize downtime, lower injury-related costs and improve overall worksite safety.

With over 47 years of expertise in rope-based safety systems, Barry is committed to delivering customized, high-performance solutions that meet or exceed industry standards. www.barry.ca/collections/fall-protection-safety-nets

In this episode of Built In, Not Bolted On with host Doug Hill, CUSP, we dive deep into the world of utility safety culture, exploring the latest risk management strategies, regulatory challenges, and best practices to keep crews safe. Our host shares firsthand experiences and expert insights on hazard identification, compliance updates, and leadership in safety culture. Whether you’re in line work, transmission, or distribution, this episode is packed with valuable takeaways to help you enhance workplace safety and efficiency.

Contact Doug: doug@utilitybusinessmedia.com

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Key Takeaways:

•Risk Mitigation Strategies – How to proactively identify and address workplace hazards.

•Compliance & Regulations – Updates on industry standards and their impact on daily operations.

•Technology & Safety – The role of innovative tools in improving worker protection.

•Leadership in Safety – Why management commitment is crucial for fostering a strong safety culture.

•Lessons from the Field – Real-world scenarios that highlight best practices and potential pitfalls.

Five Relevant Questions & Answers from the Podcast:

1.Q: What are the biggest safety challenges facing the utility industry today?

A: The biggest challenges include hazard identification, ensuring compliance with evolving regulations, and integrating new technology while maintaining worker safety.

2.Q: How can companies improve their safety culture?

A: Companies must prioritize training, encourage open communication, and lead by example to create an environment where safety is a shared responsibility.

3.Q: What role does technology play in utility safety?

A: Innovations like wearable safety devices, AI-driven monitoring, and automated reporting systems are enhancing how companies manage risks.

4.Q: How do changing regulations impact utility workers?

A: New safety laws require continuous education and adaptation, ensuring workers stay compliant and protected in evolving work environments.

5.Q: What is one key piece of advice for improving safety in the field?

A: Always prioritize situational awareness, follow protocols, and never hesitate to speak up about potential hazards.

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceSafety #LinemanLife #RiskManagement #SafetyCulture #OSHACompliance #PowerGrid #ElectricalSafety

In this episode of The Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Shawn Galloway, a renowned expert in safety leadership and culture, to discuss the evolving landscape of utility safety. They explore the key factors that drive a proactive safety culture, the role of leadership in risk management, and how organizations can shift from compliance-driven safety to a culture of continuous improvement. Shawn shares actionable strategies that help utility companies enhance safety performance while aligning with business goals.

Key Takeaways:

•The difference between a compliance-based and a culture-driven safety approach.

•How leadership plays a pivotal role in influencing safety behaviors.

•Strategies to proactively identify and mitigate risks in utility work.

•The importance of aligning safety goals with business objectives.

•Methods to engage employees in creating a sustainable safety culture.

Q&A from the Podcast:

Q: What is the biggest challenge utility companies face when trying to improve safety culture?

A: One of the biggest challenges is shifting from a mindset of compliance to one of proactive safety. Many organizations focus on meeting regulatory requirements rather than embedding safety into daily operations as a core value.

Q: How can leadership foster a culture of safety rather than just enforcing rules?

A: Leaders need to model the behaviors they expect from their teams. This means being actively involved in safety discussions, providing consistent feedback, and recognizing employees who contribute to safety improvements.

Q: What are some common mistakes companies make when implementing safety initiatives?

A: One common mistake is failing to engage employees in the process. When safety programs are dictated from the top down without employee input, they often fail to gain traction.

Read his previous article in iP Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/five-core-capacities-for-sustainable-safety-excellence/

Listen to Shawn’s other podcast with iP – https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/5corecapacities/

and feel free to reach out to him for further discussion at info@proactsafety.com.

________________________________

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Several years ago, a good friend of mine who worked in the utility industry drove his truck headlong into a tractor-trailer parked along a highway shoulder. In the blink of an eye, he was gone, leaving his wife a widow and their children without a father.

Fast-forward one year later. After conducting some training sessions with a utility company in Mississippi, a co-worker and I were driving home to South Carolina. My co-worker was asleep in the passenger seat, and everything was going smoothly as I navigated the truck and trailer east on I-20 under a clear, starry sky.

I had the radio turned off and my phone was far enough away that I couldn’t reach it. My focus was on the traffic, the terrain, and the possibility that I could encounter an unsafe driver or an animal trying to cross the highway.

As I looked in my side mirror a little while later, I noticed a trucker quickly gaining on me; he was particularly noticeable because of the vertically stacked green LEDs on both sides of his 18-wheeler. At that moment – and for the first time I can ever remember while driving – my inner voice told me to beware of this trucker and his intentions on the road.

His 18-wheeler was flying, surpassing the 70-mph speed limit by roughly 15 mph. As he quickly passed me to the left, the rear of his trailer (and all those wheels) became even with my cab. That’s when the trucker jerked his steering wheel in my direction, causing his trailer to swing toward my face.

In a split second, without time to think, I threw my truck and 40-foot trailer onto the shoulder of the highway; the left half of the rig was hanging onto the pavement, with the right side in the grass. I never hit the brakes because I didn’t want to lose control of the vehicle. Eventually, we came to a soft stop, which is when my co-worker abruptly woke up, surprised to find himself on the side of the road. I explained to him what had happened, all while quietly being grateful for the wisdom and impeccable timing of my inner superhero powers.

Understanding Your Electric Reality
Did you know that you, too, have inner superhero powers? And that you have some choice in when and where you can use them? Allow me to explain.

Your electric reality – that is, the physical world in which you work and interact with others – is a two-sided coin. One side represents the challenges we face as human beings. For example, we face innumerable distractions every day, from the time we’re born until our mortal journey is complete. We endure traumatic situations and sometimes find ourselves involved in activities that are neither healthy nor profitable. We can also be easily triggered by circumstances and allow our emotions to take over. Both on their own and in combination, these experiences have the power to lead us to the trough of unhappiness – and that unhappiness makes it more difficult to channel our inner superhero powers. Additionally, it leaves us more vulnerable to making mistakes and creating potential safety hazards, putting us in a place where bad things can happen. Just consider that trucker I encountered on the road. I’ll never know for sure, but he struck me as someone who was deeply unhappy.

The other side of the coin represents those times and places where great things can – and do – happen. In these environments, every worker’s life is valued and protected; crew members are mentally and physically tuned in to one another; encouragement is doled out in spades; positive attitudes are abundant; and everyone returns home safely each day. It’s easiest to channel our inner superhero powers on this side of the proverbial coin because fewer personal obstacles (e.g., distractions, traumatic events, unhealthy activities, feelings of unhappiness) exist, leaving our minds clearer and with less cognitive load. In the story I recounted earlier, I’m certain things could have turned out very differently had I not been feeling calm, cool, collected and highly aware of my surroundings.

The fact is, we have very little control over most things that happen in the world each day. One thing we can control, however, is how we show up to our jobsites. When each member of a line crew is actively committed to fostering a healthy team environment – including working safely, watching out for their brothers and sisters, and taking accountability for their actions – these workers become greater than the sum of their parts, productive line team superheroes who build each other up, help each other grow and accomplish great things together.

Final Thoughts
If you’re anything like me, your teammates have become more like family over the years. After all, many of us spend more time at work than we do with our loved ones. It’s in our best interest to continue building and strengthening our connections with co-workers – because the stronger those connections are, the more easily we can identify each other’s strengths, weaknesses and superhero powers, enabling all of us to work smarter and more safely.

About the Author: Brent Jeffries is vice president of field operations and a safety instructor for Bierer Meters (www.bierermeters.com). He’s also the founder of Electric Culture of Safety (https://electriccultureofsafety.com), a national grassroots partnership within the electric power industry. Reach him at brent@bierermeters.com.

Equipotential grounding is a critical safety practice that protects utility workers from electrical hazards by equalizing voltage levels at the worksite. In this episode, we delve into real-world lessons learned from the field, highlighting the importance of establishing an effective equipotential zone (EPZ) to prevent harmful electrical currents from passing through the body. We discuss how improper grounding techniques can transform routine tasks into dangerous situations and emphasize the necessity of continuous training to maintain a safety-first mindset. Additionally, we explore the challenges posed by grounding on various structures and the role of personal protective equipment in safeguarding workers. Understanding and implementing proper grounding methods are essential steps toward ensuring the well-being of lineworkers and maintaining compliance with safety standards. 

Read the article here written by Dwight Miller, CLCP, CUSP – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/equipotential-grounding-lessons-learned-in-the-field/

Key Takeaways:

•Equipotential Zone (EPZ): Creating an EPZ ensures that all conductive objects at the worksite are at the same electrical potential, minimizing the risk of electrical shock. 

•Temporary Grounds and Bonds: Proper installation of temporary grounding and bonding at the worksite is essential to protect workers from accidental re-energization or induced voltages. 

•Continuous Training: Ongoing education and vigilance are vital in reinforcing safe grounding practices and preventing complacency among utility workers. 

•Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Utilizing appropriate PPE, such as dielectric footwear and insulating gloves, adds an extra layer of protection against electrical hazards. 

#EquipotentialGrounding #UtilitySafety #ElectricalSafety #LineworkerTraining #WorkplaceSafety #GroundingTechniques #SafetyFirst #IncidentPrevention

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

• 

  IMG_4079

• 

  IMG_4077

• 

  IMG_4076

• 

  IMG_4078

• 

  IMG_4080

• 

  IMG_4067

• 

  IMG_4075

• 

  IMG_4060

• 

  IMG_4061

• 

  IMG_4053

• 

  IMG_4054

• 

  IMG_4050

• 

  IMG_4069

• 

  IMG_4056

• 

  IMG_4052

In this episode of Tailgate Topics, host Rod Courtney is joined by Nick from Utility Business Media to discuss one of the biggest safety risks in the utility industry—distractions. Inspired by Scott Perrin’s article, The Dangers of Distraction: Staying Focused in a High-Risk Environment, this conversation dives into how mental drift, complacency, fatigue, and technology impact workplace safety.

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-dangers-of-distraction-staying-focused-in-a-high-risk-environment/

From distraction-related vehicle accidents to the role of fatigue and stress in high-risk environments, this episode explores real-world examples and practical strategies for reducing workplace hazards. Tune in to learn how small changes in awareness and environment can help prevent serious injuries and fatalities in the utility industry.

Key Takeaways:

✔️ Distractions are unavoidable, but they can be managed.

✔️ Fatigue, complacency, and stress increase the risk of accidents.

✔️ Cell phones and modern technology are major workplace distractions.

✔️ Taking scheduled breaks and staying mindful can improve focus and safety.

✔️ Vehicle accidents due to distracted driving are a growing financial burden for utilities.

✔️ Simple steps, like identifying distractions and using hands-free devices, can help reduce risk.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceDistractions #SafetyCulture #HighRiskJobs #FatigueAwareness #ComplacencyKills #DistractionFreeWork #UtilityWorkers

Challenging the Status Quo: Rethinking Safety in the Utility Industry

Is safety truly the utility industry’s first priority? And is it even a real thing, or just a byproduct of something deeper? In this thought-provoking episode of Influencing Safety, Bill Martin, President and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC, joins host Kate Wade to challenge traditional views on safety. They explore the critical role of teamwork, communication, and human connection in fostering a truly safe work environment. Bill shares insights on the psychological factors that influence workplace culture, the hidden impact of mental health, and how shifting our focus from compliance to competency could change the game.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Safety isn’t just about compliance—it’s a byproduct of strong teamwork and communication.
✅ A psychologically safe work environment fosters better decision-making and fewer incidents.
✅ The traditional “safety first” mindset might be limiting our ability to create real change.
✅ Human connection and mental health are critical factors in workplace safety.
✅ Small changes, like pre-job huddles and open conversations, can have a major impact.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#WorkplaceSafety #UtilityIndustry #SafetyCulture #PsychologicalSafety #TeamworkMatters #LeadershipDevelopment #IncidentPrevention #CommunicationIsKey #CUSP #IncidentPrevention

Terex Utilities has announced the next generation of the zero-emission bucket truck for the electric utility industry. The company has partnered with Mack Trucks Inc. to deliver a bucket truck that boasts enhanced range and more payload than other electric chassis available today.

Terex installed its Optima HR55 aerial device powered by the HyPower SmartPTO by Viatec on the Mack MD7 Electric chassis to deliver a zero-emission utility truck that can drive farther and haul more cargo. Preliminary testing revealed the Terex all-electric bucket truck with the Mack MD7 Electric chassis has up to 1.5 times the enhanced range capabilities compared to other Class 6/7 medium-duty electric chassis bucket trucks, with double the payload capacity on the rear axle. The Terex aerial device, powered by the SmartPTO, operates independently of the Mack MD7 Electric chassis, helping to ease range anxiety and allowing utility crews to operate the boom and outriggers for a normal workday without taking away charge from the chassis.

The all-electric truck is also equipped with the cutting-edge 3rd Eye digital platform, seamlessly integrating advanced camera systems, artificial intelligence and industry-leading technology to maximize safety and productivity. With up to six HD cameras displayed on a spacious 7-inch in-cab monitor, the system provides a complete real-time view of the vehicle’s surroundings, significantly reducing blind spots when reversing, changing lanes, or operating in tight or high-traffic areas.

A limited supply of these trucks will be available in 2025, with a standard delivery of 12-18 months. www.terex.com/utilities

Entries are now being accepted for the fourth annual Greenlee Experience (www.instagram.com/p/DGOHhlCunRn/), an all-expenses-paid trip being held August 13-15 at one of the company’s manufacturing facilities in Elyria, Ohio. Greenlee, a part of Emerson’s professional tools portfolio, is holding the exclusive event to celebrate electrical and utility professionals and say “thank you” for their hard work and contributions to the industry.

Six grand prize winners will get an inside look at products in development and have the opportunity to help shape the future of professional tool development – by sharing their expert insights with Greenlee leadership and the engineering, marketing, research and product development teams. Winners will receive the signature VIP treatment as part of their trip, which also includes a professional photo shoot celebrating the winners’ dedication to the skilled trades, creation of a custom Greenlee Knockout Kit and suite seats to see the MLB Cleveland Guardians.

Entries will be accepted through April 14. Visit https://woobox.com/2ad3eq for full contest rules and information about how to enter. www.greenlee.com

Designed by firefighters and built in the United States, the PassFire Burn Pan is a tool designed for use in fire extinguisher training. Thousands of people across the country have used these units since 2004.

Built by Halcyon Products, the burn pan features a deep 16-gauge, 304-grade stainless steel pan; quick disconnects and hoses for easy setup and teardown; a drain for simple disposal of water; reliable lighting; and easy operation. The pan also burns clean and is environmentally friendly.

Note that purchase of a PassFire Burn Pan does not include a fire extinguisher or propane tank. https://halcyonproducts.com/passfire-burn-pan

J. J. Keller & Associates Inc. has announced the release of virtual reality (VR) training, now available in the J. J. Keller Training online solution. Accessible with a compatible VR headset, this new training format allows learners to navigate realistic simulations of safety and compliance situations they may encounter in their jobs.

J. J. Keller’s VR training offers various benefits that set it apart from other VR training. Most notably, it fits seamlessly into J. J. Keller’s existing training ecosystem. Customers can enroll learners in VR courses and track their performance in the J. J. Keller Training solution alongside online e-learning, streaming video and classroom program formats.

Customers can also use J. J. Keller’s standard training enrollments on VR training. This is the same type of enrollment used on J. J. Keller’s other training formats. There is no need to purchase any kind of special enrollment at an increased price to enroll learners in VR courses.

At launch, J. J. Keller offers 16 VR training programs, including arc flash (flashover); confined space entry; hot work; lockout/tagout; and trenching and excavation safety. https://demo.jjkellertraining.com/training-options/virtual-reality-training

The NCCCO Foundation and the National Safety Council, through its “Work to Zero” initiative, have partnered to develop a free online tool that is intended to help improve jobsite safety for companies and individuals who use cranes and other load-handling equipment.

The tool – available at https://bit.ly/CraneSafetyControlsTool – offers a list of controls tailored to address the most significant hazardous situations that contribute to serious incidents and fatalities in crane operations. The list was compiled by searching relevant safety literature and collecting feedback from industry experts and practitioners.

Each of the controls is categorized according to the hierarchy of controls, allowing users to consider which ones will work best in their specific situations. https://bit.ly/CraneSafetyControlsTool

Lineworkers are accustomed to hearing that they must completely focus on the task they’re performing. For safety reasons, staying fully present and mentally focused on the work at hand is critical in the high-stakes, hazardous environments these employees often find themselves in.

Maintaining full focus for an extended length of time is the goal to strive for – but realistically, that doesn’t align with how the human brain works. An individual can be easily distracted, especially when experiencing personal or professional difficulties. Distractions impair a person’s ability to perform at their highest potential, as numerous studies have demonstrated.

In particular, a person’s financial health and the health of their relationships are two components of everyday life that can be major stressors. Lineworkers who are distracted by either issue – or both issues, since they can intersect – while performing hazardous tasks put their safety at risk and potentially endanger those around them.

For example, imagine entering a hot zone to perform a challenging pole transfer while you’re worried about the bills you need to pay or your relationship troubles at home. When a typical person operates under such stress, their brain is experiencing increased cognitive load, leaving them unable to operate at their highest level. That’s because although the human brain makes up a very small percentage of our body weight, it uses larger amounts of the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat. So, the more cognitive demands placed on a person’s brain – such as high levels of financial or relationship stress – the less energy that person has available to focus on completing the task in front of them.

A Double-Edged Sword
Young people employed in the line trade can earn a great deal of money; that’s one of the privileges of working in the industry. An issue that sometimes arises, however, is whether these young employees have the financial literacy needed to responsibly manage their money.

Long-term planning is required to achieve the future you hope for. Before making any significant financial decision (e.g., buying a new vehicle, purchasing real estate, having a baby, traveling or going back to school), consideration must be given to the potential implications of that decision – both today and years down the line. Among other things, making a poor choice about how to handle personal finances can create stress that steals a worker’s focus during critical moments on the job, leaving them more vulnerable to making errors and hurting themselves and/or others.

Targeted Training
So, we’ve established that someone’s finances can cause them stress and impact their relationships, and we know that young lineworkers can earn a handsome salary through their regular work and overtime opportunities. We also understand that stress creates a cognitive burden, making it more difficult for the affected person to stay focused and safely complete their work.

The question now is, how can employers eliminate or mitigate this burden to make their workplaces safer? What kind of training could be delivered to the workforce to help them develop both their financial literacy skills and their ability to make well-informed long-term decisions? How can employers help employees address these issues that nearly everyone struggles with at some point?

Here’s one idea: Consider adding a half-day or full day of financial management training to your organization’s apprenticeship program. Or, employers could choose to invite local financial professionals to lead in-house workshops with employees once or twice a year. It’s also likely there are other great ideas you’ve thought of while reading this Tailgate Topic. The point here is that a small investment in your workers’ financial education could have profound effects, equipping young people with the tools they need to secure their financial future – and lessen their cognitive load on the job, helping to improve safety conditions for all.

About the Authors: Bill Martin, CUSP, NRP, RN, DIMM, is the president and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC (www.thinkprojectllc.com). He has held previous roles as a lineman, line supervisor, project manager and safety director.

Michelle Forkey earned a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction and has been teaching mathematics and financial literacy for 20 years.

In this episode of the iP Utility Safety Podcast, we take a deep dive into a common yet challenging workplace issue: bad attitudes. But instead of just discussing the problem, we explore proven leadership strategies to transform negativity into productivity. Drawing insights from an Incident Prevention magazine article, we uncover how effective leadership, empowerment, and strategic communication can shift workplace culture. Whether you’re in the utility industry or any team environment, these takeaways will help you lead with confidence and create a positive, high-performing team.

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/bad-attitudes-and-how-to-handle-them/

Key Takeaways

✔ The Power of Leadership – How leaders set the tone and influence team dynamics.

✔ Circle of Control – Focusing on what you can change rather than dwelling on negativity.

✔ Turning Negativity Into Responsibility – Giving difficult employees more responsibility as a way to engage them.

✔ The Role of Positive Reinforcement – Why recognizing efforts and creating trust can transform even the toughest employees.

✔ Empowering Leadership – Strategies to inspire, rather than control, your team.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#LeadershipDevelopment #UtilitySafety #WorkplaceCulture #SafetyLeadership #TeamSuccess #IncidentPrevention #BadAttitudes

Given the arc flash hazards and other risks that exist in electric utility work environments, an employer’s commitment to employee safety must never falter. It is essential for workers to wear personal protective equipment in these environments; in particular, prior to exposure, workers must don flame-resistant (FR) or arc-rated (AR) garments that meet or exceed assessed incident energy levels.

And while single-layer FR/AR garments are common in the utility industry, it’s important to recognize that they can fall short in areas such as weight, heat retention and comfort. Additionally, although the standard arc rating of 8 cal/cm² is frequently deemed sufficient, employers should be aware that it could leave workers vulnerable in certain hazardous scenarios.

With all that said, don’t forget that there’s an effective FR/AR clothing strategy that is sometimes overlooked: a layered approach to user protection that includes FR/AR undergarments, a critical component of the clothing system. Employers that use this approach can significantly enhance the safety, comfort and compliance of their workforce in hazardous environments.

The Importance of Protective Undergarments
Undergarments receive little attention in many FR/AR clothing programs despite their essential role in worker protection. Requiring workers to wear undergarments comprised of 100% cotton or natural fibers is a good step forward – but it still leaves room for error. A more robust solution for employers is to provide employees with FR/AR base layers, which offer greater protection.

FR/AR base layers act as a safety net in the event of an arc flash, preventing burns and avoiding combustion even when outer shirts are untucked. The use of this approach aligns with OSHA and NFPA guidelines, which emphasize the necessity of avoiding meltable fibers.

Three Key Benefits
A layered FR/AR clothing system offers a versatile, effective solution to the shortcomings of single-layer garments. By combining lightweight FR/AR garments, employers can achieve desired arc ratings without compromising employee comfort or mobility.

Specifically, layering provides these three key benefits:

1. Enhanced protection. The individual arc ratings of each layer of clothing, when added together, offer a better defense against break-open and ignition scenarios than a single layer.
2. Moisture management. Layered FR/AR garments improve sweat evaporation and overall comfort for the user, especially in extreme conditions.
3. Temperature regulation. Layering allows workers to adapt their clothing to changing weather conditions so that they can stay warm in cold temperatures and cooler in the heat.

Readers should take note that industry standards – including OSHA regulations and NFPA 70E – stress the employer’s responsibility to provide appropriate FR/AR clothing to workers who face exposure hazards. ASTM F1506 recognizes layering as an effective method for optimizing arc-flash protection, underscoring the importance of proper garment selection.

Layered System Components
A layered FR/AR clothing system that is well-designed typically includes two types of garments: base layers and outer layers. Base layers are those FR/AR undergarments that provide an initial layer of protection while also helping to ensure comfort. Outer layers – such as FR/AR shirts, trousers and coveralls – act as the primary defense against arc flash incidents.

Employers should be mindful that workers must wear appropriately rated FR/AR high-visibility garments in low-light environments where arc flash hazards are present. However, additional arc ratings from high-visibility vests should not be factored into the total arc rating of the clothing system.

Training and Best Practices
Good training is a cornerstone of any successful PPE program. OSHA requires employers to ensure that their workers understand when PPE is necessary, how to wear and use it correctly, and what its limitations are. Specifically, employers must ensure their workers are trained to:

• Wear all FR/AR layers properly, which includes zipping jackets and tucking in shirts.
• Always wear appropriately rated FR/AR outer layers where arc flash hazards exist.
• Avoid wearing non-FR/AR outerwear over FR/AR garments.

Employers and employees should be aware that regular care and maintenance of FR/AR garments is vital to preserving their protective properties.

Conclusion
Because workers in the electric utility industry face the persistent threat of arc flashes, employers must consider investing in a layered FR/AR clothing system for their crews that prioritizes the use of FR/AR undergarments. This is more than just a strategy; in some settings, it’s a necessity. When a layered clothing system is effectively implemented, workers gain enhanced protection to safely and comfortably perform their tasks – even in the most challenging environments.

About the Author: Derek Sang, CSHEP, QSSP, is the senior technical training manager for Bulwark Protection. He has served the FR/AR clothing industry for more than 25 years. Reach him at derek.sang@bulwark.com.

Let’s kick off this new series by considering a simple question: Why do we need safety?

Here’s my answer: Safety is a must because hazards and threats exist in our work environments that could cause harm to both our employees and our organizations.

Any initiative designed to protect workers from danger falls under the umbrella of safety. If we were to use minimum approach distances as an analogy, safety is the air gap that insulates an organization. When severe injuries and fatalities occur in our industry, weak safety initiatives – that is, initiatives that do not provide the insulating value needed to appropriately address an organization’s hazards and threats – are often the culprit.

Too many organizations invest their resources in “busy” initiatives that end up adding little value to their safety culture rather than taking a planned approach to determine and implement those activities that will insulate and protect them and their employees. It’s important for leaders to understand that simply increasing an organization’s number of safety initiatives doesn’t necessarily correlate to greater hazard protection for workers. Those safety initiatives must align with the organization’s needs based on the known hazards and threats faced by its employees.

The Approach
Safety is a critical component of all aspects of work in the electric utility industry. As such, it’s imperative to view it – and to work to develop and implement it – as a purposely designed system that aligns with organizational goals and can be integrated into the organization’s operating procedures.

That’s why I developed this series of six articles: to provide electric utility industry professionals with focused discussions about the various facets of using a system approach to determine an organization’s safety initiatives.

The reality is that protection from job-site hazards can be consistently achieved only through a purposely designed approach that allows for continuous improvement. To use a power-line analogy, think of the system approach as a loop feed. Loop feeds are adaptable; one can easily be isolated and fixed so power can continue to flow. Meanwhile, a radial feed loses all connectivity. A well-planned system approach – often referred to as a safety management system, or SMS – will be flexible, allow for improvement and enable continuous employee engagement. A safety program with no plan in place, however, offers no real direction, must often be redesigned and typically has lower levels of employee engagement.

The Plan
An organization that operates without a well-developed safety plan is much like a line crew that shows up to a job site with no staking sheet, materials, equipment or time to complete the job – and then their supervisor asks why the job isn’t getting done. Some companies believe that providing training, complying with regulatory standards and engaging in the latest safety fads will keep their employees safe. But the value of an organization’s safety initiatives is directly connected to their plan for success. A plan must outline these initiatives, including how they will be created, managed, monitored, coordinated, executed, assessed and consistently improved. Furthermore, all employees must be involved in the plan to help ensure they stay engaged with it.

Standards Can Help
Industry organizations use national and global standards to aid them in successfully building power systems. Standards can also be used to help build safety systems. You can refer to these two standards to assist your organization in building a comprehensive SMS plan:

• ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.”
  • ASSP GM-Z10.100 provides requirement-by-requirement suggestions to implement and maintain an occupational health and safety management system.
  • ASSP GM-Z10.101 is a Z10 quick-start guide for small- to medium-sized organizations. It is offered as a free download.
• ISO 45001, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.”

OSHA also offers excellent recommendations for implementing safety and health programs. These resources are available at www.osha.gov/safety-management.

Future Articles
The remaining articles in this series will describe how to successfully connect and align SMS components and initiatives throughout an organization. In particular, the following topics will be addressed:

• Leadership and employee involvement.
• SMS planning.
• Human performance.
• Implementation and operation.
• Evaluation and effective action.

Summary
To effectively protect workers, utility organizations must develop safety initiatives using a planned process that is based on their assessed hazards and threats. Industry standards can assist in creating and implementing a plan that provides ample opportunity for employee engagement, opening the door for greater organizational safety success.

About the Author: Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, is president and CEO of SET Solutions LLC. She is a 40-year veteran of the electric utility industry, a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network and past chair of the USOLN executive board. Tompkins worked in the utility industry for over 20 years and has provided electric power safety consulting for the last 20-plus years. An OSHA-authorized instructor, she has supported utilities, contractors and other organizations operating electric power systems in designing and maintaining safety improvement methods and strategies for organizational excellence.

In a recent survey we conducted, 97% of safety professionals who responded confirmed that gaining senior leader buy-in for their safety programs was either very important or extremely important to them.

This research project was a joint effort between the National Electrical Contractors Association, HR Resources of the Carolinas LLC and Habit Mastery Consulting, with the purpose of discovering the secrets to gaining greater senior leadership support for safety initiatives. Our research included surveying 128 safety professionals and conducting in-depth interviews with 15 deeply experienced safety professionals.

We revealed our research results at the October 2024 iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo in Allen, Texas, sharing with attendees what our data indicates are the eight practical stops on a safety professional’s roadmap to securing full senior leadership support for their next safety initiative. The remainder of this article will focus on those stops, which fall into three categories – preparation, marketing and follow-up – providing a clear structure to guide professionals on their journey.

Part I: Preparation
The safety professionals who most successfully earn senior leader buy-in for their safety initiatives typically work for organizations that have established strong foundations. What does that mean exactly? These organizations have put the right leaders and reporting structures in place, and there is a great amount of trust and psychological safety among employees that has been built over time.

Stop #1: Have the Right Leaders in Place
In the surveys and interviews we conducted, safety professionals told us that an ideal senior leader values safety, aligns it with the organization’s priorities and demonstrates a commitment to protecting workers. Three personal factors influence a senior leader’s willingness to support safety efforts:

• Risk tolerance: We know that different people have different levels of comfort where risk is involved. Leaders who are naturally risk-averse may more easily understand the need for safety interventions.
• Values: Leaders who strongly value protecting the well-being of others may be more inclined to prioritize safety efforts.
• Past experiences: Significant injuries and fatalities make a lasting impression. Leaders who have worked for organizations where employees were hurt or killed on the job may better understand the realities of such situations – and be more likely to show support for safety initiatives.

Utility organizations must actively recruit, develop and promote leaders who naturally champion safety. And although safety professionals may have limited influence on hiring practices, one thing they can do is provide hiring teams with targeted questions to better identify job candidates who view safety as both a core personal value and a core business imperative.

Stop #2: Establish the Right Reporting Structure
Direct, meaningful communication channels between safety professionals and senior leaders are critical to safety program buy-in. In our interviews, safety professionals who have regular access to their senior leaders reported the greatest satisfaction with their ability to move initiatives forward.

Safety professionals should report as high up the leadership ladder as possible – ideally to the CEO or another senior executive. This helps to ensure that safety is a frequent topic of conversation. Safety professionals should also advocate for dedicated time on leadership agendas and/or weekly one-on-one meetings with key organizational leaders.

Stop #3: Build Trust
Trust among co-workers is built over time and requires intentional effort from all parties. To strengthen relationships and build trust, safety professionals must invest time in meaningful interactions with senior leaders to better understand their priorities, values and communication preferences. They also must intentionally strive to build a track record of safety success, which could start with small projects that eventually evolve into larger initiatives (e.g., pilot programs).

Part II: Marketing
Marketing is key to garnering strong leadership support for initiatives. Safety professionals who consistently earn buy-in for their programs have learned how to get people excited about and involved with their ideas.

Stop #4: Collaborate to Create Ownership
In the interviews we conducted, safety professionals told us their senior leaders want to influence a safety initiative’s final design. So, instead of presenting leaders with fully developed plans, these safety professionals now invite leaders to participate early in an initiative’s development process.

Senior leaders often have unique insight into the organizations they work for; when shared with safety professionals, this insight can improve a safety initiative’s alignment with organizational goals. Plus, a senior leader who actively participates in the development of a safety initiative is typically much more inclined to support that initiative when it’s rolled out.

During our research, one safety professional shared the process of revising what would have turned out to be an expensive behavior-based safety program. The revisions were prompted by senior leader feedback and resulted in a more cost-effective, impactful solution.

Stop #5: Get the Timing Right
Timing can significantly influence whether an initiative succeeds or fails. External events, internal organizational disruptions and competing priorities can propel or derail efforts. Safety professionals should strongly consider postponing the launch of safety initiatives during major company changes and when competing demands exist, such as restructurings or major rollouts.

However, safety professionals can also use timing to their advantage by highlighting internal incidents, external news stories and published studies to make the case to senior leaders that now is the right time to implement a specific safety initiative.

Stop #6: Craft a Compelling Argument
Whether senior leaders want to support a safety initiative depends on how safety aligns with their priorities. So, safety professionals must quantify the impact of a specific problem as well as the projected savings from a recommended safety initiative due to reduced injury rates, increased productivity and/or improved retention.

It’s also important for safety professionals to humanize safety issues that still exist in the work environment. For example, use the names of workers who were hurt during the last reporting cycle to tell a compelling story to senior leaders about the organizational impact of those incidents – and the many ways the organization stands to benefit by adopting targeted safety initiatives.

Part III: Follow-Up
By documenting and sharing the results of a safety initiative with senior leaders, safety professionals can gain more credibility – and greater leadership support for future initiatives.

Stop #7: Create Metrics and Ask for Accountability
Metrics must be established and tracked to measure an initiative’s impact. Tracking should include tangible changes. For example, a safety initiative that targets job planning could track how frequently multiple voices are heard during a job planning discussion. That number should then be communicated to leaders each month to help maintain their focus on the initiative. Metrics can also help senior leaders and safety professionals identify when additional efforts or new strategies are needed.

Another important item to note: Metrics reporting is a great opportunity to communicate specific steps senior leaders can take to further support the initiative. If a leader chooses not to take those steps, schedule time with them to discuss their hesitancy to contribute to the initiative’s success.

Stop #8: Be Persistent – and Patient
Change takes time, and resistance to change is inevitable. That’s why safety professionals must set realistic expectations about the length of time it will take to (1) see results from an initiative and (2) identify and advocate for new solutions if the initiative does not initially succeed.

But don’t worry – safety professionals don’t have to do this all on their own. By following this article’s guidance, they can collaborate and forge strong relationships with senior leaders to develop and implement targeted organizational safety initiatives to better protect their employees.

About the Authors: Sharon Lipinski is the Habit SuperHero and CEO of Habit Mastery Consulting (https://habitmasteryconsulting.com), which helps organizations increase their targeted safety behavior by up to 150%. She is a Certified Gamification for Training developer, certified cognitive behavioral therapist for insomnia instructor, speaker, TV personality and coach dedicated to helping people create the right habits so they can be happier, healthier and safer at home and in their work.

Wesley L. Wheeler, SMS, CESCP, MSP, is the executive director of safety for the National Electrical Contractors Association (www.necanet.org). He joined the organization in 2014 and has over 45 years of electrical experience.

Keith Wheeler is president and chief human resources officer at HR Resources of the Carolinas LLC (https://hrresourcesofthecarolinas.com). With over 30 years of human resources management and leadership experience, he provides guidance to a variety of U.S. organizations and industries to help them meet the challenges of a rapidly changing workforce.

This story is about a devastating accident that took the life of one of my best friends many years ago. I have always been somewhat reluctant to speak or write about it because dealing with my friend’s family in the aftermath of his death was extremely painful. As time has marched on, however, I’ve found myself thinking it’s time to share the details of the accident with other lineworkers in hopes of helping them avoid and prevent similar accidents in the future.

Background
During my high school years in Salinas, California, I became friends with a fellow student by the name of David White. We became close over time, playing football and hunting together, among other activities. After high school, we were both hired as groundmen by a local utility company. We progressed through our apprenticeships together and, in 1963, became journeymen linemen at the same time.

Off the job, our families frequently spent time together. Jane, David’s wife, was employed as an X-ray technician at a hospital in Salinas; together they had a son who was about 3 years old at the time of this story. David’s father also worked for the local utility company for many years, eventually advancing to the position of customer services supervisor.

Our career paths split after David and I had worked as linemen for a few years. I became a line foreman while David became a troubleman. At that time, the utility company’s troublemen worked alone performing a variety of tasks, such as switching, setting meters and investigating customer problems. Each troubleman was assigned a geographic area of the company’s service territory.

On the day of the accident, my crew and I were installing underground cables for a new commercial development in North Salinas. Around 2 p.m., the line superintendent was visiting my job site to discuss the progress of the job. While we were talking, he received a call from the dispatcher, who explained that a customer had called to say that he’d observed a utility worker hanging from a pole near Zabala Road. The dispatcher also stated that earlier in the day, he had dispatched David White to investigate a power outage to an irrigation pump in the area.

After hearing all this, I immediately threw my lineman tools and a handline into the back of the superintendent’s pickup truck. The two of us then headed off toward Zabala Road.

Arrival at the Scene
The Salinas Valley is relatively flat, so when we arrived near Zabala Road, we were able to visually scan the area. Sure enough, we saw a man hanging from a transformer pole at the secondary level. He was supported by his safety strap and bent over backward. The superintendent and I sped off along a dirt road and, after arriving at the transformer pole, confirmed it was my friend David White hanging from the pole. We then contacted the utility company’s dispatcher to request emergency services at the scene.

Next, I rapidly donned my tools, grabbed the handline I’d brought with me, climbed up to where David was hanging and positioned myself underneath him. While I was rigging up to lower him, it became obvious to me that he was no longer alive. The superintendent and I attempted artificial respiration after we got David to the ground, but it was hopeless. When emergency services arrived, they confirmed he had been dead for about one hour. Upon removal of David’s badly burned leather gloves, I saw that his hands had sustained severe burns as well. Emergency services loaded David’s body into the ambulance and headed back to town. Meanwhile, the superintendent and I attempted to figure out the details of what had happened to my friend.

Investigating the Accident
We first noticed that one fuse was blown on the primary side of a wye/delta three-phase connection that supplied three-wire 480-volt service to the irrigation pump. The superintendent and I also observed that the meter protector was burnt and damaged. It was clear that David had been attempting to figure out whether the blown fuse was caused by a defective transformer or a problem within the service riser or metering equipment.

From what we were able to determine, David had taken the following steps to identify the source of the problem:

• Inspected the transformer bank, service and meter.
• Opened the customer’s main switch, isolating the wiring and pump motor.
• Replaced the blown fuse to see if the bank was OK; the fuse then blew again.
• Opened the secondary jumpers to isolate the service and meter.

After David completed those steps, we believe he must have planned to re-fuse and then check to see if the bank was OK. This was the step during which his electrical contact occurred. For unknown reasons, he failed to open the other fuses. So, when David opened the first jumper, he placed himself in series with a flow of 7200 volts due to a short between the primary and secondary windings of one of the transformers.

A line crew that was dispatched to the scene replaced all three transformers. Each of the old transformers was thoroughly tested in the transformer shop, where it was confirmed that the winding insulation in one of the transformers had deteriorated, creating a dead short between the primary and secondary windings. The power flow diagram below shows the source and flow of the power that caused the accident.

Preventing a Recurrence
David could have prevented his electrical contact in these circumstances if he had opened all the primary fuses before he isolated the service and meter. Additionally, wearing rubber gloves would have insulated his hands from the flow of power.

This tragedy underscores the potential perils of solo work and the importance of being exceptionally careful and observant when working alone. Had David been a part of a line crew that responded to the trouble, it is likely another crew member would have reminded him to open the other fuses before isolating the service.

Prior to the accident, the utility company’s safety rule book already required employees to wear rubber gloves when working on energized 480-volt secondaries. After David passed away, the company added a rule requiring lineworkers to wear rubber gloves when working on the secondary side of any transformer suspected to be faulty. This accident is a prime example of how and why many safety rules and procedures have been established over the years.

The Aftermath
For me, the last part of this story is also the worst part.

The superintendent and I returned to the yard after we’d finished our preliminary investigation at the accident site. As you might imagine, the employees in the yard were in a state of concern and confusion as to what had happened. Once we confirmed that David was gone, the group consensus was that I should be the one to inform his father. I agreed and drove to the main office to speak with him, attempting to explain what had happened as best I could. When David’s father regained some of his composure, he said, “Alan, you have to be the one to inform his wife.” Once again, I reluctantly agreed and headed toward the hospital where Jane worked. We sat in a private room while I gradually explained what had happened to David. Not surprisingly, it was a highly emotional discussion.

Even now, decades later, it is difficult for me to describe how I felt that night once I made it home. I considered the upcoming funeral and how that would be. David’s accident left an indelible impression on me, further elevating my commitment to practice and promote safety at every opportunity.

Conclusion
This story is just one example of what can – and does – happen in our line of work. Transformers are some of the most common pieces of equipment lineworkers install and maintain. Their compact design places the high- and low-voltage windings close together, an arrangement that can result in a short circuit – the same as what occurred in David’s accident. Transformers are also susceptible to the buildup of internal pressure, which can result in hazardous explosions. The bottom line here is that lineworkers must be properly trained for the tasks they’re expected to perform; they must acquire the expertise to select appropriate transformers and transformer fuses, make the correct connections and safely investigate trouble situations.

About the Author: Alan Drew began his power industry career in 1959. While working for a local utility company, he earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. Drew was hired as the general superintendent for Clallam County Public Utility District in 1991. He moved to Boise, Idaho, in 1998, where he became an instructor with Northwest Lineman College and advanced to the position of senior vice president of research and development. He is a lifetime member of IEEE and a 2008 International Lineman Museum Hall of Fame inductee. Drew’s most recent accomplishment is writing “The American Lineman,” a book that honors the evolution and importance of the U.S. lineman. He retired in 2020 and is now a part-time technical consultant for Northwest Lineman College.

When we think about the word “consequences,” we typically consider it in terms of unwanted outcomes; consequences are “bad.” But they can also be good, the desired outcomes of specific, targeted actions. And then there are those times when an action’s consequences seem good – yet they have unexpected, adverse side effects that may go unrecognized until an injury occurs.

This is precisely the case with rubber gloves.

For two decades, I have been warning our industry that overuse of rubber gloves can result in damage to workers’ hands. I knew this was a possibility because of my own hand issues some 25 years ago. I even took a pair of Class 2 rubber gloves to my orthopedic appointment so I could ask my surgeon for his opinion. He explained to me something called the “coefficient of friction,” noting that less friction exists when a worker’s gloves are wet inside; this can cause even greater hand strain, especially in the wrists.

The coefficient is a correlation value that indicates the relationship between measured handgrip strength and another variable (e.g., gripping while wearing good-fitting leather gloves, then performing the same test wearing rubber gloves). Grip loss from the test conditions directly relates to the extra effort necessary to accomplish the task.

Armed with this information, I began examining records, counting the reported numbers of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) cases among those in our workforce. I then reviewed data from the American Medical Association and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding CTS case numbers in both the general population and other crafts whose workers endure hand stress similar to lineworkers. As informal as the activity was, some comparisons of the numbers indicated that lineworkers are four times more affected by CTS than other workers of the same median age.

Here’s something else that became apparent: Lineworkers are perhaps the only craft-workers with significant dexterity demands who use heavy rubber gloves. I’ve discussed this issue with various colleagues, and those discussions usually touched upon dielectric boot use as well. A common refrain I heard was, “We can’t stop using rubber gloves.” Well, of course that’s true – but can we use them in a way that’s less physically harmful to workers?

Industry Data Needs
Since then, the big issue has been a lack of testing and numbers. The industry needs research data and values to analyze the work environment and rubber glove use, with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce hand stress.

Enter Austin Energy’s Alfred Sundqvist, D.C., a chiropractor with experience treating lineworkers.

I was introduced to Dr. Sundqvist by Wendy Ellen shortly after he joined the utility. A safety manager for Austin Energy, Ellen has the good sense not to turn down potential employees simply because they might be a little overqualified.

At the time of our introduction, Sundqvist knew little about how lineworkers complete our tasks, so I shared with him the industry’s rubber glove issue, explaining how we use the gloves and the concerns that their use could lead to chronic injury. Sundqvist immediately began a literature review. At the same time, he ordered a medical-grade handgrip dynamometer and began testing craft-workers, with Austin Energy’s support.

The initial testing of 50 craft personnel has already produced actionable results – but Sundqvist is not stopping at 50. Every Austin Energy craft employee will be assessed, and those results will be tabulated and analyzed. Thus far, some of the worst-case test results indicate a 33% coefficient loss of grip strength using Class 2 rubber gloves.

As part of his literature review, Sundqvist has found that chronic overstrain while performing gripping activities does correlate to the onset of common injuries such as tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis), golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylitis) and CTS. His research data may ultimately give us trends related to work types, age and time spent on the job. There is more to come from Sundqvist, and we expect to publish his study results in the future pages of Incident Prevention magazine.

The Employer’s Obligation
So, what does all this mean? It means we have an obligation to those workers who are skeptical about or haven’t considered the possibility that they could develop chronic, debilitating physical conditions due to overuse of rubber gloves – some of which may not begin their onset until after retirement. This obligation is clearly described in OSHA’s General Duty Clause, which requires employers to provide their employees with a safe and healthy workplace that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

OSHA had this to say in a May 2019 letter of interpretation to the American Physical Therapy Association: “… work-related injuries and illnesses involving muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs would meet the general recording criteria if they involve medical treatment beyond first aid, days away from work, job transfer or restricted work” (see www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-05-23).

Both CTS and medial epicondylitis among craft-workers are almost certainly work-related, making them recordable injuries. So, we know prevention is in order. But where do we start?

Next Steps and Recommendations
I expect Sundqvist will eventually make recommendations for preventive exercises or programs to help reduce the risk of chronic injury from rubber glove use. In the meantime, there are other things we can do.

Our industry has seen increasing use of rubber gloves over the past two decades, and frankly, some of it is unnecessary. One example is the use of rubber gloves with hot-sticks, especially lifting and holding them. I deliver hot-stick training and have lost count of the number of times I’ve seen a lineworker maneuver the weight of a stick in rubber gloves, with the stick wedged against their body to achieve the necessary control.

I understand why employers require this, and I’m not criticizing those that do, but I will offer my qualified opinion. Hot-sticking is a mode of energized work established as a primary means of worker protection. When a hot-stick is operated from outside the minimum approach distance and with a clear minimum distance between the working end and the user, no other secondary barriers are needed to protect the worker. There is no justification for using rubber gloves with hot-sticks in either the OSHA or consensus standards. If you maintain your sticks in accordance with consensus practices, they are unlikely to leak or flash over; 75 years of historical experience has demonstrated this.

Further, rubber gloves and sleeves have no mechanical performance rating. This means the rubber may not withstand the applied voltage at some point in compression. I have not seen data to clearly define that value, but the consensus standards limit pressure on the insulating rubber as no more than normal hand pressure. Sundqvist has already discovered that once you move from an 8-foot hot-stick to a 10-foot hot-stick while wearing rubber gloves, the grip necessary to maneuver and control the hot-stick exceeds what is assumed to be normal hand pressure.

The point here is that – out of an abundance of caution and with good intentions – the industry has traded a reliable tool for an increased likelihood of chronic hand injuries. At the same time, we’ve made it riskier for workers to control hot-sticks by making them wear rubber gloves, which compromise grip strength.

Working in the Rain
“What about working in the rain?” That’s a question I hear frequently during discussions about this topic. Well, for starters, we wet-test hot-sticks at 75,000 volts per foot for good reason, and that alone adds to the reliability of hot-stick use in wet conditions. But there is a practical answer, too. If it’s raining hard enough to compromise your hot-stick, then your rainsuit, arms and rubber gloves are also wet. Unlike the waxed fiberglass hot-stick that’s been wiped with silicone, your gloves and body do not have a tested wet resistance of 75,000 volts per foot. Wet gloves and protectors are much less reliable than the hot-stick they hold.

Now, let’s talk about ground-to-ground, an evolution related to the work practices required by the Electrical Transmission & Distribution Partnership. I support the partnership’s work, and my intention here is not to disparage its role in significantly reducing serious incidents within the partnership’s companies. Cradle-to-cradle and lock-to-lock are partnership-established rubber glove best practices (see https://powerlinesafety.org/best-practices/). Ground-to-ground (climbing poles/structures) use of rubber gloves is not. Climbing in rubber gloves is likely the most stressful of all the work access modes. Cradle-to-cradle is short term. Most of the hand stress occurs while performing work, with some additional stress for the operator of the bucket controls. Lock-to-lock is the same; when the transformer is open and determined to be safe, the gloves can come off. Climbing a pole in rubber gloves means the climber is continually torquing their hands with every step up the structure. They are constantly adjusting finger-sized controls on their portable fall prevention gear. If the climber is crossing an obstruction, they must attempt to manipulate snaps, adjusters and connectors in rubber gloves.

Last is the unnecessary use of higher-class rubber gloves, such as using Class 3 on a 23-kV system when Class 2 is perfectly acceptable. I still come across employers that believe glove ratings must meet system voltage. That’s not the case if you have a good cover-up program. OSHA has clearly explained that, in three-phase exposures, if the two phases not being worked are properly covered, the exposure to the worker is phase-to-ground. Unless you are gloving 34 kV, where phase-to-ground exceeds the working rating of Class 2 rubber gloves, you need not use Class 3 gloves. Getting your personnel out of Class 3 gloves would provide huge stress relief for their hands. And for secondary work, it may be advisable to provide craft-workers with Class 00/0 gloves.

Conclusion
I know the readers of Incident Prevention magazine are serious about protecting their co-workers. Now that we have some data available, the industry has work to do when it comes to rubber glove policies. It may be that you simply decide to perform an internal analysis of wrist and elbow injuries and adopt a preventive exercise program to counter the risks. I submit that there are also opportunities to reduce the number of ill-advised policies regarding when to wear rubber gloves.

In addition to gloves, I have asked Sundqvist to think about dielectric overshoe use as well, as many industry professionals have come to believe they contribute to lower-back and hip-stress injuries in workers required to wear them every day. There is no time frame for that, but I look forward to his findings and Austin Energy’s continued contributions to industry safety through his work.

About the Authors: After 25 years as a transmission-distribution lineman and foreman, Jim Vaughn, CUSP, has devoted the last 27 years to safety and training. A noted author, trainer and lecturer, he is a senior consultant for the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction. He can be reached at jim@ispconline.com.

Alfred Sundqvist, D.C., currently serves as occupational health and safety coordinator for Austin Energy, focusing on field operations safety as well as designing and implementing injury prevention programs. He earned his chiropractic degree in 2017 and worked clinically in the Austin, Texas, area for seven years. Prior to that, Sundqvist worked in residential and commercial construction and construction management for 13 years. He can be reached at alfred.sundqvist@austinenergy.com.

It’s a little late to say Happy New Year, but I still want to wish all of you a fantastic and safe 2025. One of my hopes for this year is that I won’t be asked to investigate another incident or fatality – because we’ll all work together to ensure they never occur. We’ve had more than enough injuries and deaths in our industry’s history, including just this past year.

That’s why I want to ask each person reading this to make sure you’re taking the time needed to perform your tasks safely. We must continue the important work of preventing incidents and strive to significantly lower serious injury and fatality rates in the industry.

Some of you may be familiar with Kirby Smart, head football coach for the University of Georgia. Once, when a reporter asked him how to win games, he repeated the same advice he gives the football team: “Do what you’re supposed to do every time you’re supposed to do it. Nothing less will win the game.” I believe applying that same philosophy will keep lineworkers safer – because although failure to do what we’re supposed to do doesn’t always end poorly, it has the potential to do so 100% of the time. A better, safer approach to line work is to always follow all the rules and best practices, including using appropriate cover-up and grounding techniques to prevent accidents.

Each year, Forbes magazine publishes a list of what it deems the most dangerous careers in the U.S.; “electric utility lineman/technician” recently placed in the top 10. When I read that, I found I humbly disagreed with the magazine’s use of the word “dangerous.” I believe lineworkers have one of the most hazardous careers in the U.S.; it becomes dangerous when we fail to follow Kirby Smart’s advice. We must adhere to proper work procedures, safe work practices and regulatory guidelines every time a task is assigned to us – no matter the task or how many times we’ve done it before.

Statistics from OSHA and NIOSH regarding reported electrical fatalities have not meaningfully changed in the past two decades. Each time I consider that fact, I wonder to myself for the umpteenth time why the industry hasn’t been able to improve workplace safety and lower accident rates – particularly given all the improvements in tools, PPE and training. Perhaps the solution lies in more closely focusing on human performance and supervision.

A Serious Responsibility
Early in my career at an investor-owned utility, I was blessed to work for and with some of the best linemen in the industry. They dispensed quite a bit of advice, and I worked hard to emulate those men who made such an impression on me.

Having learned a great deal from them and others during the 40 years I spent at the company, I’m now in a position to dispense advice to newer lineworkers and other utility employees, a responsibility I take very seriously. I try to share everything I know in hopes that the information can be used to prevent more tragedies in the field.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that I’m called on almost weekly to either investigate or offer opinions about terrible accidents, including fatalities. I’ve come to find that it’s a never-ending job, with the same errors being made over and over. Yes, every incident is different, but I still believe that most – if not all – on-the-job injuries and fatalities can be prevented by complying with OSHA’s regulations. The agency’s standards explain what must be accomplished and why. Employers should look to consensus standards and industry best practices for guidance on how to perform the work.

The Human Condition
I’ve made many great friends through my relationship with Incident Prevention; among them are Jim Vaughn, Bill Martin, Lito Wilkins, Rod Courtney and Pam Tompkins. We are trainers, consultants, writers and speakers with our own stories to tell, yet our varied experiences have led each of us to the same belief: that line work must be conducted with the utmost professionalism and attention to detail.

We also recognize that human beings are fallible. As a species, we make mistakes in large part because of biases, bad habits we form over time and bad advice we receive from others. We also tend to think our way of doing things is the best or easiest way – even if it doesn’t fully comply with safety rules and regulations. For example, I’ve asked numerous lineworkers whether they should be using more cover-up and PPE; some of them have quickly replied that they’re knowledgeable and experienced enough to do the work without those additional protective barriers. Even if that’s true for them, do all their other crew members have that same knowledge and experience? Here’s something else to consider: Do we risk normalizing deviation by opting against the use of additional protection?

Become a ‘Learn-It-All’
When I first started working in the industry, supervisors and linemen would tell me that if I didn’t get hurt on the job every so often, I must not be doing much of anything. That was a terrible message to communicate – something I recognized even back then – but I didn’t know what I could possibly say in response given that I was the new guy just out of high school.

My work practices and habits were influenced by many of those linemen, the majority of whom were great at their jobs. But others were not, something that became clearer to me as I advanced in my career. An important lesson I learned through observation is that a worker who doesn’t always follow all the safety rules will eventually experience an incident of some kind. Using luck as a protective strategy is never a smart choice.

Of the incidents I’ve investigated in recent months, two have really stuck with me. One resulted in the death of a lineman who’d recently graduated from a development program and worked on a crew for less than a year. The other involved a more experienced lineman whose injuries led to his limbs being amputated. In both cases, I found it was easy to determine which safety rules had been violated simply by reviewing the facts and eyewitness accounts.

As I shared earlier, I want 2025 to be a fantastic and safe year for all industry employees. Continuing your education is an excellent way to work toward that objective. Become what I call a “learn-it-all” – because no matter how far you advance in your career, there’s always something else to be learned about the trade. By the way, one opportunity to continue your industry-relevant education is to join me on the second Friday of each month for the Incident Prevention Institute’s monthly forum. Visit https://ip-institute.com/ipi-forum/ for more information.

About the Author: Danny Raines, CUSP, is an author, an OSHA-authorized trainer, and a transmission and distribution safety consultant who retired from Georgia Power after 40 years of service and now operates Raines Utility Safety Solutions LLC.

Learn more from Danny Raines on the Utility Safety Podcast series. Listen now at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com!

One of the questions I’m most frequently asked during leadership classes is how to handle people with bad attitudes. So, I’d like to take this opportunity to share some highlights from those discussions. I will remind you that leadership is much more of an art than a science. There is no perfect roadmap that shows us how to successfully work with every person in every scenario. I’ll also remind you that you get what you tolerate; while ignoring bad attitudes and hoping they’ll improve is technically a strategy, it’s probably not your best choice.

Your Circle of Control
Let’s begin with some discussion about creating culture and developing relationships. The investments you make in these two activities are the starting point for everything you do as a leader, including dealing with bad attitudes. Fostering good, strong cultures and relationships opens the door for us to provide coaching and feedback – and to challenge bad attitudes. While none of this guarantees success, the absence of good, strong cultures and relationships is likely to result in failure.

Next, understand that your TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More) is a reflection of you. If one (or more) of your TEAM members has a bad attitude, take a look in the mirror to see if anything you’re doing – or not doing – is contributing to that. This isn’t to say you’re doing anything wrong or that you’re to blame; it’s to emphasize that before you point fingers at anyone else, you should engage in some self-reflection and consider whether you have opportunities to try different strategies, some of which I’ve outlined below.

Determine the Source
This isn’t always the case, but the people with the worst attitudes are often highly competent, capable performers who have had bad past experiences. Speak with them to see if you can identify the source of their bitterness. Sometimes simply giving them the opportunity to express their feelings aloud is enough to change their attitude for the better.

Explain the Impact They Have on Others
Someone once very proudly told me during a class I was leading that he didn’t wear rubber gloves on the job because he liked the thrill of it. I tried out many of the typical responses to such a statement with no success. Finally, I played to the man’s pride and said, “OK, if that’s actually true, you may be as good as you think you are because you’re still alive. But what about the people on your TEAM who aren’t that good? What are you teaching them? And what’s going to happen if they work like you?” That managed to get his attention and launch a more productive conversation.

Empowerment
This strategy must be used with caution, so here’s where it’s especially important to know your TEAM. If a TEAM member with a bad attitude is someone who likes to be the center of attention (e.g., they interrupt meetings, classes and job briefings and like to argue), empower them. What do I mean by that? Establish ground rules and clear objectives that must be accomplished. Then, let them lead the next safety meeting or job briefing. This will allow them to meet their need for attention and usually has lasting positive effects on their attitude. In fact, quite a few safety champions have been found using this method.

Embarrassment
This is the opposite of the empowerment strategy. If you choose to use it, embarrassing someone with a bad attitude must be done strategically and respectfully – meaning that you should embarrass the behavior, not the person.

Here’s a real-life example from my time as a youth basketball coach. One of my players once tried to dunk a ball during an Amateur Athletic Union game. He came close but couldn’t do it. So, at the start of our next practice, I had the rest of the TEAM sit on the baseline while I gave him 10 chances to dunk in front of them. I told him he only had to succeed once; if he succeeded, he could try to dunk as much as he wanted for the rest of the season, but if he failed, no more dunking. He missed all 10 attempts, and dunking was no longer an issue for him or the rest of the TEAM.

Again, be strategic and respectful. The goal of making your point must supersede the goal of embarrassment. When done well, this approach can shut down showoffs, loudmouths and those disrespecting others, making it clear to them and the rest of the TEAM that there is zero tolerance for such attitudes and behaviors.

Positive Reinforcement
The topic of bad attitudes once came up during a class I was teaching in Florida. Now, I’d never met him, but a guy named Joe came up in conversation. He must have had a horrible attitude because at one point, everybody in the class pointed to Joe’s manager and said, “Tell David about Joe.”

Joe’s story was this: He had been transferred around the entire organization because no one could work with him – until he got to Tony’s crew. A few months after he began working with Tony, a storm hit, and Joe found himself working around many people he had worked with before. Those co-workers watched Joe complete the orientation, coach and mentor crew members, develop work plans and encourage others, all with a smile on his face. Someone asked Tony, “What happened to Joe?” They couldn’t believe he was the same person who’d once been so difficult to work with. In response, Tony grinned and said that all Joe had needed was some praise and positive reinforcement. Until he began working with Tony, Joe had only received criticism and negative feedback – so that’s what he’d doled out in return.

Leadership Transfer
In the book “Extreme Ownership,” authors Jocko Willink and Leif Babin state, “There are no bad teams, only bad leaders.” If we take that to the extreme (pun intended), that means employees with bad attitudes are the results of poor leadership or personality conflicts with their leaders. So, a choice must be made: improve the leader or assign another leader to oversee an employee with a bad attitude. Now, on one hand, I’m not a big fan of making my problem someone else’s problem. But on the other hand, the story of Joe and Tony is one example of how a transfer could lead to positive change.

Conclusion
Handling bad attitudes is difficult work. Doing so requires leaders to demonstrate competence and courage. As I noted earlier, opting not to address an employee’s bad attitude is a strategy, but it’s not a good one. Their attitude will likely get worse, and at the same time, the rest of your TEAM members will be watching you do nothing, likely causing their attitudes to suffer as well.

The fact is that attitudes – bad or good – are contagious. That’s something you can use to your advantage. In addition to the strategies outlined in this article and others you may have thought of, your No. 1 strategy must be to manage your own attitude and actively care about each member of your TEAM. Caring increases courage, so think about the worst attitude on your TEAM and start there.

About the Author: David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM, is the director of professional development for Utility Business Media’s Incident Prevention Institute (https://ip-institute.com) and the author of “Frontline Leadership – The Hurdle” and “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle.” He has extensive experience and expertise in leadership, human performance, safety and operations. McPeak is passionate about personal and professional development and believes that intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are key to success. He also is an advanced certified practitioner in DISC, emotional intelligence, the Hartman Value Profile, learning styles and motivators.

About Frontline Fundamentals: Frontline Fundamentals topics are derived from the Incident Prevention Institute’s popular Frontline training program (https://frontlineutilityleader.com). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

Webinar: Bad Attitudes
March 12, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

In this episode of Utility Safety in Depth, host Kate Wade sits down with John “Scotty” MacNeill and Rena Harrington to explore the mission of the United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities (USMWF). They discuss the critical role USMWF plays in supporting families affected by workplace fatalities, advocating for stronger safety regulations, and raising awareness in the utility industry. With personal stories, industry insights, and a call to action, this conversation highlights the human impact of workplace safety failures and the importance of proactive prevention.

Key Takeaways:

✔️ The Mission of USMWF: How the organization supports families affected by workplace fatalities.

✔️ Bridging the Safety Gap: Why family members must be involved in post-incident investigations.

✔️ The Power of Storytelling: How sharing personal loss creates real change in workplace safety.

✔️ Advocacy & Legislation: Efforts to improve safety laws at the state and federal levels.

✔️ What Utility Companies Can Do: How organizations can collaborate with USMWF to make a difference.

USMWF’s MISSION

Offers support, guidance and resources to those affected by work-related injuries, illnesses or diseases. Dedicated to sharing lessons learned that leads a movement of change in promoting actions for safe and healthy working conditions. Through the collective voice of families of fallen workers and other activists, we strive for the elimination and controls of workplace hazards– therefore preventing future tragedies.

​

USMWF’s VISION STATEMENT

USMWF is an organized community of dedicated family member victims, a nationally recognized non-profit leader driving the transformation of the work environment to safe and healthy conditions for all employers and employees – both today and tomorrow.

Read the article in iP Magazine – Read Here

Visit https://www.usmwf.org/ to support The United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #LinemanLife #SafetyAdvocacy #StaySafe #USMWF

In this episode of Voice of Experience, Danny Raines, CUSP discusses the critical importance of mental awareness and focus in utility work. Using real-life accident investigations, he explores why experienced professionals sometimes repeat dangerous mistakes and how a “checkup from the neck up” can prevent incidents. From miscommunication in substations to lack of hazard recognition, this episode is packed with insights to improve safety culture and accountability in the field.

Key Takeaways:

• The Importance of Mental Awareness: How small lapses in judgment can lead to catastrophic accidents.
• The Role of Dedicated Observers: Why having a second set of eyes can prevent mistakes.
• Lessons from Incident Investigations: Real-world case studies of preventable accidents.
• Following Procedures & Training: Why workers revert to unsafe practices despite training.
• Taking Accountability: Leadership’s role in enforcing safety and stopping unsafe work.

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #LinemanLife #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #ElectricalSafety #SafetyCulture

Buckingham’s PeerCheck Lanyard Detection system is made to eliminate, minimize and prevent catastrophic accidents involving bucket ejections and detachment of man baskets from cranes. The PeerCheck is designed to alert the user if a lanyard becomes detached or if the user forgets to connect to the proper anchor point. The device is equipped with an audible alarm that will notify the user if these mishaps occur. The kit includes a PeerCheck unit, 40-inch obstruction lanyard, steel triple-action carabiner and Buckeye bucket hook with a tether hole.

The PeerCheck is inexpensive, straightforward, portable and transferable. A one-size-fits-all structure meant to be used with any bucket truck, the PeerCheck is a onetime cost aside from annual replacement of its 9-volt battery. https://buckinghammfg.com/products/peercheck/

The Quick Grab Probe is the ultimate hot-stick probe. The new, fully machined version improves upon this lineworker favorite, providing a stronger, more durable product while offering wider compatibility and better fuse handling. This tool is equipped with an industry-leading limited lifetime warranty. https://utilitysolutionsinc.com/product/quick-grab-probe/

In this episode of Voice of Experience, Danny Raines, CUSP discusses the critical importance of mental awareness and focus in utility work. Using real-life accident investigations, he explores why experienced professionals sometimes repeat dangerous mistakes and how a “checkup from the neck up” can prevent incidents. From miscommunication in substations to lack of hazard recognition, this episode is packed with insights to improve safety culture and accountability in the field.

Key Takeaways:

• The Importance of Mental Awareness: How small lapses in judgment can lead to catastrophic accidents.
• The Role of Dedicated Observers: Why having a second set of eyes can prevent mistakes.
• Lessons from Incident Investigations: Real-world case studies of preventable accidents.
• Following Procedures & Training: Why workers revert to unsafe practices despite training.
• Taking Accountability: Leadership’s role in enforcing safety and stopping unsafe work.

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #LinemanLife #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #ElectricalSafety #SafetyCulture

Join Danny Raines, CUSP, as he shares critical lessons learned from the field in this episode of The Voice of Experience. Danny dives into real-world incidents, including a tragic fatality and a near-miss, emphasizing the importance of testing and verifying in the utility safety industry. With decades of experience, Danny provides actionable insights to prevent accidents, improve safety protocols, and foster a culture of vigilance among utility professionals.

Key Takeaways:

1.Testing and Verifying Saves Lives: Never assume safety; always verify conditions to prevent catastrophic incidents.

2.Human Error Is Inevitable: Acknowledge that mistakes happen and take proactive steps to minimize risks.

3.The Power of Speaking Up: Encourage crews to challenge unsafe practices and prioritize safety over production.

4.Importance of Job Briefings: Thorough planning and hazard identification are critical to mitigating risks on-site.

4 Questions to learn from this podcast with Answers:

Q1: What is the primary cause of unsafe practices in the field?

A1: Assumptions and rushing to complete tasks often lead to neglecting crucial safety checks, like testing and verifying.

Q2: Why is “speaking up” vital in utility safety?

A2: It prevents potential accidents by addressing hazards early. Crew members should challenge unsafe practices without fear of backlash.

Q3: How can utility workers improve safety culture?

A3: By consistently practicing thorough job briefings, hazard identification, and compliance with safety regulations.

Q4: What role does leadership play in utility safety?

A4: Leaders must ensure oversight, provide proper training, and foster a culture where safety is prioritized over production.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvzc

#UtilitySafety #WorkSafe #CUSP #LinemanSafety #IncidentPrevention #SafetyLeadership

In this episode, safety consultant Danny Raines, CUSP, reflects on critical issues facing the utility industry, including safety practices, training gaps, and the persistent challenges of electrical fatalities. Danny delves into the importance of adhering to safety protocols, fostering a culture of accountability, and embracing innovation in personal protective equipment (PPE). Through stories from his career, Danny emphasizes the life-saving significance of vigilance and teamwork in high-risk environments.

Key Takeaways:

1.Window vs. Mirror Perspective: Evaluate whether you are self-reflective (mirror) or outward-focused (window) in safety practices.

2.“Learn-It-All” Mindset: Embrace a continuous learning approach over the “know-it-all” attitude.

3.The Numbers Don’t Lie: Despite advancements in PPE and training, electrical fatalities remain stagnant, demanding deeper industry introspection.

4.Accountability Saves Lives: The role of dedicated observers and adherence to safety protocols cannot be overstated.

5.A Culture of Safety: Building relationships and fostering open communication among crews enhance workplace safety.

6.Personal Responsibility: Safety isn’t just about individual choices—it impacts families and communities.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #ElectricalSafety #PPEInnovation #LinemanLife #SafetyCulture #DannyRaines

In this episode of The Voice of Experience, Danny Raines, CUSP, shares his invaluable insights from decades of storm work as a lineman and utility safety expert. From the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to modern-day storm recovery challenges, Danny takes us through the physical and mental toll of responding to natural disasters. He explains the dangers of backfeeds, the rise of alternative energy sources, and the importance of verifying safety before restoring power. Learn from his firsthand stories, safety lessons, and how the landscape of utility work has evolved over the years. Whether you’re in the utility industry or just curious about storm response, this episode offers a wealth of knowledge from one of the most respected professionals in the field.

Key Takeaways:

1. The dangers of storm work: Power restoration involves more than meets the eye, especially with evolving technology like solar panels and generators creating backfeed hazards.
2. Mental and physical challenges: Long hours, dangerous conditions, and the emotional impact of storm recovery can lead to severe fatigue and stress.
3. Importance of testing and verifying: Danny stresses the importance of safety procedures, especially when dealing with energized systems after a storm.
4. Stories from the field: Real-life experiences from Hurricane Katrina and other storms demonstrate the unpredictable nature of storm recovery.
5. Utility evolution: Changes in technology, regulations, and community expectations are reshaping the utility industry’s response to natural disasters.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #StormWork #HurricaneKatrina #LinemanLife #BackfeedDangers #MentalHealthMatters #TestAndVerify #PowerRestoration #StormRecovery #AlternativeEnergy #UtilityIndustry #SafetyFirst #DannyRaines #CUSP #ElectricGrid #DisasterResponse

Challenging the Status Quo: Rethinking Safety in the Utility Industry

Is safety truly the utility industry’s first priority? And is it even a real thing, or just a byproduct of something deeper? In this thought-provoking episode of Influencing Safety, Bill Martin, President and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC, joins host Kate Wade to challenge traditional views on safety. They explore the critical role of teamwork, communication, and human connection in fostering a truly safe work environment. Bill shares insights on the psychological factors that influence workplace culture, the hidden impact of mental health, and how shifting our focus from compliance to competency could change the game.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Safety isn’t just about compliance—it’s a byproduct of strong teamwork and communication.
✅ A psychologically safe work environment fosters better decision-making and fewer incidents.
✅ The traditional “safety first” mindset might be limiting our ability to create real change.
✅ Human connection and mental health are critical factors in workplace safety.
✅ Small changes, like pre-job huddles and open conversations, can have a major impact.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#WorkplaceSafety #UtilityIndustry #SafetyCulture #PsychologicalSafety #TeamworkMatters #LeadershipDevelopment #IncidentPrevention #CommunicationIsKey #CUSP #IncidentPrevention

In this episode of Utility Safety in Depth, host Kate Wade sits down with John “Scotty” MacNeill and Rena Harrington to explore the mission of the United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities (USMWF). They discuss the critical role USMWF plays in supporting families affected by workplace fatalities, advocating for stronger safety regulations, and raising awareness in the utility industry. With personal stories, industry insights, and a call to action, this conversation highlights the human impact of workplace safety failures and the importance of proactive prevention.

Key Takeaways:

✔️ The Mission of USMWF: How the organization supports families affected by workplace fatalities.

✔️ Bridging the Safety Gap: Why family members must be involved in post-incident investigations.

✔️ The Power of Storytelling: How sharing personal loss creates real change in workplace safety.

✔️ Advocacy & Legislation: Efforts to improve safety laws at the state and federal levels.

✔️ What Utility Companies Can Do: How organizations can collaborate with USMWF to make a difference.

USMWF’s MISSION

Offers support, guidance and resources to those affected by work-related injuries, illnesses or diseases. Dedicated to sharing lessons learned that leads a movement of change in promoting actions for safe and healthy working conditions. Through the collective voice of families of fallen workers and other activists, we strive for the elimination and controls of workplace hazards– therefore preventing future tragedies.

​

USMWF’s VISION STATEMENT

USMWF is an organized community of dedicated family member victims, a nationally recognized non-profit leader driving the transformation of the work environment to safe and healthy conditions for all employers and employees – both today and tomorrow.

Read the article in iP Magazine – Read Here

Visit https://www.usmwf.org/ to support The United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #LinemanLife #SafetyAdvocacy #StaySafe #USMWF

In this episode of the Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast, Kate Wade interviews Dr. Kevin Rindal, DC, chiropractor, human performance expert, and co-founder of Vimocity. Drawing from his extensive experience with the U.S. Olympic Swim Team and industrial athletes, Dr. Rindal shares insights on preventing soft tissue injuries, implementing dynamic warmup programs, and securing organizational buy-in for holistic well-being strategies. Learn how utilities can leverage sports medicine principles to enhance safety, reduce costs, and improve workers’ quality of life.

Key Takeaways

1. Industrial Athletes and Soft Tissue Injuries: How utility workers face similar physical demands to athletes and the role of dynamic preparation in reducing injury rates.
2. Proactive vs. Reactive Approaches: The importance of addressing leading indicators like pain to prevent more significant injuries or reliance on opioids and other pain mitigations.
3. Integration with Daily Routines: Methods to seamlessly incorporate warmups, muscle maintenance, and recovery into existing workflows, making it scalable for smaller organizations.
4. Leveraging Technology and Gamification: How apps, micro learning, and team challenges foster engagement and create sustainable safety habits.
5. Leadership and Culture: The critical role of leadership buy-in at all levels in making safety and well-being programs successful.

Connect with Kevin:

• LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinrindal/
• Email – kevin@vimocity.com

Resource Links:

• Short form job-task specific training video | LINK
• Dynamic/ Full-body movement routine (5 min or less) | LINK
• Avoid Slips, Trips and Falls video | LINK

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

#UtilitySafety #IndustrialAthletes #InjuryPrevention #Vimocity #WorkplaceWellbeing #DynamicWarmups

In this episode of Utility Safety In Depth, we delve into the fascinating concept of the 100th monkey effect and its implications for safety in the utility industry. Join us as we discuss how collective consciousness and human connection can drive significant improvements in safety culture and outcomes. We’ll explore practical strategies to foster a more caring and supportive work environment, emphasizing the importance of communication, empathy, and mutual respect. Discover how embracing the power of human connection can lead to a safer and more resilient workforce.

Key Takeaways:

• The 100th Monkey Effect: How collective consciousness can influence individual behavior.
• The importance of human connection in safety culture.
• Practical strategies to foster a more caring and supportive work environment.
• The power of communication, empathy, and mutual respect.
• The role of leadership in creating a positive safety culture.

#utilitiesafety #safetyculture #humanconnection #100thmonkeyeffect #workplacewellbeing #safetyleadership #utilityindustry

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Are you tired of hearing the same safety jargon without seeing real change? Join Bill Martin, President and CEO of think Tank Project, LLC, and Kate Wade, Editor of Incident Prevention magazine, as they dive deep into the root causes of workplace injuries and fatalities. Discover how to move beyond motivation and empty slogans to create a truly safe and connected work environment.

Key Takeaways from this podcast:

• Importance of Synchronization: The way forward in safety management involves creating a synchronized workforce where everyone is connected on a deeper level. Synchronization allows for better communication and understanding, reducing the chances of injuries and accidents.
• Action Over Motivation: Motivational speeches and slogans alone are insufficient to bring about real change in workplace safety. There needs to be actionable steps that translate motivation into tangible improvements on the ground.
• Understanding Human Behavior: The podcast emphasizes that much of human behavior is automatic, driven by the brain’s need to conserve energy. Safety programs should account for this by focusing on changing automatic behaviors rather than expecting constant vigilance.
• The Role of Leadership: Effective leadership is about asking the right questions and involving workers in safety decisions. Leaders should model the behavior they want to see and create environments that encourage participation and ownership of safety practices.
• Continuous Learning and Experimentation: The podcast suggests that safety improvements should be approached as ongoing experiments, where teams try out new ideas, evaluate their effectiveness, and adjust accordingly.
• Dealing with Resistance: Resistance to change is natural, especially in large organizations with many layers. The podcast highlights the importance of addressing this resistance by aligning everyone around common goals and encouraging openness to new ideas.
• Mental and Emotional Health: Addressing mental health issues, such as addiction and depression, is crucial for creating a safe work environment. A connected and supportive team can help identify and mitigate these risks.
• Practical Applications: The podcast concludes with a call to action—what small, tangible change can be implemented on Monday to make the workplace safer? It’s about translating ideas into real-world actions that have a measurable impact.

#safetyculture #workplaceinjury #safetymanagement #safetyleadership #industrialaccidents #safetytraining #safetytips #safetypodcast #accidentprevention #riskmanagement

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Welcome to Incident Prevention’s Utility Safety Podcast, hosted by Kate Wade, editor of Incident Prevention magazine. In this episode, Kate sits down with Scott Francis, the technical sales manager for Westex, a Milliken brand renowned for pioneering protective textiles since 1941. Scott brings decades of experience in the safety industry, especially in the flame-resistant and arc-rated clothing markets.

During this insightful discussion, Scott shares his expertise on the latest advancements in flame-resistant and arc-rated apparel, the importance of live demonstrations, and how Westex is leading the way in educating safety professionals. He also touches on the challenges of balancing cost and safety standards, and the critical role of comfort in ensuring protective clothing is worn consistently.

Whether you’re a safety manager looking to enhance your PPE program or simply interested in the latest trends in utility safety apparel, this episode is packed with valuable information.

Key Takeaways:

1. Impact of Live Demonstrations: Live flash fire and arc flash events leave a lasting impression, helping safety professionals understand the severity of thermal hazards.
2. Survivor Stories: Hearing from thermal exposure survivors like Brad Livingston emphasizes the real-life consequences of not wearing proper PPE.
3. Education and Training: Westex offers extensive educational resources, including webinars, regional safety conferences, and online materials to keep safety managers informed.
4. Balancing Cost and Safety: The competitive landscape in flame-resistant fabric manufacturing drives innovation and helps maintain affordable prices without compromising safety.
5. Comfort Equals Protection: Comfortable PPE is more likely to be worn consistently, directly impacting worker safety.

#UtilitySafety #FlameResistantClothing #ArcRatedApparel #PPE #WorkplaceSafety #SafetyPodcast #IncidentPrevention

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine – https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo – https://utilitysafetyconference.com/