“Alone and at Risk: The Amplified Dangers Facing Utility Workers“

Sign Up today!

Sign Up today!

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

OK Alone joined Peoplesafe in 2023 and is now part of the largest provider of personal safety tech in the world. With more than 300,000 users, Peoplesafe protects more people than anyone else. This move transforms OK Alone’s ability to protect their users, with access to new, cutting-edge technology and the ability to work with the leaders in personal safety across the business. As a personal safety technology platform, OK Alone has already created full integrations with some of the largest tech platforms in the world, such as Geotab™, and through our APIs we can integrate with any other HR or workforce management system. Through these integrations, companies of any size can easily deploy and manage our personal safety app across their business, at scale.

Accuracies are synonymous with safety and science. While many perceive that electrical safety needs to be highly exact, this article aims at creating awareness of why sticking to the basics is effective.

But before we delve into variability in electrical engineering, safe electrical work practices and electrical PPE, here is a brief story my second-year engineering physics professor shared when I was in school: A person stands in the center of a boxing ring; their soulmate stands in the corner. The person in the center is only allowed to walk toward their soulmate in discrete steps defined by exactly halving the distance between the two. The physicists witnessing this agree that it will be impossible for the distance between the two to ever reach zero. The engineers understand that they can eventually get as close to their soulmate as needed for a happily ever after.

Electrical Engineering
A post on Stack Exchange (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/256283/what-does-the-us-power-supply-waveform-look-like) shows that 120 volts can actually be a 110-volt sine wave with a peak of 149 volts (see Picture 1), and even this varies between the home and the workplace (see Picture 2). The 110-volt equivalent (DC) – or root mean square – presents a 149-volt peak while a 122-volt equivalent presents a 165-volt peak (i.e., the measured empirical data differs from the theoretical conversion from root mean square to peak).

Voltages fluctuate in our homes, workplaces, large industrial plants and the power grid. These fluctuations may occur due to large motors, planned and unplanned outages, and time of day. Like voltages, currents also fluctuate. As little as a 1-amp current fluctuation can be the difference between a breaker tripping in 0.4 milliseconds or 0.4 seconds or even 4 seconds.

Current that flows during an electrical fault is known as short-circuit or fault current. Fault current is greatly influenced by the fault type. Leaving grounds on a circuit will generate close to the maximum short-circuit current that the system can deliver; this is called a bolted fault. If a worker accidentally slips a tool between conductors, an arc flash may occur. Arc flash is the plasma created between the conductors due to the breakdown of air. The arcing fault has more impedance than the scenario with the bolted fault containing the grounds and may propagate. Each of these scenarios influences the magnitude of the (arcing) fault current and the protective device operating time. Higher impedances produce lower short-circuit current, resulting in a longer trip time. So, it is impossible to predict the actual, real-life arc flash energy.

To cater to all these variabilities in fault current and protective device operating times, both the maximum and minimum fault currents and the associated protective device tripping times are considered. The fault currents and associated trip times are two key inputs used to estimate the arc flash hazard/incident energy (or arc flash energy). Some software can determine a wide range of combinations of these parameters and select a worst-case value. However, while science tries to model the incident energy as close to reality as possible, there are too many variables to call arc flash energy calculations “exact.” The IEEE 1584-2018 model used laboratory tests to create a statistically representative set of equations. The probability is extremely high that the real energy will be lower than the calculated energy, while the probability of predicting the actual energy is extremely low. This is exactly what any scientific committee would aim to achieve in a safety standard.

Forensic investigations and a literature review indicate that real-life accidents have produced lower energy levels than were predicted by the IEEE 1584-2018 calculations. Experience in the field shows that (1) the calculated incident energy is the worst case and (2) end users have no reason to believe that the true arc flash energy will exceed calculated values.

Variabilities in Work Practices
The distance from the arc source to the worker is highly variable. In practice, tasks such as removing a cover for thermal imaging and troubleshooting place the worker farther away than the 18-inch working distance for low voltage (208 volts to 480 volts) that is recommended in IEEE 1584-2018. During the development of the engineering equations, the working distance equivalency varied between 15 and 36 inches, helping to provide a worst case. Variability in the working distance is not only influenced by the position of the worker; research has demonstrated that in certain high-voltage applications, the arc has the potential to move, yielding a lower incident energy exposure to the worker than theoretically calculated (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7439799). Here is a final note on working distance: The optimal worker position is to stand to the side of equipment, outside the line of fire and away from potential projectiles when possible (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9188321).

Variability also occurs with PPE garments, specifically the materials used and how the gear is worn. Most workers prefer loose-fitting garments to allow for dexterity. This is quite different from how fabric is tested; when rated, it is firmly placed on the test panel. Secondly, although standards do not allow non-arc-rated layers to count toward the total protection level, most natural fibers will add a margin of protection. Arc-rated inner layers, when tested in combination, can potentially offer great gains in protection. It is extremely important to note that both OSHA and voluntary consensus standards prohibit the use of low-melting synthetic fabrics. The fit of the fabrics (tight vs. loose) can offer marginal protection that cannot be quantified. So, looseness and layering – including the type of layering – is another area in which variability works in favor of employee protection.

Fabrics, Test Methods and Assembled Garments
The arc ratings provided on garment labels are calculated using either ASTM F1959 or IEC 61482-1-1 A. The test to calculate an arc rating is not performed on a finished garment; it is done on the raw fabric material or material system used to construct the garment. Clothing design often results in significant portions of garments possessing multiple protective layers. Pockets, plackets, storm flaps, overlaps and similar items create these multilayer (i.e., more protective) areas.

In recent months, end users have had concerns about information stemming from retesting of various competitive products purchased from major reputable manufacturers. In nearly every case, retesting resulted in arc ratings lower than those listed on product labels. ASTM F1506 does not require retesting; however, when it is conducted, variations in arc ratings are not surprising or concerning to a trained eye. Numerous factors can create arc rating variability, such as natural variability in textile manufacturing, weight, finishing procedure and fabric color. Although there is no hard and fast rule, the general trend is that darker colors tend to produce slightly higher arc ratings than the same fabric in lighter colors. These differences may result in minor rating variations, but they very likely do not impact practical protection levels. In fact, even when many of these variables are removed, there can still be wide variations in results. One study that included 26 different arc ratings of the same fabric over several years found results to range from 8.3 to 13 cal/cm². Each of the 26 arc ratings is a valid rating and could potentially be used to label the product.

Finally, consider the conservative nature of arc ratings. A rating is generated from a fabric tightly held against a sensor assembly. In contrast, a properly fitting garment incorporates a certain amount of ease, adding an insulating air layer between the garment and the skin, as mentioned earlier.

Concluding Remarks
Research and incident investigations show that workers are protected when arc flash incident energy calculations are correctly performed, arc-rated PPE is procured through reputable suppliers and end users dress to the correct levels. There is no literature indicating that any of the following activities will benefit worker safety or expose the employer to undue risk: padding the calculated numbers; being concerned with the intricacies of fabrics and batches; and repeatedly testing and retesting garments.

Employers that use and comply with OSHA and ASTM standards and NFPA 70E help to create a safe working environment. Employees who adhere to the safety rules do the same. Rather than overcomplicating arc-rated PPE decisions, our time is better invested in safety through design to minimize the likelihood of an arc event. All risk-based decisions should be driven by an understanding that variability is embedded in every aspect of electrical arc flash protection.

About the Authors: Zarheer Jooma, P.E., is a partner at e-Hazard (https://e-hazard.com). He has convened and chaired arc flash safety standards and is a member of both ASTM F18 and IEC TC 78. Jooma performs electrical network design, arc flash studies, electrical safety training, incident investigations and auditing. He is the technical paper review chair for two IEEE journals and chair for the IEEE Electrical Safety Workshop 2025.

Brian Shiels is the service line manager for the ArcWear (https://arcwear.com) division of Kinectrics and a leading expert in the testing and development of arc-rated clothing. His professional experience includes quality management as well as the development and testing of thermal protective clothing and equipment. Among other responsibilities, Shiels is a longstanding member of a variety of standards development organizations, including ASTM, NFPA, AATCC and ISO. He earned his master’s degree in textile chemistry from North Carolina State University, with a special focus on protective clothing.

Stacy Klausing, M.S., is a senior project manager at ArcWear. Her professional experience includes project management in testing laboratories, testing and evaluating fabric related to PPE, and execution and management of an ISO 17025-accredited quality system. She earned her master’s degree from the University of Kentucky and is a Six Sigma Green Belt from North Carolina State University.

The tools and equipment employed by electrical workers must possess the necessary insulating properties to ensure user safety. One such tool, dielectric rope, can be overlooked as a component of electrical safety, but modern standards and rigorous testing protocols are transforming the way this type of rope is designed, used and maintained.

The transition from use of traditional synthetic ropes (e.g., double-braided polyester or polypropylene with wax or overlay finishes) – which can absorb contaminants and moisture, thereby significantly reducing their insulating properties – to dielectric ropes represents a paradigm shift in safety. Just as hot sticks, fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) tools and arc-rated PPE are subjected to strict maintenance and testing protocols, dielectric ropes must be treated with the same level of scrutiny and care. These ropes are increasingly being used as FRP tool replacements as they can offer lower weight and cost as well as greater flexibility in length and load-bearing capacity.

The remainder of this article will explore relevant global safety standards, the growing industry shift toward insulating rope with verified dielectric properties, and proper maintenance and handling practices to help ensure long-term dielectric rope safety in high-voltage environments.

Key Global Standards
Dielectric rope must undergo rigorous testing to confirm its ability to withstand high voltages, resist contamination and maintain insulating properties over time. These standards outline the requirements for dielectric tools and equipment, including rope:

• IEC 62192:2009: “Live working – Insulating ropes”
• ASTM F1701-12: “Standard Specification for Unused Rope with Special Electrical Properties”
• IEEE 516-2021: “IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energized Power Lines”
• NFPA 70E and CSA Z462 (arc flash standards)

Misleading Claims and Real-World Testing
For decades, standard synthetic ropes have been assumed to be nonconductive based on their material composition. Real-world testing, however, has demonstrated that these traditional ropes can absorb moisture, dirt and other contaminants, turning them into potential electrical conductors.

Further, lack of awareness and regulation in this area has resulted in the following:

• False marketing of some ropes, claiming that they are dielectric or insulating even though they have never been rigorously tested.
• Erroneous assumptions that test results from one diameter of dielectric rope apply to every diameter.
• Exposure of traditional ropes to water, mud and oil, compromising their insulating properties.
• Dielectric ropes being treated, handled, maintained, tested and inspected differently than hot sticks and FRP tools.

Dielectric Ropes as Part of an Electrical Safety System
A true dielectric rope is designed, tested and maintained like other insulating tools. This means:

• As with any tool used in energized or potentially energized environments, a dielectric rope should be routinely tested in dry and wet conditions to validate its insulating properties and fitness for use.
• All rope must be properly stored, cleaned and handled to prevent contamination.
• It is critical to perform a visual and electrical inspection of individual ropes prior to each use.
• Electrical workers must be trained to recognize the risks of using non-dielectric or contaminated ropes.

Industry Adoption: 6 Common Barriers
As dielectric rope technology advances and global standards become more defined, a growing number of utilities and contractors are adopting these ropes as part of their high-voltage operations. Yet industry-wide adoption continues to be slowed by six common barriers.

1. Resistance to change. Some safety managers and field supervisors still operate under the belief that conventional synthetic ropes are good enough, largely because serious incidents involving conductive ropes are rare or undocumented. This perspective overlooks the risks to human safety posed by contamination and environmental degradation of synthetic rope. In other words, just because a rope has not failed yet does not necessarily mean it is safe to use.

2. “We work de-energized, so we do not need dielectric rope.” OK, but what about the risks of induction and accidental re-energization from lightning strikes and switching errors? In several documented instances, ropes were accidentally energized during what was thought to be de-energized work. Utility customers who use improperly installed generators during power outages can unintentionally cause reenergization unbeknownst to the utility. The best approach is to treat all systems as potentially energized and use the safest possible ropes and other tools for the job at hand.

3. “We work in a mostly dry climate, and we never work when it rains, so we do not need to test our dielectric ropes in wet conditions.” Wet testing is the only way to identify tool contamination during periodic testing. Additionally, tools that perform well under wet testing conditions can offer greater protection against poor storage conditions, not just high humidity and rain events.

4. Incorrect assumptions about new technology. Employers and employees might assume that utilizing dielectric ropes requires special tools, training or operational changes. This misconception can lead to the false belief that dielectric ropes are niche products rather than necessary tools for hazardous, everyday tasks. In reality, numerous dielectric ropes are engineered for compatibility with standard hardware and work practices while offering enhanced safety margins.

5. Financial hurdles and reactive safety cultures. High-performance dielectric ropes are often more expensive than standard ropes, especially when testing and inspection are factored in. Initial cost sensitivity could preclude employers from fully considering the potential human, legal and other costs should a rope-related failure occur on the job. While some companies use serious accidents or near-misses as catalysts for change, today’s high-performing organizations are embracing preventive investment.

6. Administrative complexity. The prospect of navigating new standards can be daunting. Procurement and safety officers may feel burdened by the process of incorporating new specifications. But the fact is that today’s dielectric rope standards align well with existing safety frameworks used for FRP tools, insulating gloves and arc flash PPE.

Best Practices for Use and Maintenance
Whether your organization is already using dielectric ropes or still investigating their safety benefits, here are the best practices users and potential users should be aware of. In addition, always be sure to review and adhere to rope manufacturer instructions and guidelines.

1. Verify compliance with recognized standards.

• Ensure dielectric ropes fully comply with local governing standards and/or regulations.
• Request test reports and certification from rope suppliers that confirm lot traceability and leakage current performance.

 2. Store and maintain ropes like other insulating tools.

• Recondition dielectric ropes after use by placing them in a clean, well-ventilated, low-humidity room or trailer, avoiding exposure to contaminants.
• Thoroughly inspect, clean and test each rope between uses.
• Transport ropes in sealed containers or protective bags.

 3. Inspect ropes before each use.

• Visually inspect dielectric ropes for cuts, abrasions and dirt buildup. Damaged ropes must not be used.
• Perform periodic dielectric testing to ensure continued insulation.

4. Train workers.

• Educate crews about the risks of using non-dielectric ropes near energized or potentially energized systems.
• Provide workers with training on the specific dielectric ropes they will use, including handling protocols, which should be similar to those for hot sticks and FRP tools.

Conclusion
Assumptions that traditional synthetic ropes are nonconductive have been proven incorrect. Today, the electric utility industry is shifting toward the use of tested, standardized dielectric ropes. By adopting globally recognized standards, training employees on proper maintenance procedures and treating dielectric ropes as critical equipment, organizations can better prevent incidents, injuries and near-misses on their worksites.

About the Author: Patrick Barry is the vice president of commercial operations for Barry Cordage Ltd. He has 12 years of experience in the rope industry, with a specialized focus on utility and helicopter operations. Professionally certified by the Industrial Rope Access Trade Association, Barry has delivered global best practices training to operators in the commercial and military sectors. Recently, he has been a guest presenter for the EPRI Live Working Task Force and numerous public utilities, sharing insights on dielectric safety and innovative rigging solutions.

Employers in the electric utility industry are currently working on initiatives in various areas of their businesses, including safety, quality, production, leadership, and human and organizational performance (HOP). These are important programs, but it’s unlikely they’ll fully achieve their intended objectives if employees don’t have a firm grasp on how these various aspects of work impact one another – and the ideal order in which they should be addressed.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time studying HOP and teaching its principles to others, I understand that part of the philosophy is building an organizational system that enables employees to complete their work using processes that make sense to them, are easy to follow and can be done by virtually anyone with the appropriate skill set.

It’s important to recognize, however, that safety should be the first consideration in any work we do and any initiative we develop and roll out. Additionally, safety-motivated workers are more likely to ensure adherence to organizational system protocols when there’s someone or something at stake for them, whomever or whatever that might be.

Examining Safety Culture
Here’s a personal story to help you better understand where I’m going with this.

Years ago, I was asked to attend some lean training, which centered on continuous organizational improvement to minimize waste and maximize efficiency or value. The lean philosophy places a great amount of emphasis on standardization, production and quality.

I consider myself a safety culture champion who primarily concentrates on the human aspect of safety, including motivating people to see the value in doing the right things for the right reasons. When employees are effectively motivated, safety becomes much more than basic compliance to avoid trouble with regulators, safety leaders and your direct supervisor. Compliance should never be the only thing your workforce focuses on; instead, strive for continuous improvement.

Consider a lineman’s PPE, for example. The type and rating of the gear to be used must be determined by the hazards the lineman could be exposed to in the work area. Typically, we strictly adhere to PPE protocols when we know we’re being observed in the field, but that’s not necessarily the case every day. If a worker sometimes dons the incorrect PPE or improperly wears the right equipment, or if another employee must tell them to use it, that’s an indication the worker does not see PPE’s value. A worker who does see the value will ensure they’re correctly wearing the right gear based on their hazard exposure.

Essentially, an employer can create the best work rules, policies and procedures the world has to offer, but to truly have a shot at being effective, they must be easy for employees to understand and follow. When no one is around to observe field employees, peer-to-peer support will be the voice of leadership. Will your workers make the right choices?

Speaking Up for Safety
So, why am I telling you all this? Because I want you to understand that an organization must create this type of culture on some level to successfully move forward in addressing quality, production and other aspects of the business.

That brings us back to the lean training story I’d started to share. The trainer was a former Toyota employee who spoke in part about establishing standards to improve production, which he said would improve quality. I asked him where safety fit into the process, to which he replied, “You must be one of the safety people who I was told would be in this training. I want you to know that safety is a given for this process, not for the individual parts.” In other words, according to the trainer, safety protocols are required to comply with rules and regulations, but they have no effect on production or quality outcomes.

That was an interesting statement. But then things got really interesting.

Seeing the conversation as an opportunity to appeal to everyone in the room, I stood up and asked various other trainees to tell me who or what they valued most in life. The majority said they cared most about their families, pets or free time away from work. These responses helped to underscore the point I wanted to make.

Next, I asked everyone to imagine building a child’s bicycle, perhaps as a birthday gift. The child would ride the bike to school and pedal around their neighborhood, so I explained that we’d want to carefully assemble it to minimize the risks of breakdowns and injuries, particularly when the child would be riding in areas with vehicle traffic. Caring about someone, I said, means you want to ensure their continued safety. Because you care about the child whose bike you’re building, it’s highly likely that you’ll follow the assembly directions (rules) so that the bike works properly or fails safely (quality) when the child is riding it (productivity). In short, I told the class that making safety a true organizational value – not just a priority – will motivate employees to adhere to standards, build with quality and be more productive.

The room was silent when I finished speaking and sat down. I knew it might appear that I was giving the training instructor a hard time, but that wasn’t my intent. I wanted to help him understand that in terms of achieving common organizational goals, it’s significantly more impactful to view and approach the various aspects of business operations – including safety – as one entire interrelated group or system rather than in silos.

As I fielded some of the instructor’s questions, I could feel senior leaders in the room beginning to understand my point. They began discussing the potential development of a system to help the workforce understand each aspect of the business and what’s needed to continuously improve operations.

Again, as I noted earlier, part of the HOP philosophy is creating an organizational system that enables employees to complete their work using specific processes. By creating clear policies and procedures that are easy to follow, workers who see their value will likely abide by them – even when no one is watching.

Conclusion
Have you ever wondered why we can always find time to do a job over again but never time to do it correctly the first time around? What I’ve presented in this article can help organizations conduct safer, more efficient operations without having to do rework.

Here’s one final thought: HOP is about learning and improving, not blaming others or mandating retraining every time a failure occurs. Keep in mind that learning from success is just as important as learning from failure, if not more so; after all, we succeed far more often than we fail. When we discuss our successes – always being sure to include the people closest to the work – our conversations tend to be more positive and productive, empowering us to better identify improvement opportunities when evaluating safety, standards, quality and productivity each day. Let’s challenge ourselves to continue finding ways to improve business operations for the greater good of the entire workforce.

About the Author: Doug Hill, CUSP, is a retired lineworker and safety culture champion with nearly 40 years of utility industry experience. For the last 12 years, he’s represented the Michigan State Utility Workers Council in electric operations safety. Among other activities, Hill currently delivers training through the Incident Prevention Institute. Reach him at doug@utilitybusinessmedia.com.

In the first two parts of this six-part series, I discussed the importance of creating and implementing a safety management system (SMS) that actively involves all employees. This part will focus on (1) identifying and prioritizing an organization’s safety needs based on specific hazards and risks and (2) developing a plan with clear objectives and targets to meet those needs. Without a solid plan, it’s difficult to assess whether the SMS is effective and adds value to your organization.

Early in my career, I didn’t fully grasp the significance of having a safety plan. I often experimented with new safety trends without understanding what the organization I worked for would gain from them or how success would be measured. Much like a New Year’s resolution, proclaiming you are going to create positive change in the workplace is far less challenging than designing and executing a plan to hold yourself accountable, measure your progress and adjust when things aren’t going well. Many New Year’s resolutions fail due to lack of measurable plans; the same is true with safety.

ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems,” defines “planning” as identifying and prioritizing safety issues, establishing goals and objectives for improvement, and creating implementation plans with resource allocation. The planning process consists of four main steps:

1. Identifying occupational health and safety (OHS) issues within the organization, including hazards, risks, system deficiencies and improvement opportunities.
2. Prioritizing identified OHS issues based on their importance to the employer.
3. Establishing OHS objectives to improve the effectiveness of safety initiatives and reduce risk.
4. Creating an OHS implementation plan that specifies tasks and responsibilities to meet those objectives.

Identifying OHS Issues
A thorough assessment of your organization’s current safety performance is needed to uncover any gaps that require attention. This means identifying the resources and protocols in place, considering whether there are missing OHS elements that could enhance employee safety, and evaluating which initiatives will foster a safer work environment. These insights will help you make more informed decisions to better protect your workforce.

Lagging Indicators
Some organizations look to the absence of injuries and illnesses to measure their safety performance. However, OSHA recordable and lost-time rate charts (i.e., lagging indicators) will not directly correlate past performance to future outcomes. Further, when lagging indicators are used in meetings to illustrate an organization’s level of safety success, it can be tough to secure senior leader buy-in for required safety processes and initiatives. That’s because lagging indicators are weak metrics that shouldn’t be used as an organization’s only safety performance measure.

In my role as a consultant, I’ve encountered employers with thousands of man-hours and no lost-time incidents. Yet after completing field observations that included employee engagement, I’ve often been amazed that injuries and fatalities hadn’t occurred given the number of missing or misaligned safety initiatives that supported high-risk work. We must acknowledge that sometimes we’re simply lucky when nothing goes wrong – and we all know luck runs out eventually.

Safety Gap Analysis
Conducting a safety gap analysis is the first step in assessing an organization’s current state of safety. This systematic review compares existing safety measures and practices to desired or required standards, with the goal of identifying both gaps in the current system and opportunities for improvement. I recommend these resources to assist employers in the development of a gap analysis protocol that’s based on industry best practices:

• ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024, “Guidance and Implementation Manual for ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.”
• ASSP GM-Z10.101-2019, “Guidance Manual: Keep Your People Safe in Smaller Organizations.”

An important part of the safety gap analysis is evaluating what I call the “look of safety,” which involves strategically identifying hazards, assessing their risk levels and implementing appropriate controls. Because hazards in electric power systems present great risk, they must be recognized based on the actual work performed rather than just planned or theoretical work. According to ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024, many organizations overlook that hazards are not static; rather, they’re dynamic and constantly changing. To identify gaps in any safety processes that were developed solely based on planned or theoretical work, it’s crucial to conduct field observations and maintain open communication with employees.

Understanding how work is performed in the field allows organizations to gain deeper insights into employees’ daily challenges, which can lead to innovations that enhance operational success. In the second part of this series, I explained how middle managers can hinder safety initiatives. These managers play a crucial role in understanding how work is planned versus how it is executed, as well as how employees’ decisions impact their work. Often, middle managers develop job plans based on a limited perspective that can become skewed if they don’t regularly visit job sites to observe work practices. This should be carefully considered during any safety gap analysis.

Prioritizing OHS Issues
Once gaps have been identified, they may indicate the need for changes in culture, resources, leadership styles, behaviors, systems and equipment, or other areas. To facilitate meaningful improvement, employees at all levels of the company must openly and honestly address the analysis results. One of my ongoing recommendations is to initially focus on operational improvement opportunities that will provide the greatest rewards in terms of risk mitigation.

Recently, while presenting the results of a gap analysis, a senior leader asked me, “Are we doing anything right?” The identification of safety gaps calls attention to organizational weaknesses. Acknowledging these weaknesses can feel challenging to leaders, yet doing so is essential to accurately assess risk levels. Senior leaders must define the organization’s risk tolerance and work with middle managers to develop implementation plans for operational improvements.

Systems Thinking
It’s also crucial to adopt a systems-thinking approach when prioritizing safety issues. This is a more comprehensive, effective way to manage risks as it focuses on how various system components interact with and influence one another to create a safe environment. The approach involves looking at the big picture, recognizing complex relationships and learning how decisions made in one part of the system can impact other system parts. Applying this approach can address operational challenges that don’t adequately support employee safety, helping to resolve numerous OHS issues.

Establishing OHS Objectives
Setting objectives that are specific, measurable, actionable, realistic and time-oriented (SMART) is an essential, powerful practice to improve organizational safety. Improvement occurs when company leaders track, monitor and evaluate these objectives. Chapter 8 of ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024 provides an excellent example of how to use SMART objectives when planning and setting goals.

Leading indicators promote ongoing improvement by highlighting deficiencies in the SMS and prompting necessary adjustments. Key performance indicators (KPIs), emphasized throughout this series, should be considered one of the most important elements of an effective SMS. KPIs are leading indicators that enable an organization to identify, measure and address issues within the OHS objectives before a significant injury or illness can occur. By monitoring KPIs and other leading indicators, organizations can uncover and correct weaknesses in procedures and unsafe employee behaviors before harm can happen.

Overall, tracking and addressing leading indicators is needed to create a safer work environment and enhance organizational effectiveness. Chapter 17 of ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024, “Metrics and Measurements,” is a good resource to learn more about using them.

Creating an OHS Implementation Plan
An OHS implementation plan outlines an organization’s strategy and process to create and maintain a safe work environment. Once SMART objectives have been established, the implementation plan should cover the following aspects at a minimum: strategy; communication of the plan; implementation of each objective; a timeline; an accountability process; assigned KPIs; and a method for tracking continuous improvement. Regularly evaluating and improving the plan is key to ensuring its effectiveness.

Summary
An effective SMS begins with a solid foundation: planning. Organizations must first perform a gap analysis to understand their current state of safety; then prioritize OHS issues based on risk; and finally establish realistic improvement objectives and an implementation plan supported by strong leadership and systems thinking.

Lagging indicators alone are insufficient to measure safety performance. Instead, leading indicators and continuous monitoring of key performance metrics should drive safety decisions. Implementation plans must be strategic, measurable, and integrated into the organization’s culture and operations.

Ultimately, achieving safety excellence requires more than regulatory compliance. With thoughtful planning and a commitment to continuous improvement, organizations can develop safer, more resilient work environments.

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

“Yes, we are OSHA compliant. Our apprentice lineworkers are trained and certified by a local line school, which guarantees that the training they deliver meets OSHA standards. Every six months, we send the apprentices to the school for two weeks of hands-on training. They also take online classes in between the hands-on sessions; the online classes are delivered via a learning management system (LMS) operated by the school. It takes two years for an apprentice to complete the program. If the apprentice passes the written and practical exams delivered through the LMS, the line school then certifies them.”

Before I go any further, I want to clarify my position. I support line schools and third-party training providers – in fact, I am a training provider. I have been a third-party resource for many years, training in every area of lineworker skills. A problem arises, however, when employers assume their third-party training resource is responsible for all aspects of employee training and certification.

If you think the scenario described in the first paragraph sounds like a reasonable way to provide quality training to apprentices, you are not alone. The reason many employers use third-party trainers is twofold: they don’t see training as their core business, and they lack the resources to create robust training programs.

There is nothing wrong with using a third-party resource to provide training for your personnel. But it’s important to keep in mind that although a third-party resource may have flashy advertisements and an impressive sales pitch, that doesn’t guarantee they will provide competent training – and OSHA knows that. That’s why the agency states the following in 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(2)(viii): “The employer shall ensure that each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices involved before that employee is considered as having completed the training required …”

True Training or Checking the Box?
I typically categorize training as either the check-the-box variety or true training. Some employers, lacking resources to adequately deliver training, hire a third party to relieve themselves of that obligation. Check-the-box training leaves all the training solely up to the third party. The employer then believes their employees are certified, with the paperwork to prove it. Often, the issue is that because the third-party organization has stated that it is a professional lineworker training provider, the employer assumes the organization is competent to train their employees.

There’s another, more obvious reason to question third-party training, especially when you consider the scenario in this article’s opening paragraph. In that two-year scenario, an apprentice would only receive 640 hours of actual training; traditional line apprenticeships consist of 7,000 to 8,000 hours of on-the-job training. Here’s something else to know: With traditional apprenticeships, the employer documents an apprentice’s performance in the workplace, thereby meeting OSHA’s requirement to ensure demonstrated skills proficiency.

At this point, you may be asking why completing a third-party line school’s training doesn’t equate to demonstrated proficiency. It’s because OSHA holds the employer singularly responsible for the welfare of the worker – not the third party. The agency does not want to create an accountability issue by allowing the employer to transfer their responsibility to an unaccountable entity. OSHA cannot cite a training organization because that organization is not the employer.

OSHA’s intent is to ensure that the employer verifies employee skills via the demonstration model even when utilizing a third-party training resource. In joint apprenticeship training programs, each apprentice carries a skills record with them; a qualified person, designated by the employer, observes the apprentice and signs their record. Weekend schools at joint apprenticeship yards provide third-party training. Often, those yard trainers and supervisors are employed by the same organization as the apprentices. Observing skills demonstrations under such conditions meets OSHA’s requirements. Skills learned at the weekend school are also demonstrated on the job and logged in the apprentice’s training record.

The same would apply to an apprentice sent to a line school for two weeks every six months. Upon the apprentice’s return, crew members would document demonstration of the skills training received at school in the apprentice’s skills record. Verifying a skills demonstration doesn’t have to happen right away; it can take place anytime in the six-month period before the next training session begins.

I want to make another clarification here: OSHA does not regulate technical skills proficiency. The agency regulates safety relative to those skills. They don’t care if the single-phase transformer you hang on a pole is crooked – only that you don’t injure yourself or someone else while hanging it.

Certification
Now let’s talk about certification. In my work as a trainer, I offer certificates to trainees who successfully complete their sessions; these documents certify their participation. But the standard upon which a certification is based can be problematic. To earn any certification, specific criteria must exist for a candidate to satisfy. When OSHA requests an employee’s training records, the agency is holding the employer accountable for certifying that the employee was qualified to perform the tasks assigned to them.

The power-line industry has been trying to establish a universal training certification standard for decades, but that hasn’t happened yet. Each one of the many training schools and apprenticeships across the U.S. develops its own outline of skills that trainees must learn and successfully demonstrate before they can be considered a lineworker, substation or meter tech, or any other skilled craft worker. Five different trainers in five different parts of the country will create five different lists of these skills. The U.S. Department of Labor publishes skilled craft standards, but none of them are for lineworkers – which is why OSHA very clearly instructs employers to ensure that their employees are trained and qualified to safely perform their assigned tasks.

An Ethical Duty
How does the OSHA regulation regarding employee qualification affect employers that aren’t under the agency’s jurisdiction? Employers have an ethical duty to protect employees. No one in any company wants to see an employee hurt or killed on the job. We protect employees by training and informing them about the skills they need and the workplace hazards to be avoided. We also acknowledge that under workers’ compensation laws, the employer has strong liability protections known as the “workers’ compensation bar.” But in every state to different degrees, that bar can be overcome where an employer did not meet the degree of care due to the worker. So, even if an employer doesn’t fall under OSHA’s jurisdiction, they still must protect themselves against civil actions by maintaining a robust training program that meets conventional or common utility standards. If you are an employer under OSHA’s jurisdiction, you also must be able to defend your training program to avoid the costly fines levied by the agency for noncompliance.

Note that non-OSHA municipal employers are subject to the National Electrical Safety Code, also known by its standard number, IEEE/ANSI C2. Here’s the C2 standard for a qualified person: “Having been trained in and having demonstrated adequate knowledge of the installation, construction, or operation of lines and equipment and the hazards involved, including identification of and exposure to electric supply and communication lines and equipment in or near the workplace.”

The ANSI C2 and OSHA standards are aligned and have identical requirements for personnel training based on training outcomes.

I’ve spent 50 years working in this industry and currently serve as a work methods and training consultant who’s been defending employers as a litigation expert for 20 years. Employers in our industry must have policies and procedures in place that align with OSHA’s qualified worker requirements. Each employer also must be able to defend its interpretation of those requirements. Many can’t do it. This is something I come across in almost every OSHA and civil litigation case I work on. Whether it’s General Industry (1910.269) or Construction (1926 Subpart V), the requirements are the same. If an employer assumes a journeyman’s ticket is proof of qualification, they have made a mistake. The employer’s duty is not met by third-party certification alone under the employee qualifications standard. Look closely at the wording from both OSHA and ANSI C2 and you will find the phrase “demonstrated proficiency.” OSHA has consistently ruled that “demonstrated” means the employer must create a program in which employees are observed and measured against performance expectations specified by the employer where no such formal performance standard exists. OSHA’s most recent definition is from 2018 regarding crane operator qualification under 1926 Subpart CC, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction.”

Regarding qualification, OSHA wrote the following: “This rule continues to require operator training. It likewise clarifies and continues the employer duty to evaluate operators for their ability to safely use equipment. Just as an employee’s driver’s license does not guarantee the employee’s ability to drive all vehicles safely in all conditions an employer may require, crane-operator certification alone does not ensure that an operator has sufficient knowledge and skill to safely use all equipment. The record makes clear that employers need to evaluate operators and provide training when needed to ensure that they can safely operate cranes in a variety of circumstances. Similarly, and also consistent with many employers’ current practices, employer evaluation of a crane operator’s experience and competency with respect to the particular equipment assigned is essential to ensuring the safe operation of cranes on construction sites. This final rule accordingly continues the common-sense requirements that employers train operators and assess their competence and ability to work safely” (see www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2018-11-09).

The Bottom Line
The employer must have a program that satisfies the requirement to ensure employees demonstrate the necessary skills to safely perform their work. It doesn’t matter who does the training; it can be delivered through a private line school, a joint apprenticeship program or an in-house program. If an employer chooses to hire a lineworker with previous certifications, the requirement is the same. The employer must either test or observe the new employee and ensure that they demonstrate the skills necessary to work safely. For employees who require training, the program must ensure that they are qualified to safely perform their tasks through a combination of training, verification and demonstration.

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 receive numerous and varied questions about the safe use of bucket trucks in electric utility operations, so in this installment of “Voice of Experience,” I am going to share with you the OSHA standards you need to know as well as some things I have discovered during observations and audits of field crews.

First, it is important to recognize that there is a substantial difference between Class A barehand bucket trucks and the Class B trucks used in gloving distribution. Class A barehand trucks are used for precisely that type of work; to protect employees, OSHA requires grounding the vehicles using the best available ground (see OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(C)). The boom is the insulating barrier between the bucket that is directly connected to the energized transmission voltage being worked on and any difference of potential. Before employees can use the equipment, a leakage test must be performed by measuring the intentional contact between the bucket and the energized conductors for five to eight minutes. Booms must be dielectrically tested at least once every 12 months in accordance with ANSI A92.2, “American National Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices,” although some companies conduct more frequent tests. Note that hydraulic tool circuits and material-handling jibs must also be tested if they could contact energized conductors.

An employee inside a bucket is required by OSHA to wear fall protection equipment. The equipment must be rigged so that the employee cannot free-fall more than 6 feet nor contact any lower level if ejected from the bucket (see 1926.502(d)(16)).

Regulatory FAQs
I have seen photos on social media that fail to meet even the simple requirements I have mentioned so far. Because workforce safety depends on rule compliance, I have created the following list outlining the six OSHA bucket truck regulations that I am most frequently asked to discuss in my consulting work. It is critical for employers and employees to both understand and apply each of them as required.

1. OSHA 1910.67, “Vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms,” is the standard that details the agency’s rules concerning bucket trucks.

2. Per 1910.67(b)(2), “Aerial lifts may be ‘field modified’ for uses other than those intended by the manufacturer, provided the modification has been certified in writing by the manufacturer or by any other equivalent entity, such as a nationally recognized testing laboratory, to be in conformity with all applicable provisions of ANSI A92.2-1969 and this section, and to be at least as safe as the equipment was before modification.”

3. Per 1910.67(c)(2)(i), “Lift controls shall be tested each day prior to use to determine that such controls are in safe working condition.”

4. Per 1910.67(c)(2)(iv), “Employees shall always stand firmly on the floor of the basket, and shall not sit or climb on the edge of the basket or use planks, ladders, or other devices for a work position.”

5. Per 1910.67(c)(2)(viii), “An aerial lift truck may not be moved when the boom is elevated in a working position with men in the basket, except for equipment which is specifically designed for this type of operation in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.”

6. Per 1910.67(c)(2)(xii), “Before moving an aerial lift for travel, the boom(s) shall be inspected to see that it is properly cradled and outriggers are in stowed position, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of this section.”

I still have pictures in my files of crews moving trucks without cradling the buckets, sometimes with workers still in those buckets. OSHA 1910.67(c)(2)(viii) specifically prohibits moving a truck when an employee is working in the basket, with limited exceptions. Paragraph 1910.67(b)(2) prohibits equipment owners and users from modifying a bucket, boom and/or truck without the manufacturer’s approval. In reality, many organizations have asked for and received manufacturer exemptions, resulting in revised policies that allow employees to ride in a bucket for short distances (e.g., pole to pole when reconductoring and clipping in a new conductor) provided that (1) booms are properly cradled; (2) the employee is facing the direction of travel; and (3) the vehicle operator maintains a slow, reasonable speed while observing the area for hazards.

Class B Trucks
Class B bucket trucks differ from Class A trucks in that, typically, the bucket is not intentionally connected to the energized distribution voltage being gloved. Most Class B buckets have an insulating liner that provides an extra layer of protection between the employee and any nearby energized parts. On its own, a fiberglass bucket offers very little protection from the surrounding primary voltage and energized parts. All energized equipment and/or conductors must be properly covered for the purposes of worker safety, including any potentially conductive parts of the bucket.

The booms and buckets on Class A and B trucks must be kept clean and dry to prevent tracking to the vehicle frame on the ground. All non-dielectric trucks, digger derricks, cranes and other equipment must be grounded according to 1910.269(p) and barricaded to protect employees from hazardous step and touch potentials. Booms and buckets should be cleaned and waxed according to manufacturer recommendations.

Insulating booms and buckets are common conversation topics during field interviews and crew discussions. Class B buckets do not insulate employees from electrical contacts; that is why we use rubber gloves and protective cover. Less experienced workers sometimes think that buckets undergo dielectric testing, but that is incorrect – only the booms are tested. So, any potentially conductive items in or on the bucket must be isolated from all energized parts; otherwise, employees risk accidental contact or an arc flash between two potentials.

It seems that it is becoming more common for lineworkers to hang metal tools and other objects over the exterior side of a bucket for their convenience. This is an unsafe practice that has resulted in many incidents, including contacts on primary distribution voltages. The best and safest practice is to ensure no conductive items are hanging outside the bucket when working in energized or potentially energized areas.

Often, Class B buckets are used by substation crews or transmission crews in high-induction areas in and around substations. Potential differences between an employee in a Class B bucket and the bus or equipment they are working on can pose issues. Extra-high-voltage substations in particular can be very uncomfortable – this is something I have heard from crews across the country. Two rarely used alternative methods exist that can balance these differences for workers standing in Class B buckets. In the first method, the worker stands on a ground mat and connects to the grounded bus. The second method involves using a connected system ground from the basket to the grounded bus.

Conclusion
I want to emphasize here that one of the most common contributing factors to bucket-related incidents is failure to properly cover all energized parts and conductors, including second points of contact and potential differences in the immediate work area.

Lastly, if you would like to review an example of an aerial device operating bulletin, please reach out to me at rainesafety@gmail.com. I will send you one that can be adapted to your company’s policies.

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: Can you direct us to information regarding “fuzzing” or “noisy tester” voltage detectors? We’ve heard that with noisy testers, there’s potential for both false negatives (no voltage is detected although it’s present) and false positives (voltage is indicated where none exists). We’ve also heard a noisy tester can be triggered by induction on a de-energized line, creating confusion in the field. Years ago, our company stated that noisy testers shouldn’t be used. We haven’t been able to find any justification as to why the company made this decision. Can you help us out?

A: There is backing for such a policy. IEEE 1048, “IEEE Guide for Protective Grounding of Power Lines,” is where you can find details on voltage detection methods. Noise or fuzzing has always been considered an unreliable practice by that standard, but it’s still widely used in distribution. In the 2003 edition of IEEE 1048, Chapter 8 stated that fuzzing or using noisy detection was unreliable under 69 kV. In IEEE 1048-2016, the most recent edition, detection methods are found in Chapter 7. The 2016 edition warns that noisy testers and fuzzing are considered unreliable, but it doesn’t cite any specific voltages compared to an electronic voltage detector (tic-tracer style), an indicating voltmeter or a phasing meter.

Q: Earlier versions of the OSHA standard included distances and locations for installing grounded travelers during conductor pulls in energized environments, such as crossing or running on the same structure as energized circuits. We’re a small utility that doesn’t build feeders very often, but we’re currently planning for a pull and can’t find that information. Would you be able to point us in the right direction?

A: In the agency’s 2014 final rule updating both 29 CFR 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V, OSHA deleted many of the location and spacing requirements for grounded travelers. In Chapter 5 of IEEE 524-2016, “IEEE Guide for the Installation of Overhead Transmission Line Conductors,” you’ll find guidance on grounding and bonding traveling conductors to protect workers from step and touch potential; construction of tensioning and pulling site grids; and effective grounding along the length of the pull and at snubbing and splicing sites. The language you remember from OSHA’s pre-2014 standard can be found in paragraph 5.5.3.1 of IEEE 524-2016.

Q: What are the standards for dielectric testing of a bucket truck for line clearance? I can’t find any when I review ANSI A92.2. Also, when does an insulating insert need to be replaced?

A: Information about electrical testing of booms begins on page 42 of ANSI A92.2-2021, “American National Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices.” AC testing is described in 5.4. Chassis insulation system (lower insert) testing is described in 5.4.2.4. There is no requirement to periodically replace the insert or “bucket liner,” as it’s referred to in the standard.

Like booms, liners are subject to periodic testing. Test intervals are established by the owner following the guidelines published in 8.2.2. The test procedure is found in 5.4.2.5. Replacement is required only if a liner is damaged or the leakage value exceeds the standard’s limits. A bucket liner that’s been in use and exposed to the sun for several years can chip away at the fold over the bucket lip.

By the way, liners are not mandated for Category B gloving buckets. Gloves and/or hot sticks are the primary forms of protection for workers in these buckets. According to design and use standards, a fiberglass bucket is not considered insulating because it is subject to environmental contamination hazards but cannot be periodically tested. A bucket can be considered insulating provided it is emersion tested like a liner per the A92.2 standard. Insulating rubber gloves that are periodically electrically tested, inspected and air tested before use, like hot sticks, are a worker’s primary means of protection. Use of a liner creates a secondary electrical barrier, just as the boom is a secondary barrier.

Q: Our substation work group members have a question about an open jumper for a clearance point. There’s a long-standing practice of fully removing a jumper (outside MAD) and calling it incomplete construction that doesn’t need a tag. But if the jumper were rolled back and mechanically secured, it would be considered a clearance point that requires a tag. Now, we do use “incomplete construction” for newly built and reworked substations when the conductor is missing or has been moved from the substation rack to the first pole out. OSHA 1910.269(m)(3)(ii) calls out switches, disconnectors, jumpers, taps and other means. We’ve interpreted this to mean that any jumper or tap – whether it’s completely removed or mechanically secured – requires a tag stating that employees are working/do not operate. Can you provide any further clarification?

A: You’re almost there. If the action to isolate/de-energize is for the safety of workers, the standard requires a do-not-operate tag. You referenced the correct rule – 1910.269(m)(3)(ii) – in your question.

As you also noted, the rule calls out switches, disconnectors, jumpers and taps, and then it requires the means to be inoperable. The standard does not differentiate between an untap and a tap-back or total removal.

Jumper removal may be interpreted by some as necessary to meet the “inoperable” requirement, but anyone who can disconnect a jumper is just as capable of installing one.

The rule requires tagging those means that have been made inoperable to indicate that employees are at work. The final step in the tagging process is to ensure that no one can replace a missing jumper, just as with removing a barrel. Tag for this unlikely – but not impossible – occurrence.

The bottom line is that an open, by any means, is created for the protection of workers and therefore requires a tag.

Q: How does OSHA use consensus standards during employer inspections?

A: Consensus standards are developed by industry groups. These groups form committees to perform research and formulate production, design, performance and functional standards for industry-specific equipment and procedures. In other words, group members reach a consensus about relevant information that they then publish. OSHA either adopts a consensus standard or references it in the agency’s standards. You can find the adopted General Industry standards at 1910.6 and those for Construction at 1926.6.

The purpose of adopted standards is found at 1910.6(a)(1)(i), where OSHA states that they “have the same force and effect as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e., provisions containing the word ‘shall’ or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.” This is easily understood.

It works a bit differently with Appendix G to 1910.269 and Appendix G to 1926 Subpart V, both titled “Reference Documents.” Although OSHA uses that title, the documents listed in these appendices are consensus standards that the agency has included as compliance tools for employers. As of the 2014 final rule, OSHA no longer uses adopted consensus standards in 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V. Since they are no longer adopted, the consensus standards are not citable, nor do they hold the same weight as OSHA rules – but there is a good reason to know what they say. These standards contain procedural knowledge applied throughout the utility industry; as a result, there are certain responsibilities attached. Part of OSHA’s criteria for citations is evidence that an employer knew a hazard existed and that remediation was available. Frequently, reference standards inform OSHA’s decisions to issue General Duty Clause citations. If an employer uses an alternative procedure that protects the employee as well as a reference standard outlines, there is nothing to fear.

You are expected to follow the mandatory (“shall”) provisions of adopted consensus standards. You don’t have to meet the requirements of a reference document, but you should know what those requirements are. If you receive a General Duty Clause citation and there is no direct OSHA standard that applies, the citation will likely contain language from the related consensus standards.

Note that in Canada, provincial occupational health and safety (OHS) agencies may adopt various consensus standards – such as those from IEEE, ANSI, CSA and CAN/ULC – either entirely or in part. OHS authorities can enforce those adopted standards and issue citations based on them. They can also use reference documents to support their reasoning, but they can’t issue citations directly based on such materials.

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.

We typically excel at safety – after an incident. My question is, can we get it right before an incident occurs? And if so, how? Keeping in mind that you probably learned a stove could be hot by touching one as a child, let’s consider another question: Is it possible for us to develop safety-related values or are we doomed to learn the hard way?

Take a look through the events and incidents listed below. Understanding why those individuals now use human and organizational performance (HOP) tools (e.g., checking; verification; say it out loud; event + response = outcome; step-by-step place-keeping) – even if they don’t know HOP terminology – may provide insight into how much they inherently value safety, work methods and procedures.

A man who takes a picture of his kitchen stove every morning … after almost burning down his house.

Most of us wearing safety glasses while trimming the grass … after that rock hit our face.

Trainers confirming building access and contact numbers … after getting stuck in the rain and having to play lost puppy to get in the door.

Most of us following the instructions when assembling a piece of furniture … after taking it apart and starting over.

Learning the rental car controls before leaving the rental lot parking space … after shifting into neutral on the interstate while trying to turn up the radio and driving in the dark when the automatic lights didn’t turn on.

A surgeon writing their initials on your left shoulder before surgery … after they operated on the wrong shoulder.

And here’s one more to consider: Parents who install covers on electrical outlets … before their first child is born.

The events and incidents listed above could lead us to conclude that we often learn things the hard way and that most safety lessons will be learned through undesired situations. Yet they could also help us understand that the events and incidents we learn from don’t have to involve serious injuries or fatalities and that caring makes us value safety.

Safety as a Core Value
Valuing safety means that it’s always important. Prioritizing safety means that it’s sometimes important; we add “but fors” and “except whens” to the standard for our comfort and convenience. For instance, most people will tell you it’s wrong to text and drive. They believe they value that standard. The problem is that if you ask them if they’ve ever texted while driving, they’ll say yes. “Don’t text and drive” becomes “Don’t text and drive but for emergencies or short messages” or “Don’t text and drive except when there is no other traffic and it’s a straight road.”

Parents, motivated by caring – which is defined in C5 safety leadership as preventing harm and encouraging growth – typically get it right. They anticipate hazards like sharp furniture corners and energized electrical outlets and acknowledge that their children will trip, stick their fingers in sockets and make other errors. That’s why they teach, train, coach and protect. The corners are cushioned and the outlets covered long before an incident happens, and often before the child is born.

Practicing HOP Tools
We can learn to care more about our own safety and the safety of our TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More); that’s a topic for another time. We can also view errors as opportunities and use them to practice HOP tools that will serve us well.

Try this out sometime: Stop in your driveway, watch the garage door hit the ground and say, “Garage door down.” You’ll quickly learn that saying it out loud changes your cognition, giving the HOP tool value, and hopefully you’ll use it at work.

When you travel, develop a packing list that allows you to check off each item as it goes in the suitcase. You’ll quickly learn that checking and step-by-step place-keeping ensure success, giving the HOP tools value, and hopefully you’ll use them at work.

Before you send an important email, proofread it and then ask someone else to do the same. You’ll quickly learn that checking and verification ensure that conditions are correct before critical steps are performed, giving the HOP tools value, and hopefully you’ll use them at work.

The next time you feel rushed, stop and ask yourself why you’ll have time to do the work again but don’t have time to do it correctly right now. You’ll quickly learn E + R = O and that pausing between an event and your response to define your ideal outcome will lead to a better response, giving the HOP tool value, and hopefully you’ll use it at work.

The point is to practice HOP tools in low-risk environments. Practice doesn’t make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect, and if you don’t practice using these tools while performing simple tasks in simple situations, you won’t be able to use them effectively when they’re really needed.

Conclusion
You are going to learn about safety and how to use HOP tools that give you time to think, focus your attention and control your work. These are not choices. One choice you do have, however, is whether to learn about safety and HOP tools because you were involved in an incident or because you care enough to practice them.

I’ll close with this statement made by the CEO of a utility company when kicking off a recent Frontline training class: “We are going to make safety a value and will adjust our priorities to meet that value.” That’s something every utility organization should aspire to.

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

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

Webinar: Prioritize Safety Now
July 9, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

In this episode, Incident Prevention’s Kate Wade sits down with Kaitlyn Albertoli, co-founder and CEO of California-based Buzz Solutions, to explore how visual intelligence is helping utilities uncover hidden risks and modernize critical infrastructure. Kaitlyn shares how Buzz Solutions’ platforms—PowerAI and PowerGuard—use AI-driven insights to streamline inspections, enhance grid reliability, and reduce operational costs. They also discuss the challenges of adopting new technologies, bridging the field-office communication gap, and what utility safety professionals can expect in the next 5 to 10 years. This conversation is essential for those interested in data-driven decision-making, infrastructure safety, and the future of AI in the energy sector.

To reach Kaitlyn directly, email her at kaitlyn@buzzsolutions.com or connect via LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kaitlyn-claire-albertoli/

Key Takeaways:

• Buzz Solutions uses AI-powered visual intelligence to help utilities identify risks and improve inspection accuracy.

• Their platform PowerAI analyzes images from drones, helicopters, and field crews to prioritize maintenance and reduce operational costs.

• Integration with GIS and asset management systems makes implementation efficient and less disruptive.

• Buzz’s tools support storm prep, wildfire mitigation, and long-term grid modernization.

• Education and communication are key to AI adoption across all levels of a utility organization.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What problem does Buzz Solutions aim to solve for utilities?

A: Buzz helps utilities manage and analyze vast visual datasets, allowing them to spot infrastructure issues early, prioritize repairs, and eliminate data silos.

Q2: How does PowerAI differ from general AI tools?

A: PowerAI is a purpose-built platform that uses machine learning for visual inspection analysis, making it highly specific to the utility industry’s unique needs.

Q3: What concerns do utilities have about AI adoption?

A: Many worry AI could replace jobs or be unreliable, but Buzz focuses on “visual intelligence” to support—not replace—field experts and improve safety decisions.

Q4: Can this technology help prevent wildfires or major outages?

A: Yes, by analyzing infrastructure degradation and identifying high-risk components early, utilities can proactively address threats before they escalate.

Q5: How can utilities ensure smooth adoption of Buzz’s solutions?

A: Success hinges on integrating into existing workflows, gaining buy-in from field users, and automating data flow into GIS and asset management systems.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #VisualIntelligence #GridModernization #AIinUtilities #UtilitySafetyPodcast #InfrastructureInnovation

In this episode of Built In, Not Bolted On, host Doug Hill challenges traditional thinking around job safety practices. He explores the effectiveness of pre-job briefs, mid-day check-ins, and post-job reviews, emphasizing how learning from experience—especially at the end of the day—can dramatically improve safety outcomes. Drawing inspiration from aviation and military after-action reviews, Doug outlines how three simple questions can spark a culture of continuous improvement and safer work environments.

✅ Key Takeaways

• Pre-job briefs are essential—but post-job briefs may hold even more value in fostering continuous improvement.

• A “mid-day check-in” helps adjust controls based on changing conditions like weather or job scope.

• Successes should be analyzed as deeply as failures to uncover replicable best practices.

• Three core post-job questions—What went well? What didn’t? What can we learn?—drive future safety improvements.

• Brief, honest conversations at the end of the day can improve the next day’s job planning significantly.

Q1: Why is the post-job brief considered more valuable than the pre-job brief by aviation professionals?

A1: Because post-job briefs provide real-time insights and lessons learned from completed tasks, which shape better, more informed pre-job briefs the following day.

Q2: What are the three questions Doug recommends asking during a post-job brief?

A2: 1) What went well? 2) What didn’t go well? 3) What can we learn to improve for the future?

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

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

#UtilitySafety #SafetyCulture #AfterActionReview #WorkplaceSafety #JobBriefing #ContinuousImprovement

In this episode, we explore what an ancient shepherding metaphor can teach us about modern safety leadership. Inspired by The Good Shepherd, an article written by David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM for Incident Prevention magazine, we unpack how the timeless relationship between shepherd and sheep mirrors the dynamic between safety leaders and their teams. Through the lens of the C5 Safety Leadership Model—Competence, Commitment, Caring, Courage, and Credibility—we break down what it truly takes to earn trust, lead effectively, and create a culture of protection and performance. Whether you’re guiding a crew or shaping safety policy, this episode will challenge you to reflect on your leadership response and deepen your impact.

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-good-shepherd/

Key Takeaways:

• The C5 Safety Leadership Model offers five foundational qualities: Competence, Commitment, Caring, Courage, and Credibility.

• Leadership is not about authority—it’s about earned trust and interdependence, just like a shepherd and their flock.

• Real courage in safety often shows up in small but meaningful moments, like speaking up or making difficult calls.

• Caring is the heart of effective safety leadership—it fuels the other four C’s.

• Credibility is fragile; it’s earned through consistent action, not job titles.

Questions and Answers:

Q: What does a shepherd-sheep analogy teach us about safety leadership?

A: It highlights the interdependent relationship between leaders and teams—just as sheep need guidance and protection, teams rely on leaders who are competent, committed, caring, courageous, and credible.

Q: What is the most important trait in the C5 model?

A: While all five are critical, the episode emphasizes that Caring sits at the center—without genuine care, the other traits lose their power.

Q: How can a leader build trust in their team?

A: By consistently demonstrating the five C5 traits. Trust is earned through action, particularly in how leaders respond to challenges, errors, and opportunities.

Q: Why is credibility considered the foundation of the C5 model?

A: Because without credibility, leadership influence breaks down. Teams follow leaders they trust, not just those with authority.

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

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

#SafetyLeadership #TrustAndSafety #UtilitySafety #C5Model #ServantLeadership #WorkplaceCulture

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

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

Andax Industries has introduced the Vault Maintenance Dewatering System (VMDS), an innovative solution for sediment and water filtration. Designed for electric utility, construction, industrial and environmentally sensitive projects, the VMDS captures hydrocarbons and sedimentary contaminants with its oil-selective absorbent inner core, allowing clean, filtered water to pass through.

The VMDS is ideal for applications requiring both sediment control and oil spill management, helping to ensure compliance with environmental regulations by filtering water runoff and preventing pollutants from entering storm drains, rivers and other waterways.

Built with durable materials, the system is designed to withstand harsh industrial conditions. It connects seamlessly to a standard 2-inch cam lock discharge hose. The VMDS is user-friendly, low-maintenance and available in custom sizes to accommodate various discharge pipe dimensions. www.andax.com/vmds

Buckingham’s Next Generation BuckArc Harness is engineered for utility professionals who demand both high-performance safety and daylong comfort. At its core is a Nomex-over-Kevlar webbing blend, offering exceptional flame resistance and strength. Nomex protects against heat and flame, while Kevlar adds unmatched durability and abrasion resistance, making this combo ideal for demanding, high-risk environments.

The harness features a Kevlar dorsal web loop for secure lanyard attachment and aluminum quick-connect buckles for fast, precise adjustments. With its ergonomic H-style design and high-back breathable mesh pad, the harness ensures comfort and airflow during extended use.

Fully compliant with ASTM F887, the Next Gen BuckArc is built to handle extreme heat while supporting users up to 420 pounds with compatible gear. Lanyard parking attachments and adjustable shoulder straps with friction buckles enhance ease of use, allowing workers to gear up quickly and safely.

Designed for linemen, tower technicians and those in other high-exposure roles, the Next Generation BuckArc Harness delivers a comfortable, compliant solution that stands up to the toughest jobs without sacrificing mobility or wearability. https://buckinghammfg.com/products/next-generation-buckarc/

The Breather Box portable breathing-air filtration system is designed to filter incoming air from a compressor and deliver it, in Grade-D quality, to respirator users while also providing continuous carbon monoxide monitoring.

Air Systems introduced the state-of-the-art BB50-CO in 1984. Over the past year, the company reviewed several new filter manufacturers and discovered a new filter set capable of removing more moisture than current BB50 filters. After extensive filter testing, Air Systems made the switch and recently launched its new BB60 product line.

Key changes in the new product line include increased filtration capacity in excess of 60 cfm with auto drains in the first two filters; filtration removes particulates at 99.9% and oil at 99.8%; reduced pressure drop on each filter stage with differential pressure indicators on each filter; compact filtration design with higher performance using metal and polymers; each filter uses a polymer bowl locking system (no metal bowl guard like the old filter system); and new filters operate in temperatures from 23 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (-5 to 60 degrees Celsius). www.airsystems.com

Contractors can more easily and reliably run short shots of fiber lines and other underground utilities using the new M10 HDD guidance beacon from Subsite. The beacon is designed for use with compact Ditch Witch horizontal directional drills, like the JT5, and small drills from other manufacturers.

The M10 beacon has a diameter of less than 1 inch, making it one of the smallest beacons on the market. Its compact design allows contractors to do short-run jobs – like fiber drops to homes – using a smaller bit size on their compact machine. This can help contractors keep turf undisturbed and produce fewer cuttings or other waste on jobsites.

Industry-best durability is built into the M10 beacon. With features like an epoxied antenna, it offers superior durability across numerous projects. The beacon has a 55-foot operating depth and comes with a standard warranty of one year or 350 hours. www.subsite.com

Companies should have a rescue plan for all their workers at height. In this one-day work-at-height training course, workers in aerial lifts/mobile elevating work platforms will learn how to evacuate and perform a true self-rescue even after a fall. The Evacuation & Self-Rescue Training course concentrates on the various usages of the SRK-15 (a CE- and ANSI-certified kit) and the StepWise Arc Flash Lanyard. Each student will learn to inspect and operate the dual-brake personal descender within the self-rescue kit, as well as adjust the kit to their own body weight in order to keep it event-ready in case of an emergency.

Each student must have appropriate PPE, including a full-body harness, dual-leg lanyard and any personal fall protection devices normally used. All Tech Safety Lines’ rescue training programs meet or exceed OSHA and ANSI safety standards. https://techsafetylines.com/training/courses/evacuation-self-rescue-training-aerial-liftmobile-elevating-work-platforms-mewp

Planning saves lives. Whether you call it a job briefing or a tailboard, taking time before work begins to identify potential hazards, discuss elimination and mitigation strategies, and align the crew reduces the risk of incidents – and it’s an OSHA requirement per 29 CFR 1910.269(c). Studies consistently show that effective planning can prevent up to 70% of workplace accidents.

But not all job briefings are created equal. Research based on 850,000 recorded safety conversations has revealed that many of these conversations fall short of their potential. The average score of these recorded conversations is 18.8 out of 35, with key areas like planning (2.61/5) and question quality (1.88/5) leaving much to be desired.

The good news is that recording and analyzing job briefings – which can be achieved through various means, including the use of software and artificial intelligence – enables employers to measure those conversations so employees can be coached to make them more impactful, ideally resulting in fewer incidents, more engaged crews and a safer work environment.

Safety Conversations Matter
You’ve likely been there: The job briefing form gets pencil-whipped, a hazard goes unaddressed, and the crew moves on. On the surface, everything may seem fine – until an incident occurs.

This is precisely why it’s critical to both record job briefings and measure their conversation quality. Among other things, analysis of those 850,000 safety conversations indicated (1) that the average participant engagement score was only 2.46 out of 5 and (2) that secondary speakers contributed just 0.53 turns per conversation. In other words, most conversations are dominated by one person, leaving valuable voices unheard.

Research conducted by Alex Pentland, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that members of high-performing teams exhibit equal participation during discussions. That’s because diverse perspectives more effectively uncover blind spots, identify overlooked hazards and drive better outcomes.

Given the above, it may not surprise you to learn that most leaders aren’t natural communicators; they learn through feedback and practice. Recorded conversations provide the “game tape” that leaders need to sharpen their skills.

Recognize and Celebrate Success
Here’s something else to keep in mind: Crews are more likely to stay engaged and strive for improvement when they know their efforts are being noticed and positively reinforced by management.

For instance, one company that records and analyzes safety conversations began presenting a Golden Hard Hat award to employees for the best one each month. Here’s an example of an award-winning discussion: “One foreman started his safety talk by lying next to a hole, humorously pointing out the hazard. It was creative, engaging and educational, and it inspired others to take their conversations to the next level.”

Recognition can also help organizations build momentum. According to TDIndustries’ Jamie Dabbs, celebrating wins has helped to foster a culture of accountability within the organization. “We’ve been able to celebrate standout talks and proactively address issues identified in the field,” he said. “It’s created a safer and more cohesive work environment.”

Measure Progress and Drive Change
The ability to track and measure progress is one of the greatest benefits of recording and analyzing job briefings. As Dabbs noted, data-driven insights allow organizations to proactively identify patterns and address problems: “The data showed us trends we wouldn’t have seen otherwise, from equipment issues to gaps in communication. That let us take action and improve safety before incidents happened.”

Conclusion
Now it’s time to ask yourself, are the job briefings conducted at your company’s worksites making a positive impact – or have they become just another box to check?

Remember, recording safety conversations gives you the power to measure them, coach employees, celebrate wins and ultimately develop a safer working environment in which every voice matters. Why not start today? It’s a small step that could make a world of difference.

About the Author: Barry Nelson is the founder and CEO of FactorLab (https://factorlab.com), provider of SmartTagIt, an AI risk intelligence platform for reducing risks to safety and operations performance. With decades of experience at the intersection of incident prevention and technology, his groundbreaking research has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Nelson and his team of data scientists and engineers have helped companies use emerging technologies, organizational science and machine learning to significantly reduce workplace accidents and injuries.

In this powerful episode recorded live at the iP Utility Safety Conference in Charleston, Brent Jeffries of Bierer Meters and Billy Martin of Think Tank Project LLC dive deep into the overlooked element of utility safety: human connection. They explore how emotional energy, team environment, and psychological safety can make or break a crew’s performance. From “rebuilding the energy wheel” to becoming the invisible force of change, this conversation reveals the power of empathy, intention, and interaction in keeping utility workers safe.

Key Takeaways:

• Connection is a safety tool: Emotional and interpersonal connection within teams enhances decision-making and reduces risk.

• The “11th element” in energy systems is people—and they must be factored into hazard assessments.

• Environment shapes behavior: A supportive work environment directly impacts performance and longevity, as seen through both human and animal examples.

• Words have power: Negative language can become a hazard; leaders should speak with intention to neutralize risk.

• Small gestures spark change: Simple acts like eye contact, encouragement, or a check-in can be the catalyst for major cultural shifts.

 5 Questions & Answers:

Q1: What is the “11th element” Brant refers to in his energy wheel?

A: It’s people—the human factor often missing when discussing risks from energy sources. People introduce variables that can either mitigate or magnify those risks.

Q2: Why is eye contact in meetings and safety talks so important?

A: According to studies referenced by Billy, eye contact synchronizes brainwaves and builds engagement, making communication more impactful and meaningful.

Q3: How can leaders positively shift a team’s culture?

A: By creating an environment of trust, curiosity, and communication. Even small, positive interactions can interrupt negativity and ripple into long-term change.

Q4: Why is it important to not wait for policy to make safety changes?

A: As Billy shared, real change often comes too late. Leaders should act on what’s right now instead of waiting for approval or regulation.

Q5: How does the “wind” analogy apply to utility safety?

A: Wind represents invisible forces—like morale, communication, and emotions—that shape outcomes. Leaders can’t always see them, but they can harness and redirect them.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #HumanPerformance #SafetyLeadership #WorkplaceCulture #EmotionalIntelligence #SafetyInnovation

In this episode of Built In, Not Bolted On, host Doug Hill sits down with safety leader and educator David McPeak to explore the real keys to successful Human and Organizational Performance (HOP). Through storytelling, relatable analogies, and a few laughs, they break down the power of caring leadership, building a just culture, the dangers of overcomplicating safety systems, and the importance of embedding safety into the DNA of an organization. From tools like “E + R = O” to the “village-by-village” model of influence, this episode provides a practical, people-first look at how to make safety initiatives stick—for good.

Key Takeaways:

1. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. Safety systems must be embedded into the culture—not simply bolted on as compliance requirements.

2. Toxic culture is a showstopper. No safety program will succeed in an environment that lacks trust, respect, and accountability.

3. Success starts with relationships. Building strong, caring teams helps create the psychological safety needed to speak up and improve performance.

4. Don’t overcomplicate safety. Practical, repeatable tools that workers understand and use in context matter more than complex policies.

5. Peer-level champions and simple tools like “E + R = O” and performance mode awareness can drive real change from the ground up.

5 Relevant Questions & Answers:

Q1: What’s the key to implementing effective Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) strategies?

A1: Commitment and time. It’s not about quick fixes—it’s about embedding care, consistency, and communication into every level of the organization.

Q2: Why do many safety programs fail?

A2: They’re often implemented in toxic cultures or made too complex. Without foundational trust and simple, relatable tools, programs won’t stick.

Q3: How can you tell if a safety initiative is “built in” versus “bolted on”?

A3: “Built-in” programs are part of daily work, language, and habits. “Bolted-on” programs feel forced, top-down, and are quickly abandoned.

Q4: What role do performance modes play in safety?

A4: Understanding if a worker is in skill-, rule-, or knowledge-based mode helps choose the right tool—like saying it out loud, step-by-step checks, or stopping work to seek help.

Q5: How can leaders support cultural safety transformation?

A5: By modeling desired behaviors, creating a safe space for feedback, understanding how each role sees safety, and helping translate tools into all departments—not just field crews.

#BuiltInNotBoltedOn #UtilitySafety #HumanPerformance #SafetyCulture

#OrganizationalLeadership #JustCulture

Contact Doug: doug@utilitybusinessmedia.com

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

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

For nearly 20 years, Altec Sentry has helped employers train and certify Altec equipment operators on safe and proper operation. Altec Sentry is committed to your safety and believes that industry-leading equipment deserves industry-leading training. They provide direct operation training, a train-the-trainer program, crane certification through NCCCO and EICA, commercial driver’s license training and more. Let Altec Sentry help your operators be safer on the equipment they use every day. www.altec.com/sentry

Elevate your organization’s journey toward safety excellence with this comprehensive seven-book collection authored by ProAct Safety CEO Shawn M. Galloway. Each title offers transformative insights and methods to cultivate a culture of safety and shared ownership.

Start with “Shared Ownership” to master the dynamics of engaging subcultures, then progress to “Bridge to Excellence” for sustainable performance strategies. “Steps to Safety Culture Excellence” provides a foundational roadmap, while “COACH” offers a narrative-driven guide to enhancing leadership in safety. Explore “Inside Strategy” for insights on internal value creation, then advance to “Lean Behavior-Based Safety,” which improves traditional BBS models for modern efficiency. Finally, “Forecasting Tomorrow” equips your safety strategy for future challenges.

Perfect for leaders and supervisors, this collection empowers your team to not only meet but exceed safety standards, unlocking a safer, more productive workplace. Experience the synergy of these titles as they collectively transform safety from a requirement into a vibrant, competitive organizational advantage, fostering a culture of safety excellence. www.amazon.com/stores/author/B009ZHU6DK/allbooks

Guardian has introduced its newest Height Safety Trade Kits, designed to make staying safe at height easier and more cost-effective than ever. Each kit is built around common jobsite needs, with trade-specific configurations to match your crew’s daily challenges. Choose from aerial lift kits available in standard and ultra configurations; concrete kits available in standard, ultra and ultra-plus configurations; and general fall protection kits available in standard, ultra and ultra-plus configurations. Each kit includes a full-body harness, connecting device (SRL or lanyard), and storage bag or backpack. https://guardianfall.com/explore-products/subcategory/safety-kits

MPS Inc. has announced the release of the Nexus T2, Centurion Safety’s Type II helmet with 360-degree protection. The T2 is based on the popular Nexus helmets that have been protecting workers for almost 10 years. It uses Centurion’s wheel ratchet adjustment and four-point chinstrap and has compatibility with a full range of accessories. The T2 is also enhanced with Twiceme Technology to provide critical, time-saving information. https://go-mpsinc.com

e-Hazard now offers a training course designed for non-electrical personnel who maintain and repair electric batteries used as primary power for mobile equipment and vehicles. Mechanics and maintenance personnel must be trained to identify any electrical hazards they may encounter and determine the electrical work practices necessary to safely perform the work.

Electricity is an integral part of today’s world, but it has the potential to cause severe damage. The e-mobility industry is expanding at a rapid pace; innovations in design and engineering are diverse and evolving. This class addresses the hazards specific to DC battery packs, regardless of composition.

Attendees will learn key protection strategies and work practices to prevent and minimize electrical hazards and the injuries they can cause. They will also gain an understanding of tasks that are beyond their scope and require an electrically qualified person.

This one-day course is limited to 16 students and includes significant time dedicated to hands-on activities in small groups, using small-scale model battery packs. https://e-hazard.com

Effectively transferring knowledge from tenured employees to new hires and those climbing the ranks is one of the most significant challenges utility organizations must reckon with. The workforce is continuously evolving, so it is essential to ensure that valuable insights and expertise are not lost when employees leave or retire. This Tailgate Topic explores four strategies that utilities and contractors can deploy to facilitate successful knowledge transfer among employees.

1. Design and Develop a Mentorship Program
Mentorship has long been recognized as a powerful tool for knowledge sharing within organizations. Often used for short-service workers, employers can expand mentorship programs to include mid- and senior-level employees. Pairing experienced staff with newer workers nurtures relationships that encourage personal and professional growth, with mentees gaining valuable career knowledge and mentors reinforcing their own subject matter proficiency and leadership skills.

2. Encourage Self-Initiated Learning
Some employees will directly seek professional development opportunities, particularly in work environments that champion curiosity and continuous learning. To support these efforts, employers can provide relevant resources, such as workshops and seminars, as well as formally recognize employees who actively engage in furthering their professional education. Empowering workers to take charge of their learning journeys promotes a knowledge-sharing culture that can benefit the entire company.

3. Establish a Farm System
Similar to the talent development systems used by professional sports teams, utility organizations can implement “farm systems,” which align employees who share similar goals and aspirations. In a farm system, an emphasis is placed on worker collaboration and the sharing of experiences, from which developmental plans can be created and tailored to individual strengths and weaknesses. A successful farm system fosters a culture of mentorship and growth in which employees can learn from one another, enhance their skills and prepare themselves for future professional opportunities.

4. Create a Corporate University
The corporate university is gaining traction across various industries as another approach to effective knowledge transfer. It combines elements of mentorship and classroom learning to provide employees with a deeper understanding of company operations. Through corporate university programming, employees can acquire the knowledge they need to excel in their roles while also creating a greater sense of community within the organization.

Conclusion
Effective knowledge transfer is critical to the long-term success of any organization. While no one-size-fits-all solution exists, use of the strategies above helps to create a robust framework for knowledge sharing. Implementing a blend of these approaches can go far in ensuring valuable insights and expertise are passed along to the next generation of workers – a fundamental need in an ever-evolving workforce.

About the Author: Robert (RL) Eisenbach, CUSP, SMS, possesses 13 years of experience within the oil and gas industry and eight years of experience in low-voltage, distribution, transmission and substation electrical safety. He sat on OSHA’s Electrical Transmission and Distribution Task Team 2 and holds several industry-specific certifications.

Safety by Design – Empowering Leadership and Employee Involvement with Pam Tompkins CSP, CUSP

Read the article – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/safety-by-design-leadership-and-employee-involvement/

In this episode of Safety by Design, we welcome back safety expert Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, to explore the foundational role of leadership and employee involvement in building effective safety systems. Based on her recent article in Incident Prevention magazine, Pam shares candid insights on overcoming middle management roadblocks, building measurable KPIs, and empowering workers at all levels—from new apprentices to seasoned frontline leaders. Tune in as Pam breaks down why involving the workforce is not optional but essential to safety success—and how organizations can align top-down and bottom-up strategies to protect their people and drive meaningful change.

Key Takeaways:

1. People are the foundation of safety—rules and programs only work when employees are actively involved in shaping and executing them.

2. Middle management is often the bottleneck in safety performance due to lack of field experience and misaligned priorities.

3. Effective safety systems require alignment across all levels: senior leaders, middle managers, and frontline employees.

4. KPIs must be tailored by role—senior leadership, middle management, and field crews should each have performance metrics tied to their unique influence on safety.

5. Safety is not just policy—it’s integration, and organizations must continuously measure, evaluate, and adapt their systems with employee feedback.

❓ 5 Relevant Questions & Answers:

Q1: Why is employee involvement essential to a successful safety system?

A1: Without employees, there is no safety system. Engagement ensures processes are practical, understood, and effectively integrated into real-world tasks.

Q2: What role does middle management play in the success—or failure—of safety programs?

A2: Middle managers often act as a roadblock if they prioritize production over safety or lack a true understanding of field-level risks.

Q3: How can senior leaders improve safety outcomes?

A3: By understanding the real “look of safety,” engaging directly with field teams, and holding themselves accountable for organizational risk tolerance.

Q4: What kind of KPIs are most effective for evaluating safety?

A4: Role-specific KPIs—like field engagement for executives or measurable improvements in hazard mitigation for frontline supervisors—are key.

Q5: What’s the danger of not aligning top-down and bottom-up safety efforts?

A5: It creates a culture of distrust, disengagement, and missed opportunities to improve safety. Full integration is necessary for success.

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceSafety #SafetyLeadership #SafetyCulture #EmployeeEngagement #FrontlineSafety

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

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

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

WEBINAR RECORDING

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

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

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

Optimizing Arc Flash Protection: The Crucial Role of Layered Clothing

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

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

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

✅ Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

❓ Five Questions & Answers:

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

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

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

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

Q3: Are layered systems recognized by safety standards?

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

Q4: How does layering improve comfort for utility workers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet all of them present complex fall hazards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are four key considerations to help prevent suspension trauma:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Courtesy of the National Electrical Contractors Association

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

If so, I encourage you to read further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

4 Questions to learn from this podcast with Answers:

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

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

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

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

Q3: How can utility workers improve safety culture?

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

Q4: What role does leadership play in utility safety?

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

Challenging the Status Quo: Rethinking Safety in the Utility Industry

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

USMWF’s MISSION

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

​

USMWF’s VISION STATEMENT

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

Read the article in iP Magazine – Read Here

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Connect with Kevin:

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

Resource Links:

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

Key Takeaways from this podcast:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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