This series explores five personal practices of safety excellence, including steps each of us can take to become as safe as possible.  

The first article in the series was a reminder that we have personal accountability and agency in safety – enough to stop work and even walk off the job if conditions are unsafe. We focused on mental preparation in the second article, exploring how our impulsive tendencies influence performance under pressure. Article three examined spiritual health, which requires each of us to develop a personal system to ensure that our work aligns with our deeply held notions of purpose, meaning and contribution. The fourth article covered physiological readiness for hazardous work because we want to be at our best on a storm call at 3:30 a.m.

Now, in this fifth and final article, we’ll examine the importance of striving for vocational mastery. We begin taking too much for granted and become less safe when we are not habitually oriented toward learning. Achieving mastery is in our best interest.

Safety is often discussed as a system: policies, procedures, training and equipment. These things matter, but in hazardous work environments, systems alone are not enough.

That’s because at some point, every worker makes independent decisions, such as whether to slow down, ask a question, double-check a step or speak up when something feels wrong. An individual’s choices are influenced by their technical skill but also by their discipline, humility, physical health, mindset and character. Ultimately, safety is personal.

Individuals who achieve mastery over their work become safer, more confident employees. They develop keen awareness of job-related risks, enhance team culture and serve as role models for other employees. Consider that the level of mastery each crew member achieves directly correlates to the rate at which the entire crew goes home safely after each shift. In a chain of competence, none of us wants to be the weak link.

When I served as a system operator for Southern California Edison, complicated switching was required to safely conduct work in the Long Beach district’s dense underground network. A company foreman, Ron, was truly masterful at preparing our preliminary switching programs, often hand-carrying them to us so that we could walk through every step as a group before preparing the formal program. Ron taught us constantly, and each member of our perpetually young and relatively junior crew looked forward to his tutelage. He understood planning, engineering, switching, customers, traffic requirements and safety risks. Ron’s vocational mastery set the standard for me, and I worked hard to meet it.

The Journey Begins
Our journey to mastery kicks off with a single step: deciding that we want to become masterful for the right reasons, which helps to ensure a healthy mindset. No one likes a know-it-all; conversely, nearly everyone is willing to help a humble, earnest learner continue their personal and professional development.

Rigorous self-analysis is next. We must honestly identify the areas in which we are vocationally weak based on both our historical work performance and the quiet inner voice that says, “We’re just kind of guessing” about how to execute certain tasks. Self-assessment matters because it reflects our own sense of preparedness. Progress begins when we tell ourselves the truth.

A third practical step is to revisit our old learning resources. These items could include journeyman exams, planner training materials or professional engineer study guides.

Finding Motivation
Once our initial vocational training is complete, we tend to slow or even stop our learning, assuming time on the job will carry us to mastery. But we are either deliberately pursuing growth or limiting our development. Given the utility industry’s persistent serious injury and fatality statistics, we cannot afford to remain intellectually stagnant.

Motivation to continue our education is often derived from behavior modeled by others. In the U.S. Navy, power plants, the field, engineering, training, the classroom and every department I have worked in, one or two individuals were always truly masterful, setting an example for me to emulate. Earlier I mentioned Ron, the foreman, but he was not the only one.

Terry was a control operator at the now-shuttered Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada, a 1,580-megawatt coal-fired power plant with extreme operating parameters, including 3,000-psi main steam pressure. He had read the books, understood the theory and was deeply familiar with every device in the complex facility. During our time working together, Terry always commanded great respect for his knowledge and competence and was frequently asked to provide input and assistance regarding plant operations. Tragically, he died while attempting to rescue fellow operators trapped in the facility’s control room after a massive steam leak.

External Recognition
External recognition can be another source of motivation. Once, a client asked if I was certified in safety. When I told him no, he asked, “Why not? Doesn’t it strike you as a good idea, or do you think you know everything already?”

That question gave me great pause. Then I decided to act, recognizing that everyone who works in a utility environment should be a safety expert, not just lineworkers and safety staff.

When I eventually discovered the Certified Utility Safety Professional (CUSP) program (see https://usoln.org/cusp-certification/), I initially assumed I could pass the exam with flying colors that same day. After all, utility safety work is my bread and butter. Now, however, I am embarrassed to admit that there was absolutely no way I could have passed the test that day.

Others had already taken care of the hard parts: identifying the essential knowledge that every utility safety professional should possess, creating the CUSP exam and developing the online preparation tool. I merely had to pay a fee, follow the study path and take the exam. So, after eating some humble pie, I launched a self-defined learning project, working through the CUSP program to earn the credential and redeem myself in my client’s eyes. The experience was difficult, but I learned a great deal. Perhaps my most important takeaway was that until I truly tested myself, I could not guarantee that my vocational confidence was justified.

Self-Preservation, Moral Obligation
Vocational mastery is a continuous act of self-preservation that demands honest assessment, thorough research, thoughtful planning, and a willingness to pursue development opportunities as efficiently as possible. Further, mastery is a moral obligation (recall the moral code addressed in article three); our continuous learning enhances the team’s overall competence and safety.

To become masterful, each of us must establish a series of learning projects that fit within the realities of our lives. Although some individuals will naturally progress faster than others, the goal here is to cultivate a consistent orientation toward learning. The more we understand across different dimensions, the safer we can become.

Conclusion
This series has fundamentally been about safeguarding ourselves and our teammates despite risk, not determining blame for incidents and injuries. When we commit to working for an employer, we agree to accept the system as it is currently constructed, which may not always provide us with adequate protection. Thus, we must take every possible measure to guard our personal safety while management continues striving to fix the system.

The five articles in this series are designed to help readers do just that. My overarching hope is that they encourage you to think more broadly about safety – not only in terms of compliance but as a lifelong commitment to taking personal accountability, honing our mental acuity, and becoming more spiritually grounded, physically prepared and professionally masterful.

About the Author: Tom Cohenno, Ed.D., CSP, CUSP, NBC-HWC, is a recognized safety expert and principal of Applied Learning Science (https://appliedlearningscience.com). With deep academic and operational experience as a U.S. Navy veteran, substation chief and former utility executive, he blends real-world insight with evidence-based research to deliver practical, impactful safety solutions.

*****

Sidebar: 4 Important Reminders

1. We develop vocational mastery because we want to be as safe as possible. Although creativity and initiative may be required, someone who genuinely wants to learn and improve can almost always find opportunities to do so.

2. True vocational masters thoroughly understand adjacent jobs. A lineman who learns why we arrange electrical components in specific configurations, for instance, begins to understand that what may initially appear illogical could in fact reflect the realities of clearance requirements, anticipated load growth and/or material constraints. This is valuable knowledge as the lineman encounters new field environments.

Similarly, a worker strengthens their overall competence as they become educated about operator switching, relay functionality and even how to manually operate a station during an emergency. A basic understanding of distribution engineering is equally beneficial. How are conductor sizes chosen to avoid unacceptable voltage drop? What’s the ideal way to determine circuit lengths? How are sectionalizing switches coordinated with backup circuits?

3. We must seek out individuals one or two levels above us who possess hard-earned knowledge (e.g., senior foremen, experienced supervisors). Inquire about their personal learning journeys and what has shaped their judgment. Additional worthwhile discussion topics include hazard prediction and recognition; job briefings; human performance basics; coping with time and storm pressures; and effective stakeholder communication.

4. Deliberately seeking this kind of knowledge is neither automatic nor common. Nevertheless, until we eliminate lineworker fatalities, it is prudent for each of us to develop a strong personal commitment to continuous learning.

Transmission line construction is one of the most complex and politically sensitive infrastructure endeavors in the United States. Crews routinely work across dozens and sometimes hundreds of distinct land parcels, navigating a patchwork of easement rights, property histories and landowner temperaments. What happens when that navigation breaks down isn’t always a polite conversation at the fence line.

In one documented incident in the Upper Midwest, a 12-member utility project team conducting a formal, scheduled right-of-way walkdown was confronted by a landowner wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a rifle. Police were called and ultimately resolved the standoff, clarifying that the crew was accessing utility property. This encounter was prompted by a pipeline contractor who had worked in the same corridor the year before; their employees did not use access mats, tore up the property and left it unrestored. In essence, the new project team paid the price for the previous team’s errors.

In a second incident that also occurred in the Upper Midwest, a utility project manager directed a site access contractor to cross a private landowner’s property to reach a transmission line right-of-way. The project manager believed that landowner engagement had occurred and access had been arranged. This was not the case. The contractor’s vehicles were stopped mid-property by the landowner, who refused to let them move, effectively ceasing work until police intervened.

No Anomalies Here
These incidents are not anomalies. Across the country, utility field crews regularly encounter unhappy landowners, some of whom are carrying weapons. Earlier this year, two Los Angeles Department of Water and Power field employees were threatened at gunpoint by a customer while attempting to perform a scheduled water shutoff (see https://ladwpnews.com/ladwp-urges-customers-to-treat-utility-workers-with-respect-and-kindness-as-they-perform-essential-functions/). In an older case, a Pennsylvania business owner drew a pistol on contractors working in a right-of-way, ordering them off the property despite having signed an access agreement with the contracting firm; he was charged with several crimes, including aggravated assault and terroristic threats (see www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/new-castle-business-owner-accused-of-pulling-gun-on-sewer-workers/).

No single federal database tracks landowner-versus-utility-worker confrontations as a discrete category, but the broader data is sobering. From 2015 to 2019, for instance, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported an annual average of 1.3 million nonfatal workplace violent victimizations (see https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/federal-agencies-release-joint-study-workplace-violence). Industry employers must understand that (1) field employees face elevated harm risk when working in remote or isolated locations on or near private property and (2) poor communication with landowners plays a significant role in triggering these encounters.

Failure Modes
The incidents described above illustrate the two most common failure modes with respect to landowner engagement: inherited distrust, such as when a previous contractor’s poor conduct poisons landowner perceptions, and assumed engagement (e.g., a project manager erroneously believes communication has occurred, an assumption that travels down the chain of command until it hits a locked gate).

Boundary confusion is a less dramatic but equally disruptive third failure mode. Some landowners do not fully grasp the distinction between their property and a utility’s right-of-way, even if they have lived alongside an easement for decades. Failing to proactively clarify this distinction with the landowner is a recipe for confrontation.

Best Practices
Given the significant issues that can arise in lieu of effective landowner engagement, utility organizations that haven’t already would be wise to develop an engagement program that incorporates these six best practices.

1. Engage early and in person. Written notices satisfy legal requirements, but they may not satisfy or even reach landowners. A phone call or doorstep conversation before work begins is the best way to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings. Explain who will be on-site, the equipment that will be used, how long the work will take and how the property will be restored. Landowners who understand project details are far less likely to interpret crew vehicles on the right-of-way as trespassing.

2. Document everything. The standoff in the second incident above began because a project manager believed landowner engagement had occurred. For any project that involves access across or near private land, engagement should be documented in writing with the same rigor as permitting. Include the name of the person who was contacted, the date, the information communicated and what was agreed to. This should be done before any crew members enter the field.

3. Acknowledge and address prior contractor damage. If a corridor has seen previous utility or pipeline activity, especially activity that left property in poor condition, the current project team should proactively acknowledge that history. Arriving on-site with a clear commitment to land protection, including use of access mats to prevent rutting and compaction, signals that this project will be different.

4. Plainly clarify rights and boundaries. Landowners do not always know where their property ends and the utility’s property begins. Any engagement conversation should include a plain-language explanation of the right-of-way: what it is, what rights the utility holds within it and what that means for the landowner’s day-to-day access. This basic transparency helps to prevent misunderstandings that could escalate into confrontation.

5. Commit to restoration and follow through. Landowners burned by prior contractors will be watching your workers. The fastest way to rebuild trust is to leave property in better condition than you found it. Specific commitments regarding restoration timelines, soil stabilization and any damage remediation should be part of every landowner engagement conversation. Critically, these commitments must be tracked and met.

6. Assign a single point of contact. Landowners who have questions or concerns during active construction need to know who to call. An employer that appoints a dedicated landowner liaison – with a real phone number and authority to respond – greatly reduces the likelihood of a frustrated property owner showing up at a jobsite to resolve things themselves.

Conclusion
The transmission buildout underway across the U.S. is historic in scale, with Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. (MISO) alone approving more than 5,000 miles of new transmission corridors in December 2024 (see www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/miso-board-approves-historic-transmission-plan-strengthen-grid-reliability). Thousands of landowner interactions are still to come. Employers must recognize that the time, legal exposure and reputational damage from a single armed standoff or police intervention could vastly exceed the cost of a robust landowner engagement program.

Even more importantly, effective engagement helps to ensure utility crews can move through corridors freely and safely. Our industry’s workers deserve better than to inherit risk that a simple phone call could have prevented.

About the Author: Levi Frost is vice president of construction services for Sterling Solutions (https://sterlingsolutions.com), a manufacturer and installer of site access mats.

Walk through any industrial environment and you’ll hear familiar messaging: “Be proactive.” “Own safety.” “Follow the procedure.” Then step into the boardroom, where the conversation shifts to yield, uptime, injuries and cost.

We coach people on behaviors yet judge them based on outcomes, sending mixed signals to the frontline workers at the sharp end of the stick. People tend to rally faster and stay aligned longer when we direct them toward a clear goal and support it with a few nonnegotiable guidelines or guardrails. Most disappointment lies within the gap between what leaders expected and what they made clear and achievable and reinforced to workers.

This isn’t an argument against coaching behavior; it’s encouragement to design expectations so that the right behavior becomes the worker’s safest and easiest choice. Human beings naturally think in terms of outcomes. Crews can visualize a target like “first-pass yield at 98%,” “no loss of containment” or “pressure steady at 40-45 psi.” Comparatively, “be proactive,” “own safety” and “follow the procedure” are broad phrases that ultimately break down into dozens of judgment calls. Experienced workers can interpret them differently when stress, aging equipment or limited staff availability is a factor. Drift occurs, debates multiply, and blame begins to look for a place to land. Naturally, behavior still matters, aligning much more quickly when it’s anchored to a concrete outcome and protected by a few clear guidelines that every worker understands.

Resolving Disappointment
For our purposes, disappointment equates to actual performance minus expected performance. It becomes inevitable when expectations are vague, impossible or under-resourced, appearing as rework, near misses and shortcuts that gradually become normalized under the banner of “getting ’er done.” The more generic leadership’s guidance is, the greater the gaps between how work is imagined, directed and actually performed.

Consider this familiar scenario: The words “Zero Recordables” prominently displayed on company banners and dashboards. Management’s goal is clear – to keep the streak going – but the behaviors and systems necessary to achieve it are not. In lieu of clarity, supervisors begin to minimize minor injuries and discourage workers from reporting gray-area events. Later, when a contractor needs stitches, three earlier near misses suddenly come to light.

The leadership solution here isn’t to abandon the goal but to establish and communicate clear boundaries: no hiding or reclassifying incidents, all incidents must be reported within 24 hours, and each one must be investigated for systemic causes. Typically, reporting will increase and then eventually decrease as systems and conditions improve (i.e., recordables will drop for the right reasons).

Theater or Performance Management?
Behavior is a byproduct of influence, which is one reason why it’s ineffective to solely focus on changing it. Here’s another reason: Broadly or vaguely defined behaviors carry an ambiguity tax. Without translation, people improvise, and they do so differently. Behavior often gets distorted once it’s turned into a target; workers tend to focus on the number or specific goal they’ve been instructed to achieve rather than how they will achieve it. Thus, while it may sometimes seem easier to correct people than fix systems, over time, that choice largely results in meaningless theater – not true performance management.

To design expectations that won’t lead to disappointment, begin by communicating in system states, not slogans. “Hold suction pressure between 40 and 45 psi during transfer,” for example, provides workers far more clarity than “Keep it steady.” “No energized work without verified isolation” conveys more detail than “Work safely.” From there, pair each expectation with two kinds of protection: the behavioral lines we won’t cross (e.g., no work above 4 feet without full tie-off, period) and the resources that must be present before we start (e.g., work shall not begin if anchor points or lifelines are missing). Stated goals tell us what we’re after; the protective measures we implement define how we get there.

Collaboration and Ownership
Translating broad or vague ideas ideally occurs where the work takes place. Sit with your team to turn each one into clear expectations. For instance, when working on a specific tank, the team may collaboratively define “speaking up” as (1) stopping if the gas reading exceeds X ppm, (2) calling Control, and (3) resuming work only after receiving clearance to do so.

Next, select leading indicators that truly impact exposure, such as physical barrier inspections and independent valve checks. Be sure to thoroughly test all targets before setting them in stone. If bending the rules is the only way to reach them, you won’t achieve excellence. Add buffers, capacity or staffing instead.

Accountability Done Right
Accountability demands the same careful design, working best when measures are implemented early and fairly using a layered approach.

Start with leaders: Have guardrails and expected results been clearly communicated to workers in operational language? Have leaders allocated ample time, tools and staffing? Are any incentives subtly promoting the wrong trade-offs? Accountability begins at the top.

Examine the system next: Is the work process truly feasible under real-world conditions? Have controls been integrated, with PPE as the last line of defense? Can workers quickly escalate problems without issue?

Then, assess the team: Do they translate expectations into specific standards suited to their context? Stop and escalate when a guardrail can’t be met? Implement learning loops that lead to actual improvements? Only now do we evaluate the individual, and fairness is essential. Human errors require support and system improvements. At-risk behaviors call for coaching and safer conditions. Reckless actions (e.g., knowingly bypassing critical controls) merit proportionate consequences.

Make It Tangible
To make a lasting impact using this approach, develop one-page expectation briefs for every critical outcome. Each brief should specify the overarching goal and include details about guardrails, resources, known traps, error precursors, and stop-work or pause-work triggers. When work is complete, check for fidelity to the guardrails and resource availability, not just whether a number or metric has changed. Consider both the work results and all evidence that employees upheld the guardrails while doing the work. Publicly support schedule delays when a worker invokes a guardrail. We must be willing to celebrate a missed target when someone refuses a bad trade-off. This is how you teach real expectations and pursue excellence.

Many safety failures are easy to understand when viewed from this perspective. “Zero harm” is an endless promise wrapped into a limited time frame. Lack of clear design goals, such as avoiding single-point energy vulnerabilities, can prompt people to hide issues. Observation programs are useful only when they result in changes to the design, tools, staffing or training; otherwise, they’re just paperwork. Also note that many “leading” indicators are in fact misleading. Counting conversations rarely influences hazard trends, for example, while independently verifying high-energy isolations before starting work often does.

Leaders must clearly communicate the trade-offs they will never accept and allocate the time needed to keep those commitments credible. This means observing work firsthand. While on-site, ask, “When did a guardrail last stop an issue, and what happened next?” and then recognize that decision. In addition, consistently share stories of people who protected a guardrail and earned leadership support. Stories are how a culture updates its operating system.

Conclusion
Traditional ideas suggest that clearly defining the right worker behaviors will lead to desired results. Experience proves the opposite. A safer way forward begins when leaders define optimal results as specific system states. Clearly communicate the trade-offs you won’t accept. Allocate resources to those constraints. Hold leaders and teams accountable for respecting the plan’s design.

When we set specific expectations for results and provide clear guidance, guardrails and resources, the right behaviors naturally develop as the normal, effortless way to work. Disappointment shrinks to the size of your next learning opportunity. And performance becomes what it was meant to be all along: not just luck but a deliberate outcome.

This is how you make safety the easy choice.

About the Author: Shawn M. Galloway is CEO of ProAct Safety (https://proactsafety.com) and a globally recognized adviser on safety strategy, leadership and organizational performance. For nearly three decades, he has helped executive teams build the capacity to prevent harm, recover from disruptions and integrate safety as a key driver of business value. Galloway has also written multiple bestselling books and hosts the Safety Culture Excellence podcast.

The concept of mental toughness has long been embedded in high-risk industries. Workers are often taught to push through adversity, remain focused under pressure and get the job done regardless of circumstances. Utility crews, construction teams, first responders, military personnel and countless others routinely face demanding conditions that require determination, discipline and perseverance.

The ability to stay focused during difficult situations is undeniably valuable; it has helped workers perform well for generations. A challenge arises, however, when mental toughness is deemed the only acceptable response to adversity. Organizations that overemphasize toughness can inadvertently create a mental trap: the belief that high performers should be able to absorb unlimited stress, independently adapt to every challenge and continue performing without interruption. The reality is quite different. Human performance is defined not by an individual’s ability to endure endless pressure but the capacity to adapt, recover, learn and continue functioning effectively in changing conditions.

In other words, human performance depends on resilience.

Beyond Wellness Initiatives
Unfortunately, resilience can be misunderstood, with employers often categorizing it as a component of wellness initiatives, employee assistance programs or personal development training. Such framing may unintentionally suggest that resilience is primarily about emotional well-being or stress management. But from a human performance perspective, it is much more than that. Resilience is the capacity to adequately respond to disruption, uncertainty, complexity and unexpected challenges. It enables us to adjust when conditions change, recover when things do not go according to plan and continue moving forward without becoming overwhelmed by setbacks.

Frontline workers demonstrate resilience every day. For example, a utility crew responds to storm damage after working extended shifts. A supervisor manages competing operational demands while maintaining safety expectations. A construction team adapts when weather conditions force alterations to the work plan. None of these situations can be sufficiently addressed through procedures alone. Each one requires people to assess conditions, solve problems, communicate effectively and adapt to changing realities, which are human performance activities, not wellness activities. In many respects, resilience is one of the most important performance tools available to frontline workers.

The Mental Toughness Trap
The mental toughness trap emerges when workers begin to view adaptation as a sign of weakness. Some employees have been conditioned to believe that asking for help reflects professional incompetence. Thus, they may hesitate to admit fatigue, difficulty or uncertainty; choose to push through changing conditions rather than discuss concerns; and continue operating under increasing strain until their performance deteriorates. In a twist of irony, the pursuit of toughness could undermine good performance.

We know that human beings are not machines. Our performance naturally fluctuates as conditions change. Workload, environmental factors, fatigue, unexpected complications and competing priorities influence decision-making and efficacy. Resilient workers recognize these realities and respond accordingly. They acknowledge challenges instead of pretending they do not exist, actively adjust their approach rather than relying solely on determination, and view adaptation as a normal and necessary part of successful performance. These distinctions matter because although resilience is partly about bouncing back after adversity, it is also about maintaining functionality as adversity is occurring.

Cultivating Resilience
Frontline workers can cultivate resilience through several practical behaviors, including maintaining situational awareness of personal performance. They can monitor their capacity just as they monitor equipment conditions. Recognizing internal states (e.g., frustration, fatigue, distraction) as they occur enables workers to make adjustments before their performance degrades.

However, cultivation requires more than individual effort. High-performing teams understand that resilience is often a collective capability. As such, team members should consider one another performance resources, sharing knowledge, cross-checking decisions, identifying blind spots and offering support. Resilient teams are not necessarily those with the biggest muscles, but they almost always include workers who have learned to rely on one another.

In addition, resilience depends on adaptive capacity. Because field conditions rarely unfold exactly as planned, workers who continually ask, “What has changed?” and “What do we need to adjust?” are better positioned to respond when unexpected situations arise. Adaptation should not be viewed as a deviation from performance; it is performance.

Equally significant is learning from typical work. Many organizations exclusively study incidents and failures, but resilient workers also examine successes, paying attention to the adjustments, workarounds and problem-solving strategies that have helped them navigate everyday challenges. This understanding is a valuable tool to guide future performance.

Perhaps most importantly, resilient workers understand that seeking assistance is a performance strategy. The most capable crews are rarely those who suffer in silence. They communicate openly, quickly identify emerging challenges and collaborate to overcome them. Crew strength grows through their effective responses to adversity.

Organizations, too, have an important role to play. Employers must create environments that support adaptation, which means encouraging and modeling good communication; eliminating or reducing unnecessary barriers to reporting concerns; recognizing learning opportunities; and viewing human variability as a resource rather than a problem. Employers that focus exclusively on fostering toughness may unintentionally encourage workers to conceal the very information needed to maintain safe and effective performance. When organizations promote resilience instead, they encourage workers to recognize challenges, communicate openly and successfully adapt.

Conclusion
The future of safety and operational excellence depends in large part on developing workers who can navigate complexity, uncertainty and change. While mental toughness will always have value, we must recognize that consistently high-performing individuals are those who have also developed the capacity to adapt to adversity, learn and recover from it, and continue moving forward.

About the Author: Gina Vanderlin, CSP, CHMM, CIT, CUSP, is the customer operations health and safety program manager at PSEG Long Island. With over 15 years of experience leading EHS initiatives in high-reliability industries, she remains passionate about elevating safety from a compliance function to a strategic driver of culture, engagement and operational excellence. Reach Vanderlin at gina.vanderlin@psegliny.com.

At NASCAR’s Talladega Superspeedway, Daytona International Speedway and Pocono Raceway, there is always talk of “The Big One” – a wreck that often characterizes the three-hour, 200-mph, 40-car races on three-lane-wide ovals. Of course, The Big One doesn’t happen at every race, which could be due to luck or preparation, planning and skill. When it does happen, human error is almost always the cause. Sometimes, The Big One injures or kills people who were simply trying to do their jobs.

Whether you’re a NASCAR fan or not, you’ve probably noticed some parallels between racing and utility work. Our intense, fast-paced industry employs skilled craftspeople. Operator skills are complemented by specialized equipment designed with safety in mind. We’ve implemented systems to mitigate injuries should an incident occur. Yet there are also obvious differences between racing cars and building and maintaining power lines. One big difference is that neither OSHA representatives nor attorneys show up at a racetrack after a collision.

As a utility industry consultant who has provided expert witness services for over 20 years, mostly for defendants, I am frequently deposed by lawyers and questioned by judges after The Big One happens. My role is to clearly and comprehensively explain work methods, training criteria, statutory requirements, and the incident’s root causes and conditions so that lawyers, judges and juries understand them.

Few Exceptions
With few exceptions, my experience indicates that most employers are unprepared for The Big One, especially in terms of defending themselves during OSHA proceedings and civil lawsuits. For example, I worked on a fatality case several years ago in which OSHA and the deceased employee’s family accused the employer of negligence. When I visited the jobsite the day after the incident to investigate with the OSHA Certified Safety and Health Official (CSHO), he was very forthcoming, telling me, “I hate to see an employer do everything right and end up with a fatal incident due to employee misconduct.”

OSHA’s regional director did not see things the same way, rejecting the CSHO’s findings and citing the employer for six violations. Four were outrageously misapplied; two were complicated but defensible. Because the employer was a contractor, the company’s insurer immediately terminated their policy. It took a year for the case to wend its way to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which makes final determinations regarding employer-contested OSHA citations. A year after that, we were litigating the negligent death claim in superior court.

The employer successfully defended themselves in both cases. The reality is that they were striving to do everything right: investing in safety training for frontline crews, assigning a robust safety group to every jobsite and committing additional resources to supervisor training.

Readers should note that this is one instance among many. An accidental death is a horrible event commonly exacerbated by legal blowback that drags on for years. Trial lawyers can be harsh when examining a deceased employee’s former coworkers. The good news is that most of the issues I see are common, which means employers can largely avoid legal blowback with the right preparation.

And lest you think this discussion is solely about protecting employers, “Employer and employee, protect one well and both win” is a maxim I have taught for years. An employer that complies with OSHA standards and all other legal requirements creates a safe workplace for the employee. In turn, adequately protecting employees shields the employer from unfounded accusations of negligence or noncompliance.

Closing and Informal Conferences
It is in your best interest to learn everything you can about OSHA, especially how the agency operates and what to expect if they visit your jobsite. Informed employers often nip trouble in the bud because they know which questions OSHA will ask, the documentation that will be requested and the regulatory language that drives the agency’s expectations. Knowing OSHA gives you a good shot at clearing up misunderstandings at the on-site closing conference. If that doesn’t happen, you’ll have another chance at the informal conference, which brings together lawyers and consultants with deep knowledge of OSHA standards.

Do not allow fear to prevent you from contesting local OSHA actions. Although the agency’s standards are fair and their procedures are effective, they are enforced by human beings – who naturally make mistakes. Always request an informal conference and retain an experienced lawyer or consultant to represent you. In my own consulting work, I have spent hours conducting research and delivering testimony to prove that certain uncontested OSHA actions were misapplied or even contravened the agency’s own policies and interpretations.

An informal conference takes place before the OSHA regional director and aligns with the agency’s directives to regional directors contained in the Field Operations Manual (see www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-164). It is your first post-citation opportunity to explain why the citation was issued in error, present supporting evidence and argue your case. Again, don’t pass up this conference, and be sure to prepare for it, which includes understanding the relevant OSHA rules.

Supervisor Training
Even the most perfectly devised employer policies are rendered useless if supervisors don’t own them. Here’s something to consider: How many of your supervisors could pass a basic test on OSHA’s requirements for the following: gas welding and cutting; PPE use; equipment operation; powder-actuated tools; respiratory and hearing protection; fall protection; hazard communication; electrical safety; trench and confined space safety; emergency action plans; fire protection; ropes, chains and slings; hazardous atmospheres; switching and tagging; equipotential grounding; and insulate/isolate work methods?

During litigation, lawyers will almost certainly spend more time deposing your crew supervisors than any other company officials. These supervisors are worth every training dollar we spend.

Tailboard Effectiveness
I have heard it said – and I agree – that a written tailboard form never made a job safer. Employees relate to quality discussion and the overall tailboard meeting experience; that’s what influences safe job performance. Still, during litigation, I have spent more time examining scribbles, jots, tittles and notes on tailboard reports than I have examining just about any other exhibit. I have also witnessed OSHA experts state under oath that they can tell whether a tailboard process was ineffective based on the notes written on the associated report.

During an incident investigation, my preferred approach is to request and review the employer’s tailboard forms for the last five weeks. I’ve gotten pretty good at imagining crew discussions, but I gain a better understanding of tailboard quality by interviewing crew members.

OSHA operates in a similar fashion. You may have noticed that the agency does not require employers to maintain records of tailboard forms or job hazard analyses (JHAs), recognizing that they do not fully capture crew conversations. To use the forms effectively, I frequently advise employers to establish a written tailboard policy. Develop a form that effectively guides the conversation; require forms to be submitted each day; task supervisors with reviewing them and following up on questions; and then discard the forms at week’s end. Yes, I know this might sound somewhat preposterous. I know OSHA will ask for JHAs when they arrive on-site. But I also know that if you explain your policy and tell OSHA you don’t keep the forms, they won’t mention them again. They’ll simply ask each employee they interview about the daily pre-job safety meeting.

Contemporary tailboard meetings that (1) are based on the hazard analysis wheel and (2) capture video of the tailboard process have improved meeting quality – and they don’t require any forms to be completed. Just remember that you will have to defend any records you keep. So, train personnel to properly execute hazard analyses and fill out all forms with the goal of making them valuable safety tools. A good JHA program is one you likely won’t have to defend in court.

Employee Training
Two different lawsuits I am currently consulting on focus on incidents in which a non-utility construction worker was killed due to contact with an energized power line. During the depositions, we learned that the deceased workers each had over 20 years of craft experience; however, neither was fluent in English. They didn’t know that their next move was going to end their lives.

These are extreme cases, but the point still stands: Your employees must be skilled at their craft and in safety. I have investigated numerous fatalities at this point in my career and still find myself amazed by certain events that have transpired. The companies involved weren’t fly-by-night contractors either. They were investor-owned utilities, municipals, cooperatives and well-known national contractors.

It doesn’t matter why things are this way; what matters is fixing them. Following OSHA’s safety training guidelines means your crew members won’t be forced to sit through five hours of depositions and two hours in court explaining why they didn’t know this or that. With well-trained workers, there’s little chance The Big One will happen at all.

Final Remarks
There’s one question I always try to answer when auditing an employer’s safety program: Is their frequency rate about luck and managing data, or have they developed a strong safety culture built on good training, good supervision and good work practices? All of us must ask the same question of our own employers – because luck eventually runs out.

In closing, I advise all utility safety professionals to read extensively. Learn everything there is to know about OSHA and our industry’s acceptable work practices. Then, teach your frontline supervisors and managers everything you know. Hopefully the next time I see you at the jobsite, we’ll be discussing workforce training, not how to defend yourself in court against a multimillion-dollar claim.

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.

I’m so pleased that we now have various social media platforms to recognize lineworkers for the critical services they provide, not to mention the sacrifices they make to do so. When I worked storms in the 1960s and ’70s, my crewmates and I rarely received more than the occasional note of appreciation from a customer, tucked inside our paycheck envelopes. It wasn’t difficult to feel unappreciated given the time we spent away from our families helping to restore power for others. Today we live in a different world. More than once, I’ve found myself wishing we had a social media outlet during my early days in the trade.

One thing that hasn’t changed since the ’70s is that lineworkers still love to talk and boast, which has prompted some especially interesting social media threads. I’ve often said that I could meet 30 people for the first time and easily identify every lineworker in the group within a few minutes. We talk about building lines, share stories about catching trouble, and recount incidents we’ve experienced or heard about; that’s just what we do. I can’t begin to tell you how many lines were built and how much trouble was caught during just one evening of conversation at the recent iP Utility Safety Conference in Orlando, Florida.

1980s Subdivision Work
Here’s one job-related story that I always enjoy revisiting. Around 1980, when I was the lead lineman on a three-man crew, the equipment operator, apprentice and I were tasked with installing a short loop and four transformers in a subdivision off Rivoli Road in Macon, Georgia. So, we loaded a new reel of 1/0 primary cable on the brick truck that pulled a Ditch Witch R65. We had a stake body and trailer with pads and transformers loaded on it. The job was to put in as much cable as possible and spot the pads and transformers if we couldn’t set them.

All the lineworkers I knew then liked to brag about how much we could accomplish. Because it was a busy time without many contractors, utility crews were responsible for getting everything installed, terminated and energized. Underground distribution (UD) subdivisions were booming; we couldn’t build the infrastructure fast enough in those days. We trenched on weekdays and terminated on the weekends in overtime, when there was lower risk of damaging other utilities. We also competed with other three-man crews to see who could do the most and earn bragging rights.

The Rivoli Road subdivision was perfectly laid out. We arrived before the gas or telephone company, which meant we only had to dig around sewer stub-outs and water lines. With few obstacles, we pulled out the 1/0 primary and started digging around 7:30 a.m. The transformers were set back on property lines, off the asphalt – good old red clay and no blue granite to deal with.

By lunchtime, we had pulled all the primary cable from the reel but still needed about 500 more feet to finish the last span, from pad #4 to the UD riser pole on the road. After loading a second reel and heading back to the jobsite, we installed 2,500-foot cable and all four pads and transformers, running no more than 30 minutes late that afternoon. The other two workers on my crew almost couldn’t believe it. We won bragging rights that day, then returned to the site that weekend to terminate the transformers and risers and make the loop hot. This was one time all three of us really loved the job.

Full Commitment Required
While attending a recent workshop, I met some people who are newly employed in our industry. Several of them got my attention by stating that they don’t really love their current work, including one gentleman who serves in a training and safety role. Immediately, I asked why he was still with the company given his displeasure; “money” was his quick answer. That response surprised me somewhat because after years of working on and supervising crews, I was elated when I finally landed a training and safety position. Doing so meant I could share everything I’d learned thus far with less experienced employees. That was decades ago, and I am still learning today. Change occurs very quickly, doesn’t it? It is worthwhile for us to stay curious and open-minded because there will always be more to understand.

As of June 6, I’ve been in this business for 59 years. I love the career I’ve had thus far and wouldn’t trade it for anything imaginable. Now, if I’d gotten my pilot’s license and started flying airplanes earlier, that might have altered my career path – but it wasn’t meant to be. I am grateful that both types of work bring me feelings of joy, satisfaction and accomplishment.

With that said, if you work in a safety or training role but your heart’s just not in it, now is the time to begin looking for a new position that better suits you. Our industry needs dedicated employees who are fully committed to the well-being of the workforce and want to make the industry safer; this is not the place for individuals merely interested in earning money.

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: How do consensus standards apply to the employer’s responsibility for safe work practices?

A: Consensus standards are part of a system that employers can use to develop their safety programs. The issue here is whether an employer can defend their programs. Compliance with a consensus standard does not necessarily ensure OSHA compliance; the agency has clearly defined consensus standards as useful for helping employers meet the more performance-based requirements of the OSHA rules, which typically tell employers what must be accomplished but not how it must be done.

OSHA states in Appendix G to 29 CFR 1910.269 that it “will not necessarily deem compliance with the national consensus standards to be compliance with the provisions of § 1910.269.” In the most recent revisions to 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V, the agency dropped the use of “adopted” consensus standards – a process that treated “shall” portions of select consensus standards as enforceable – updating the terminology to “referenced” consensus standards. A referenced standard is not enforceable as a rule, but OSHA will often issue General Duty Clause citations using language drawn from referenced consensus standards.

Q: Can we use rubber gloves to install grounds?

A: OSHA 1910.269(n)(6)(i) allows use of rubber gloves to ground at 600 volts or below, so we can’t use them to install grounds above that threshold. There isn’t much need for voltages between 600 volts and 4 kV, aside from some specialty voltages.

The employer must verify that all conductors are de-energized where employees are grounding with rubber gloves. This means developing a procedure and relevant training to ensure that workers test for voltage before installing grounds, just as we conduct voltage testing when installing grounds with hot sticks.

There’s a specific, practical reason why we use hot sticks at 4 kV and above: to address potential circuit energization while making a ground connection. Despite OSHA allowing rubber glove installation of grounds below 600 volts, workers should be aware that grounding an energized circuit under that threshold can be as hazardous as using hot sticks to ground an energized circuit above 600 volts.

Q: In distribution URD, what’s the correct way to ground/isolate the conductor we’ll be working on? Where is the best place to ground, or how do we isolate, and which is best? Our primary concern is splicing and having the neutrals at different potentials. We are trying to get away from removing the jacket on the conductor and bonding across. This gives us another area to fix in the conductor, and sometimes space to do that is an issue. Can you offer any guidance?

A: As part of confirming that a cable is de-energized, ground it on a bushing or feed-through with a grounding cap at each end. Next, connect the ground lead to the cable’s twisted concentric. Achieve isolation by cutting the twisted concentric from the ring-bond ground in the pad or enclosure. In addition, you must isolate the bushing mount from the transformer bracket it is typically mounted to. This eliminates cable capacitance because the phase conductor is now in series with the concentric, not parallel to it.

Simply parking the cable is another method of verification. When parked at each end, the phase conductor is isolated. Although it isn’t grounded, no rule exists that requires us to ground the cable, and isolation is a legitimately safe work mode. A parked elbow means the phase conductor is isolated but the concentric is still continuous.

Since the concentric is bonded to the pad, the concentric and enclosure have equal potential. Keep in mind that a system fault could still create high potential between the concentric/pad-mount and the surrounding earth.

IEEE’s “Worker protection while working de-energized underground distribution systems” is a great compendium of preferred employee protection practices for de-energized URD work. You can access a copy at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1256391.

Q: Does OSHA require annual inspections and testing of full-body harnesses used in fall protection?

A: OSHA does not mandate annual fall protection inspections. The agency considers an employee’s required daily inspections and inspections by a competent person to be effective.

Note that inspection protocols must consider the fall protection manufacturer’s guidelines. Some body belts have limited lifetime use; be sure to read each belt’s labeling to determine whether any limits apply.

Q: If we have double circuits, one at 13.8 kV and one at 34.5 kV, can our workers use Class 2 and 3 gloves, or do we have to use the gloves rated for the highest voltage?

A: Some readers might believe that “cradle to cradle” means one pair of gloves unless you cradle and change, so let’s clear that up right away. Cradle to cradle is a legitimate working policy that has value, but it’s not an OSHA requirement. Along with ground to ground and lock to lock, use of this method increases the safety buffer during hot work. All three methods have been sporadically used across the industry, becoming more popular with employers when the OSHA Electrical Transmission & Distribution Partnership adopted and published them as best practices.

Gloves must be rated for the worker’s voltage exposure. Class 2 gloves tested for use at 18 kV clearly don’t meet the phase-to-ground 19.9 kV of a 34.5-kV circuit. Entering the minimum approach distance of an uncovered bus means that you are exposed and thus required to don appropriately rated gloves. With 13.8 kV and 34.5 kV on the same structure, there is no reason why two classes of gloves can’t be issued in the same bucket and changed as needed. It is legal to remove the Class 3 gloves when backing out of the 34.5-kV MAD, donning the Class 2 gloves before you enter the 13.8-kV MAD.

Although some readers may protest this line of thinking, we are merely stating OSHA rules and industry practices pertaining to insulation/isolation. The employer must be able to demonstrate that their method complies with OSHA’s minimum requirements. We suggest updating your training and policy documents to require use of a call-and-response technique: Workers in the air call out a glove change, then workers on the ground respond to acknowledge the change is occurring.

Q: Does OSHA require us to ground trucks used in energized power-line work?

A: No. The singular applicable rule is found at 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(c), which states that unless the employer can demonstrate that the methods in use protect employees from the hazards that could arise if mechanical equipment contacts energized lines or equipment, protective measures must include the best available ground, bonding equipment together, using ground mats and employing insulating material.

So, how can we say that OSHA doesn’t require truck grounding when using the best available ground is the first protective measure they mention? Because the agency initially states this: “Unless the employer can demonstrate that the methods in use protect each employee …” Sometimes safety solutions are simple. For instance, if touching a truck can kill you, don’t touch the truck. If standing 2 feet from a truck exposes you to step potential, stand 10 feet away.

The purpose of grounding a truck is to open protectors and clear the circuit if the grounded boom contacts the bus. A worker in contact with the truck provides a parallel path to ground with the temporarily installed truck ground. Only the coincidence of parallel resistances decides whether that contact is lethal, which is why OSHA’s rule also demands grounding in an equipotential arrangement. If you promote truck grounding to protect workers but do not use equipotential mats, you are not complying with the standard.

For a detailed review of step and touch hazards related to grounded trucks, readers can review “A Close Look at Step and Touch Potentials” by Jim Vaughn, CUSP, available at https://incident-prevention.com/blog/a-close-look-at-step-and-touch-potentials/.

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.

Since we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary this summer, I thought it would be interesting to examine a brief overview of the last 250 years of safety. Let’s see where we started, assess how far we’ve come and renew our commitment to continuous improvement.

To assist with this project, I asked Google Gemini to provide U.S. utility construction and maintenance safety data for the full historical period. Here are a handful of highlights:

• Incident reporting was completely voluntary prior to 1910. At that time, employers typically did not pay anything toward work-related injuries or fatalities and thus did not track them.
• Unionization and workers’ compensation laws prompted employers to begin tracking injuries in the 1910s and ’20s.
• In 1926, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) introduced its annual survey tracking the frequency and severity of employee injuries. Employer reporting was voluntary.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 established OSHA and mandated employer reporting of any work-related injury requiring more than first aid.
• The BLS restructured its survey in 1992, adding detailed tracking of days away from work and days away, restricted or transferred.

Deadly Era
The 40-year span from the 1890s to the 1930s is widely considered the deadliest era for any utility trade in human history. In fact, it is well-documented that during the 1890s, nearly half of all electrical lineworkers died on the job. The table below provides additional fatality statistics plus hazard drivers from the industry’s early days to the modern era.

Nonfatal Injuries
Losing a finger or sustaining a severe electrical burn was once considered part of the job, an inevitable rite of passage. Old-timers in the 1920s judged a lineman’s experience by how many fingers he had left.

More recently, BLS historical data shows that in 1992, the national private-industry total recordable incident rate (TRIR) peaked at 8.9 cases per 100 full-time workers (see www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/dec/wk2/art05.htm). By 2024, that number had fallen to 2.3, a 74% decline over three decades (see www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.nr0.htm).

Analysis and Commentary
I am no big fan of statistics because they ultimately reflect results, not behavior, and I prefer to focus on people. In 250 years, our industry has come a long way – and there is still work to be done. Keeping in mind that we are doomed to repeat the past if we do not learn from it, let’s briefly discuss the knowledge we have acquired over time and the foreseeable challenges that lie ahead.

First, we know we must care about each other enough to prevent harm and encourage growth. This is critical at every organizational level, and especially at the peer-to-peer level. Our goal is to ensure that every employee thrives.

We have also learned that management cannot dictate safety. Frontline workers must be involved in the process and feel comfortable sharing their successes and errors. Leaders are obligated to respond equally well to failures and victories so that lessons can be learned and shared.

The good news is that we have already begun this work. Employers are intently building the capacity to fail safely to prevent further serious injuries and fatalities. Organizational leaders are deepening their understanding of human performance and enhancing safety culture. Our safety focus is expanding from the physical body to the whole person – mind, body and spirit.

I would be remiss if I did not mention how technology continues to help the industry achieve our safety goals. Modern fall protection devices, trench boxes, tool safeguards and personal protective equipment offer workers unprecedented hazard protection. Sophisticated computer software aids in tracking training, incidents, good catches and near misses, helping us to better understand root causes and conditions and proactively respond to them. Speaking of which, I am encouraged to see the industry seeking metrics like high-energy control assessments to supplement or replace lagging indicators (e.g., OSHA rates).

Conclusion
Certain things have not changed in the last 250 years. Safety still boils down to our ability to identify and eliminate or mitigate hazards. Human factors like complacency, stress and distractions aren’t going anywhere.

So, while the workforce is more protected than ever, we will continue to encounter challenges. Electrical systems are more heavily loaded than in the past. Underground systems are increasingly congested. Mental health concerns pose significant risk. Organizations struggle to hire and retain talent. Workforce demographics continue to shift.

Understanding these realities, let’s celebrate how far we’ve come while acknowledging the work yet to be done. Let’s also remember that it matters – a lot – how organizations and safety leaders respond. What will we do to address today’s challenges and protect workers in the future?

For further discussion on this topic, join me for the free Frontline webinar on September 9. I look forward to seeing you 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://ip-institute.com/frontline-online/). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

Webinar: 250 Years of Safety
September 9, 2026, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

Greenlee, a part of Emerson’s professional tools portfolio, recently announced the launch of the EK1240SLX 12-Ton Crimper, a redesigned tool that is 10% lighter and lasts 35% longer than its predecessor. Built for utility and industrial professionals, the EK1240SLX delivers 24,000 pounds of crimping force for up to 750-kcmil copper and aluminum connectors.

Built on Greenlee’s proven 12-ton platform, the tool features a lighter head for better handling, balance and durability without sacrificing the performance professionals need for repetitive crimping. The newly engineered C-head design optimizes weight distribution to provide superior balance and minimize strain on arms and shoulders, while a grooved guide provides ram alignment, helping to deliver consistent, repeatable crimps without second-guessing. Integrated Automatic Retraction Stop (ARS) retracts the ram just enough to get ready for the next cycle, saving time and energy.

Greenlee’s proven Intelli-CRIMP technology continues to monitor crimp force and provides both a visual and audible alert to the operator if a crimp is out of specification. www.greenlee.com

Led by Danny Raines, CUSP, this computer-based training course provides an in-depth look at one of the most critical yet misunderstood aspects of line work: system and equipment grounding. Participants will gain a clear understanding of OSHA grounding regulations; equipotential zone principles; the unseen hazards of induced voltages; and use of proper protective grounding techniques to prevent tragic outcomes. This course goes beyond regulatory compliance to enhance each participant’s hazard anticipation capabilities, decision-making skills and fundamental understanding of electrical physics – all with the goal of ensuring truly safe work zones. https://ip-institute.com/utility-protective-grounding-principles-and-safety/

OSCO Safety is expanding the availability of its nonpenetrating safety railing. Designed for fall protection without the need for structural modifications or permanent installation, the system is ideal for flat rooftops, active construction sites and indoor/outdoor temporary safety railing needs.

This modular, highly adaptable railing system can be configured to meet virtually any layout or footprint, serving long-span roof edges and tight indoor factory spaces. Featuring a standard 42-inch height to comply with safety regulations, the system is available in railing lengths from 2 to 10 feet.

Corrosion-resistant, heavy-duty steel construction and OSHA yellow powder coating ensure a long service life while the hide-a-rail option allows for visually sensitive applications. Tool-free assembly minimizes setup time with no welding or damage to roof structures. Quick shipping is available for accelerated timelines. https://oscosafety.com

The MultiPro helmet from LAND Helmets was engineered to meet the demanding needs of today’s utility professionals. Certified to ANSI Z89.1 Type II standards with Class E electrical protection up to 20,000 volts, it is designed to provide advanced protection against lateral impacts and electrical hazards.

Built for long shifts and changing jobsite demands, the MultiPro features a lightweight, low-profile shell that helps to reduce fatigue without sacrificing protection. Its modular design allows seamless integration with face visors, hearing protection, full-brim attachments, sunshades and other task-specific accessories, offering user flexibility. https://landhelmets.com/pages/utility

HEMCO’s emergency safety showers are fully assembled and ready for installation. Each shower is a one-piece, seamless, molded and chemical-resistant fiberglass unit equipped with a pull-rod-activated shower and a push-handle eye/face wash for immediate drenching of personnel exposed to hazardous chemicals. Other features include frosted curtains, interior grab bars, raised deck grating, and a bottom or rear drain outlet. These showers are compliant with OSHA and ANSI standards. https://hemcocorp.com/safetyequip.html

Listen to Part 1: https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/beyond-root-cause-shifting-to-a-root-conditions-mindset-in-utility-safety-part-1-with-billy-martin-cusp/

In this 2 part series of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick sits down with Kate Wade and safety expert Bill Martin to challenge the traditional frameworks of incident investigation. Moving away from the “blame and shame loop” of traditional root cause analysis, the group explores the concept of “root conditions”. Using vivid metaphors like the decision funnel, the tomato plant, and the petri dish, Bill explains how human physiology, organizational pressure, and crew dynamics heavily dictate safety outcomes long before an incident occurs. The conversation delivers a deep dive into metacognition, the dangers of treating workers as simple commodities, and how field crews can reclaim agency over their safety decisions.

Key Takeaways

• The Shift from Root Cause to Root Conditions: Utility environments are complex webs rather than straight lines. Searching for a single “loose bolt” or miscommunication causes organizations to miss the underlying systemic conditions that allowed the failure to happen.

• The Metaphor of the Tomato Plant: True leadership is about managing the environment rather than demanding results. Just as humans cannot force a seed to grow by yelling at it, safety managers must cultivate healthy cultural and environmental conditions to release human potential.

• The Funnel of Pressure: The top of the funnel represents a slow-moving “swirl” where ideas, job briefs, and life stressors mix. As time narrows toward a decision, pressure spikes. Focusing solely on the bottom of the funnel hides the upstream factors that perfectly aligned to cause an event.

• The Danger of Strip Mining Talent: Large utilities often treat contractors as interchangeable commodities, such as breaking up intact crews to aggregate specialized operators during storm responses. This destroys the crew’s “collective intelligence” and synchrony, heavily compromising safety.

• Listening to Weak Signals: Organizations must pay attention to cultural warnings, such as workers sitting exclusively in the back row during safety meetings or saying, “I know this is stupid, but it’s what they want.” These are indicators of a toxic culture of mere compliance.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the difference between a root cause mindset and a root conditions mindset?

A1: A root cause mindset seeks certainty by isolating a single point of failure or human error at the exact moment of an incident. Conversely, a root conditions mindset looks far upstream to evaluate the environmental factors, physiological stress, and systemic setups that allowed the incident to form over time.

Q2: What role does “metacognition” play in improving on-the-job safety decisions?

A2: Metacognition is the practice of “thinking about your thinking”. By recognizing that automated emotions and internal thoughts are separate from the “observer” within the mind, workers can utilize a brief pause (a 5-4-3-2-1 count) to intentionally choose a safe, adaptive response rather than defaulting to a low-level, high-pressure reaction.

Q3: Why does Bill Martin argue that the presence of an observer changes safety data?

A3: Drawing on scientific principles, Bill explains that an outside observer inevitably alters the environment they enter. For example, when management performs targeted field observations, crew behaviors temporarily shift due to that presence, meaning the data collected does not accurately reflect everyday operations.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #RootConditions #SafetyCulture #Metacognition #HumanPotential

Listen to Part 2: https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/233errrff/

In this 2 part series of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick sits down with Kate Wade and safety expert Bill Martin to challenge the traditional frameworks of incident investigation. Moving away from the “blame and shame loop” of traditional root cause analysis, the group explores the concept of “root conditions”. Using vivid metaphors like the decision funnel, the tomato plant, and the petri dish, Bill explains how human physiology, organizational pressure, and crew dynamics heavily dictate safety outcomes long before an incident occurs. The conversation delivers a deep dive into metacognition, the dangers of treating workers as simple commodities, and how field crews can reclaim agency over their safety decisions.

Key Takeaways

• The Shift from Root Cause to Root Conditions: Utility environments are complex webs rather than straight lines. Searching for a single “loose bolt” or miscommunication causes organizations to miss the underlying systemic conditions that allowed the failure to happen.

• The Metaphor of the Tomato Plant: True leadership is about managing the environment rather than demanding results. Just as humans cannot force a seed to grow by yelling at it, safety managers must cultivate healthy cultural and environmental conditions to release human potential.

• The Funnel of Pressure: The top of the funnel represents a slow-moving “swirl” where ideas, job briefs, and life stressors mix. As time narrows toward a decision, pressure spikes. Focusing solely on the bottom of the funnel hides the upstream factors that perfectly aligned to cause an event.

• The Danger of Strip Mining Talent: Large utilities often treat contractors as interchangeable commodities, such as breaking up intact crews to aggregate specialized operators during storm responses. This destroys the crew’s “collective intelligence” and synchrony, heavily compromising safety.

• Listening to Weak Signals: Organizations must pay attention to cultural warnings, such as workers sitting exclusively in the back row during safety meetings or saying, “I know this is stupid, but it’s what they want.” These are indicators of a toxic culture of mere compliance.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the difference between a root cause mindset and a root conditions mindset?

A1: A root cause mindset seeks certainty by isolating a single point of failure or human error at the exact moment of an incident. Conversely, a root conditions mindset looks far upstream to evaluate the environmental factors, physiological stress, and systemic setups that allowed the incident to form over time.

Q2: What role does “metacognition” play in improving on-the-job safety decisions?

A2: Metacognition is the practice of “thinking about your thinking”. By recognizing that automated emotions and internal thoughts are separate from the “observer” within the mind, workers can utilize a brief pause (a 5-4-3-2-1 count) to intentionally choose a safe, adaptive response rather than defaulting to a low-level, high-pressure reaction.

Q3: Why does Bill Martin argue that the presence of an observer changes safety data?

A3: Drawing on scientific principles, Bill explains that an outside observer inevitably alters the environment they enter. For example, when management performs targeted field observations, crew behaviors temporarily shift due to that presence, meaning the data collected does not accurately reflect everyday operations.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #RootConditions #SafetyCulture #Metacognition #HumanPotential

“EHS + LMS: A Perfect Match for Preventing Incidents with AI“

** THIS WEBINAR WILL BE RECORDED **

Sign Up today!

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

HSI offers training, safety management and compliance solutions for businesses of all sizes. Our combination of technology and content solutions help safety, human resources and operations leaders train and develop their workforce, keep workers safe and meet regulatory and operational compliance requirements.

Beneath every major city lies a high-voltage world that powers our daily lives—and presents some of the most dangerous conditions utility workers face. In this episode, we break down the critical safety protocols for manhole and vault inspections. Drawing from Mark Savage’s recent insights in Incident Prevention, we explore why these confined spaces can turn deadly in seconds due to invisible atmospheric hazards and electrical risks. We’ll walk you through the non-negotiable three-person entry approach, the correct way to monitor for gas layers, and the five essential inspection steps every underground employee must master. Whether you are an entry supervisor, an attendant, or the authorized entrant, this episode is packed with the procedures you need to protect your crew and keep the grid running safely.

Read the article by Mark Savage: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/manhole-and-vault-inspections-5-critical-safety-steps-for-underground-employees/

Key Takeaways

• Invisible Threats are the Deadliest: Over half of confined space fatalities are linked to atmospheric hazards like oxygen deficiency and toxic gases, which can incapacitate a worker in seconds.
• The “Rule of Three” for Entry: Safe underground work requires a structured three-person team: an authorized entrant (doing the work), an attendant (monitoring outside), and an entry supervisor (verifying procedures).
• Gas Stratifies, So Test at All Levels: Because gases settle into different layers, crews must test the top, middle, and bottom of a vault before entering, checking oxygen levels first. Continuous monitoring is non-negotiable.
• Water Hides the Danger: Standing water must be pumped out before an inspection begins. It can compromise insulation, obscure trip hazards, and create deadly conductive paths.

Q&A Segment

Q: Why are atmospheric hazards considered the greatest risk in manholes and vaults? A: Atmospheric hazards—like oxygen deficiency, flammable gases, and toxic contaminants—are completely invisible and account for over half of all confined space fatalities. Because conditions in an underground vault can change rapidly due to leaks or environmental factors, a worker can be incapacitated in seconds without continuous gas monitoring.

Q: What is the proper sequence and method for testing the air in a confined space? A: According to OSHA standards, workers must use a four-gas monitor to test oxygen levels first, followed by flammable gases, and finally toxic contaminants. Crucially, testing must be done at the top, middle, and bottom of the space before entry because different gases settle at different depths. Once inside, continuous monitoring in the worker’s breathing zone is required.

Q: What are the five critical tasks workers must complete during a vault inspection? A:

1. Assess the site for physical hazards and structural damage at the surface.
2. Evaluate equipment for thermal damage, arcing, or stray voltage.
3. Remove water and debris to eliminate conductive paths and uncover hidden hazards.
4. Confirm structural integrity of the vault walls, ladders, and ceilings.
5. Document and report all findings, including atmospheric readings and photographs of anomalies.

#UtilitySafety #ConfinedSpace #LinemanLife #UndergroundUtility #SafetyFirst

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

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

• 

  IMG_8605

• 

  IMG_8606

• 

  IMG_8608

• 

  IMG_8610

• 

  IMG_8611

• 

  IMG_8612

• 

  IMG_8613

• 

  IMG_8615

• 

  IMG_8618

• 

  IMG_8619

• 

  IMG_8621

• 

  IMG_8629

• 

  IMG_8633

• 

  IMG_8634

• 

  IMG_8635

• 

  IMG_8637

• 

  IMG_8639

• 

  IMG_8643

• 

  IMG_8649

• 

  IMG_8650

• 

  IMG_8652

• 

  IMG_8653

From leadership development courses and culture workshops to human performance training sessions and OSHA refresher programs, our industry spends countless hours talking about safety. There’s one question I find myself asking each time I attend one of these events: How can we coach courage in ourselves and others? Because often, safety failures stem not from a lack of knowledge but from a lack of courage.

Now, I know electrical workers rarely lack physical courage. What I’m referring to is the inner strength that enables a person to speak up, challenge a respected coworker, stop a job, admit confusion and care more about protecting people than their pride. This is an ongoing battle in our industry because despite having more advanced equipment, stronger regulatory standards and better training methods than ever, human beings still crave comfort, which we know can come at a cost. Comfort tells us to stay quiet, avoid making waves and get the job without embarrassing ourselves or anyone else. It protects our social acceptance; courage protects real lives. Somewhere between the two is where your safety culture takes root and begins to either thrive or wither.

Fortunately, much like muscle, courage can be strengthened through repetition. Consider that we repeatedly train workers on rubber glove procedures, grounding methods, switching orders, rescue techniques, minimum approach distance calculations and equipment inspections. Now imagine if we intentionally trained employees on contributing to job briefings; respectfully challenging unsafe behavior; intervening during moments of complacency; checking on coworkers’ well-being; and navigating peer pressure. This is what cultural development looks like.

Stop-Work Authority and Job Briefings
Most industry employers promote stop-work authority. This sounds great on paper, but invoking our authority in the real world can be deeply uncomfortable. For instance, an apprentice who spots an unsafe activity or condition may hesitate to point it out, fearing potential ridicule, retaliation or a missed production deadline. Even seasoned journeymen sometimes struggle to use their authority because doing so requires social courage in addition to procedural understanding.

Logically, this means our industry must normalize courage and actively develop it within our employees, which requires management to foster working environments in which speaking up is expected and respected.

Job briefings are a great place to begin. We sometimes treat them like paperwork exercises, but a truly effective briefing establishes the psychological safety necessary to make every worker feel comfortable voicing their questions and concerns. “If something feels wrong, your voice matters here” should be the underlying message to crew members. This is critical for workforce safety. Risk increases among even the most technically skilled crews when crew members do not feel comfortable challenging one another. Remember, real brotherhood is intervention, not blind agreement. A true brother’s keeper is willing to create and tolerate temporary discomfort to prevent permanent tragedy.

Leadership Vulnerability Needed
Instructors play an enormous role in creating psychologically safe working environments. Young workers need authentic trainers who model accountability, humility and emotional maturity under pressure – not those who pretend to be flawless. An instructor who openly discusses their mistakes, including those times they failed to speak up, gives young workers permission to be human.

This type of candor typically creates trust that elevates workforce communication, which we can leverage to address our industry’s continued celebration of toughness. Right now, the workforce suicide rate is high and heartbreaking. Our employees have been conditioned to suppress anxiety, fear, exhaustion, loneliness, depression and more. But consider a worker who has been coached in courage. Developing the inner strength to stop an unsafe job is the same fortitude required to ask a coworker if they’re feeling OK – or to admit to a colleague that you are not.

Our trade must stop making the distinction between emotional safety and physical safety. A worker distracted by a personal crisis, mental exhaustion or hopelessness increases risk in high-consequence environments. To truly protect our people, we must culturally emphasize communication over ego.

Conclusion
Many incidents begin to percolate in moments of hesitation long before they occur: an unasked question, an unchecked assumption, an ignored instinct. This is why I repeatedly return to the idea of coaching courage over comfort – because safe workers demonstrate character under pressure, not just compliance. Our industry’s future depends on developing skilled, courageous electrical workers who are willing to mentor, challenge, care for, lead and protect each other despite their discomfort.

Speaking of which, we must never forget that young workers are closely observing crew behavior every day, noting who gets respected, mocked, listened to and ignored. They are learning whether concerns are welcomed or if production overrides safety principles. Simply put, culture is transferred from worker to worker long before it becomes written policy, which means that every journeyman, foreman, instructor and supervisor carries cultural responsibility – whether they realize it or not. The onus is now upon us to ask ourselves, how are we teaching our workers to consistently choose courage when comfort is the easier option?

About the Author: Daniel Cooper, CSP, CUSP, serves as an area and off-site coordinator for American Line Builders Apprenticeship & Training (https://albat.org). He was named the 2024 IBEW Instructor of the Year and has 20 years of combined operations and safety experience in the electric transmission and distribution industry.

The Silver Needle Flash Fire Coverall is engineered for maximum protection during confined-space, short-duration thermal events. Its DuPont Nomex IIIA outer shell and Nomex/Lenzing quilted liner create a dual-barrier defense against extreme heat.

Unlike traditional gear, our patented integrated harness system is sewn directly into the garment. This design eliminates external compression, maintaining a loose fit that leverages airflow as a critical insulating layer. Because laboratory tests show that burn injuries increase every second a wearer remains in a garment after a thermal event, our integrated harness and fire-resistant closures are designed for rapid removal of the garment, reducing injury.

The suit features rugged hardware, including heavy-duty Nomex zippers with storm flaps and Nomex Velcro seals at the neck, wrists and ankles. For added utility, an optional Kevlar lanyard stores conveniently in a built-in shoulder pouch. With an ATPV of 60 cal/cm², this coverall exceeds NFPA 2112 standards and is UL certified. https://silverneedle.net

Designed for heavy-duty construction sites and oily workshop floors, the Ground Control provides all-day comfort to keep you focused on the task at hand. This 6-inch boot is constructed with Danner’s time-tested full-grain leather and 100% waterproof Danner Dry liner, allowing moisture to escape without letting water in.

Other key features include the Danner DuraGrip Outsole – made of durable TPU with a tread pattern that bolsters traction for slippery surfaces – and a Direct Attach Midsole, which bonds the outsole to the upper with machine-injected, thick polyurethane bonds that prevent delamination and deliver substantial cushioning. The Ground Control is also electrical hazard certified. www.danner.com

Hastings Fiber Glass Products has released a new Reciprocating Insulated Saw Extension (R.I.S.E.) designed to give lineworkers added reach, control and pruning versatility in the field.

Available as product 4006, the R.I.S.E. features a 6-foot insulated extension designed for use with a Milwaukee Hackzall (part 2719-20). The 4006 measures 81 inches overall and weighs 9 pounds.

Built with lineworkers in mind, the R.I.S.E. is designed to cut wood, aluminum and steel when using the appropriate blade. It can achieve approximately 120 cuts on 1-inch-diameter branches when used with a Milwaukee Hackzall and new 5-Ah battery.

Inner and outer poles can be disassembled for easy cleaning and testing. The fiberglass is rated at 100 kV per foot to meet ASTM F711. www.hfgp.com/reciprocating-insulated-saw-extension

Designed to increase user awareness when working around live electrical sources, Milwaukee Tool’s new BOLT Personal Voltage Detector delivers consistent alerts, easy operation and secure integration within the BOLT System.

This detector features a wide detection field and clearer alerts to help users quickly identify the presence of voltage. Its single‑mode operation eliminates sensitivity‑setting mistakes, ensuring reliable performance every time. For seamless integration, the Personal Voltage Detector mounts securely to the BOLT Front Mount and remains compatible with all Milwaukee BOLT safety helmets and hard hats, allowing users to secure multiple accessories simultaneously. It is powered by a USB‑C rechargeable internal battery and provides up to 32 hours of runtime. www.milwaukeetool.com

Warmer days demand smarter layers, and Tyndale delivers with the Workwear Hi-Vis Sun Shield Shirt (M074T), designed to keep workers cool, covered, compliant and visible, without compromising performance.

Made with a 6-ounce FRMC micro-pique knit fabric, this inherently flame-resistant shirt is lightweight, breathable and moisture-wicking for all-day comfort. It features reflective striping and ANSI 107 Class 3 compliance for high-visibility worksites while also providing PPE Category 2 arc flash protection and NFPA 2112-compliant flash fire protection. Built-in UPF 35+ sun protection adds another layer of defense against the elements. Functional details, including a three-piece hood and thumbholes, enhance coverage and ease of wear on the job. https://tyndalefrc.com

If you’ve been following this series, you know that it was founded on a simple but powerful idea: personal accountability.

In Part 1, we discussed agency, or the degree to which you believe you are responsible for your own safety. Part 2 examined mental preparation, the “firmware” that governs how you think, react and perform under pressure. And in Part 3, we explored spiritual health; that’s the internal code that guides your behavior when the right choice is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

This article addresses physiological health, which is the bedrock of the previous three factors. While many of us think of risk as external – voltage, heights, equipment – you must also consider your physical condition. No matter how well-trained or well-intentioned you are, your ability to think clearly, make good decisions and execute safely depends on your body’s well-being.

When Performance Breaks Down
Most incidents don’t originate at the jobsite. They begin to coalesce hours earlier due to poor sleep, missed meals, unmanaged stress and/or physical fatigue. By the time workers must make a critical field decision, the conditions shaping it are already in place. This means you must manage your biological risk in addition to any job risks.

Consider this scenario that plays out every day across our industry: A crew heads out early. One worker hardly slept, another skipped breakfast, and the third has elevated blood pressure that they haven’t checked or treated in years. By midmorning, the job becomes more complex than expected, and the crew members must quickly make a consequential choice. Yet their attention has waned, their reaction times have slowed, and their judgment isn’t as accurate as it could be. Often, slight differences like these are all that’s needed to prompt an incident.

We tend to attribute incidents to systems, procedures and hazards. These factors matter; however, there is another factor that is just as real yet far less discussed: the condition of the human being doing the work.

This is why OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health introduced the Total Worker Health framework (www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/), which recognizes that safety cannot be separated from overall health and well-being. The framework expands our conversation from “How do we prevent accidents?” to “What is the condition of our employees when they face risk?”

Physiology Matters
At some point, every safety system relies on someone to recognize a hazard, interpret what they see and make a decision – capabilities that depend on cognitive performance: memory, concentration, information processing and motor function. According to a document published by Stanford Lifestyle Medicine (see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BvbUpKErJLgeVuGHfy0RGSG6I_6XVkBe/view?pli=1), these capabilities are directly influenced by movement, nutrition, sleep and other lifestyle factors. One great resource I recommend is the book “Eat Move Sleep” by Tom Rath. You can check out a summary at https://app.philosophersnotes.com/note/eat-move-sleep-tom-rath.

The takeaway here is that good physiological health is a prerequisite for safe performance. While we have spent decades refining our organizational systems, the persistence of serious injuries and fatalities indicates that our systems are necessary but not sufficient (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/when-the-system-isnt-enough-how-to-create-personal-motivation-that-saves-lives/).

Stanford’s Lifestyle Pillars
Stanford has identified seven pillars of lifestyle medicine that shape how we think, decide and perform: movement; nutrition; sleep; stress management; social engagement; cognitive health; and purpose. Not all of these are purely physiological. You’ll note that we addressed cognitive health and mental performance in Part 2 of this series (https://incident-prevention.com/blog/mental-preparation-for-safer-work/); Part 3 covered gratitude, purpose and meaning (https://incident-prevention.com/blog/spiritual-preparation-for-safer-work/). Social engagement supports stress regulation and behavioral consistency, reinforcing those earlier themes.

For the purposes of this article, let’s focus on the Stanford pillars that most directly influence your physical readiness and safe performance in the field.

Movement and Exercise: Physical Capacity Under Load
Strength, balance and endurance determine how stable you are on structures, how well you handle equipment and how effectively you respond when something unexpectedly shifts. Many of us assume we are physically active enough, but research suggests that only a small percentage of individuals meet the recommended level.

I recently did two things to obtain an accurate assessment of my own physical status. First, I began tracking the frequency and length of my workouts using a fitness app on my watch. Then I asked a physical therapist to measure my movement capacity relative to my age. While not alarming, the results were not where I wanted them to be, which led to some personal changes: I bought some new fitness equipment, began to seriously schedule my workouts and set measurable goals. Simply put, once I could see where I stood, the responsibility to improve became mine.

Healthful Nutrition: Sustaining Focus and Energy
Nutrition is often discussed in the context of long-term health, but it has an equally important impact on daily performance. Poor dietary habits lead to fluctuations in energy, reduced concentration and slower cognitive processing, all of which affect job performance.

According to the Stanford Lifestyle Medicine document, more than 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, increasing the risk of conditions that degrade both health and performance. Stanford emphasizes a diet of nutrient-dense, minimally processed foods in appropriate portions.

To gain an accurate picture of my personal nutritional status, I took four steps. First, I completed a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan (see www.dexafit.com/blog2/dexafit-dexa-scan-netflix-documentary), which provided the most accurate possible measurements of my weight, lean muscle mass, body fat percentage and bone mineral content. Next, I completed a comprehensive blood panel through Function Health (www.functionhealth.com). The third thing I did was dig out earlier results from MyFitnessPal (www.myfitnesspal.com), an app that helps you track your macronutrient intake (i.e., protein, fat and carbohydrates). Lastly, I shared my results with Natalie Barriball, NMD, an Arizona-based naturopathic physician (www.drnataliebarriball.com).

Dr. Barriball took the time to carefully comb through all my test results and put them into perspective, an essential step that yielded clarity far beyond what I expected. My results were clear, though some were not what I expected, providing an objective picture of where I stood. That clarity directly influenced my decision to adjust my dietary habits, including essential supplements.

Restorative Sleep: Protecting Judgment and Reaction Time
Sleep is one of the most influential yet underestimated human performance factors. An inadequate amount impairs cognitive function, emotional regulation and resilience, which are critical to safety in high-risk environments. This can show up in subtle ways. For instance, a well-rested worker is more likely to pause and reassess a situation when something doesn’t feel right, while a fatigued worker is more likely to push forward, even as conditions change.

I have struggled with sleep for years. Consistent with my new focus on accurate measurement, I recently began using the sleep tracker on my watch (https://support.apple.com/guide/watch/track-your-sleep-apd830528336/watchos), making small adjustments such as limiting screen time close to bedtime, avoiding late meals and reading only paper-based materials to fall asleep. Each tweak has improved my results, though it remains an ongoing effort.

Stress Management: Maintaining Control Under Pressure
Stress has direct physiological effects that influence your attention, decision-making and emotional control. When stress is unmanaged, thinking narrows and reactions become less deliberate. That loss of control can be consequential in our line of work. Managing stress does not mean eliminating it; rather, proper management helps you regulate your response so that you remain composed when conditions deteriorate.

Closing the Gap
These pillars are not mandates, nor are they about perfection. They are areas in which honest assessment can reveal gaps between where you are and where you must be to perform at your best. Once those gaps are clear, the next step – as always – is yours to decide.

Data that directly links reduced incident rates to improvements across these pillars is still emerging. What we know for sure is that human performance plays a role in most serious injuries and fatalities. Further, physical factors directly influence how we think, react and make choices under pressure. This is one of the gaps our industry has been working to close: how to better account for the human factors that influence performance in the field.

What I’ve described in this article is not a departure from traditional safety but an expansion of it. As noted earlier, the Total Worker Health framework was developed with the understanding that (1) safety cannot be separated from the condition of the worker and (2) performance is shaped by more than rules, procedures and equipment.

Approaches like motivational interviewing reinforce a principle introduced at the beginning of this series: Lasting progress is not a product of being told what to do. It derives from clearly understanding your current condition and deciding for yourself what needs to change. The process is straightforward but not easy. You must self-assess honestly, realize where you stand and determine what you want to do differently, if anything. No one can make the choice for you.

Full Circle
That brings us back to where we started. Assuming total responsibility for your safety means more than following procedures and wearing the proper protective equipment. It also includes taking ownership of the condition you bring to work each day. How you sleep, eat, move and manage stress influence safety. They are not separate from it.

Professionals in other high-risk fields understand this well. Surgeons, pilots, professional athletes and special operations personnel do not leave their performance to chance, preparing deliberately and consistently because they know what is at stake. Given the daily risks in our line of work, every aspect of our preparation matters for our continued safety, health and wellness.

About the Author: Tom Cohenno, Ed.D., CSP, CUSP, NBC-HWC, is a recognized safety expert and principal of Applied Learning Science (https://appliedlearningscience.com). With deep academic and operational experience as a U.S. Navy veteran, substation chief and former utility executive, he blends real-world insight with evidence-based research to deliver practical, impactful safety solutions.

Our industry’s persistent serious injury and fatality (SIF) statistics indicate that we are aiming at the wrong target, despite our best intentions. A small shift in our industry’s approach to incident investigations, however, could lead to meaningful change.

Decades of professional experience have taught me that when we search for an event’s root cause, we typically get what we aim at. By that, I mean humans can easily fall victim to confirmation bias, choosing to believe seemingly logical but erroneous theories rather than wrestle with uncertainty. But unless we use objective facts to determine what prompted an event, we risk making poorly informed decisions in its aftermath.

Cultivating Tomatoes
Let’s say we decide to develop controls and defenses to prevent recurrence of a catastrophic event. That is a good idea, right? But what if we focused instead on improving the conditions that contributed to the event? Doing so would likely eliminate our need for those initial controls and defenses. Seeking out and improving what I call “root conditions” surfaces different problems that demand alternative controls and barriers – and it tends to improve safety outcomes.

We can think about this in terms of planting tomato seeds. We don’t actually grow tomatoes, do we? Each seed already contains nearly everything a plant needs to flourish. Our job is to manipulate the environmental conditions that enable the seeds to germinate. Healthy plants will emerge given sufficient soil, water and sunlight. What happens when we recognize an unhealthy plant? It is generally understood that we must improve its conditions. We do not yell at the plant or tell it to fix itself. Why? Because we know that will not produce better tomatoes.

Creating and sustaining a healthy workforce culture demands a similar approach. Each employee is a proverbial tomato. For crews to grow and thrive, leaders must establish psychologically safe working conditions in which questions and candid conversations are encouraged. Curiosity is essential to lowering SIF statistics; dismissing or ignoring concerns is toxic to mitigation efforts.

Yet even equipped with this knowledge, we are still inclined to try fixing an employee’s behavior when we are unhappy with their performance, rather than fixing the conditions that prompted it. We must realize and regularly remind ourselves that every individual is the product of a lifetime of conditioning. Thus, performance improvements will require more than error reductions and additional controls. Management has a responsibility to help employees continue their professional development, which includes designing working conditions that allow them to succeed.

Regulatory Blind Spot
To shift our focus, we must spend time looking upstream to find the conditions that have produced unwanted events. This requires assessing both environmental and human factors, although industry regulatory standards have not caught up just yet. For example, per OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(3), “Information transfer,” a host employer must provide contract employers with the following prior to the start of work:

• Characteristics and conditions of the host employer’s installation related to the safety of the work to be performed.
• Information about the design and operation of the host employer’s installation that the contract employer needs to make required assessments.
• Any other information about the design and operation of the host employer’s installation that is known by the host, requested by the contract employer and is related to the protection of the contractor’s employees.

You will notice that these rules reference various installation conditions, but OSHA does not mention anything about the condition of the people performing the installations, who are naturally prone to distractions and errors.

Under the Microscope
To better understand how human behavior can impact working conditions and employee safety, review the image at the top of this page. Two petri dishes are filled with bacteria; notably, the scientific community calls each one a “culture.” Given the proper conditions, these bacteria will thrive, as you see on the left. On the right, an antibiotic hinders bacterial growth. Did you notice the tiny specks in the dark area around the pill? Those are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus – commonly known as MRSA – which have been conditioned to resist the antibiotic.

The lesson here is that when we allow a toxin to persist, it can condition others to become toxins, too. Left unchecked, difficult employees will spread their toxicity to those around them. But this also means that other employees will form connections and achieve synchronicity through positive interactions, setting up conditions for improved safety outcomes.

Looking Farther Upstream
If you have ever helped a child use a swing, you understand that energy exists in the arc of their movement. We must be in sync with that energy to make the swing go higher and faster. Out of sync, however, all forward momentum will collapse, and we could absorb the existing energy. Likewise, management pushing frontline workers harder when the two groups are not in sync could produce harmful results.

Conducting a root cause analysis will rarely reveal all the conditions that existed leading up to an event. Yelling at the tomato plant or pushing the swing out of sync does not typically show up anywhere in a final investigation report. While these actions may be intended to increase employee compliance and conformity – which, incidentally, represent the lowest level of human potential – they can create toxic conditions that will not garner better results nor sustain a healthy workforce.

The most effective course of action when we are dissatisfied with a specific outcome is to look upstream (i.e., out of our immediate view) to determine the source of the problem. Too often, we allow unhealthy components of our organizational culture to persist for years. When I was a line foreman working for a large utility, for instance, I applied for a line supervisor position at one of the company’s remote outposts. During my third interview, the lead interviewer told me, “We are probably going to give you this job, but be warned. This garage was on the company radar as a bad place for nine years. We fired the guy who was the problem. If you put this place back on the radar, you will be looking for another job.”

I told the interviewers that it appeared I had it made. When they questioned my response, I replied, “It took you nine years to figure out that guy was no good – and I only have eight years left until retirement.”

In all seriousness, consider what kind of impact the “guy who was the problem” had on the employees at that outpost. Do you think he valued and prioritized their health and safety?

Our Job as Leaders
All of us should expect industry SIF statistics to remain largely unchanged until we (1) identify the conditions necessary for organizational cultures to thrive and (2) apply them at scale. Creating conditions that solely foster employee compliance and conformity robs individuals of their agency. A well-established correlation exists between loss of agency and poor mental health.

But what exactly is agency? At the end of each workshop I facilitate, I ask attendees to complete a three-question evaluation form. The final question asks, “OK, your turn, it matters: What do you think?” Everyone is given a half-page to write their answers. To date, I have received better than a 95% attendee response rate, with feedback ranging from a sentence or two to several paragraphs filling the entire half-page. I partially attribute this to the question being “clean” or unbiased; it does not ask for a response specific to the workshop. Posing simple questions to other people gives them permission to share their answers. That is agency.

As leaders, our job is to ask the workforce what they think, then listen and adjust to their feedback, creating conditions that foster employee success. Culture, performance and profits are lagging indicators of the conditions that produce them. By aiming upstream at condition design, we will also influence downstream outcomes.

Conclusion
In her book “Strong Ground,” Brene Brown wisely counsels readers to “resist the urge to reach for certainty where it does not exist.” From a safety standpoint, this means it is no longer enough for us to identify an event’s root cause; we must also actively search for and improve the conditions that contributed to the event. This is a challenging task, particularly given that unhealthy conditions are frequently nearly invisible. Nevertheless, now is the time to begin. Employee lives are counting on it.

About the Author: William N. Martin, CUSP, NRP, RN, DIMM, is president and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC (www.thinkprojectllc.com) and SAFR LLC. A third-generation electric utility worker and medical professional with extensive experience in high-risk operations and emergency medicine, he served nearly 20 years in lineman, line supervisor and safety director roles. Additionally, Martin spent 23 years as a critical care flight paramedic and registered nurse with cardiology and orthopedic experience. He earned a Diploma in Mountain Medicine and was an instructor/trainer for the National Ski Patrol. Currently, Martin writes and speaks nationally about safety and human performance, with a special focus on unleashing human potential.

Beneath every major American city lies a hidden electrical network that powers homes, hospitals and commercial industry. Manholes and vaults are the gateways to these underground systems, providing access to low-, medium- and high-voltage infrastructure essential to reliable power distribution. Because they also present some of the most hazardous conditions that utility workers regularly encounter, conducting thorough manhole and vault inspections is foundational to employee safety, system integrity and operational reliability.

Manholes and vaults are typically classified as confined spaces. Per OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146(b), a confined space is “large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work; and has limited or restricted means for entry or exit; and is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.” The utility industry also has an “enclosed space” classification, defined at 1910.269(x) as a “working space, such as a manhole, vault, tunnel, or shaft, that has a limited means of egress or entry, that is designed for periodic employee entry under normal operating conditions, and that, under normal conditions, does not contain a hazardous atmosphere, but may contain a hazardous atmosphere under abnormal conditions” (for more on confined and enclosed spaces, see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-skinny-on-confined-spaces/). These spaces can quickly become dangerous due to atmospheric hazards, energized equipment and structural instability. Without a proper inspection, workers who enter them could be incapacitated or even killed within seconds.

Understanding the Hazards
Manhole and vault inspections serve three essential functions: identifying hazards prior to personnel exposure; uncovering equipment damage and deterioration; and preventing failures that could lead to outages or costly repairs. Note that even newly installed vaults can harbor risks, reinforcing the need for disciplined inspections.

Atmospheric hazards – including oxygen deficiency, flammable gases and toxic contaminants – are among the greatest risks crews face when working in underground electrical spaces. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than half of annual confined space fatalities are linked to hazardous atmospheres.

Electrical risks are equally threatening. Energized cables, arc flash events, switch and cable failures, and stray voltage can cause severe injury or death. Physical hazards – think slips, trips and restricted movement – are amplified by poor lighting and uneven surfaces. Water intrusion may introduce additional dangers, such as energized conductive paths and insulation failure. In combination with limited entry and exit points, these issues can make rescue operations difficult and time sensitive.

A few procedural items must be addressed before an employee is authorized to enter and inspect a confined space. Manhole and vault entry must follow established confined space entry standards, including OSHA 1910.146 and other industry guidance (e.g., IEEE enclosed space procedures), which require employers to evaluate hazards, establish safe entry conditions and implement protective measures prior to worker entry.

Permit-Required Confined Spaces
The first step toward safe manhole or vault entry is to determine whether the space requires a permit.  A confined space qualifies if it contains or could contain hazardous atmospheres, engulfment risks or other serious threats. Once identified, the permit-required entry process must be followed. Employees will ideally be able to mitigate any hazards and remove the permit prior to beginning work, alleviating its constraints.

A structured three-person approach is essential to safe underground work. The authorized entrant performs work inside the space; an attendant remains outside, monitoring conditions and maintaining communication; and an entry supervisor verifies that all procedures are followed and conditions are safe. This layered responsibility system aids in mitigating risk and ensuring rapid response should conditions change.

Entry procedures begin with pre-job planning and a hazard assessment. The site must be secured, covers must be safely removed, and pedestrian barriers must be installed. In addition, atmospheric testing must be conducted before entry and continuously during the operation. Use ventilation to establish and maintain safe conditions, with rescue equipment in place prior to entry. These actions are mandatory, not optional, serving as critical safeguards against the unique dangers of confined spaces.

Gas Monitors
The modern gas monitor is a lifesaving device that provides real-time status of atmospheric conditions. It is the worker’s first line of defense against invisible confined space hazards.

A standard four-gas monitor measures oxygen content, flammable gases and vapors, and toxic air contaminants. To ensure accurate test readings, OSHA requires oxygen to be measured first, gases and vapors second, followed by toxic contaminants (see 1910.146(c)(5)(ii)(C)). Acceptable oxygen levels range from 19.5% to 23.5%; any flammable gases must remain at or below 10% of their lower flammable limit.

Proper gas monitor use involves capturing more than a single reading. Because gases can maintain different layers within a confined space, testing must occur at multiple levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom) prior to entry. Continuous monitoring is nonnegotiable as atmospheric conditions can rapidly change due to leaks, work activities and environmental factors. Outfit workers with personal monitors within their breathing zone to ensure immediate hazard detection. In addition, be sure to hang a gas monitor from the manhole rescue cage, dropping the hose into the hole just above the employee’s head.

5 Key Inspection Tasks
Once authorized to enter a confined space, workers must conduct a thorough, sequential inspection that includes these five critical steps.

1. Assess the site and identify all hazards. These activities begin at the surface with the crew evaluating the physical condition of the manhole or vault inside and out. Look for signs of damage, such as sunken covers, broken ladders and doors, cracks along the walls, water seepage and duct issues. Then confirm the location against system records and identify nearby utilities that could introduce additional hazards.

2. Evaluate equipment conditions. Once safe entry is established, shift attention to electrical infrastructure conditions. Equipment assessment is an essential component of the inspection process as it directly impacts safety and system reliability. Examine cables and terminations for signs of thermal damage, discoloration and deformation. Oil seepage, corrosion and physical stress can indicate underlying failures. Check splices, elbows and bushings for evidence of overheating or arcing. Verify the accuracy of cable identification tags.

Any unintended electrical presence inside a confined space can pose a serious hazard, so this step must also include stray voltage testing. Even minor abnormalities should be treated with caution as they could signify larger systemic issues. Early detection allows for corrective action before failures occur, protecting workers and equipment and reducing the risk of outages.

3. Remove water and debris. Common in underground spaces, water and debris must be cleared from the manhole or vault before an inspection or work begins. Standing water can compromise insulation, create conductive paths, obscure hazards, and increase the risk of electrical faults and equipment damage.

Prioritize pumping water out of the space, then remove dirt, trash, construction materials and any other debris. Doing so improves visibility, reduces trip hazards, allows inspectors to fully assess equipment conditions, and ensures that cables and terminations are not partially covered or submerged.

4. Confirm structural integrity. Evaluate the physical structure of the space to confirm that it can safely support workers and equipment. Any deficiencies must be reported to supervisors and/or engineering personnel and rectified before any work begins. Look for cracks, spalling and water intrusion in walls and ceilings, which could indicate deterioration or impending failure. Check ladders, covers and all other access points for stability and proper fit. Examine cable supports, pulling eyes and racking systems for wear and corrosion.

5. Document and report findings. Every observation, measurement and anomaly must be recorded in detail. This means completing inspection checklists, recording atmospheric readings and capturing photographs of unusual conditions. Documentation is a critical tool, providing a historical record that demonstrates regulatory compliance and informs future inspections as well as maintenance and engineering decisions.

Conclusion
Manhole and vault work presents a complex mix of physical risks, demanding careful pre-job planning, thorough analysis and strict adherence to established safe procedures. From atmospheric testing and monitoring to equipment assessment, structural evaluation and debris removal, each step of the inspection process plays a vital role in protecting workers and maintaining system reliability. Qualified professionals who approach every inspection with discipline and attention to detail have the power to transform these hazardous environments into controlled workspaces.

About the Author: Mark Savage is the owner of DeadBreak, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business providing underground distribution and transmission training, consulting and field services. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran with over 25 years of experience in underground construction and emergency response, Savage is a credentialed journeyman cable splicer/lineman and qualified medium-voltage splicing trainer. Reach him at msavage@deadbreak.us.

Despite decades of progress in occupational safety, serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs) continue to occur in organizations with mature safety management systems, extensive training programs and low total recordable injury rates.

Focused prevention programs have proliferated in response to these persistent events – often accompanied by executive attention, new metrics and a sense of urgency – yet many struggle to deliver meaningful harm reduction. This is rarely due to apathy or lack of effort, more commonly stemming from foundational assumptions that do not align with how serious incidents truly develop.

Failure Mode 1: Overreliance on Low-Severity and Lagging Data
Some SIF prevention programs are developed with the implicit assumption that reducing minor injuries will reduce serious ones as well. This intuitively appealing belief is rooted in traditional safety pyramid thinking. Historical operational data, however, consistently demonstrates that the causal pathways that lead to first-aid injuries are often unrelated to those that result in life-altering harm. When leadership attention is captured by frequent, low-consequence events, rare but severe risks may be left unmanaged, with potentially catastrophic consequences. In this way, prevention programs can deliver a false sense of control over SIF exposures.

Failure Mode 2: Vague Definitions
A second weakness lies in poor or inconsistent definitions of SIFs and high-potential events. Throughout industry organizations, it is not uncommon for classification criteria to be vague, subjective or inconsistently applied across business units. A high-potential event by one department’s standards may be categorized as routine by another department. Over time, classification decisions can be influenced by concerns about metrics, reputation or escalation requirements. Where definitions lack clarity and stability, data produced by the SIF prevention program becomes unreliable, inevitably eroding trust. The program cannot function as a learning system if those involved do not believe that events are categorized honestly and consistently.

Failure Mode 3: Focusing on Outcomes vs. Exposures
SIF prevention programs sometimes fail because leaders focus on injury outcomes rather than exposures. Serious injuries occur rarely, but exposure to high-risk conditions is often routine for frontline workers in the utility sector. Because many programs only analyze events after an employee has been harmed or narrowly avoided harm, leaders can miss opportunities to learn from everyday work with the same hazards. Effective SIF prevention requires visibility into where risk – including uncontrolled energy, weak barriers and degraded systems – lives day to day, not only where it manifests as injury. Without that shift, organizational learning remains reactive and incomplete.

Failure Mode 4: Assuming Effectiveness of Controls
Another common failure point of SIF prevention programs is the assumption that critical controls are effective simply because they exist. Programs often identify controls on paper but stop short of verifying how they perform under real operating conditions. While audits may confirm that a guard is installed, a procedure is written, or a training record is complete, they can fail to assess whether the control functions as intended when time pressure, fatigue, adverse environmental conditions or production demands are introduced. Over time, systems drift, workarounds emerge and barriers degrade. SIF prevention programs that do not demand active testing and verification of a control’s effectiveness in the field create overconfidence in protection that could fail when it is needed most.

Failure Mode 5: Fear and Blame
Fear and blame undermine a program’s effectiveness. Identifying an event as a SIF or a high-potential incident often triggers intense organizational scrutiny, formal investigations and disciplinary consequences. Leaders may react emotionally, driven by concern, accountability pressures and regulatory anxiety. Supervisors and workers quickly learn that labeling an occurrence as a high-potential event can bring personal risk. In turn, events may be softened, reclassified or not reported at all, resulting in the loss of valuable learning signals – those that reveal how close the system came to serious harm. A SIF prevention program cannot succeed in environments where silence feels safer than transparency.

Failure Mode 6: Fixating on Rule Violations vs. Decision-Making
Serious incidents rarely occur due to a single reckless act, typically emerging from a series of decisions that made sense to employees at the time given the information they had and the constraints and pressures they faced. Unfortunately, many SIF prevention programs fixate on rule violations rather than understanding decision-making. Programs that focus on rule compliance often ask who failed to follow a procedure rather than why the procedure was difficult or impossible to follow in context, an approach that overlooks production pressures, resource limitations, conflicting goals and normalization of risk. By simplifying complex failures into individual errors, organizations miss the opportunity to address systemic conditions that shape behavior and allow recurrence of serious harm.

Conclusion
SIF prevention programs fail when they manage indicators rather than exposure, learning and controls, prioritizing measurement over understanding and compliance over adaptability. Preventing serious harm requires leaders to confront how work is truly performed, how systems drift over time and how people make trade-offs in imperfect conditions. Organizations that succeed in reducing SIF risk shift their focus from counting injuries to understanding where risk accumulates, verifying that controls work as intended and creating environments in which learning is valued more than blame. A SIF prevention program not designed around these realities may appear robust on paper but leaves the most consequential risks largely untouched.

About the Author: Gina Vanderlin, CSP, CHMM, CIT, CUSP, is the customer operations health and safety program manager at PSEG Long Island. With over 15 years of experience leading EHS initiatives in high-reliability industries, she remains passionate about elevating safety from a compliance function to a strategic driver of culture, engagement and operational excellence. Reach Vanderlin at gina.vanderlin@psegliny.com.

During the annual T&D PowerSkills Trainers Conference earlier this year, several of our clients asked about OSHA’s stance on heat illness prevention. Months later, we are still fielding questions about the topic, as are Incident Prevention’s subject matter experts.

The bottom line is that employers are legally required to have a plan in place to protect all heat-exposed workers. It’s as simple as that. Confusion usually stems from the difference between state OSHA plans and federal rules. After reviewing state plans that include detailed heat illness prevention protocols, some industry professionals question why federal OSHA is silent on the issue.

But the agency has not been silent. While it’s true that they haven’t yet been able to establish a workable standard, their expectations are clear. States generally have an easier time establishing heat illness prevention rules because their smaller relative size simplifies the development and implementation of rules that address region-specific risks. Federal OSHA, on the other hand, must consider the wide-ranging exposures that exist throughout the United States, including in overseas territories.

To help Incident Prevention readers prepare their organizations for compliance, we’re now going to review some relevant history followed by an exploration of OSHA’s more recent heat illness prevention work. Specific rules haven’t arrived just yet, but that doesn’t change your safety obligations to your employees.

OSHA’s General Duty Clause
It was 1972 when the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health first recommended development of an OSHA heat standard. Their suggestion was based on a critical review of scientific and technical data. OSHA responded by appointing the Standards Advisory Committee on Heat Stress in 1973; in 1974, committee members presented their recommendations for an occupational heat stress standard.

Throughout the decades, OSHA has issued heat-related guidance to employers, ultimately relying on the core expectations of the General Duty Clause as incentive. Located at Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the clause states that each employer “shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Enforcement data reveals that federal OSHA used it as grounds to issue at least 348 heat-related citations between 1986 and 2023, but the agency cannot require employer abatement until they prove the hazardous nature of a specific workplace condition during an enforcement proceeding. In short, the General Duty Clause’s real teeth are reserved for post-incident enforcement.

Promulgating a written heat illness prevention standard would establish the hazard’s existence at the rulemaking stage, thus allowing OSHA to identify and require specific abatement measures. Currently, the General Duty Clause makes it difficult for the agency to ensure abatement before employees’ lives are unnecessarily endangered. The clause also largely forces OSHA to rely on expert witness testimony as proof that (1) a hazard exists and (2) feasible abatement measures will reduce or eliminate the hazard.

Per OSHA 29 CFR 1926.21, “Safety training and education,” employers must train employees in the recognition, avoidance and prevention of unsafe workplace conditions. The agency’s PPE standards require employers to conduct hazard assessments when determining the protective gear that exposed workers must wear. Yet heat is not specifically identified as a hazard in any OSHA standard, complicating the application of these rules.

Emphasis Program and Proposed Rulemaking
OSHA launched a national emphasis program on heat in April 2022, which was updated earlier this year (see www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_03-00-024_0.pdf). Intended to encourage early employer intervention, the program targets specific industries whose workers are exposed to high-heat hazards.

Around the same time, the agency also issued Temporary Worker Initiative Bulletin No. 12 (see www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA4185.pdf), which addresses the rising number of heat illness and fatal heat exposures among temporary workers in the U.S.

Finally, on August 30, 2024, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a standard titled “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” (see www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-30/pdf/2024-14824.pdf), taking a significant step toward federal heat protection for workers. The proposed standard would require employers in general industry, construction, maritime and agriculture to create plans to evaluate and control heat hazards in their workplaces. Further, it would clarify employer obligations and the actions necessary to effectively protect employees.

The agency’s ultimate goal is to eliminate occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities caused by heat exposure. Proactive employers should assume that most of OSHA’s proposal will eventually become standardized. In any case, the document contains solid guidance regarding the establishment of effective worker protection programs.

Preventive Activities
Heat illness prevention programs reflected in state OSHA plans often include the information and activities listed below. As you read, please note that anyone who uses this data is responsible for confirming its accuracy and ensuring the safety of any implementation efforts.

Watch Coworkers for These Symptoms

• Heat exhaustion: weakness, blurred vision, vomiting, dizziness, headache. Move the victim to a cool environment, loosen their clothing, provide fluids and call 911.
• Heat stroke: red face/skin; no perspiration when there should be; elevated body temperature; mental disorientation; convulsions; unconsciousness. Call 911; move the injured worker to a cool environment; elevate their feet; and apply cold packs to the back and sides of their neck, under their arms and between their thighs.
• Heat stress and heat cramps: thirst, stomachache, rash, soreness or weakness in the muscles, especially the arms and legs. Move the victim to a cool environment, encourage them to drink liquids and ensure they rest. Seek medical attention if their symptoms worsen or fail to subside.

Eat Well, Stay Hydrated

• Talk to your doctor(s) about dietary recommendations for heat stress prevention.
• Eat foods that contain omega-3 fatty acids to help your body regulate heat stress.
• Watermelon, cucumber, celery, kiwi and banana are just a few good sources of electrolytes, vitamins, fiber and water/hydration. Eat them to protect against and repair from heat stress.
• Avoid drinking excessive amounts of coffee. It is a diuretic, meaning it increases urine excretion.
• Drink at least one pint of water and one glass of fruit juice before beginning the workday.
• Sip water every 15 minutes throughout the day.
• Energy drink consumption is strongly discouraged (see the section below titled “Energy Drinks: What Employers Should Know” for more on this topic).
• Consume sports drinks like Gatorade to maintain healthy electrolyte levels. For optimal hydration, drink a ratio of three parts water to one part sports drink.
• Continue hydrating into the evening. Yes, technically beer is made with water, but as with coffee, alcohol also has diuretic effects.

Other Tips

• Maintain awareness of the jobsite’s heat conditions. Explore widely available weather apps that deliver timely heat risk warnings to your mobile device.
• Seek relevant reference materials from the American Red Cross, OSHA and NIOSH.
• Begin heat illness protocols when the jobsite temperature reaches over 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Adjust job scheduling or provide frequent breaks for exposed workers.
• Provide shade where practical. Make hard hat shades available; workers can use them to shield their head and neck from direct sunlight.
• During pre-job briefings, discuss the day’s potential for heat-related illnesses. Assess crew members for symptoms throughout your shift.
• Seek help as soon as you begin to feel heat stress effects.
• Consider contacting a local hospital to find out whether any of their doctors provide consulting services or deliver presentations on heat illness prevention.

Energy Drinks: What Employers Should Know
As I alluded to earlier, energy drinks can be dangerous, particularly when workers use them to cope with physical stress in hot environments. A 2015 report (see https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-study-one-energy-drink-may-increase-heart-disease-risk-in-young-adults) confirmed what hospitals had already been reporting for several years: that energy drinks – especially when consumed throughout the day as a means of coping with high levels of physical stress – can have detrimental health effects, including heart stress that has led to the death of otherwise healthy young adults. Today, numerous other studies cite similar concerns. Safety and health professionals should be reading this literature.

Energy drinks are widely available, largely unregulated and typically marketed to consumers as a quick way to increase productivity, metabolism, stamina, physical endurance and/or mental acuity. Commonly available brands include Rockstar; Red Bull; 5-Hour Energy; Monster; NOS; Full Throttle; and AMP. These beverages can contain caffeine; sugar; niacinamide; carnitine; amino acids; herbal and natural extracts; taurine; guarana; ginseng; vitamin B3, B6, B9 and B12; sucrose; glucose; inositol; and various preservatives.

Sports drinks are usually advertised as an option for rehydration and electrolyte replacement during periods of strenuous exercise. They typically contain sodium, potassium, chloride, and glucose or sucrose. Common brands include Gatorade, Powerade, Sqwincher and All Sport.

Drink Policies
Industry employers should consider developing policies regarding energy and sports drinks. Do your research and roll out effective training so that employees understand the organization’s obligation to ensure their safety.

Given that energy drinks present a recognized health and safety risk, an employer may choose to fully prohibit their storage and consumption on company premises. Sports drinks, on the other hand, should be recommended and made readily available to employees for electrolyte replacement purposes during times of heat stress. While generally recognized as safe, be sure to note that sports drinks can be overused as hydration therapy, posing a health risk to some individuals. For this reason, it is wise to limit their consumption. Hydration is best achieved by drinking water, and eating a nutritious diet will successfully replace electrolytes.

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 electric utility industry experienced some catastrophic events during the first quarter of this year, including the deaths of multiple employees. I always feel incredibly sad when I hear about another serious injury or fatality (SIF). My heart goes out to everyone who has been impacted by these incidents.

I know I am not alone in asking why catastrophic industry events continue to occur, especially since most were preventable. It is also curious that while lineworkers are often trained in leadership and human performance early in their career, they rarely receive any refresher training. These are not one-and-done subjects. Continued training, I believe, will help to meaningfully lower SIFs rates among frontline workers. Employees must also be willing to speak up if they have any doubts about worksite or worker safety.

However, refresher training can be viewed as little more than an employer obligation. Complete the bare minimum and all is well for another year, right? Yet here is what I have learned: In all my years of investigating SIFs, far too many stemmed from inadequate cover-up and/or improper grounding – not because crews were not technically proficient but because of leadership and human performance issues.

I will tell you a brief story to explain what I mean. In June 1973, I experienced a serious flash that remains seared into my memory. There were various contributing factors, including a human performance failure on my part. After successfully installing a set of 1200-amp gang switches in an energized 12-kV circuit without issue, I lost focus and became a bit complacent. So, when our crew moved on to the next task (taking a little slack out of an improperly sagged primary), it seemed easy in comparison – until I failed to properly install a split blanket on a dead-end and nearly burned up myself and my pole buddy. Other crew members who had watched me working never said anything about the blanket. Were they paying attention?

People sometimes say that industry accidents occur because line work is a dangerous occupation. Forbes consistently points to construction work and electrical power-line installation/repair as two of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America (see www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/workers-comp/most-dangerous-jobs-america for one example). What I can tell you from decades of experience is that the tasks lineworkers perform are almost always hazardous, yes, but most employees who have been hurt or killed on the job also deviated from accepted safe work practices. Noncompliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(l), (m) and (n) – particularly regarding minimum approach distances and cover-up – continues to be a major contributing factor to SIF events. Other factors include switching and tagging errors and failing to test and verify whether equipment is de-energized.

What Comes Next?
Several years ago on a Thursday, four industry workers were killed on four different jobsites in four different states. Each death was the result of deviating from one or more of the regulations I just mentioned. Employee noncompliance with industry regulations reflects failed leadership at nearly every level.

Here is a question to think about: Once an employer has provided employees with the training required by 1910.269(a)(2), what should come next? What more can we do to reinforce training and help crews level up? The next time you investigate an incident or near miss, consider how many employees were present when it happened. Was a dedicated observer in place? Who and where was the person in charge when the event happened? Was a job briefing conducted prior to the start of work? Briefings are an OSHA requirement and a critical tool, providing time for crews to clarify the who, what, where, when, why and how of the job.

Crew leadership skills are essential as well because the foreman or person in charge is not always the one who spots a problem – it is often the individual performing the work or a nearby crew member. A lineworker’s technical skills and field experience are enormous assets provided they have been trained in the safest work methods and consistently comply with regulatory standards, which are minimum safe work practices. It is up to foremen and other members of management to encourage employee use of stop-work authority when they notice an issue. This is key to preventing incidents and near misses.

Model the Way
If you are an experienced journeyman, you are an instructor and a trainer whether you like it or not. Junior lineworkers and apprentices observe you regularly. Ask yourself, do you consistently demonstrate the safest approach to your work? If an apprentice witnessed you engage in an unsafe practice but nothing bad happened, is it possible they might try that approach in the future? By using the safest method every time, you will never have to worry about who is watching.

Here is one last piece of advice I would like to share: Rubber gloves are a lineworker’s best friend. I say that because I have never investigated the death of a lineworker who was wearing their gloves. Remember to always test and verify that equipment is de-energized before beginning work. As you may have noticed, OSHA never uses the word “dead” in their regulations; only “energized” or “de-energized.” Keep that fact in mind and wear your gloves whenever necessary.

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: In the April-May 2024 issue, Incident Prevention responded to a reader’s question about the OSHA digger derrick exemption for licensed operators (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/april-may-2024-qa/). Have you heard anything since then about exemption enforcement trends? For example, has OSHA indicated that it might more closely assess specific lifting activities?

A: OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart CC, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction” – as its title suggests – applies only to construction activities. Subpart CC covers a contractor’s crane operators when they are performing upgrades, such as change-outs to taller poles or new equipment. Like-for-like infrastructure replacements are considered maintenance work, which is covered by 1910.269.

The cranes and derricks standard includes one notable exemption: Although a digger derrick operator must be qualified to set poles, pole-related hardware and pole-fed transformers, the operator is not required to be licensed.

We have not heard about any issues regarding OSHA and storm work, which is considered new construction. Still, in order to provide the right answers to an OSHA representative, contractors must maintain heightened awareness of regulatory rules.

We are aware of a couple of lawsuits pertaining to construction incidents during digger derrick operations. One incident resulted in a hospital stay, the other in a death. Although they requested employer records documenting each operator’s training, neither the OSHA Certified Safety and Health Officials (CSHOs) involved nor their attorneys have formally inquired about the operators’ licensing.

OSHA’s Office of Construction Services reads Incident Prevention magazine, which we know because they send us acknowledgements from time to time. For instance, when we published information about the digger derrick exemption in 2024, someone from the office reached out to confirm its accuracy. They have also said no special enforcement is planned but relayed that since Subpart CC went into effect, the agency has been educating CSHOs via CPL 02-01-057, a compliance directive whose stated purpose is to provide “guidelines for enforcement procedures and inspection guidance conducted for equipment covered by Subpart CC” (see www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_02-01-057.pdf).

Today, all utility safety and operations professionals need to understand the rules. On more than one occasion, bucket operations have caught the attention of passing CSHOs who noticed an immediate danger to life or health. We should count on the same issue with digger derricks; OSHA compliance officers might get curious if they drive by a derrick with its boom in the air.

Due to the lack of a basket test, however, truck cranes also rated as manlifts will likely be the bigger issue. Employers could run into trouble defending themselves if OSHA can’t decide whether a piece of equipment is a manlift or a crane with a basket attached to it. Incident Prevention recommends that all employees be trained to understand the differences between the two.

We are familiar with an instance in which crew members did not use their remote controls; instead, an operator in the cab ran the basket. The crew members explained that they preferred radio contact with the crane operator because the remote controls weren’t fully reliable. OSHA refused to accept that the machine had been used as a manlift due to the operator’s location. They eventually decided that the crew had been using a crane with a basket and cited the contractor for failure to perform required basket proof tests.

Q: Our mechanics just showed us an advertisement for Altec’s EZ-Egress. Since it’s an insulating aerial platform with a door, how does that square with the ANSI A92.2 gloving bucket rule that prohibits access doors?

A: We’ve been exchanging emails with Altec regarding the numerous questions we’ve received about their new EZ-Egress system. We will likely continue speaking with them as system adoption grows across the industry. Current and prospective Altec customers are also free to reach out to the company directly with their questions.

If the EZ-Egress buckets are a success, you can bet other bucket truck manufacturers will follow suit. But there is one issue: Per the ANSI A92.2 standard, Class B buckets are not permitted to have access doors or drainage holes because those items can contribute to contamination and increase flashover risk. Note that ANSI requires high-resistance covers over all metal components around the basket, such as controls and winches.

The A92.2 standard further states that as with material-handling jibs and winches, fiberglass buckets are not insulating unless they are periodically tested just as liners are. The boom is the bucket’s only insulating section. Tested rubber gloves or hot sticks must serve as the worker’s primary means of protection.

To confirm its electrical integrity, Altec tests a bucket like a liner, first ensuring that all conductive components are adequately covered. A foil test using electrodes inside and outside the bucket is then conducted on its entire circumference, including the substantial door. This will require employers to rewrite their protocols for bucket use and the work the trucks can perform.

Lastly, we confirmed with Altec that the company’s rollout advertisements do not mention bucket categories or insulating values, but our understanding is that Category B gloving buckets featuring the EZ-Egress system will eventually be available.

Q: When working in your hooks, what is the correct method for grounding on a single wood transmission pole?

A: Verify that the pole bond is continuous from the static to earth. As you work your way up the pole, check for absence of voltage on the nearest phase conductor. Attach one end of the first ground to the pole bond/bracket. With a shotgun, attach the first ground to the nearest phase. Continue up the pole, attaching the grounded phase to the next closest phase. At the top, connect the last grounded phase to the static.

Q: When working from an insulated bucket, what’s the best grounding method on a single wood pole?

A: The grounding method should be the same whether the worker is in hooks or a bucket, especially if the bucket worker could find themselves between a grounded phase and a pole/arm/string at a different potential, which is possible where clearances are close (e.g., 69 kV and below). Pole bonds usually prevent that but cannot be fully trusted. For the best result, make an intentional connection.

Q: What’s the best way to ground on a single steel pole while working from an insulated bucket?

A: A single steel pole presents the same hazard as a single wood pole. The bond connection can be made using welded brackets, dead-end vangs or grounding bracket clamps. You can use threaded inserts if they are tight to the steel structure.

Q: What’s the best practice for grounding from the pole when the ground electrode is the static at the pole-top?

A: Every employer must address their construction standards and practical requirements for bonding in a worker. Many transmission poles are down-grounded with a three-strand #7 or #2 copper pole bond down to a ground rod cluster, butt wrap or plate all the way up to the static.

We do not recommend climbing to the top of the pole. The most practical approach is to use the pole bond for the initial ground connection. Then, move to the closest phase after testing for the absence of voltage and work upward to ground the next-closest phase. The top phase is often grounded to the static, which may prompt you to ask whether circulating current has formed. “Not if you are bracket grounded” is the closest answer we can provide. Figures 4 and 5 at IEEE 1048 4.2.2 illustrate voltage collapse with a single set of grounds. Brackets will close a completed circuit when they are on the grounded conductor and the nearby induction source supports magnetic coupling, setting up magnetic current circulation in the grounds.

A static involved in any work must be well-bonded to the pole-top. Lineworkers could be shocked (capacitive coupling) or electrocuted (magnetic coupling) if they are located between the static and pole where bonding is compromised or, in some cases, where the static is purposely insulated from the pole without bonding (yes, some utilities are doing that).

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 trained to provide CPR, do you know the average number of chest compressions you administer per minute? Most people don’t.

What if we ask you to name a song that would help you keep an even tempo as you deliver those compressions? We bet you could answer that, and if you can’t, we’ll give you some options during our free July 8 webinar.

Now, let’s go a step further and imagine a world in which we regularly incorporate music into safety-related training, making sessions more interesting, fun and engaging. Maybe an apprentice plays a song during a job briefing, then leads a discussion about how its lyrics relate to worksite safety. Or perhaps a crew leader shares a favorite song at the start of a monthly safety meeting, explaining its connection to hazard mitigation.

Setting the Stage for Synchrony
Several years ago, during a session at the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo, William Martin, CUSP, explained that playing music as trainees enter a room creates synchrony among the group. Typically, he said, this results in greater audience participation and more impactful training. At the same conference, Brent Jeffries brilliantly played Journey’s song “Wheel in the Sky” at the start of his session on “The Energy Wheel Reinvented.”

We decided to try this tactic with a group that we were meeting with twice weekly for two months. For the first two meetings, we played a strategically chosen song as people entered the room, which was followed by conversation about the song’s relevance to the training content. We were pleasantly surprised when some group members began suggesting songs and volunteering to lead future meetings.

Because that experiment created so much engagement, we developed a full playlist for the Frontline training program. We’ll share the list during the July webinar; in the meantime, you can check out a handful of the songs below. As you review them, consider how often you find yourself humming a tune. Then think about which of these training approaches you would find more effective as a trainee: (1) an instructor delivering a lecture about the first principle of human performance improvement (i.e., people are fallible and even the best make mistakes) straight from the U.S. Department of Energy’s HPI handbook or (2) a group discussion about song lyrics that reflect our flawed humanity. In our experience, there isn’t a high likelihood that a worker will speak up because they memorized a human performance principle, but they just might speak up to recite some of these memorable song lyrics.

“Danger Zone” by Kenny Loggins
Key lyrics: “Out along the edges, always where I burn to be. The further on the edge, the hotter the intensity.”

Suggested use: During training sessions on risk tolerance. These lyrics are a great way to remember that we must identify hazards as specific energy sources and quantify risk as the amount of energy. Mitigating hazards keeps crews off the highway to the danger zone.

“Thunderstruck” by AC/DC
Key lyrics: “I was caught in the middle of a railroad track. I looked ’round and I knew there was no turnin’ back.”

Suggested use: As a reminder that every job task includes a critical step. Without an above-the-line work plan – one that’s confirmed safe before work begins – you could be thunderstruck.

“Superstition” by Stevie Wonder
Key lyrics: “When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain’t the way.”

Suggested use: Prompting employees to verify assumptions. For instance, ask yourself and your TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More), “Are we good at what we do or have we been lucky? How do we make our lucky good and our good great?”

“I’m the Problem” by Morgan Wallen
Key lyrics: “You hate that when you look at me, you halfway see yourself.”

Suggested use: When discussing circles of control, influence and concern. Good or bad, attitudes are contagious. This line from Wallen’s song is an excellent cue to look in the mirror the next time you don’t like what someone else is saying or doing. Are they the problem, or are you?

“Baby’s Got Her Blue Jeans On” by Mel McDaniel
Key lyrics: “Down on the corner by the traffic light, everybody’s looking as she walks by. They turn their heads and they watch her till she’s gone.”

Suggested use: Helping workers focus on their tasks. Interruptions and other distractions are error precursors that negatively impact decision-making and overall safety.

“Human” by The Human League
Key lyrics: “Human, born to make mistakes.”

Suggested use: As a reminder that safety plans must be designed to manage controls and reduce errors. Plans that rely solely on people working perfectly will ultimately fail, no matter how skilled those people are or how hard they try.

Conclusion
Our objective in writing this article is to challenge readers to find ways to boost interest and participation in workforce training. The two of us don’t have all the answers, but we believe this approach is worth testing across the industry. Try it out, then join us for the July webinar to ask questions and share what you’ve learned. We look forward to seeing you there.

About the Authors: 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.

Doug Hill, CUSP, is a retired lineworker and safety culture champion with nearly 40 years of utility industry experience. He currently delivers training through the Incident Prevention Institute.

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

Legal Disclaimer: The music and playlists mentioned in this article are intended solely as conceptual examples for training and educational purposes. Using music in a commercial, corporate or public business setting — including training sessions and workplace environments — typically requires specific public performance licenses (e.g., from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or GMR) or a commercial streaming subscription. Standard personal streaming accounts (such as personal Spotify, Apple Music or YouTube accounts) do not permit commercial or public use. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable copyright laws and licensing requirements before playing music in their own business operations.

Webinar: Our Frontline Playlist
July 8, 2026, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

In this episode, Danny Raines discusses the “100 Days of Summer,” a critical period spanning roughly from May 20th to September 10th. During this timeframe, approximately 60% of all major accidents and fatalities occur. The conversation covers the severe dangers of distracted driving , the catastrophic risks of head-on collisions and intersection accidents , and the life-saving importance of using seatbelts. For utility workers facing heightened workloads, the episode highlights the necessity of proper work zone setups , strategies to mitigate heat exhaustion while wearing PPE , and the critical requirement to adhere to the 2024 ASTM updates for testing insulated gloves.

Key Takeaways

• The period between May 20th and September 10th accounts for roughly 60% of all major accidents and fatalities for the entire year.

• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injuries in the country.

• Approximately 40% of all vehicle crashes occur at intersections.

• While head-on collisions make up only 3% to 9% of crashes, they account for around 33% of traffic-related deaths.

• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently introduced a new program focused on preventing heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

• Due to the 2024 ASTM update, electrical gloves cannot be used beyond 12 months from their test date.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the “100 Days of Summer” and why is it a significant time of year?

A: The “100 Days of Summer” refers to the time frame between approximately May 20th and September 10th. It is highly significant because roughly 60% of all severe accidents, vehicle crashes, and workplace fatalities throughout the entire year happen during this specific window.

Q: What are the specific risks and statistics associated with not wearing seatbelts?

A: In fatal highway crashes, half of the victims are not wearing safety belts. When individuals are unbelted, they often become projectiles inside the car, making the risk of injury three times higher for passengers in the back seat and two times higher for the driver.

Q: What precautions must utility workers take regarding PPE and heat during the summer months?

A: Utility workers must stay hydrated by drinking water and electrolytes instead of energy drinks. Even when it is hot and uncomfortable, workers must never remove necessary cover-up equipment. Furthermore, workers must strictly track their PPE testing, as the 2024 ASTM update mandates that insulated gloves cannot be used beyond 12 months from their test date.

#100DaysOfSummer #UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #DistractedDriving #LinemanSafety #PPETesting #Lineman #Linemen #Lineworkers

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

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

In this episode, we sit down with Andrew Pantelides and Gary Percy from Telesteps to discuss the next evolution of climbing safety. While traditional fiberglass ladders have been the industry standard for decades, Telesteps is disrupting the market with their patented, DuPont Kevlar non-conductive telescoping ladders. Engineered for use near energized electrical systems, these ladders are 25–30 lbs lighter than traditional models and compact enough to fit in the back of a small van.

We dive into the history of the company—from manufacturing aircraft-grade aluminum tools for the U.S. Military to using the same ballistic materials found in NASA’s Artemis II shield. Learn how these precision tools are improving ergonomics for fleet professionals and why “big when you need it, small when you don’t” is the future of utility safety.

Learn more about their full range of products at: https://telestepsladders.com

Key Takeaways

• The Kevlar Advantage: Unlike fiberglass, which can dry out and fracture over time, Telesteps’ DuPont Kevlar ladders are ballistic-grade, non-conductive, and built to withstand extreme weather and heavy use.

• Revolutionary Portability: These ladders retract to under 30 inches, allowing utility crews to downsize their vehicles and save on fuel costs without sacrificing reach.

• Safety First Engineering: Equipped with safety indicator windows that show when the rungs are locked, a “One-Touch” slow-close release to prevent pinched fingers, and pivoting silicone feet for a sure grip on any surface.

• High Load Capacity: The Kevlar A-frame model holds a Type 1AA duty rating of 375 lbs, while the extension models meet Type 1A (300 lbs) standards, surpassing OSHA requirements.

• Built for Longevity: With a claim rate of only 0.01%, these ladders are designed to be “the last ladder a company buys” if maintained properly.

#UtilitySafety #ElectricalSafety #Telesteps #KevlarLadder #JobsiteSafety

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

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

Several months ago, my dad and I drove to Roanoke, Virginia, to watch my son compete in a collegiate boxing match. It was the kind of weekend that makes you grateful: time with family, a little adventure on the road, and a front-row seat to watch your child chase a dream.

One of the moments that has stuck with me most, however, had nothing to do with boxing. It was a lesson in how quickly the human mind can create stories that feel true in the moment yet aren’t rooted in reality.

The Missing Wallet
At one point during our drive, I pulled my wallet out of my pocket to pay a tollbooth fee. But instead of returning it to my pocket afterward, I set the wallet down elsewhere in the vehicle. Later, after we stopped at a rest area to use the facilities, I was heading toward the vending machine to purchase a soft drink when I realized my wallet was missing from my pocket. I hurried back to the truck as panic set in. My dad and I searched the floorboards, the seats and the ground around the parking spot. Nothing. My wallet was gone.

Almost immediately, my mind began jumping to conclusions. Maybe I’d left the wallet on my lap, I thought, and it fell as I exited the truck. But who had picked it up? I remembered a woman emptying a trash can near our truck. Then I considered the two men we held the door for on the way inside the rest area. Suddenly, I had constructed a whole story in my head: The woman found the wallet, the men noticed, and together they split the contents. I didn’t have any evidence or facts, just a story that felt true. So, I canceled my debit and credit cards and resigned myself to relying on my dad to fund the rest of the trip.

During the ride home, I was digging through the deep center console of my dad’s truck to find a phone charger when suddenly, there it was: my wallet, wedged into a corner where I hadn’t thought to look. Almost just as suddenly, all of my suspicions evaporated.

Confirmation Bias
Throughout the remainder of the drive, I could not stop thinking about how quickly my brain had determined blame and spun a supporting story. I truly believed my wallet was gone, but my certainty wasn’t grounded in reality. That’s an issue that can also arise during incident investigations.

After an event occurs, we want fast answers to our questions. What happened? How did it happen? Who’s responsible? In our rush to make sense of things, we risk filling in the blanks with our assumptions, potentially creating false narratives that validate our suspicions. This is confirmation bias at work. Essentially, once we’ve told ourselves a story that makes sense to us, our brains are hardwired to seek evidence that supports it while ignoring what doesn’t. But an investigation that confirms unsubstantiated ideas merely closes the case. It doesn’t lead to real learning.

A Different Approach
Traditional approaches to safety investigations often focus on determining who failed, which rarely paints the full picture. People seldom head into their workday hoping to make mistakes or cause harm. Their choices seem logical to them in the moment given their environmental conditions, job pressures and available tools. When we skip straight to blame, we miss opportunities to uncover and address systemic weaknesses, pressures and blind spots. We create neatly packaged explanations that feel right but omit the truth – just as I did with my “missing” wallet.

Over time, I’ve loved having conversations with William “Billy” Martin, CUSP, because he emphasizes the value of learning and context over accusations and blame. Billy will tell you that when something goes wrong, the most important question we must ask is not who made a mistake but how the choices preceding the incident seemed logical to those who made them. That shift in perspective helps us move beyond stories into reality, enabling deeper management insight into the complexities of frontline work.

My Challenge to Utility Safety Professionals
Incident investigations are intended to uncover facts, not prove someone’s theory. The process can be slow; it requires curiosity, humility and patience. With that said, here’s a three-pronged challenge I’d like to pose to all safety leaders reading this:

1. Resist the urge to close an investigation using the first story that makes sense.
2. Ask questions that reveal conditions at the time of the incident.
3. Guard against confirmation bias by actively questioning your assumptions.

Conclusion
I laughed when I found my wallet inside the truck’s center console, but I also felt the sting of painting strangers in the worst possible light simply because I wanted a quick explanation.

In our line of work, the cost of creating stories is far greater than any minor personal embarrassment. We potentially miss learning opportunities that could ultimately enhance employee safety. So, the next time something goes wrong on the job, keep in mind that the first story we tell ourselves after an event occurs is rarely wholly accurate. Push yourself to look deeper. Challenge your assumptions. Doing so could make the difference between a recurring incident and a breakthrough in prevention efforts.

About the Author: Jamie Conn, CLCP, is a safety professional with over 20 years of experience working as a lineman for Blue Grass Energy Electric Cooperative. He earned a theology degree and is passionate about people, purpose and driving cultural change rooted in real-world experience.

CM Labs Simulations recently announced its Bucket Truck Simulation Curriculum, the industry’s first and only simulation-based training offering of its kind.

Developed in collaboration with Altec and delivered through the Intellia Workforce Training System, the curriculum is now available to utility companies, contractors, unions and training institutions preparing operators for work at height.

The Bucket Truck Simulation Curriculum gives operators a progressive training path that moves from basic controls through outrigger positioning, bucket navigation in tight spaces and jib-assisted lifts. Developed with authentic Altec ISO-Grip controls, the curriculum helps trainees build familiarity with the same control interface they will use on the truck. https://cm-labs.com

Versatility is built into the blueprint of this new Transformer Reversible Vest, which is designed to adapt to changing job conditions without slowing you down. One side delivers an ANSI 107 Class 2 hi-vis yellow shell with segmented reflective striping. Flip it, and you’ve got a warm, low-profile navy fleece that traps heat and cuts the bite of shifting weather. This two-in-one design means fewer layers to haul, less downtime spent swapping gear, and more control over your comfort and appearance. Built with inherently FR/AR materials, the vest provides dual hazard protection regardless of which side faces out. It also features mirrored handwarmer pockets, zippered chest storage and a drop-tail hem for added coverage. https://bit.ly/41R4mz2

Texas811, the nonprofit organization that manages the state’s call-before-you-dig system, has launched Texas811 Guardian. The innovative technology uses distributed fiber-optic sensing to turn existing fiber-optic lines into real-time monitoring systems that detect excavation activity, preventing damage before it occurs.

To identify urgent issues, the patent-pending Guardian program directly integrates fiber-optic sensing alerts for excavations into the active Texas811 ticket database. An alert is sent to Texas811 when an excavation is detected. Guardian then immediately queries the system to check for an active 811 ticket. If “yes,” the system remains silent; if “no,” Guardian’s technology promptly notifies utility operators of an unauthorized excavation that could pose a significant threat. They are given an exact location and excavation type (mechanical or manual), enabling appropriate resource deployment to protect their underground lines. https://texas811.org/guardian

Seraphina Safety Apparel delivers advanced arc flash-protective base layers engineered specifically for women and men, combining uncompromising safety with exceptional comfort. Designed to be worn next to skin, Seraphina garments provide superior protection while remaining lightweight, breathable and remarkably soft.

Seraphina products are built with innovative, nontoxic materials that actively wickmoisture away from the body, resulting in a cooling, quick-drying base layer that keeps workers comfortable and focused throughout long shifts in high-risk settings. Seraphina is also committed to inclusive design, offering thoughtfully tailored fits that meet the unique needs of women without compromising performance or protection.

Made from fabric that exceeds industry standards, Seraphina garments ensure reliable defense against arc flash hazards while enhancing wearability and compliance. www.seraphinasafety.com

TRUCE Software recently announced full availability of its next-generation connected employee and driver safety platform. Six integrated modules deliver a comprehensive approach to managing mobile devices, driver behavior, performance, vehicle health and field team safety.

At the heart of the platform is ENFORCE, TRUCE’s patented engineering control that automatically eliminates device distraction behind the wheel. When a vehicle reaches driving speed, ENFORCE automatically restricts access to distracting apps, calls, texts and notifications. There is no opt-in, override or reliance on employee discipline. ENFORCE operates seamlessly in the background on both iOS and Android devices and restores full device functionality as soon as the vehicle stops. https://trucesoftware.com/road

In this episode, Danny Raines discusses the “100 Days of Summer,” a critical period spanning roughly from May 20th to September 10th. During this timeframe, approximately 60% of all major accidents and fatalities occur. The conversation covers the severe dangers of distracted driving , the catastrophic risks of head-on collisions and intersection accidents , and the life-saving importance of using seatbelts. For utility workers facing heightened workloads, the episode highlights the necessity of proper work zone setups , strategies to mitigate heat exhaustion while wearing PPE , and the critical requirement to adhere to the 2024 ASTM updates for testing insulated gloves.

Key Takeaways

• The period between May 20th and September 10th accounts for roughly 60% of all major accidents and fatalities for the entire year.

• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injuries in the country.

• Approximately 40% of all vehicle crashes occur at intersections.

• While head-on collisions make up only 3% to 9% of crashes, they account for around 33% of traffic-related deaths.

• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently introduced a new program focused on preventing heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

• Due to the 2024 ASTM update, electrical gloves cannot be used beyond 12 months from their test date.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the “100 Days of Summer” and why is it a significant time of year?

A: The “100 Days of Summer” refers to the time frame between approximately May 20th and September 10th. It is highly significant because roughly 60% of all severe accidents, vehicle crashes, and workplace fatalities throughout the entire year happen during this specific window.

Q: What are the specific risks and statistics associated with not wearing seatbelts?

A: In fatal highway crashes, half of the victims are not wearing safety belts. When individuals are unbelted, they often become projectiles inside the car, making the risk of injury three times higher for passengers in the back seat and two times higher for the driver.

Q: What precautions must utility workers take regarding PPE and heat during the summer months?

A: Utility workers must stay hydrated by drinking water and electrolytes instead of energy drinks. Even when it is hot and uncomfortable, workers must never remove necessary cover-up equipment. Furthermore, workers must strictly track their PPE testing, as the 2024 ASTM update mandates that insulated gloves cannot be used beyond 12 months from their test date.

#100DaysOfSummer #UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #DistractedDriving #LinemanSafety #PPETesting #Lineman #Linemen #Lineworkers

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

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

In this hard-hitting and deeply personal session, industry veteran Danny Raines, CUSP, challenges the “normalization of deviation” in the electrical utility industry. Drawing from decades of experience in the field, as well as his perspective as a pilot, Danny explores why skilled professionals continue to bypass safety regulations despite having better equipment and training than ever before.

Through a series of real-world case studies and sobering accident investigations, this program dissects the thin line between “operating by the rules” and true operational excellence. Danny reminds us that while we can work in an unacceptable manner for years without incident, we are simply increasing the odds of a catastrophic failure. It is a call to action for every employee to become their “brother’s keeper” and refuse to let the unacceptable become the standard.

Part 1: The Illusion of Experience and the Cost of Compromise

In the first half, Danny discusses the origins of the “Accepting the Unacceptable” program and the alarming statistics of human error.

• The Risk of “It Ain’t My Job”: How a lack of ownership leads to system unreliability and hazardous conditions for the next crew.
• The Experience Trap: Why veteran linemen often fall victim to complacency while newer workers suffer from a lack of quality mentorship.
• Minimum vs. Excellent: A breakdown of why following OSHA regulations is merely the “legal minimum” and not the same as operating at an excellent safety level.

Part 2: Leadership, Human Performance, and the Art of the Craft

In the second half, Danny delves into the psychology of human performance and the heavy burden of leadership.

• The Pilot’s Perspective: Comparing “Cockpit Resource Management” to the teamwork required in a bucket truck to prevent fatal mistakes.
• Non-Verbal Endorsements: The dangerous message sent when a leader watches an unsafe act and says nothing, essentially “signing off” on the risk.
• The Artist in the Field: A final reflection on moving from being a laborer to a “craftperson” and ultimately an “artist” who works with hand, brain, and soul.

Question & Answer

1. What is Danny Raines’ definition of “Accepting the Unacceptable”? It is defined as accidents or close calls caused by human performance failures or leadership accepting less than what is required by standards and regulations.

2. Why does Danny believe that following regulations is not enough? He argues that regulations and industry standards represent the minimum precautions required to be “legal,” but they do not equate to operational excellence or the highest level of safety.

3. What is a “non-verbal endorsement” in a safety context? It is when a leader or peer witnesses an unsafe act and remains silent. This silence sends a message to the rest of the crew—especially inexperienced members—that the behavior is acceptable.

4. According to the transcript, who is ultimately responsible for safety on the job site? While the employer is legally responsible and accountable to OSHA, the transcript emphasizes that the employee is the only one who can identify and correct unacceptability the moment it happens on-site.

#LinemanSafety #OperationalExcellence #UtilityIndustry #HumanPerformance #SafetyLeadership #DannyRainesCUSP

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/04PvuEyn

In this hard-hitting and deeply personal session, industry veteran Danny Raines, CUSP, challenges the “normalization of deviation” in the electrical utility industry. Drawing from decades of experience in the field, as well as his perspective as a pilot, Danny explores why skilled professionals continue to bypass safety regulations despite having better equipment and training than ever before.

Through a series of real-world case studies and sobering accident investigations, this program dissects the thin line between “operating by the rules” and true operational excellence. Danny reminds us that while we can work in an unacceptable manner for years without incident, we are simply increasing the odds of a catastrophic failure. It is a call to action for every employee to become their “brother’s keeper” and refuse to let the unacceptable become the standard.

Part 1: The Illusion of Experience and the Cost of Compromise

In the first half, Danny discusses the origins of the “Accepting the Unacceptable” program and the alarming statistics of human error.

• The Risk of “It Ain’t My Job”: How a lack of ownership leads to system unreliability and hazardous conditions for the next crew.
• The Experience Trap: Why veteran linemen often fall victim to complacency while newer workers suffer from a lack of quality mentorship.
• Minimum vs. Excellent: A breakdown of why following OSHA regulations is merely the “legal minimum” and not the same as operating at an excellent safety level.

Part 2: Leadership, Human Performance, and the Art of the Craft

In the second half, Danny delves into the psychology of human performance and the heavy burden of leadership.

• The Pilot’s Perspective: Comparing “Cockpit Resource Management” to the teamwork required in a bucket truck to prevent fatal mistakes.
• Non-Verbal Endorsements: The dangerous message sent when a leader watches an unsafe act and says nothing, essentially “signing off” on the risk.
• The Artist in the Field: A final reflection on moving from being a laborer to a “craftperson” and ultimately an “artist” who works with hand, brain, and soul.

Question & Answer

1. What is Danny Raines’ definition of “Accepting the Unacceptable”? It is defined as accidents or close calls caused by human performance failures or leadership accepting less than what is required by standards and regulations.

2. Why does Danny believe that following regulations is not enough? He argues that regulations and industry standards represent the minimum precautions required to be “legal,” but they do not equate to operational excellence or the highest level of safety.

3. What is a “non-verbal endorsement” in a safety context? It is when a leader or peer witnesses an unsafe act and remains silent. This silence sends a message to the rest of the crew—especially inexperienced members—that the behavior is acceptable.

4. According to the transcript, who is ultimately responsible for safety on the job site? While the employer is legally responsible and accountable to OSHA, the transcript emphasizes that the employee is the only one who can identify and correct unacceptability the moment it happens on-site.

#LinemanSafety #OperationalExcellence #UtilityIndustry #HumanPerformance #SafetyLeadership #DannyRainesCUSP

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/04PvuEyn

In this episode, Danny Raines, CUSP, joins the show to discuss the critical transition from being a crew member to a leader in the utility industry. Drawing from his extensive career—from journeyman lineman to safety consultant—Danny explores the challenges of supervision, such as navigating generational differences and the importance of communication skills. The conversation delves into the “glass house” effect, highlighting how a leader’s actions on and off the job, including on social media, influence safety culture. Danny also breaks down different leadership styles, advocating for servant leadership as the most effective approach for modern crews.

Buy Danny’s Book – https://www.amazon.com/Legends-Ole-Lineman-learning-Journeyman-ebook/dp/B0FXN6G7V8/ref

Key Takeaways:

• The Difficulty of Transition: Moving from a “doer” to a leader is a long road because it is often easier to do the job yourself than to get others to do it according to expectations.
• The “Glass House” Effect: Leaders must realize they are always being watched by their crew and peers. This extends to social media, where liking or interacting with unsafe content can undermine a leader’s credibility and influence new apprentices negatively.
• Servant Leadership: The most successful leadership style is “servant leadership,” defined by Danny as never asking a crew member to do something the leader hasn’t done or isn’t willing to help with.
• Admitting Knowledge Gaps: Leaders should never “blow smoke” or pretend to know everything. If a leader doesn’t know the answer, they should admit it, pause the work, and find the correct information to maintain trust.
• Generational Awareness: Effective leadership requires understanding generational differences (e.g., Baby Boomers vs. Millennials) and adapting communication styles to different personality profiles.
• Succession Planning: A vital first step for any new supervisor is to identify and mentor the person who will eventually replace them.

Questions & Answers

1. What inspired Danny Raines to write his recent article on leadership? Danny was inspired by reflecting on his own career progression from a crew member to various leadership roles, as well as a book written by his pastor titled Yes, I Can, which resonated with his experiences of rising to new challenges.

2. How does Danny define the “Glass House” concept in leadership? The “Glass House” means that a leader is constantly under observation. Everything they do, whether on the job site or on social media, is seen by others, and mistakes or endorsements of unsafe behavior (even online) can negatively influence the workforce.

3. What are the four main leadership styles discussed in the podcast? Danny identifies four primary styles: Autocratic (authority-based), Democratic (voting/consensus-based), Bureaucratic (rule-governed), and Servant Leadership (leading by example and support).

4. Why is “Servant Leadership” preferred over the “Autocratic” style in today’s workforce? While autocratic leadership (“my way or the highway”) was common in the past, it creates friction, especially with younger generations. Servant leadership fosters better buy-in because the leader reasons with the crew, explains the “why,” and proves they are willing to do the work themselves.

5. What should a leader do if they encounter a situation they don’t understand? They should immediately stop and admit they aren’t sure, rather than acting like they know. Danny advises saying, “I’m not real sure about this, but let me check and I’ll get right back with you,” to avoid breaking trust or causing safety issues.

6. What is Danny’s “one piece of advice” for new leaders? His advice is “Don’t rush it.” Leadership takes time and experience to build. He urges new leaders to be humble, learn as they go, and seek advice rather than expecting to know everything immediately.

#UtilitySafety #LeadershipDevelopment #LinemanLife #ServantLeadership #SafetyCulture #CUSP

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

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

As the grid transitions to green energy, battery energy storage systems (BESS) are popping up everywhere—from utility substations to residential neighborhoods. But what happens when lithium-ion technology fails? In this episode of The Voice of Experience, host Danny Raines and Fire Test Specialist Josh Dinaburg from the CSA Group dive deep into the reality of battery fire safety.

Josh brings nearly 20 years of lab experience to explain why the “let it burn” strategy is often the safest choice for first responders and the environment. We dispel common myths about toxic runoff, explore how AI is revolutionizing failure detection, and discuss the rigorous testing standards keeping our communities safe. If you work in utilities, safety operations, or fire protection, this is the essential guide to understanding the risks and remedies of modern energy storage.

Learn More: https://www.csagroup.org/

Contact Josh: josh.dinaburg@csagroup.org

Danny Raines, CUSP Book – Legendas of an Ole’ Lineman: Order Here

Key Takeaways

• The “Let It Burn” Strategy is Intentional: Contrary to public perception, the safest tactic for large-scale battery fires is often isolation rather than active suppression. Attempting to extinguish the fire can leave “stranded energy” in damaged cells, creating a “ticking time bomb” for secondary events, whereas letting it consume itself renders the waste safer for disposal.
• Manufacturing Quality is Improving Rapidly: While cell counts in storage facilities are increasing, the failure rate has dropped significantly—now estimated in the “one out of millions” range rather than hundreds.
• Environmental Impact is Manageable: Extensive testing indicates that water and air quality impacts from these fires are generally comparable to standard structure fires. Runoff has not been demonstrated to cause immediate “forever chemical” threats to groundwater, provided the site is managed correctly.
• AI is the Future of Prevention: The industry is moving toward advanced Battery Management Systems (BMS) that use AI to analyze temperature and voltage trends, allowing operators to identify and isolate failing cells months before a thermal runaway event occurs.
• Firefighter Safety is Paramount: The primary risk to first responders is not just the fire, but the potential for explosion and high-voltage hazards. The current standard emphasizes life safety and evacuation over asset protection.

Q&A: Addressing Common Concerns

1. What is the biggest myth about battery storage fires?

Answer: The biggest myth is that if fire departments aren’t spraying water, they don’t know what they are doing. In reality, standing back and monitoring is a calculated containment strategy. Active firefighting can waste water and endanger responders without effectively stopping the thermal runaway, so isolation is often the professional standard.

2. Does a battery fire pose a unique toxic threat to the local community?

Answer: While lithium-ion electrolytes contain fluorinated compounds, the combustion products are remarkably similar to a typical house fire involving polyurethane furniture or cleaning chemicals under a sink. The smoke should be avoided like any other fire, but it does not generally require unique HazMat protocols beyond standard breathing protection and evacuation.

3. Can technology stop a fire once it starts?

Answer: Once thermal runaway begins in a specific cell, the chemical and electrical energy makes it nearly impossible to stop that specific event. However, engineering controls—such as insulation barriers and novel injection systems—are designed to prevent that single-cell failure from propagating to the rest of the battery bank, turning a potential catastrophe into a minor, contained incident.

#BatteryStorage #FireSafety #RenewableEnergy #UtilitySafety #LithiumIon #CSAGroup

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

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

It’s not just downed lines and high voltage you need to watch out for during storm restoration. In the mud and floodwaters lies a hidden, deadly threat: flesh-eating bacteria. In this critical episode, we’re talking about Necrotizing Fasciitis, a rare but devastating infection that can start from a tiny cut or scrape exposed to contaminated water. We break down what every line worker and utility professional needs to know—how to identify the risks on a storm-ravaged site, the crucial first-aid steps that can save your life, and the early warning signs you can’t afford to ignore. Don’t let a small nick turn into a career-ending injury. This is a must-listen for anyone working in the aftermath of a hurricane, flood, or major storm.

Key Takeaways

• The Threat is Real: Necrotizing Fasciitis is caused by bacteria (like Group A Strep or Vibrio vulnificus) found in contaminated water, mud, and debris common after storms. It enters the body through any break in the skin, including minor cuts, scrapes, or even insect bites.
• Prevention is Proactive Wound Care: Standard PPE is your first defense, but it’s not foolproof. The most critical step is to immediately and thoroughly clean any wound—no matter how small—with soap and clean water. Follow up with an antiseptic and a waterproof bandage.
• Know the Early Warning Signs: The infection progresses with terrifying speed. Watch for pain that is far more severe than the injury looks, rapidly spreading redness or swelling, fever, chills, and flu-like symptoms. Do not “wait and see.”
• Time is Tissue: If you suspect an infection, seek immediate medical attention. Go to an emergency room and explicitly state your concern about a severe skin infection from exposure to storm water. Early and aggressive treatment is the key to survival and recovery.

Q&A Session

1. I’m always covered in PPE. Isn’t that enough protection?

While waterproof gear and gloves are essential, they can be punctured or torn. Bacteria can also enter the body if you touch a contaminated surface and then inadvertently touch a small, existing cut. The real defense is vigilant personal hygiene and immediate wound care. Think of your first-aid kit as being just as important as your climbing gear.

2. How can I tell the difference between a regular infection and flesh-eating bacteria?

The two key indicators are pain and speed. A typical localized infection might be sore, red, and develop over a few days. Necrotizing Fasciitis is characterized by excruciating pain that seems completely out of proportion to the minor wound. The redness and swelling will also spread incredibly fast, sometimes visibly changing within a single hour. If the pain is the worst you’ve ever felt, it’s a major red flag.

3. What if I get a cut but I’m in the middle of a 16-hour shift?

Don’t tough it out. Stop what you’re doing immediately. At a minimum, douse the wound with clean water from your water bottle and apply antiseptic from your personal or truck first-aid kit. Cover it securely. As soon as you are able, clean it more thoroughly with soap and water. Report the injury to your supervisor, no matter how minor, so there’s a record. This ensures you’re covered and encourages a culture of safety.

iPi Forum – https://ip-institute.com/ipi-forum/

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

#LineWorkerSafety #StormRestoration #UtilityWorker #NecrotizingFasciitis #Lineman #SafetyFirst #LineLife #WorkplaceSafety #CUSP #FleshEatingBacteria

In this powerful episode of the Utility Safety Podcast: Voice of Experience, veteran lineman and safety consultant Danny Raines, CUSP, shares hard-earned lessons from decades of storm response—from Hurricane Katrina to ice storms in Georgia. With hurricane season in full swing, Danny offers real-world guidance on preparing for storm duty, understanding system hazards, and staying mentally and physically resilient in the face of chaos. Whether you’re a new lineworker heading out on your first storm or a seasoned pro, this episode delivers critical insights to keep you safe, sharp, and storm-ready.

Key Takeaways:

1. Preparation is Everything: Danny emphasizes the importance of personal checklists, including meds, hygiene, and weather-appropriate gear.

2. Test and Verify: Don’t assume equipment is de-energized—especially with the increase in generators, solar, and battery backups.

3. Mental & Physical Fatigue is Real: After 14–18 days, exhaustion sets in, increasing the chance of errors. Know your limits.

4. Find a Mentor: For new linemen, a trusted mentor can be a lifeline during complex storm work.

5. Storm Hazards Go Beyond Electricity: Environmental dangers like snakes, alligators, and aggressive customers add to the challenge.

3 Questions & Answers:

Q1: What’s one of the most overlooked parts of storm prep?

A: Personal medications. Many new crew members forget that pharmacies may be closed or destroyed post-storm, making it impossible to refill critical prescriptions.

Q2: Why is it so important to “test and verify”?

A: With so many modern power sources—from Honda generators to solar panels and battery storage—assumptions can be fatal. Always check for voltage, even on lines you think are isolated.

Q3: How long can a lineworker realistically stay sharp on storm duty?

A: According to Danny, the magic number is around 14–18 days. After that, physical fatigue and mental exhaustion dramatically increase the risk of mistakes and injuries.

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 #StormResponse #LinemanLife #HurricanePrep #ElectricalSafety #DannyRaines #CUSP #Lineworkers #StormWork

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

Listen to Part 1: https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/beyond-root-cause-shifting-to-a-root-conditions-mindset-in-utility-safety-part-1-with-billy-martin-cusp/

In this 2 part series of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick sits down with Kate Wade and safety expert Bill Martin to challenge the traditional frameworks of incident investigation. Moving away from the “blame and shame loop” of traditional root cause analysis, the group explores the concept of “root conditions”. Using vivid metaphors like the decision funnel, the tomato plant, and the petri dish, Bill explains how human physiology, organizational pressure, and crew dynamics heavily dictate safety outcomes long before an incident occurs. The conversation delivers a deep dive into metacognition, the dangers of treating workers as simple commodities, and how field crews can reclaim agency over their safety decisions.

Key Takeaways

• The Shift from Root Cause to Root Conditions: Utility environments are complex webs rather than straight lines. Searching for a single “loose bolt” or miscommunication causes organizations to miss the underlying systemic conditions that allowed the failure to happen.

• The Metaphor of the Tomato Plant: True leadership is about managing the environment rather than demanding results. Just as humans cannot force a seed to grow by yelling at it, safety managers must cultivate healthy cultural and environmental conditions to release human potential.

• The Funnel of Pressure: The top of the funnel represents a slow-moving “swirl” where ideas, job briefs, and life stressors mix. As time narrows toward a decision, pressure spikes. Focusing solely on the bottom of the funnel hides the upstream factors that perfectly aligned to cause an event.

• The Danger of Strip Mining Talent: Large utilities often treat contractors as interchangeable commodities, such as breaking up intact crews to aggregate specialized operators during storm responses. This destroys the crew’s “collective intelligence” and synchrony, heavily compromising safety.

• Listening to Weak Signals: Organizations must pay attention to cultural warnings, such as workers sitting exclusively in the back row during safety meetings or saying, “I know this is stupid, but it’s what they want.” These are indicators of a toxic culture of mere compliance.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the difference between a root cause mindset and a root conditions mindset?

A1: A root cause mindset seeks certainty by isolating a single point of failure or human error at the exact moment of an incident. Conversely, a root conditions mindset looks far upstream to evaluate the environmental factors, physiological stress, and systemic setups that allowed the incident to form over time.

Q2: What role does “metacognition” play in improving on-the-job safety decisions?

A2: Metacognition is the practice of “thinking about your thinking”. By recognizing that automated emotions and internal thoughts are separate from the “observer” within the mind, workers can utilize a brief pause (a 5-4-3-2-1 count) to intentionally choose a safe, adaptive response rather than defaulting to a low-level, high-pressure reaction.

Q3: Why does Bill Martin argue that the presence of an observer changes safety data?

A3: Drawing on scientific principles, Bill explains that an outside observer inevitably alters the environment they enter. For example, when management performs targeted field observations, crew behaviors temporarily shift due to that presence, meaning the data collected does not accurately reflect everyday operations.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #RootConditions #SafetyCulture #Metacognition #HumanPotential

Listen to Part 2: https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/233errrff/

In this 2 part series of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick sits down with Kate Wade and safety expert Bill Martin to challenge the traditional frameworks of incident investigation. Moving away from the “blame and shame loop” of traditional root cause analysis, the group explores the concept of “root conditions”. Using vivid metaphors like the decision funnel, the tomato plant, and the petri dish, Bill explains how human physiology, organizational pressure, and crew dynamics heavily dictate safety outcomes long before an incident occurs. The conversation delivers a deep dive into metacognition, the dangers of treating workers as simple commodities, and how field crews can reclaim agency over their safety decisions.

Key Takeaways

• The Shift from Root Cause to Root Conditions: Utility environments are complex webs rather than straight lines. Searching for a single “loose bolt” or miscommunication causes organizations to miss the underlying systemic conditions that allowed the failure to happen.

• The Metaphor of the Tomato Plant: True leadership is about managing the environment rather than demanding results. Just as humans cannot force a seed to grow by yelling at it, safety managers must cultivate healthy cultural and environmental conditions to release human potential.

• The Funnel of Pressure: The top of the funnel represents a slow-moving “swirl” where ideas, job briefs, and life stressors mix. As time narrows toward a decision, pressure spikes. Focusing solely on the bottom of the funnel hides the upstream factors that perfectly aligned to cause an event.

• The Danger of Strip Mining Talent: Large utilities often treat contractors as interchangeable commodities, such as breaking up intact crews to aggregate specialized operators during storm responses. This destroys the crew’s “collective intelligence” and synchrony, heavily compromising safety.

• Listening to Weak Signals: Organizations must pay attention to cultural warnings, such as workers sitting exclusively in the back row during safety meetings or saying, “I know this is stupid, but it’s what they want.” These are indicators of a toxic culture of mere compliance.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the difference between a root cause mindset and a root conditions mindset?

A1: A root cause mindset seeks certainty by isolating a single point of failure or human error at the exact moment of an incident. Conversely, a root conditions mindset looks far upstream to evaluate the environmental factors, physiological stress, and systemic setups that allowed the incident to form over time.

Q2: What role does “metacognition” play in improving on-the-job safety decisions?

A2: Metacognition is the practice of “thinking about your thinking”. By recognizing that automated emotions and internal thoughts are separate from the “observer” within the mind, workers can utilize a brief pause (a 5-4-3-2-1 count) to intentionally choose a safe, adaptive response rather than defaulting to a low-level, high-pressure reaction.

Q3: Why does Bill Martin argue that the presence of an observer changes safety data?

A3: Drawing on scientific principles, Bill explains that an outside observer inevitably alters the environment they enter. For example, when management performs targeted field observations, crew behaviors temporarily shift due to that presence, meaning the data collected does not accurately reflect everyday operations.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #RootConditions #SafetyCulture #Metacognition #HumanPotential

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/confronting-data-bias-to-improve-safety-outcomes/

Effective mitigation requires leaders to regularly audit data, standardize definitions and measurement practices, and create psychologically safe reporting environments.

This podcast episode features Gina Vanderlin, CUSP, CSP, CHMM, CIT, Health and Safety Program Manager at PSEG Long Island and a self-professed “Safety Alchemist”. In a deep dive with host Kate Wade, Gina explores how safety professionals can transform raw data and standard procedures into meaningful organizational change. The conversation focuses on her Applied Alchemy article series for Incident Prevention magazine, specifically highlighting the hidden dangers of data bias and the evolving safety risks associated with new energy technologies like lithium-ion batteries.

Key Takeaways

• The Concept of Safety Alchemy: Rather than just following compliance-based checklists, a “safety alchemist” blends diverse disciplines—such as behavioral science, decision science, and engineering—to transform information into actionable insight.
• The Evolution of Battery Hazards: As utilities integrate EVs and grid storage, employers must reconsider hazard communication. Batteries often bypass traditional scrutiny because they are classified as “articles,” but damaged or failing batteries introduce significant chemical and fire risks.
• Data Bias in Safety Management: Bias is a natural human trait, but in safety data, it can lead to “ghost” weaknesses. Gina identifies five key biases—survivorship, selection, measurement, historical, and algorithmic—that can cause a safety system to drift away from reality.
• The “Geographic Presumption”: Under a new OSHA letter of interpretation (Jan 2026), injuries caused by personal devices (like e-cigarettes or personal chargers) in the workplace are generally considered work-related and recordable.
• Improving Decision Quality: The common thread across all safety domains is decision quality. Improving how workers interpret information and how leaders prioritize resources is the most effective way to address the plateau in Serious Injury and Fatality (SIF) rates

Questions & Answers

Q1: How does Gina Vanderlin define “Decision Quality” in the context of utility safety?

A: Gina defines it as the core issue connecting diverse safety topics. It involves how individuals and organizations interpret information to make choices. If decisions are made based on flawed assumptions or biased data, the entire safety system can fail to address real-world risks.

Q2: What is a specific example of how data bias has physically impacted safety training?

A: Gina points to CPR training, noting that 95% of mannequins are anatomically male. This lack of representative data creates a “modesty deterrent” and technical discomfort, resulting in women being 14% less likely to receive CPR during a public medical event.

Q3: What does Gina suggest is the biggest pitfall for organizations rebranding their programs as “SIF-focused”?

A: The pitfall is rebranding on paper without actually improving the quality of investigations or examining the decision-making conditions that led to the exposure. Simply changing the name of a near-miss program doesn’t change the safety outcome if the underlying system remains the same.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #SafetyAlchemy #DataBias #OccupationalHealth #IncidentPrevention #EHSLeadership

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/