In an increasingly complex and volatile business landscape, the ability to proactively identify, assess and mitigate risks is not merely a valuable skill – it’s a strategic imperative for sustainable success. As leaders, entrepreneurs and innovators, our capacity to anticipate and navigate risks can be the difference between stagnation and growth and between surviving and thriving in a rapidly evolving world.

Risk management is not a one-time task but a continuous process that requires vigilance, adaptability and foresight. By cultivating a proactive approach to risk reduction, we can enhance our resilience, protect our assets, and seize opportunities for innovation and growth. Now, in this exploration of the principles of proactive risk reduction, let’s delve deeper into the strategies and mindset shifts necessary to build a culture of risk resilience and sustainable success.

1️. Early Identification: The Foundation of Proactive Risk Management
Early identification of risks is the foundation of effective risk management. By developing a keen eye for potential threats and vulnerabilities, we can detect and address risks before they escalate into crises. Regular risk assessments, trend analyses and scenario planning are essential tools for identifying emerging risks and anticipating future challenges. By fostering a culture of vigilance and continuous monitoring, we can stay ahead of the curve, proactively addressing risks and seizing opportunities for strategic advantage.

Early identification not only allows us to mitigate risks more effectively but also enables us to leverage our insights to drive innovation and competitive advantage. By encouraging a culture of curiosity, collaboration and knowledge sharing, we can empower our teams to identify risks, propose solutions and drive continuous improvement across our organizations.

2️. Strategic Planning: Building Resilience Through Preparedness
Strategic planning is the cornerstone of effective risk management. Every risk should be met with a comprehensive mitigation strategy that outlines proactive measures to reduce its impact and likelihood of occurrence. Strategic planning involves assessing risk exposure, defining risk tolerance levels and developing response plans tailored to specific scenarios.

Diversification of revenue streams, cross-training employees, and investment in technology and infrastructure are common risk mitigation strategies that can help organizations weather uncertainty and adapt to changing conditions. By integrating risk management into our strategic planning processes, we can align our risk mitigation efforts with our business objectives, enabling us to capitalize on opportunities for growth and innovation while safeguarding our core operations.

3️. Cultivating Resilience: Embracing Change and Learning from Adversity
Resilience is more than just the ability to bounce back from setbacks. It is the capacity to adapt, evolve and thrive in the face of adversity. Building a culture of resilience requires fostering a growth mindset, encouraging experimentation and celebrating learning from failures. By empowering our teams to embrace change, take calculated risks and innovate in the face of uncertainty, we can create a culture of resilience that drives continuous improvement and sustainable success.

Resilient organizations are characterized by their ability to anticipate change, respond agilely to disruptions and pivot quickly to seize opportunities for growth. By fostering a culture of adaptability, creativity and collaboration, we can position our organizations to thrive in the face of uncertainty and emerge stronger and nimbler in a rapidly changing business environment.

In conclusion, proactive risk reduction is not just a strategy; it is a mindset that empowers us to navigate uncertainty, embrace change and drive sustainable success. By integrating early identification, strategic planning and resilience-building into our organizational DNA, we can help lower the total number of incidents.

About the Author: Robert (RL) Eisenbach, CUSP, 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.

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

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/

NASCO ArcWear products have been a trusted solution to the foul weather needs of utility companies across North America for more than 25 years. With a reputation of innovation, NASCO has done it again. ArcJoule is a unique combination of waterproof and breathable performance that combines high-visibility worker conspicuity with protection from the thermal hazards associated with electric arc flashes and hydrocarbon flash fires. It meets the requirements of ASTM F1891 for arc flash protection, ASTM F2733 for flash fire protection and ANSI 107 for high visibility.

ArcJoule offers recreational breathability while providing industrial protection. Add the special rip-stop characteristic and you have a durable part of your work gear to get the job done. ArcJoule is in stock, ready to meet the demanding work environment of gas and electric utility companies. https://nascoinc.com/arcwear

Meet the new line of flexible, comfortable and durable workwear that is built specifically for women. The Women’s Carhartt FeatherWeight FR Line, offered exclusively from Cintas, features GlenGuard AR/FR fabric in knit and woven constructions. The shirt incorporates knit paneling in the back and under the arms for improved range of motion, along with fade-resistant and moisture-wicking fabric properties. These garments are classified as ARC 2 and UL 2112 certified and are designed to help you tackle even the toughest jobs. www.cintas.com/flameresistantclothing

MCR Safety’s Mustang Series offers premium-quality utility work gloves designed to withstand tough jobs. The MU3664K model is crafted from top-quality honey gold grain goatskin, providing strength and durability while remaining soft and comfortable, even in hot and sweaty conditions. It features strategically positioned second layers of premium goatskin in the palm, fingertips, thumb crotch, index finger and knuckle, offering additional protection without compromising dexterity. Additionally, the MU3664K boasts a full Kevlar lining, achieving ANSI/ISEA Cut Level A5 and an arc rating of 50 cal/cm² (CAT 4). www.mcrsafety.com

Stanco’s Stonewashed Blue Denim FR/AR-Rated Jeans with Memory Stretch Technology – the perfect combination of comfort, safety and style – are now available. These CAT 2 jeans offer a modern update for today’s hardworking people. Made of 99% virgin cotton with a durable weight of 13.75 ounces, the jeans have an arc flash rating of 19 cal/cm2 and are comfortably suited for most work environments. The 8% Memory Stretch that is built into the denim allows for ease of movement in all directions. The jeans feature no-rub inside stitching down the inseams. The bootcut relaxed fit design also features a low-rise to midrise waist and a generous five-pocket design. Stanco bar-tacks all the belt loops and reinforces all stress points. The double-stitched seams and durable brass zipper add rugged durability and superior quality. Our jeans are ASTM F1506, NFPA 70E and UL 2112 certified to ensure our customers always get top-quality products. They are also machine washable and can be home laundered over 100 times while still maintaining their flame-resistant properties. www.stancomfg.com

DragonWear’s Exxtreme Jacket is engineered to help you tackle the toughest conditions. The Exxtreme Jacket delivers breathable warmth with CAT 4 fire resistance, heavy wind resistance, and light rain and snow repellency. Designed with linemen’s needs in mind, this jacket features ample storage with easy-access chest pockets as well as a drop-tail hem and extended sleeves for full coverage and protection while you work. The Exxtreme Jacket incorporates Rip-Stop Nomex reinforcement patches on the forearms and shoulders, ensuring unparalleled durability against wear and tear. Its underarm zippers also provide essential ventilation, allowing you to regulate body temperature effortlessly as the seasons shift. Built to withstand the harshest environments, the Exxtreme Jacket offers permanent protection that won’t melt, drip or support combustion. www.truenorthgear.com/catalog/category/category/outerwear/exxtreme-jacket-mens-sf/

In 2013, tree trimming was a different game.

We worked hard, but safety protocols were often viewed as an inconvenience rather than a necessity. I guess you could say it was a bit like the Wild West – we did what we needed to do to get the job done. Most days, there wasn’t anyone to come out to observe us working, so the only days we really made sure we did our work by the book were the days when someone from the office visited our site. Training wasn’t part of our everyday tasks because the work was primarily done on a production basis – and no one wanted to stop production. They wanted to get the job done. We didn’t delve into human performance either, and we didn’t talk about tools or traps or how to identify them.

Like many others I knew at the time, I operated with a degree of overconfidence, which eventually led to me experiencing a close call that changed my safety mindset. I had just returned from working a hurricane in Georgia, the first real hurricane I experienced as a tree trimmer. Now back on our home turf, our crew had gotten back into our regular routine – trimming around power lines – and a pine tree I was removing one day had a codominant top that started about as high as the primary. The tree couldn’t be dropped from the ground; it had to be pieced down for various reasons. I remember feeling overly confident when I started taking down the treetop. After working storm restoration in the wake of a hurricane, this regular work now seemed easy to me since it didn’t involve any pressure or tension cuts. Not only that, but this tree was smaller than any of the trees I worked on during the hurricane. I felt like I could do the job with my eyes closed.

That day, I quickly removed all the brush from the top of the tree. All I had left was a 50-foot spar with 15 feet of the top being the codominant portion (note: I’ll refer to the two codominant logs as “legs” in the remainder of this Tailgate). I grabbed my top-handle trim saw and made a notch in the front side of the leg that was away from the line. The two legs were close together, so I had to plunge cut into the other leg to be able to start my back cut. I only had one hand on my saw as I started the plunge cut; at the same time, I turned my head to see if I was cutting at the right height so that I wouldn’t be lower than my notch. As I started to look, the no-go zone of the bar hit the leg first, sending my saw back at my head. It came at me incredibly quickly, only stopping after it hit my hard hat. I was really scared, and in that moment, I thought, what if the saw had hit me in the face? That’s when I brought my bucket to the ground to collect my thoughts.

A Lesson Learned
After that day, I began to realize that things can go wrong very quickly, and if I wanted to be able to make it back home to my wife and kids each day, I needed to learn how to do things the right way. Today, I am grateful the industry has undergone a significant safety evolution. No longer do inexperienced employees get thrown into the bucket just to give the foreman a break. Training and proficiency demonstrations now take place before work begins to ensure workers are capable of safely performing tasks. Human performance analysis, trap recognition and a renewed focus on hazard identification are now standard practices. This transformation has both saved lives and revolutionized the way we approach our work.

I’m also thankful to have opportunities like this one to tell my close-call story as an example of why training and human performance are critical to the health and safety of those working in our industry. If you have worked in the industry long enough, I’m sure you also have similar stories you can share. Take the time to share them, being sure to explain the importance of safety compliance and establishing a safety culture at your organization. You never know – it could save a life.

About the Author: Horace Shelton, CUSP, is a safety supervisor who had been working in the tree-trimming industry for 11 years. He is an ISA Certified Arborist, an ISA Certified Arborist Utility Specialist and a Certified Treecare Safety Professional, among other industry credentials he has earned.

Editor’s Note: Utility safety professionals who work in line clearance and tree trimming now have a CUSP endorsement specific to their discipline: the Utility Line Clearance Arborist endorsement. Visit https://usoln.org/utility-line-clearance-arborist-endorsement/ to learn more.

Insulating aerial devices and digger derricks are used to provide a level of protection to their operators and ground personnel who work around energized power lines. Following established safe work procedures is critical, as is testing and maintaining the equipment so that it continues to provide the insulation users expect. You cannot simply look at a unit to determine if it will provide the insulation expected; it must be tested.

There are two types of dielectric tests that must be performed on insulating aerial devices and digger derricks: qualification tests and periodic tests. A qualification test is required to determine the voltage rating of the unit. A periodic test is conducted at intervals to verify that the equipment continues to provide the expected insulation. Knowing who is responsible for these tests and when to perform them is essential to identifying any defects or weaknesses in the insulating capabilities of the equipment. Once the equipment is in use, the responsibility falls on the owners and users.

New insulating bucket trucks or digger derricks are first tested by the OEM according to ANSI A92.2 5.3.2 or A10.31 5.3.2 requirements, respectively. This qualification test at the factory establishes the insulation rating for the equipment. The installer will then perform a dielectric test to confirm the insulation after a unit is finished and operational. A qualification test is also required if the fiberglass boom is replaced. The original qualification test is then no longer valid.

Once insulating equipment is placed in service, maintenance tests – also called periodic tests or annual tests – are required to be performed for a variety of reasons. A maintenance test is required annually for most classifications of machines, or more frequently according to the user’s policy. Maintenance tests are also required after repair or replacement of components in the insulating sections, such as hoses or leveling components. If a problem is suspected, or after unintended contact with energized power lines occurs, a maintenance test will verify the insulation is providing the expected protection and not damaged.

All dielectric testing must be done by a qualified person in accordance with ANSI A92.2 or A10.31 standards. A qualified person is defined as someone who, by possession of an appropriate technical degree, certificate, professional standing or skill, and who, by knowledge, training and experience, has demonstrated the ability to deal with problems relating to the subject matter, the work or project.

If no periodic tests have occurred within a 12-month period, the equipment can no longer be considered insulating. Note that Category A units have different requirements if used for barehand work at least every three months.

Always follow test procedures from ANSI A92.2, A10.31 and the manufacturer to establish consistent methods for measuring the leakage current at specified voltages. Manufacturers will be able to provide the information, and it is included in the ANSI standards. The ANSI A92.2 Manual of Responsibility also provides the aerial test criteria.

Know Your Voltage Ratings

Before conducting any type of dielectric testing, you should first know the machine’s voltage rating and category. Refer to the voltage ratings for the equipment. The ID plate on your bucket truck or derrick will indicate if the unit is insulating and, if so, the voltage and category the insulation is designed and tested to withstand. The equipment manual explains which areas of the machine will provide insulation.

Look on the ID plate for the qualification voltage as well. The number in this area is the voltage rating the unit was tested and qualified for per ANSI standards. The date of the qualification test is indicated on the ID plate as the test date.

There may be two voltages stamped on the ID plate near the lower controls. The qualification voltage is the most important. The design voltage (i.e., the maximum voltage for which the machine can be rated if it is properly equipped and tested) may or may not be shown on the ID plate. The machine cannot be used on lines at the design voltage unless the qualification voltage indicates the same voltage on the ID plate.

Qualification voltage is the maximum voltage for which the upper boom on an aerial device has been tested and is rated. The same is true for digger derricks, which can be used as aerial lifts when equipped with a platform and upper controls to work on electrical system lines. For digger derricks, the fiberglass boom must be fully extended and the load line removed across the insulating section to provide this insulation. If used with a platform, the operation must be controlled by the person on the platform. A digger derrick cannot be used with a platform attached unless the ID plate indicates a platform capacity.

Insulating equipment can be used to work near electrical system lines up to the phase-to-phase voltage if the proper PPE and procedures are used. The insulation provided by the boom is secondary to PPE. Only Category A units, when used following barehand work procedures, will provide primary protection. The ratings are given as the phase-to-phase voltage of the system. The booms are tested based on the phase-to-ground voltage, not the voltage between the phase lines. A 46-kV-rated unit cannot be used on a 69-kV system even though the phase-to-ground voltage of the 69-kV system is less than 46 kV.

Types of Testing
Qualification testing can only be done with an AC testing machine. The test is conducted by qualified service personnel anytime the fiberglass boom section is modified or replaced. A written record of all dielectric tests should be maintained, including both the date and the signature of the person who performed the test.

After the aerial device or digger derrick is installed on the chassis, one of two dielectric tests is required to be performed by the installer. They can conduct another qualification test with AC equipment or, if the installer accepts the qualification test from the manufacturer, they can perform a periodic test using AC or DC test equipment. In the case of boom replacement, the OEM tests the boom prior to shipment, but this is not considered a qualification test because the unit must be fully assembled and operational with all components installed in the insulating section. The entity reassembling the unit must perform a qualification test before the unit can be returned to service.

Insulating units should be visually inspected daily. This is especially important when testing in the spring, when birds are nesting. If a unit sits for an hour, a bird may try to build a nest inside. If a dielectric test is performed without inspecting the interior, a fire could result.

A periodic test is necessary whenever there is a question about the equipment’s dielectric properties, such as contaminated or deteriorated fiberglass. This type of test must also be done anytime repairs have been made to components that cross the insulating section. An example is when boom hoses or leveling rods are replaced. A periodic test can be performed with either an AC or a DC testing machine.

Boom positions should be recorded when performing dielectric tests as positioning can cause readings to vary, especially with AC tests. Testing the boom in the same position each time will provide more consistent readings. By comparing the test results year over year, any upward trend in leakage current may aid in determining if the fiberglass boom’s insulating properties are deteriorating, as well as whether the fiberglass, hoses or leveling rods need to be inspected or repaired.

Finally, as previously stated, an annual test must be performed once every 12 months. AC or DC testing equipment can be used. Either a qualification test or a periodic test will suffice for meeting the annual test requirement.

Other Items to Test
In addition to the insulating upper boom sections of bucket and derrick trucks, there are a few other considerations.

Insulating liners, if used, require an annual dielectric test. The liner does not have a rating, only a requirement to be tested. The liner depends on the material’s thickness for its insulating properties. Damage to the liner that reduces its thickness – such as gouges and cuts – can reduce the insulating properties and cause test failure.

It’s a good idea to examine the hydraulic oil and perform a dielectric test on that oil at the same time the booms are tested, especially if the oil is discolored or milky looking. The dielectric strength of the new oil should exceed 25 kV, and used oil should remain above 15 kV when tested per ASTM D877.

High-resistance control handles on aerial devices must be qualification tested using AC equipment. Maintenance tests can be performed using AC or DC equipment. Testing must be performed annually or whenever maintenance is completed that may affect the dielectric integrity of the controls.

The aerial chassis insulating system or lower boom insert, if equipped, may provide some level of protection for personnel on the ground if contact is made below the upper boom insulating section. The insert does not have a rating, only a test requirement. The same test procedures apply as with the upper boom. For the qualification test, only AC equipment can be used; the periodic test can be performed with AC or DC equipment.

About the Authors: Jim Olson and Craig Ries are product safety engineers for Terex Utilities (www.terex.com/utilities).

Aerial line work using helicopters is a proven method utilized in our industry to perform certain tasks safely and efficiently. Helicopters have supported the utility industry since 1947. Operators conducting aerial work in support of the utility industry encounter different hazards due to various flight profiles, terrain, infrastructure and weather environments. Aerial work concerning the utility industry exposes aircraft and operators to the same hazards of any aircraft that operates at low altitudes and slow speeds. The first step of a safety system approach to mitigating risk is to define the operational environment and outline the hazards associated with each flight profile.

Risk Assessment Tools and Procedures
Line work and flying a helicopter are both considered to be inherently high-risk activities, so combining them into one task may lead you to believe that task is extremely risky, but it can be done safely by identifying and mitigating the risks. Industry tools and procedures that we use for identification and mitigation include risk assessments, safe work procedures, safety management systems, tailboards and reconnaissance flights.

Every job must begin with a risk assessment to be completed by Operations as they understand what methods will be used. Your safety team should be an active participant in the process. The initial risk assessment is done before the job begins. Once that assessment is complete, Operations and Safety work together to mitigate risks.

Safe work procedures, or SWPs, are another tool used to minimize risks. SWPs are step-by-step instructions on how to perform a particular task. The order of the steps matters, and no step can be skipped. During the morning tailboard, discuss the SWPs to be used. Ensure everyone understands what they will be doing and the steps to follow to accomplish the task.

If changes are needed to an SWP due to system configurations, customer requirements or limitations with maintaining minimum approach distances, employees shall stop work and regroup. The procedure must be modified by the foreman, pilot and crew members and then sent to management – which includes the chief pilot, operations director and safety director, at a minimum – for approval. This process, instrumental in the success of aerial operations, can be done smoothly and with minimal time delays.

The safety management system (SMS) is a coordinated, comprehensive set of processes designed to direct and control resources to optimally manage safety. In an SMS, unrelated processes are built into one combined structure to achieve a higher level of safety performance, making safety management an integral part of overall risk management. An SMS is based on leadership and accountability. It requires proactive hazard identification, risk management, information control, auditing and training. It also includes incident and accident investigation and analysis. Formal training is required for the safety director and other personnel involved in these processes.

Prior to flight, the pilot performs the flight risk assessment utilizing the Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT). The FRAT is an effective aid in risk awareness and mitigation. The risk assessment focuses on the mission for the day while also considering the environment (e.g., altitude, visibility, winds, terrain), the number of consecutive days the pilot has been on duty and the pilot’s experience.

The FRAT is scored for total risk based on the answers given by the pilot.

• If the total risk score is determined to be low, the pilot is good to go.
• If the total risk score is determined to be elevated, the pilot mitigates the risk factors and is then allowed to fly.
• If the total risk score is determined to be moderate, the pilot shall contact the chief pilot or safety director to discuss the mitigation plan.
• If the total risk score is determined to be high, the pilot shall stop. The flight is not allowed to commence until the risk can be mitigated.

Each day, a tailboard must be completed at the landing zone once the pilot arrives. While the foreman (i.e., the employee in charge as stated by OSHA) is responsible for completing the job safety analysis, the pilot in charge is an integral part of the tailboard and must be an active participant in the process. The tailboard is key to a successful job, and the entire crew must be actively involved.

A reconnaissance flight is conducted each day to look at the lines, structures, and any obstacles or obstructions prior to flying a lineworker. This type of flight – which can be conducted only by the pilot but often includes the foreman or a lineworker – is performed specifically to look for any changes from the day before.

Human External Cargo
When assessing and mitigating risk in helicopter line work, human external cargo, or HEC, must always be considered. HEC is defined as any worker who is part of the flight crew and is engaged in an activity outside the aircraft.

The FAA has set forth three different classes of HEC operations:

• Class A: skid or platform activities
• Class B: HEC longline activities
• Class C: pulls

In the early 1980s, Class B was adopted and modified by various agencies as well as the utility industry for use in a number of missions and tasks. The regulation, 14 CFR 133.35, “Carriage of persons,” allows a person to be carried during rotorcraft external-load operations when that person:

• Is a flight crew member.
• Is a flight crew member trainee.
• Performs an essential function in connection with the external-load operation.
• Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the operation.

Class B HEC has become an essential tool within the power utility industry. Thorough training of both pilots and crew members is critical to safely conducting Class B HEC operations. Some examples of Class B HEC tasks that have proven to be safe and efficient include:

• Marker ball installations.
• Installation or removal of armor rods.
• Installation of travelers.
• Placement of crew members at elevated positions (structures and working platforms).

Lineworkers are often excited to work from an HEC longline. However, it’s critical to ensure their skill level prior to them doing so; this can be verified with specific training and an exam. It’s necessary to have a conversation with each lineworker not only about line work but fall protection, rigging, fueling, landing ladders and so forth. Following the classroom training and exam, each lineworker must be evaluated for proficiency in the field by the foreman, pilot and other crew members.

Note that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safe conclusion of an external-load operation.

Crew Resource Management
Crew resource management (CRM) is another type of management system important to mention. The purpose of CRM is to make optimal use of all available resources – including equipment, procedures and people – to promote safety and enhance the efficiency of flight operations. CRM is concerned not so much with the technical knowledge and skills required to fly and otherwise operate an aircraft but rather with the cognitive and interpersonal skills needed to manage the flight within an organized aviation system. CRM fosters a climate where the freedom to respectfully question authority is encouraged.

CRM is crucial when conducting patrols. While patrols are an aerial task believed by some to be simple, this is untrue. The pilot and observer must conduct a preflight briefing prior to each patrol to discuss weather, fuel requirements, the patrol route, known or recently identified obstacles, and noise-sensitive areas. The pilot and observer must work as a team.

Aerial work requires effective communication, due diligence to maintain situational awareness, and an understanding that the pilot, observer and/or mission crew are a team and reliant on each other to effectively communicate observed hazards and safety concerns as they are noted.

As we like to say at our company, it takes two to go but only one to say no. It is essential for work to be stopped if even one team member has a concern. Evaluate the situation and determine if safety measures can be instituted to mitigate the hazard or safety concern. Hazards and concerns must be addressed before reinitiating work.

Closing Reminders
Let’s close out this article with some reminders.

• First, remember to always begin the job with a detailed risk assessment. Eliminate any risks you can and mitigate the remaining risks to acceptable levels.
• All crew members must understand their exact role. Be sure to have a thorough job briefing/tailboard at the beginning of the day, and re-brief as necessary when any conditions change.
• Ensure all crew members are fully trained for the tasks they are expected to perform.
• It takes two to go but only one to say no.

In summary, using the tools and practices covered here will help to ensure that aerial line work remains a safe and effective way for your organization to perform line work tasks.

About the Author: Jenn Miller is the director of safety, health and environment at OneSpan Powerline Services (https://onespanpower.com). She has over 30 years of experience in the electric utility and contract power-line construction space.

Active shooter response training for utility professionals is a subject that shouldn’t be ignored. However, few subjects are as challenging or controversial.

For decades, active shooter response training has been touted as a one-size-fits-all remedy that instills long-lasting, actionable survival skills in one easy application. In reality, off-the-shelf training programs seldom deliver on promises. Training is often poorly delivered cookie-cutter sessions that focus on the wrong messaging and outcomes. Active shooter response programs are fraught with complications and issues that, if left unresolved, can make the training more of a hazard than a help.

You may think, “OK, so let’s just skip the training.” Sorry, but that’s not the answer either. Without practical and effective active shooter response training, your team may not have the skills needed to escape a lethal encounter.

Despite what you may believe, people are not naturally endowed with keen survival instincts and response skills that miraculously kick in when needed. Response skills must be learned and continually refreshed. Without a usable survival skill set, our fate – as an individual or a group – is ultimately left to chance. The bottom line is that not offering active shooter response training, or employing the wrong training, can have tragic results.

Let me be clear: I believe active shooter response training is a necessity and as important as any lifesaving safety skill being taught. The stakes are too high and the potential outcomes too catastrophic to depend on probability alone for protection. However, in any active shooter training discussion, the impacts of inadequate training and the consequences of not training must be considered.

Inadequate training produces inadequate results, including false assumptions and misguided outcome expectations. One poorly delivered active shooter response training session can simultaneously create debilitating anxiety in some attendees and lethal overconfidence in others; both are outcomes to be avoided.

Practical active shooter response training requires more than enthusiasm and a self-defense technique. It can’t rely on fixed procedures; disproportionately soft, G-rated (i.e., approved for general audiences) formats; or overly aggressive and gratuitous tactics. Effective training will address the unique circumstances faced by the audience using just enough tension to convey the gravity of the subject. For utility professionals, that means focusing on threats related to utility operations, work environments and hostile situations.

Training Customization is Essential
Active shooter response training requires a custom fit that addresses the trainees’ unique predicaments. This is especially true for those who work irregular hours in remote and nonsecure locations and regularly interact with hostile people, which is precisely what utility professionals do.

Beyond the conventional threats we’re all subject to, utility professionals also face distinct security threats and conditions. These include working in situations that often place them at a disadvantage. The job itself dictates the threats you face. Whether it’s working in an isolated location, on other people’s property or in a hostile community environment, you go where the job is.

A seldom recognized or understood conditional impact is the depth of emotion associated with access to utility services. Deep-seated emotions are tied to the resources that support our basic needs for lodging, water, sustenance and environmental control, and we’re quick to respond to any perceived threat to those resources. The response to a real or perceived threat can be violent and possibly lethal. Effective training will address hostility drivers, such as entrenched loss-of-service fear.

Practical active shooter response training will include scenarios faced by office and field personnel, either separately or in a comprehensive program that addresses both.

Program tailoring is critical to training success. Training that promotes responses and solutions that contradict the organization’s principles can create dilemmas for the utility and sets the stage for conflict; this must be avoided. Adjusting the training content and approach to an organization requires a little background work and conversations with key staff to ensure training alignment and alleviate any organizational concerns.

Typically, alignment adjustments are minor shifts or modifications. And while they may seem insignificant, they can drastically impact delivery and outcome. Untailored or misaligned training creates incongruencies between the information presented and operational reality. This incongruency can be significant if the trainer hasn’t recognized and filtered their personal biases from the training.

Addressing Training Bias
Two sources of bias must be addressed for active shooter response training to be effective: trainer bias and audience bias. Before we delve into these, let’s make sure we understand what “bias” actually means – because people are inclined to wield the word like a hammer. Merriam-Webster defines bias as “an inclination of temperament or outlook, especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.”

Everyone has biases, and though some are harmful or downright hateful, most are simply commonly held beliefs about correlations between events or actions and expected outcomes. They’re decision-making shortcuts based on assumptions, previous experiences and beliefs without supporting evidence.

Overcoming trainer bias is the responsibility of the trainer. In practice, their training approach must complement the organization’s established standards and policies. Voicing unfiltered or contradictory biases and opinions during training is counterproductive and unprofessional. When conducting active shooter response training, the trainer must examine personal biases and filter any that do not align with the organization’s positions or policies.

Audience biases can be incredibly challenging problems. The audience of any active shooter response training will have an array of preconceived biases as diverse as the audience itself. These include biases about the subject, the content and the trainer. To illustrate, let’s examine subject matter biases.

Subject matter biases about active shooter response training will fall into three groups: those biased toward the training, those biased against it and those who think it’s a waste of time. Those biased toward the training are looking forward to it and will want to get as physical as possible. They’ll ask questions like, “Will this be a drill with weaponry?” or “Can we tackle the shooter?”

The second group is biased against the training. They become anxious at the very thought of the subject. Their go-to response is fear and anxiety. They’re the ones who ask, “Don’t you think this is too aggressive?” or state, “I don’t think I can do this.”

The third group has an indifference bias. They are predisposed to see the training as a colossal waste of time and money. They’re the ones who make comments such as, “Why is this such a big issue now?” and “This has never happened here and never will.”

The trainer’s problem is that they must train all three groups. For many trainers, not overcoming audience bias is their greatest point of failure.

Effective Implementation
Successfully implementing active shooter response training is a challenge. There are myriad details, moving parts and things that can go wrong. Let’s look at three common challenges: reaching the entire audience, implementing the wrong training and poor trainer selection. We can deal with all three in one example.

As I stated earlier, reaching the entire audience is the greatest point of failure for many trainers. These trainers often fail to comprehend the need to adjust the training to the audience. In a previous article, I used an example of a security colleague who fell into this trap. He was new to his position as security manager for a midsized electric distribution utility, but he had outstanding credentials as a military officer and experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Over coffee one morning, he began discussing his plan to conduct active shooter response training. As we talked, it became clear that the training had all the earmarks of a military exercise: intense, aggressive and graphic. I realized that he hadn’t considered his audience’s diversity and biases. I expressed concern about his approach and offered to help. However, he felt he had a handle on the situation, so I wished him well and asked him to let me know how it went.

His goal was to make a memorable and lasting impression on the trainees. He accomplished that. Unfortunately, the training was so graphic and intense that he alienated half the attendees, and the level of pushback after the training cost him his job. This example highlights two truths: Civilian training isn’t the same as military training, and scaring people isn’t the same as training them.

The simple truth is that we teach what we know. Military and law enforcement training focuses on tactical response, which is great for them but not very useful for our industry. Utility professionals need active shooter response training that focuses on defensive response and escaping lethal situations – and that’s not the forte of the military or law enforcement.

What about active shooter drills? Frankly, I’m not a big fan of them. Most are ill-timed, poorly designed and managed, and have negative consequences. Don’t get me wrong, we conduct successful active shooter drills for clients on a regular basis, but we spend a lot of upfront time and effort to get them right. Push the idea of a drill down the road and skip the trauma and litigation risks for now. Begin with training that introduces active shooter response concepts and focuses on overcoming biased perceptions. Get the group positively engaged and oriented, then consider upping the intensity with a drill.

The Bottom Line
In many ways, active shooter response training is a necessary evil. It is loaded with problems and pitfalls, but don’t ignore it. Just remember, doing it wrong can be as risky as not doing it at all. Take the time and put in the effort to do it right.

About the Author: Jim Willis, M.Sc., CMAS, CHS-V, is the CEO of InDev Tactical, a security training and consulting firm. He has years of global experience working with utilities and providing infrastructure security. Willis earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in international development and security. He is a credentialed homeland security and antiterrorism specialist with expertise in training, security consulting, threat assessments and security operations. Reach him at jim.willis@indevtactical.net.

While leading a recent workshop at a client location, the introductions began by individually discussing how incidents at work have affected us. One story shared left an impact on all in attendance.

Fifteen years ago, an employee suffered what at the time seemed like a simple and small fracture to their leg after a fall. What resulted was a total of 12 surgeries, and the employee’s wife became addicted to the opioids he was prescribed. Tragically, she passed away due to her addiction. Workplace injuries and incidents can have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate physical harm suffered by an employee.

The collateral damage resulting from such incidents can significantly impact various aspects of an organization and the lives of those connected to injured individuals. This article explores how the aftermath of safety incidents can affect the organization and the family members and colleagues of those involved.

Impact on the Organization
One of the primary types of collateral damage resulting from safety incidents is their significant impact on the organization. The direct financial costs associated with medical expenses, workers’ compensation claims and potential legal fees can strain the company’s resources. These financial burdens may hinder the organization from investing in growth opportunities or allocating funds to other essential areas. Sometimes, they lead to the organization’s demise.

At a minimum, safety incidents often result in decreased productivity and disruption to operations. When an employee is injured, their absence or reduced capacity to work can lead to delays in projects, increased workloads on remaining staff and potential setbacks in meeting deadlines. This ripple effect can have long-term implications for the organization’s overall performance and reputation. Here are a few examples.

Deepwater Horizon: The drilling rig explosion in 2010 resulted in one of the largest environmental disasters in history. The incident led to the release of millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing extensive environmental damage, loss of marine life and significant economic repercussions for the region. BP, the company responsible for the rig, faced immense backlash, lawsuits and financial losses in the aftermath of the disaster, highlighting the severe consequences of safety failures in the oil industry.

Rana Plaza: The Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh in 2013 resulted in the death of over 1,100 workers and injured thousands more. The building’s poor structural integrity and disregard for safety regulations were key factors in the tragic incident. The factory’s collapse exposed the unsafe working conditions prevalent in the garment industry, leading to widespread outrage, international scrutiny and a significant impact on the businesses sourcing from the factory. Several clothing retailers faced reputational damage and financial losses due to their association with the Rana Plaza disaster, emphasizing the importance of ensuring workplace safety in supply chains.

Boeing: The Boeing 737 Max aircraft crashes in 2018 and 2019, which claimed the lives of 346 people, were attributed to design flaws in the aircraft’s automated flight control system. The safety incidents that continue to make the news raise serious concerns about Boeing’s safety protocols, regulatory oversight and transparency in the aviation industry. The crashes resulted in the grounding of the 737 Max fleet, significant financial losses for Boeing, and a tarnished reputation that eroded customer trust and investor confidence and, most recently, led to the resignation of the company’s CEO, David Calhoun. The safety incidents underscore the critical importance of prioritizing safety in the design and manufacturing of aircraft to prevent tragic consequences.

Some businesses have failed to recover from the aftermath of safety incidents, ultimately leading to their closure. Let’s delve into some examples of businesses that have faced this fate.

Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant: The 1986 Chornobyl disaster resulted in a catastrophic nuclear accident that led to the evacuation of nearby towns, loss of life and long-term environmental consequences. The safety incident not only had a devastating impact on human lives but also led to the closure of the nuclear power plant. The economic fallout and public distrust in nuclear energy contributed to the plant’s closure, highlighting the severe consequences of safety incidents on businesses.

Takata Corp.: Takata Corp., a Japanese automotive parts company, faced a massive safety scandal when it was discovered that their airbags were defective and could explode, leading to numerous injuries and fatalities. The company faced billions of dollars in fines, lawsuits and recalls, ultimately filing for bankruptcy in 2017. The safety incident not only tarnished Takata’s reputation but also led to its downfall.

Peanut Corp. of America: Once a leading supplier of peanuts and peanut products in the United States, in 2009 the company became embroiled in a salmonella outbreak linked to its products, resulting in multiple deaths and illnesses across the country. The safety incident led to the company’s closure and criminal charges against its executives, underscoring the severe consequences of compromising on food safety standards.

These examples further illustrate the detrimental impact of safety incidents on businesses, ranging from environmental disasters and workplace tragedies to product malfunctions in high-risk industries. Businesses must learn from these cases to prioritize safety, implement robust safety measures, and uphold ethical standards to prevent similar incidents and safeguard their long-term viability.

Impact on Family Members
The aftermath of safety incidents extends beyond the organization, affecting not only the injured individuals but also their family members. Watching a loved one endure pain, suffering and the threat of losing their livelihood due to an incident can take a toll on emotional and practical well-being. Family members may also feel a sense of responsibility for the repercussions of incidents that impact consumers of the products or services provided by the company their loved one works for, which can deeply affect their mental health.

Further, family members of an injured employee may face financial strains due to medical bills, reduced income or the need to take time off work to provide care. The emotional toll of witnessing a loved one’s pain and recovery process can lead to anxiety, stress and strained relationships.

Impact on Colleagues
Similarly, colleagues of an injured employee may experience guilt, fear, grief or a sense of vulnerability, affecting their own work performance and overall morale within the organization. Witnessing a workplace accident or injury can be traumatizing. Colleagues may struggle with survivor’s guilt or worry about their own safety at work. The incident can also disrupt the dynamics and morale within the team, as team members may need to take on additional responsibilities or face increased workloads to compensate for the injured employee’s absence.

Safety incidents can strain relationships between colleagues and the injured employee’s family as well. In some cases, colleagues may feel a sense of guilt or responsibility for the incident, even if it was beyond their control. This can create tension and strained relationships within the workplace.

As an example, a utility company employee’s significant injury resulted in the need for extensive and long-term rehabilitation, causing emotional distress for their spouse and children. The family had to make significant adjustments to their daily routines and bear the financial burden of medical expenses, leading to increased stress and strained relationships. Additionally, the worker’s colleagues experienced a sense of guilt and fear, impacting their motivation and overall productivity. One colleague who witnessed the incident firsthand is seeking therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder.

In addition to ensuring physical safety, organizations must prioritize the mental well-being of their employees. This can be achieved by fostering a culture of care and support where employees feel comfortable reporting any concerns or issues related to their well-being. Providing access to mental health resources and support programs can go a long way in helping employees cope with the emotional toll of safety incidents.

Organizations should also strive to adequately support injured employees’ family members and colleagues. This can include offering financial assistance or resources to alleviate the financial burden that often accompanies safety incidents. Additionally, providing access to counseling services or support groups can help family members and colleagues navigate the emotional challenges they may face.

Safety incidents have collateral damage that goes beyond the physical toll. Organizations can prevent and mitigate the consequences of safety incidents by (1) prioritizing the implementation of comprehensive safety protocols with recovery and support systems for those affected and (2) continuously auditing and assessing their effectiveness and adherence to them. Employees will feel comfortable reporting concerns and issues related to their well-being due to a fostered culture of care and support within the organization. This will contribute to overall mental well-being and create a safer and more supportive work environment. Let us strive to create workplaces where everyone feels safe, supported and cared for.

About the Author: Shawn M. Galloway is CEO of ProAct Safety (https://proactsafety.com) and an author of several bestselling books. As an award-winning consultant, trusted adviser, leadership coach and keynote speaker, he has helped hundreds of organizations within every primary industry to improve safety strategy, culture, leadership and engagement. Galloway also hosts the highly acclaimed weekly podcast series “Safety Culture Excellence.”

Over the course of my career in the utility industry, I’ve often been asked what tasks lone workers are allowed to perform on their own. It’s sometimes a hotly debated topic – both legally and ethically – and the answer is very much based on the employer. Each employer determines which tasks are allowed to be performed by lone workers in the field based on the workers’ job classifications and safety considerations.

Typically, OSHA does not regulate the number of employees required for specific tasks – except for the tasks found at 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(2), “At least two employees,” which reads as follows.

Except as provided in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, at least two employees shall be present while any employees perform the following types of work:

Installation, removal, or repair of lines energized at more than 600 volts,

Installation, removal, or repair of deenergized lines if an employee is exposed to contact with other parts energized at more than 600 volts,

Installation, removal, or repair of equipment, such as transformers, capacitors, and regulators, if an employee is exposed to contact with parts energized at more than 600 volts,

Work involving the use of mechanical equipment, other than insulated aerial lifts, near parts energized at more than 600 volts, and

Other work that exposes an employee to electrical hazards greater than, or equal to, the electrical hazards posed by operations listed specifically in paragraphs (l)(2)(i)(A) through (l)(2)(i)(D) of this section.

OSHA does specifically allow some tasks to be performed by lone workers, including the following found at 1910.269(l)(2)(ii).

Routine circuit switching, when the employer can demonstrate that conditions at the site allow safe performance of this work,

Work performed with live-line tools when the position of the employee is such that he or she is neither within reach of, nor otherwise exposed to contact with, energized parts, and

Emergency repairs to the extent necessary to safeguard the general public.

Some OSHA History and MADs
Overall, the electric utility industry is very disciplined and task oriented. OSHA issued the 1926 Subpart V Construction standard in 1974. Shortly thereafter, stakeholder hearings and meetings began, and information about the General Industry standard was collected. After years of meetings and much review of work tasks found in all major utilities, the 1910.269 General Industry standard was published and became law for operating electric systems. In 2014, the Construction and General Industry regulations were merged to remove older language in the Construction standard and clarify the differences between the two regulations.

Employers and workers should know that the paragraph on minimum approach distances was slightly changed to include the electrical components of the systems. Additionally, the employer became accountable for following the remaining requirements on MAD adjustments based on elevations and transient overvoltages of the system for employee protection. The employer can make decisions about which tasks are safe for employees to perform alone using the foundation of MAD regulations. They can choose the tasks their employees can perform based on their training and experience. OSHA is clear that the employer will make such determinations through industry work practices that do not violate any OSHA regulations. Employers should make their judgments based on what other utilities are doing, the training of their employees and their history of accidents. Employers must be able to defend their decisions about which tasks are allowed.

A recent survey of investor-owned utilities, cooperatives and municipals indicated differences in the tasks they allow their employees to perform alone. Some companies require two 1910.269(a)(2)-qualified employees to open a padmount transformer, while others allow a 1910.269(a)(2)-qualified serviceman working alone to write switching orders, operate elbows and cables with hot sticks, maintain MADs on energized parts and equipment, and then check for absence of voltage and ground the cables and equipment.

Overhead Line Work
In overhead line work, a person working alone must never encroach upon the MAD in any way. The use of sticks to operate equipment is allowable per 1910.269(l)(2)(ii)(B). Trimming a limb with an approved and tested hydraulic stick saw is just one example of a task that is allowed under the regulation. Training must be defined, and it must be demonstrated that the employee can safely perform the task before being allowed to do so in the field.

Employers and employees must remain highly aware that OSHA regulations are the minimum safe performance standards based on historical data, which includes testimony regarding past incidents and accidents. If accidents, injuries or employee complaints are investigated by OSHA, the employer must be able to defend their work practices.

Keep in mind that the greatest hazard might not be the shock hazard that the MAD should protect the employee from. It might instead be the arc flash hazard that could exist as employees perform their tasks. OSHA requires the appropriate PPE – including FR/AR clothing, safety glasses and face shields – for tasks that expose an employee to 2 cal/cm2 or more. That is the amount of heat energy that results in a second-degree burn, which is a significant injury. MAD is a boundary for the prevention of electrical shock to the employee. Arc flashes with significant injury can occur at much greater distances than the MAD shock boundary. There is a record of employees standing on ground, operating extendo sticks, who sustained arc flash injuries to their eyes while performing their task. That was 30 feet from the flash. All hazards must be considered by all employees when working in general, but especially when working alone. Remember that hazard control – which includes the prevention of arc and shock injuries – can only be accomplished by de-energizing the equipment and conductors. I also want to remind readers that de-energized, ungrounded conductors and equipment must always be considered energized, and MADs must always be maintained.

Calculating Exposure
OSHA regulations do not specifically explain how to perform tasks. Many times, the first hazard considered is the shock boundary determined by the MAD. But as noted, arc flash hazards must also be considered. The employer is required to determine a reasonable exposure estimate per 1910.269(l)(8)(i). Appendix E to 1910.269, “Protection from Flames and Electric Arcs,” provides examples of the methods that can be used to do so. There are also software programs as well as manual methods to determine the effort required. Remember, employers will be held accountable and responsible by OSHA for their employees’ actions in all cases.

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!

A few years ago I came upon a crew using 6-inch chocks to hold back a 38-ton crane truck. I told the crew I was happy that they were making an effort at compliance, but I had to ask them, “Why do we place chocks under a truck’s wheels? Is it to comply with our safety rules or to keep the crane from running away?” It was obvious to me that the short chocks would not hold the crane. The driver proved my assumption true a few minutes later. From the cab, with the transmission in neutral, he released the parking brake. The crane easily bounced over the chocks and, unfortunately, hit my pickup truck.

Sometimes I ask similar questions about grounds installed during stringing. That’s because it seems we do not pay as much attention to the value of grounding as we do to the perceived value of an act of compliance. Grounding during stringing plays a very important role in protecting workers; however, that’s only the case if we know why we are grounding and then install grounding so that it does what we want it to do.

A Change to the Rules
There was a change in the 2014 revision to OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269 that went largely unnoticed. The change to 1910.269(q)(2) removed language that dictated locations for temporary grounds used during stringing of conductors in an energized environment. Not only did OSHA remove the specific language that required grounds at break-overs, at energized crossings and no more than 2 miles apart, but the agency also removed all of the descriptive terms regarding placement of the grounded traveler, such as “either side of an energized crossing and both sides of a crossing that was de-energized and grounded.” Removing the specific language doesn’t mean you don’t have to ground. The industry recognizes that the use of temporary protective grounds prevents injury and loss of life during unanticipated incidents. The standard still has specific performance language that can only be met by the installation of temporary protective grounds. Rule 1910.269(q)(2)(ii) refers the employer to 1910.269(p)(4)(iii) for accepted methods used to protect employees. Rule (p)(4)(iii) is the grounding/barricading/insulating requirement for protection of personnel from equipment contacts.

It is most likely that part of the reason why the language was deleted was to stay within OSHA’s mission of using performance-based language to tell employers what they must accomplish, not how to accomplish it. In addition, OSHA probably realized that in the variety of conditions that exist in the utility world, there is no one simple formula sufficient to establish effective grounding for every scenario, although the agency’s old language was close.

OSHA’s former instructions for grounding were largely based on the consensus standard IEEE 524, “IEEE Guide for the Installation of Overhead Transmission Line Conductors.” IEEE 524 is listed as a reference document in Appendix G to 1910.269. Unlike adopted consensus standards, which have the weight of an enforceable OSHA standard, reference documents are tools an employer can use to develop compliance procedures. The introduction to Appendix G explains it this way: “The references contained in this appendix provide information that can be helpful in understanding and complying with the requirements contained in § 1910.269. The national consensus standards referenced in this appendix contain detailed specifications that employers may follow in complying with the more performance-based requirements of § 1910.269. Except as specifically noted in § 1910.269, however, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will not necessarily deem compliance with the national consensus standards to be compliance with the provisions of § 1910.269.”

There is nothing complicated about reference standards. IEEE 524 is full of “may” and “should” recommendations. It is a useful tool, especially for individuals developing training and employers developing written work procedures to standardize operations. IEEE 524 is not a training program for employers new to the work. From the employer/compliance perspective, whether or not you use the IEEE standard, you should know what it says. And if you don’t follow the recommendations, you should have a reason why. That is because when OSHA is required to examine an employer’s operation – say, as part of an investigation – they will compare the consensus standard to your work practices and training. Any reference standard like IEEE 524, as a recognized standard published by the industry, is a basis for OSHA to cite an employer that lacks defensible training and procedures. If the agency decided the employer was negligent based on information they reviewed in IEEE 524, they would issue a General Duty Clause citation. In most cases when OSHA has done so, the agency has used language similar to the related standard, if not exactly.

There is an issue with the 1910.269(q)(2) rules for stringing in an energized environment. The rule applies to both transmission and distribution construction. However, accomplishing grounding for stringing in distribution construction is easier said than done. The grounding sheaves are easy to acquire for transmission construction but are not even manufactured in a size or dimension suitable for distribution construction. So, first we will look at practical application of grounding and bonding for stringing, and then we will address the issues with distribution applications.

The Energized Environment
An energized environment is one in which an electrical exposure creates a hazard to workers either by induction or the possibility of contact between the conductors being installed and nearby energized systems. Where an energized environment presents a risk to employees, the employer must take steps to protect them by either grounding and/or bonding equipment and the conductors being installed, or by de-energizing, barricading (using guard structures) or isolating those nearby energized systems.

Where the risk is induction from nearby energized systems, the employer is required to estimate the level of induction exposure or to assume the induction level is hazardous (see 1910.269(q)(2)(iv)). The requirement to estimate the level of induction exposure is not difficult for a qualified engineer, but even with assurances that the level of induction could not inadvertently rise above the calculated level due to some unforeseen circumstance – like a transient from another utility’s nearby lines – most utilities and contractors simply provide the induction hazard protective measures. The good thing about the process is that the protections you provide for grounding of the conductors will also provide protections from induction.

The Purpose of Grounding
The purpose of grounding is to cause immediate operation of a circuit protective device. Grounding of travelers is done to ensure that the energized circuit will trip if the stringing conductor comes in contact with the energized phase. Energized circuits are required to have their automatic relay feature disabled so the circuit trips and stays off. The problem with the use of grounded travelers is that too often the connection of the ground lead is not taken seriously, thereby negating the real benefit provided. I have seen hundreds of travelers being connected, and rarely has it not been prudent to stop a crew and explain the importance of a good electrical connection through brushing the studs, clamps or termination point on the structure. This is when understanding what we are trying to accomplish is more important than merely hanging grounded travelers.

Practical Matters
Let’s begin with the law of parallel paths. In parallel paths, current flows in every available path inversely proportional to the resistance of the path. Now think of the pull in its entirety. How many grounded travelers are up? In the event of a contact, every grounded traveler is a path and will carry some of the available current. There is also the path back to the tensioner, and in the case of hard-line pullers, that includes the path to the puller, too. When you think of the grounded system in its entirety, the value of properly installed grounds on those travelers begins to reveal the value of low-resistance connections. Those travelers can carry the majority of the fault current, minimizing the levels of current going back to the tugger and tensioner. In fact, I was once on a job when a helicoptered hard-line got into a three-phase distribution feeder. The workers at the tensioner site didn’t even know it had happened, which demonstrates the value of a well-installed grounded pull.

Fault and Induction Current
Grounded travelers provide a number of benefits depending on the conditions. As we already know, grounds help to control fault current. When induction is present, grounds aid in splitting and minimizing induction currents by bleeding current to ground and by producing opposing current loops between grounds. If an induction current is in a left-hand circulation in one loop, the adjacent loop at the intermediate traveler is flowing in the opposite direction at the traveler, canceling out all but the difference in current levels on either side of the grounded traveler. This benefit, of course, depends on the connection.

It is important to recognize that hanging grounds is not an end to all hazards. Whether fault current or induction current, that current creates another hazard along its path to ground. Those ground paths can create step and touch potential hazards at the point of grounding. I recently measured 695 volts and 100 amps on a lattice tower that had transmission phases grounded to it. Those areas on the ground at the base of the structure must be identified, flagged, barricaded or matted to protect workers.

It is obvious that fault currents can be high and a hazard, even if they only last a few cycles. Induction is just as dangerous or perhaps even more so. It will most likely be continuous depending on conditions. Over the years, I have taken dozens of measurements and collected information from colleagues that show induced voltages commonly in the 200- to 600-volt range. In the last few years we have seen voltages in the 2500-volt range. Currents measured are often in the 20- to 40-amp range but can be as high as 80 to 100 amps. When currents are that high, they can dry out the earth around grounds, melt insulation and even start grass fires. If currents like those are encountered, installing more grounding of the affected circuit will split those cells between grounded travelers, lowering the current and usually the open-circuit voltage as well.

By the way, you are going to find induction in crowded corridors. When conductors get in those travelers, they are going to pass current unless the traveler is suspended from insulators. If you steel-sling travelers on conductive structures, those currents will eat through sheaves and bearings. Grounded travelers prevent that damage by providing an electrical shunt around the bearings, preserving those expensive travelers.

Grounding Stringing Equipment
Now let’s take the law of parallel paths to one more level. Bonding of pulling, tensioning and snubbing sites is being taken more seriously by an increasing number of employers. Myriad employers now require a conducting grid, assembled from hog-fence panels, reinforcing panels or chain-link fencing, to be laid out. At the very least, many follow the traditional choice to install a temporary ground rod and ground everything to it, and they install equipotential mats at the access points to equipment.

Employers that understand how a well-installed, good grounding plan can minimize fault currents are taking that electrical path planning one step further. Earlier I described building an equipotential mat upon which all of the equipment sits. The mat is barricaded with designated points of entry that are insulated bridges between the surrounding earth and the mat.

The mat itself consists of conductive panels that are overlapped and clipped. There are various methods employed to assemble the mat, but common among all of the methods is that the mats are in fairly intimate contact with the earth. What is different with many installations is the absence of driven grounds. At first that may sound illegal, but in reality, there is no rule that requires them. In fact, as the standard states, it is up to the employer to show that the system employed protects all employees, and if they can’t show that, then they must meet the requirements of rule 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(C)(1), which mandates “[u]sing the best available ground to minimize the time the lines or electric equipment remain energized.” This rule is usually cited as a requirement to ground equipment and the mat. However, the ground required is the grounded travelers out on the line, doing just that – minimizing the amount of time the equipment or lines remain energized. As for the rest of that rule, bonding equipment together, and using mats and barricades are all met in the installation of the grid as previously described.

The reason we might choose to float the mat makes sense if you go back to thinking about the electrical characteristics of the pull as one large electrical system. In your system, you have several efficient grounding points out on the line. These are grounds designed to handle fault current or induction current. The last path is to the equipment equipotential pad. That path at a high resistance without the installation of driven grounds is a floating plane of equipotential. The mat and equipment, all bonded together, will perform equally well whether grounded or not. Electrically, the floating plane is expected to be a higher-resistance path with less dangerous current on it in case of a fault, since the majority of that fault current will be managed out on the line.

Ultimately there is no single plan that will fit every scenario. The employer must train and equip personnel to be able to anticipate risks and design and install the appropriate system to protect all workers.

Grounding for Distribution Stringing
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the rules for stringing in an energized environment are the same whether you are building transmission or distribution. In distribution, the risks are almost the opposite of transmission. In transmission, we usually see more risks from induction as most new transmission stringing occurs in existing rights-of-way. With distribution, the greater risk is contact with existing circuits. In both cases we install guard structures, isolate or insulate, barricade and ground. The difficulty in distribution is that there are no manufacturers that provide grounded travelers in the most popular distribution traveler size. As I understand it, the tension necessary to provide a contact surface for the ground shunt for a distribution traveler is not practical, as it would lift most wire from the traveler sheave. And despite what an OSHA compliance officer once told me, you can use traveling grounds out on the line in place of grounded travelers. The clamp and roller systems used in traveling grounds will not allow passing of socks.

Grounded travelers do not have a specific manufacturing or performance standard. I have been told by manufacturers that they use the fault capacity criteria of ASTM F855, “Standard Specifications for Temporary Protective Grounds to Be Used on De-energized Electric Power Lines and Equipment,” to determine suitable performance for travelers rigged to be used as grounded travelers. Manufacturers that build distribution-size travelers have been producing grounding studs for years that are usually installed in the bearing axle shaft. Manufacturers have exposed their devices to fault currents to establish a level of performance that indicates they will trip a circuit in a fault. Once exposed, the traveler is no longer usable, but that is a small price to pay. Employers should recognize that the accessory grounding studs for distribution travelers do not meet any particular performance criteria, so we don’t want to assume we’ve solved any problems with these aftermarket accessories. We must understand the hazard and how to control it by making use of the tools available to us. At the same time, we want to do due diligence in selection and application of the tools available to be sure we are accomplishing the goals. Over the last few years, we have seen manufacturers revise their promotional materials and are typically referring to the aftermarket grounding studs.

So, let’s ask the question: Why are we grounding? Are we doing it to comply with a rule or to protect employees? Even if your old answer was “to comply with a rule,” kick it up a notch. If you are not grounding, start. If you are grounding, take a look at your process and determine if it needs to be improved so you get the best value out of the task. Be careful out there.

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

Q: How high can we stack poles in a pole yard? I can’t find any references in OSHA or ANSI C2/the National Electrical Safety Code. Is there a standard?

A: Your question provides us with an example of when a standard governing our industry is not necessarily found in the National Electrical Safety Code, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269 (General Industry) or OSHA 1926 Subpart V (Construction).

What you will find is that there is no specific standard for pole piles; the rules for stacking/storage of materials are the same for every industry. Those rules are found at OSHA 1910.176 and 1926.250, in particular 1926.250(b)(9) for “cylindrical materials.”

The objective is safety in storage, access and handling as each of the rules for materials requires that they be stacked, racked, blocked, interlocked or otherwise secured – such as using chocking systems – to prevent sliding, falling or collapse.

OSHA does not detail, and for practical purposes could not detail, what would constitute safe storage in any specific way. The employer must make and be able to defend the storage and handling arrangements as safe following those general rules for storing materials.

There are no particular statistics, but injuries occurring on pole piles seem to be the caught-between variety, usually when moving poles. So, training and procedures should be guiding any pole storage areas. It’s more detailed in the 1926 Construction standard, but OSHA’s expectation is clear: Training or signage is required as to the modes of material controls; height limits of stacked materials for the competent design of pole-pile controls; and access to and handling of materials added to and removed from the storage pile.

Q: We’ve been looking for references in OSHA 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V to define the difference between “qualified” and “competent” for our safety manual, but we can’t seem to get a handle on it. Can you give us some direction?

A: This is another example of when rules for our industry are not necessarily found in the vertical standards 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V. For those of you still trying to figure this out, there are some industries that have their own OSHA standards because the work performed is unique and not easily covered by the general rules for all other workplaces. Those rules are known as vertical standards that only affect a particular industry. However, an industry affected by a vertical standard also must be aware of when a horizontal standard affects them. Horizontal standards are those standards that affect all industries. If you are looking for guidance within a vertical standard and can’t find it, you are most likely going to find your guidance in a horizontal standard.

Now, back to your question. In 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V, the term “competent person” is not used except in relation to trenching (excavation), which is addressed in the excavation standard found at 1926 Subpart P (note that trenching operations are not addressed in 1910.269 or 1926 Subpart V). “Competent person” is defined at 1926.650(b) as “one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings, or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.” Take note here: A competent person who may have control over work-task safety does not necessarily have to be a qualified person, which is a requirement for persons performing the work.

The net difference between the two terms – “qualified” versus “competent” – is specific to this provision for a competent person: “who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.” OSHA chose this route to clearly identify supervising personnel who have been trained to the excavation standard requirements. All supervisors can take prompt corrective action but may not be trained to supervise an excavation under the terms of 1926.650. The term “competent person” can apply to a supervisor who is also trained to oversee a trenching operation or an individual who is not a general supervisor but who does have control over a trenching operation. When OSHA comes out and asks who the competent person is for the site, they are not asking for the general foreman or supervisor; they are asking for the specific person in charge of trenching safety who may or may not be a supervisor.

Some utilities use the competent person definition from OSHA 1910 Subpart S, “Electrical,” but that is not really appropriate. The issue with using Subpart S is that the definitions are “applicable to this subpart,” with the subpart being non-utility electrical work. If a utility industry safety professional is looking for a reference for defining “competent person,” again, they will find it in the excavation standard.

To the electric utility industry, “qualified” specifically means to include the requirements for the qualification of lineworkers defined in 1910.269(a)(2). As a reference, we should use the definition of “qualified employee” from the 1910.269(x) definitions, including the notes following the definition, which read as follows.

Qualified employee (qualified person). An employee (person) knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution equipment involved, along with the associated hazards.

Note 1 to the definition of “qualified employee (qualified person)”: An employee must have the training required by (a)(2)(ii) of this section to be a qualified employee.

Note 2 to the definition of “qualified employee (qualified person)”: Except under (g)(2)(iv)(C)(2) and (g)(2)(iv)(C)(3) of this section, an employee who is undergoing on-the-job training and who has demonstrated, in the course of such training, an ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training and who is under the direct supervision of a qualified person is a qualified person for the performance of those duties.

Q: We are a small, distribution-only municipal utility that has been looking into human performance. We are having some trouble understanding it all and how it could benefit us. Most of the training resources seem pretty expensive. Can you help us sort this out?

A: We can. Human performance management (HPM) has been around in various forms and focuses since before the 1950s. Throughout the ’50s and ’60s, it seems the focus was on companies performing functional analysis and correcting issues that created losses, thereby promoting more efficient and error-resistant operations. In the ’60s and ’70s, much of the literature on HPM seemed to surround the nuclear power industry, and indeed the introduction of HPM into the transmission/distribution side of the utility industry appears to have come through the generation side. In the ’70s, researchers began to experiment and write about more closely analyzing the knowledge and skills of the performer. It took a while to sink in, but the safety industry began to research HPM as a culture analysis and risk prevention tool. It makes sense.

Human performance – in particular knowledge, skill modes, decision-making modes and performance – affects all of every enterprise whether you have an HPM program or not. Organizations are made up of people. HPM has identified and categorized commonalities in types of personalities that predict how people make decisions and perform tasks. Studying human performance can also help identify safety culture issues and risk behaviors. It’s not a big or expensive step to train your workforce in problem-solving and decision-making characteristics of the human mind. Soon they will better understand their own processes and the limitations of the way they naturally think, allowing them to make adjustments toward better performance.

So, if we can take advantage of HPM to prevent incidents, why not do it? Most organizations start small. Pick a few key people to begin training on the basics of HPM, and then look at your organization to see where the initial undertakings can do the most good. There are several experts associated with Incident Prevention who will be glad to help should you need it. Additionally, on the iP website (https://incident-prevention.com), you can find numerous HPM articles in the iP archives. HPM works. We hope you will pursue it.

Q: In our company, substations have been under the radar as a safety concern because we haven’t had any issues until recently, when one of our longtime contractors stuck a backhoe boom in a distribution bus. He’s been operating backhoes in substations to excavate for expansions. How do we electrically qualify him and others like him for various nonelectrical crafts?

A: There is a reason we build 10-foot-high fences around substations and cover them with warning signs. It’s dangerous in there. A worker may have performed a task in a substation many times, but that does not make them qualified to be inside that fence, and OSHA has some very particular rules for qualification of a worker that many utilities don’t regard. The very first step is clearly established in 1910.269(a)(2), “Training,” all the way through the note to paragraph 1910.269(a)(2)(ii), which states: “For the purposes of this section, a person must have the training required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section to be considered a qualified person.”

That’s pretty clear and we could stop right here, but there would be lots of questions, such as, “Do I have to send my backhoe operator to apprentice school to make him electrically qualified?” The answer is no, you don’t have to make him an apprentice, but you can’t just assume the years inside the fence make him qualified. The criteria to be a qualified person are clearly detailed. Those requirements are training and competency in safety-related work practices, safety procedures and emergency procedures related to the individual’s work that are necessary for his or her safety; the skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed live parts from other parts of electric equipment; the skills and techniques necessary to determine the nominal voltage of exposed live parts; the minimum approach distances corresponding to the voltages to which the qualified employee will be exposed and the skills and techniques necessary to maintain those distances; the proper use of the special precautionary techniques, personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, and insulating tools for working on or near exposed energized parts of electric equipment; and finally, the recognition of electrical hazards to which the employee may be exposed and the skills and techniques necessary to control or avoid these hazards. These requirements are written by OSHA in such a way as to eliminate the question, “Can’t we just put a journeyman lineman in there with the civil crew while they work?” The answer is absolutely not. Read the very first rule under 1910.269(a)(2)(i). It states, “All employees performing work covered by this section shall be trained as follows.” There is no way to make that rule allow an observer in lieu of training. You may have that observer as part of the protocol for those task-specific-trained craftspeople, but not in place of training.

So, you do have to provide training meeting the listed criteria, but the process is not as complicated as it sounds. An important provision by OSHA sets out the specific expectation of the level of the training, explaining in 1910.269(a)(2)(i)(C) that the “degree of training shall be determined by the risk to the employee for the hazard involved.” This is where job-specific or task-specific training comes in. A nonelectrically qualified craftsman may be trained specifically for his job or task. The employer decides which one to choose. The task- or job-specific training is not a free ride or without a catch. The catch is that the employer had better take this provision seriously, meaning the training must meet the requirements and, like all training, there must be a mechanism to show the worker has the skills required. The training should be formalized, documented, delivered by a competent trainer, and include written and practical demonstrations of skills. Whatever you choose to do, you must be able to defend it if the worst should happen.

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.

Are the things that hurt people the same as the things that kill people? Should safety focus on preventing serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs)? In this article, I’m not going to attempt to answer either of those questions. Instead, I’m going to do two other things. First, I’ll provide you with insights and resources that will help you answer the questions for yourself, and second, I’ll define above-the-line work planning and execution.

Let’s start with Herbert William Heinrich’s injury pyramid from the 1931 publication “Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach.” Heinrich proposed a 1:29:300 ratio, often called Heinrich’s Law, which states that for a group of 330 similar accidents, 300 will produce no injury, 29 will cause minor injuries, and one will result in a major injury. In 1966, Frank Bird’s research expanded the triangle to include near misses, with a ratio of one SIF to 10 minor injury accidents, 30 damage-causing accidents and 600 near misses.

It may be helpful to use practical examples to help us critique the pyramids. If I climb a ladder and stand on the top rung to do my work 330 times, what will happen to me each time? What if I stand underneath a suspended load 641 times? My point is this: Any unsafe act or exposure to an unsafe condition puts you somewhere on the pyramid. Your most likely outcome is a near miss or minor injury, but please understand the first or next occurrence could be a serious injury or fatality.

The most important question I’ll ask is this: Do you think your frontline workers – the people who need safety most – are more concerned with pyramids, triangles, research and theories or with protecting themselves, staying safe and being well? Assuming the answer gravitates toward the latter, let’s look at some of the fantastic work being done by Dr. Matthew Hallowell and his TEAM* at the University of Colorado.

Their research found a direct correlation between the amount of energy associated with a hazard and the severity of injury. That is, more energy causes more harm, and at a certain level – approximately 1,500 joules – a SIF becomes the most likely outcome. They also highlight key contributing factors to SIFs, including poor hazard recognition, absent or unfollowed work plans, and lack of direct controls for high-energy exposures. To learn more, check out the Construction Safety Research Alliance’s Knowledge Center at www.csra.colorado.edu/knowledge-center.

Tools for Work Planning and Execution
To discuss above-the-line work planning and execution, we need tools. The Construction Safety Research Alliance gave us the energy wheel, a tool that improves hazard recognition, as well as high-energy control assessments, tools that ensure direct controls – targeted at specific hazards – effectively mitigate those hazards when they are installed, verified and used correctly. We’ll use these tools along with the hierarchy of controls we use in Incident Prevention Institute training to facilitate above-the-line work planning and execution.

The hierarchy of controls includes levels of protective measures. Ranked from most effective to least effective, the levels are hazard elimination, risk elimination, lessening energy and exposure through substitution and reduction, engineering controls and safety devices (direct controls), administrative controls, warning devices and PPE. The line differentiating above-the-line and below-the-line work planning and execution is after direct controls and before administrative controls.

Below are the steps to follow in above-the-line work planning and execution. They are built on the premise that hazards and risks are quantifiable and predictable, and if we can predict them, we can prevent them.

Hazard and Risk Assessment

• Use the energy wheel to identify hazards as energy sources.
• Quantify risk as the amount of energy there is or could be coupled with duration of exposure.
• Create a brief task-specific exposure statement.

Hazard and Risk Mitigation

• Safety by design: Reduce energy and exposure as much as possible and establish direct controls.
• Defense in depth: Create multiple layers of protection.

Look what happens when we identify hazards, quantify risk and create exposure statements. Nick is observing Curtis operating a jackhammer at 115 dBA for 30 minutes. Kate is backing a vehicle an average of 10 times a day at 6 mph for a total of 200 feet. Lower the numbers! Nick can stand farther away from Curtis, still observe and reduce 115 dBA to 75 dBA. Or they could rotate the task and cut their exposure from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. Kate could utilize pull-through parking, back three times a day instead of 10 (but hopefully zero times), and reduce 200 total feet backed to 60, or back at 3 mph instead of 6 mph.

It’s almost always possible to reduce energy and exposure, and the goal should be to reduce them below the high-energy threshold. Many tasks can’t be reduced below that threshold and require exposure to high-energy hazards. In those situations, direct controls must be in place to qualify as above-the-line work planning and execution. When working in an excavation, that’s a trench box. If you’re driving, it’s collision avoidance systems, seat belts and air bags. Other examples include insulating cover-up for electricity, crash barriers for work zones, 100% fall protection and machine guards.

Conclusion
While it’s often with good intentions, I think we fall victim to focusing more on programs than people. Hopefully this article inspires you to learn more about principles and theories you can incorporate into your programs. More importantly, my hope is that you will train your frontline workers in above-the-line work planning and execution using the energy wheel and the hierarchy of controls.

Learn More
You can learn more about this article by reading my book “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle: Innovative and Practical Insights on the Art of Safety,” and I hope you’ll join me for the free September 11 webinar on this topic.

There will also be a workshop on preventing SIFs with above-the-line work planning and execution October 21 from 1-5 p.m., just before the next iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo in Texas. It will cover how to build capacity to fail safely using direct controls for high-energy hazards to prevent SIFs. For more information and to register, visit https://community.utilitybusinessmedia.com/nc__event?id=a0lUq000001NoYDIA0.

Thank you for reading, stay safe and be well.

*TEAM stands for Together Everyone Accomplishes More and is capitalized in anything I write to honor the late Bob McCall.

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: Preventing SIFs
September 11, 2024, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

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/

The FallTech Arc Flash Mini Pro represents a monumental leap forward in protective gear for utility workers. This ASTM F887-rated self-retracting lifeline (SRL) is not just a piece of equipment: It’s a beacon of innovation in a field where the risk of arc flash looms large every day. Designed to offer maximum protection while ensuring freedom of movement, the Arc Flash Mini Pro is a testament to the advancements in safety technology.

At the heart of the Arc Flash Mini Pro’s effectiveness is its cutting-edge technology. Thanks to rugged construction and a 100% Kevlar lifeline, this device can withstand the extreme temperatures generated by arc flash incidents, providing peace of mind for those who operate near electrical hazards. Furthermore, its overall ergonomic design and low-profile energy absorber work in tandem to ensure that the device is not only robust but unobtrusive. The result is a lifeline that extends and retracts effortlessly, minimizing interference and reducing physical strain on the wearer.

One of the most significant advantages of the Arc Flash Mini Pro is its enhancement of mobility. The design of the retractable unit, which stays close to the body’s centerline, ensures minimal interference with the wearer’s movements. This is crucial for utility workers who often find themselves in confined or awkward positions. Whether climbing, bending or reaching, the Arc Flash Mini Pro moves with you, offering constant protection without hindering your ability to perform your duties. www.falltech.com/arc-flash-mini-pro

JLG Industries Inc., an Oshkosh Corp. business and a leading global manufacturer of mobile elevating work platforms and telehandlers, has released its new whitepaper. “10 Tips for Creating a Safety-Focused Work Culture” can help contractors implement strategies and actions to create a safety-first culture on their job sites. Topics addressed in the paper include storm safety, trip hazards, lone workers, hydration, hearing protection, ergonomics, mental health, heat, PPE and wearables.

In this whitepaper, JLG offers valuable insights and best practices that companies looking to adopt a safety culture on job sites can use immediately. Download a free copy at www.jlg.com/en/direct-access/2024/07/08/18/27/10-tips-for-creating-a-safety-focused-work-culture. www.jlg.com

Tasks that routinely require kneeling and bending can put an employee at significant risk. Personal protective equipment – such as knee pads and back support – can help reduce the risk of injury and minimize joint fatigue

Brass Knuckle ergonomic protection is designed to help alleviate musculoskeletal disorders resulting from risk factors at work, including heavy lifting, bending, reaching overhead, kneeling for prolonged periods of time, pushing and pulling heavy loads, and working in awkward body postures.

When work brings you to your knees – literally – Brass Knuckle has you covered with knee pad solutions that have excellent protection and varying degrees of stability, flexibility and comfort. BKKN100 is a light-duty cushioned and adjustable knee pad; BKKN200 is heavy-duty protection with hard contoured cap.

Brass Knuckle BKBS back support offers reinforcement that can help workers avoid back injuries and fatigue in occupations that require stooping, lifting, carrying or even holding static positions for long periods of time. These supports feature elastic suspenders to distribute body stress and tapered abdominal panels to better conform to the body. www.brassknuckleprotection.com

Bollé Safety, a world-renowned manufacturer of safety glasses and goggles, recently announced that it has been awarded the prestigious Red Dot Design Award for its iconic UNIVERSAL Goggle Collection.

The Red Dot Design Awards, founded in 1955 in Germany, have honored international companies for almost 70 years that combine quality, technicality and innovation in safety product development.

Red Dot has recognized Bollé Safety for its innovative UNIVERSAL goggle, which brings unparalleled functionality to the PPE category, offering users a bespoke fit and comfort for any use. UNIVERSAL is available in a range of specific color-coded styles, making it easy to identify which model is suited best for each field of use. In addition, UNIVERSAL is designed for optimized recyclability. www.bolle-safety.com

MPS Inc. has announced the release of Centurion Safety’s Nexus E:Protect hard hat. The E:Protect hard hat greatly reduces climate change impact and petroleum-based plastic usage through the hat’s combination of plant-derived biopolymers, wood fibers and recycled plastics.

The E:Protect hard hat meets the same ANSI requirements for hard hats with a substantially lower environmental impact, and it is also lighter in weight yet just as strong as a hard hat made from traditional petroleum-based plastics. ISCC accreditation ensures safe working conditions, compliance with human/labor/environmental rights, and sustainable biodiversity and agricultural practices throughout the entire manufacturing process. The E:Protect hard hat uses Centurion’s six-point webbing suspension and ratchet adjustment, offers optional chinstraps and is available in four colors. https://go-mpsinc.com

I am not a person who puts much stock in luck. I believe that in our line of business, it takes the correct tools to do a job correctly – especially since I’ve been the victim of a 4-inch lag to the forehead while trying to use a bell wrench as a hammer. I also believe that how you use those tools is equally important. And finally, I believe that there are times when we need a little help from documents called “best practices.”

What exactly is a best practice? It is a set of guidelines, ethics or ideas that represent the most efficient or prudent course of action in a given situation. Essentially, it’s documentation of a procedure that is the most effective in performing a task safely. Best practices may be established by authorities, or they may be internally dictated by a company’s management team, including trainers, supervisors and safety managers.

Most companies have what are known as work practices – mine does, too. These are written documents that lay out every possible characteristic, purpose and step of a specific task to assure that the task is performed safely and correctly. Using these two documents – the best practice and the work practice – in combination helps to ensure a safe outcome when performing a critical step or task.

Lately I have been tasked with writing a number of best practices to deliver to our employees; they serve as reminders to keep employees safe when performing a specific task. These best practices have been spurred on by either a major discussion during a safety meeting or an actual incident.

Friends, if your workers are deviating from your company’s work practice procedures and the company requires strict adherence to those procedures as written, your workers must also have copies of your best practices on how to perform specific tasks. In addition to helping keep them safe, this will help to ensure that tasks are being performed properly.

When a best practice is to be used, identify it in the daily job briefing along with the critical step it will be used with, the hazards involved, how those hazards will be controlled, and which employee will be performing the critical step. Job briefings and any best practices used must be verbally discussed before work starts in the morning and again after lunchtime, or at any scope change.

Please note that different companies have different best practices for their specific work, but any document making work safer for employees is worth its weight in gold. Job briefings, job hazard analyses, work practice procedures and best practices save lives. They are for your safety so you can go home at the end of the day. Don’t just keep them in your desk, truck or briefcase. Talk about them and review them with your team. Using them is the most important thing.

About the Author: R. Neal Gracey is the craft operations trainer for Henkels & McCoy, a MasTec company.

Seraphina Safety, a leading manufacturer and advocate for innovative flame-resistant (FR) safety apparel, emphasizes the importance of non-melting bras and FR base layers in mitigating risks associated with extreme temperatures and/or thermal environments.

Seraphina Safety Apparel addresses this critical issue by offering a line of FR undergarments and base layers that combine moisture-wicking benefits and the lightweight airiness of athletic wear with superior protection against heat, fire and molten metal. This helps ensure that individuals experience the same cooling sensation while being assured of enhanced protection in the face of potential hazards.

The significance of having the right safety gear for the job cannot be overstated, and it starts with the clothing closest to the skin. By choosing FR undergarments and base layers, individuals prioritize the safety of their skin and overall well-being. https://seraphinasafety.com

Introducing the TALOS Lightning Detector, engineered specifically for custom OEM solutions where situational awareness is paramount. As an industry-leading innovation, TALOS employs advanced weather station technology to accurately detect cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning up to 25 miles away, providing early warnings and ample time to shelter.

Recently, TALOS collaborated with Terex Utilities to integrate this state-of-the-art lightning detection system as an available option on their Hi-Ranger overcenter bucket trucks, surpassing OSHA and NOAA standards. This system features an in-dashboard display that reports the lightning strike distance, tracking as the storm gets closer and moves farther away. The TALOS in-cab alert and external horn for the worker in the bucket delivers vivid visual warnings with three distinct colors and powerful audible signals to indicate the storm’s proximity: green – 1 beep: 25 miles; blue – 2 beeps: 16 miles; and red – 3 beeps: 6 miles.

Additionally, TALOS offers a versatile, compact, portable lightning detector for professional and recreational activities to ensure safety.

For more details, visit our website, contact our technical team at 727-877-3483 or email sales@taloslightningdetectors.com. www.taloslightningdetectors.com

Join Shawn Galloway, CEO of ProAct Safety, for a discussion on safety excellence. These quarterly virtual sessions with other business and safety leaders also offer networking opportunities. This forum examines the latest thinking, discoveries, newly created methodologies and models, overall strategies, better practices and lessons learned for clients on the journey to safety excellence. The session will be recorded and available for limited on-demand viewing. Check out previous topics and save your seat for September 10 now. https://proactsafety.com/events

Fogging lenses can strike in both indoor and outdoor working conditions. Brass Knuckle Spectrum (BKFLEX-4040N) eye protection has options to fight fog no matter where work has to get done. This powerful ANSI Z87.1+ protection weighs less than 1 ounce, and the rimless lenses are manufactured with exclusive BK-Anti-FOG protection. Spectrum pops with color, too, as each lens color in the family sports a unique, corresponding temple color.

Temperature changes, humidity, sweat, rain and moisture all contribute to lens fog. Spectrum Clear Lens allows maximum light transmission, indoors or out, without changing or distorting vision or colors (91% of light passes through). Spectrum Smoke Lens provides all-over tint for normal outdoor conditions (18% of light passes through). Amber and blue lenses are also available.

BK-Anti-FOG lens protection lasts 15 times longer than EN 166/168 standards. The special coating is permanently bonded directly onto the lens surface and will not wear or wash off. Glasses retain fog-fighting properties for a longer duration with no reapplying and no maintenance needed. www.brassknuckleprotection.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.

Altec Sentry offers a variety of instructor-led and online training courses for aerials, derricks and cranes. These OSHA- and ANSI-compliant courses aid in the fulfillment of employer training requirements. General training courses help employers meet the requirements for operator qualification when paired with familiarization and hands-on training. Altec Sentry also offers numerous familiarization courses covering basic safety and operation procedures for specific Altec units. Each course provides a record of training upon completion.

For customers looking to take ownership of their safety program, Altec Sentry offers a train-the-trainer program. Altec Sentry will instruct a customer’s safety liaison through training they can then administer themselves to their organization’s operators; the customer trainers use the same materials as Altec Sentry trainers. Altec Sentry will also assist customers in documenting and maintaining records of employees who have completed training. www.altec.com/sentry

“Why is FR/AR Compliance so Difficult? Or are we just over-complicating things“

WEBINAR RECORDING

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

When real lives are on the line and corporate reputations are at stake you can turn to Bulwark® Protection. We’re the PPE powerhouse that surrounds you completely. We balance the demand for FR and PPE that looks as good as it protects. We expand your knowledge in all directions with the latest information, advice and guidance. Bulwark® Protection – Protection built around you.

With the best of intentions, our industry has not been able to change the persistent statistics of serious injuries and fatalities over the past decade. Even the most brilliant ideas seem to be unable to be translated into a change in work. So, while we continue trying to determine how to slow our serious injury and death rates, we should also gain a better understanding of how to prepare for and respond to serious events when they inevitably occur within our circle of co-workers, family and friends.

In addition to being a lineman, I also have experience as a flight paramedic/nurse, plus wilderness medical training. My experience suggests that we should always be ready to respond to a serious event when it happens. For instance, if you’re reading this, you likely have CPR training. However, there is a high likelihood that you have never performed CPR on a real human being. On the day that an incident occurs – perhaps one that requires you to provide CPR – you may realize there are things you already should have known before that day arrived. Our first dry run at providing CPR shouldn’t be when we are trying to save our co-worker, friend or family member. At the very least, we should think about and mentally rehearse for such an event in advance.

Recently, a couple of linemen asked me these two questions about automated external defibrillators (AEDs), which are medical devices that can help people experiencing cardiac arrest:

• How does an AED start your heart?
• What if the AED states that no shock is advised?

To answer those questions, you should first know that most of us have a pacemaker site in our heart that generates electrical rhythm. Some of us have irregular heartbeats that begin somewhere else in the heart. Regardless of where your rhythm originates, every heartbeat requires energy, which is derived from breathing and the food you eat.

When someone’s heart has stopped beating, we perform artificial heartbeats as part of CPR. When done correctly and well, CPR produces energy from cellular respiration (note: the energy created by our body is called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP). That’s why, for a witnessed cardiac arrest, we need to do two minutes of uninterrupted CPR before we try to shock the heart. Those two minutes produce the energy necessary for the heart to beat.

Studies have shown that, for most people, giving two breaths to the victim during CPR is both difficult and creates delays in pumping the chest. These studies suggest hands-only CPR for at least several minutes after a cardiac arrest. This has shown to improve outcomes.

You should also know that an AED will only shock two rhythms: ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. To put that in simpler terms, an AED will not shock when there is either a detected pulse or no rhythm. When the AED advises no shock and the patient has no pulse, our job is to perform quality CPR to generate the energy to produce a shockable rhythm. The shock from the AED then has the potential to clear or reboot the electrical system in the heart so it can beat again. A dead person will need quality CPR to produce the ATP needed to start the heart.

You may be asking, what is quality CPR?

Let’s say you’ve called 911 and the dispatcher tells you the ambulance’s estimated time of arrival is 12 minutes. What can you do to improve the chance of survival for someone in need of CPR? First, know that there is a reason CPR training suggests changing out the person who is providing the CPR compressions every two minutes. That’s partly because we should be analyzing the heart rhythm every two minutes to see if the heart is in a shockable rhythm. We should do this with minimal interruptions in CPR. So, essentially, we should briefly stop CPR to analyze the heart’s rhythm while hovering our hands over the chest, either to start compressions again immediately if the AED states that no shock is advised or to start again immediately after a shock. CPR on a heart that is trying to start is a good thing.

Another reason CPR training suggests changing out the person providing compressions is that we typically lean on the chest when we start to get tired. This means that we do not fully remove our hands from the chest to achieve full recoil. The heart muscle itself is fed oxygenated blood from vessels off the aorta called coronary arteries. These vessels are behind the aortic valve. When we push on the chest during quality CPR, the aortic valve opens and sends blood to the brain and body. When our hands come off the chest, the aortic valve closes, leaving some pressure in the aorta, which allows blood to flow into the coronary arteries and the heart. If we get tired, the victim’s chest becomes a point of balance – and we do not get full recoil. This reduces the opportunity to produce ATP in the heart muscle, making it unlikely to beat. Thus, it is critically important to perform CPR that incorporates full recoil.

Cardiologist Gordon Ewy of the University of Arizona has stated that “hands-only CPR is not only easier, but more effective.” Really good continuous compressions save lives. Are you prepared to deliver them?

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.

In the utility industry, the reliance on flame-resistant (FR) and arc-rated (AR) garments has been a longstanding practice to safeguard workers against arc flashes and flash fires. Crafted from specially engineered, self-extinguishing fabrics and adhering to stringent testing standards, these garments play a crucial role in preventing or minimizing the severity of injuries.

You should know that single-layer FR/AR clothing does not trap heat or restrict heat removal any more than regular non-FR clothing does. A person primarily sheds heat through evaporation of sweat once the air temperature is greater than their body’s temperature. When the ability to sweat is restricted, however, or when it is lost altogether – due to physiological conditions, such as dehydration, and/or clothing that restricts it, such as rain gear – the possibility of heat stress increases.

Fortunately, advancements in textiles available in today’s FR/AR garments offer improved performance in extreme temperatures. For instance, moisture management is one advancement that assists in keeping the user comfortable. In hot temperatures, lightweight FR/AR garments allow more heat to be released because they provide less insulation. The open weave allows more air to pass through the garment and assists in moisture evaporation, which, when combined with the garment’s moisture-wicking properties, moves more moisture to the surface of the clothing for evaporative cooling.

In the ever-evolving landscape of FR/AR clothing, the quest for comfort has taken center stage. The latest innovations in this type of clothing are not just about protection; they delve into purposeful design and optimal fit to enhance wearer comfort. This article explores the industry’s advancements in creating FR/AR garments that prioritize both protection and comfort.

Heat Stress
Heat stress occurs when the body cannot rid itself of excess heat. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, heat stress is a series of conditions called heat-related illnesses; these illnesses include heat rashes, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Per NIOSH, “heat can also increase the risk of injuries in workers as it may result in sweaty palms, fogged-up safety glasses, and dizziness” (see www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/).

To help prevent the onset of heat stress, following are basic recommendations for employees tasked with performing work in hot temperatures:

• Boots should be lightweight yet protective.
• Head protection should incorporate shade when possible.
• Hand protection should incorporate lightweight, breathable material when possible.
• Schedule jobs for cooler parts of the day.
• Limit the amount of time spent outside on extremely hot days and move to cool locations during breaks.
• For long, demanding jobs, use relief workers or assign extra workers.
• Make sure there is ready access to cold beverages; try to avoid those with caffeine and sugar.
• Eat regularly to keep up your energy but avoid heavy foods that are hard to digest.
• Avoid touching hot metal surfaces with your bare skin.
• Monitor your physical condition and that of your co-workers. Speak up if you see anyone having difficulties, such as sweating heavily, looking pale, experiencing nausea or vomiting, or feeling dizzy.

Incorporating FR/AR garments into a comprehensive personal protective equipment program aligns with OSHA’s mandate to provide a safe working environment free from recognized hazards that may lead to death or serious physical harm. However, as temperatures fluctuate, questions arise about maximizing protection while minimizing the risk of heat stress.

It is imperative to understand how our bodies respond to hot weather conditions. The continuous effort to maintain a core temperature of around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit becomes challenging when external temperatures rise. Our bodies rely on four mechanisms – radiation, conduction, convection and evaporation – to release excess heat. When these mechanisms are compromised, the risk of heat-related illnesses intensifies.

Clothing, regardless of type, hinders the efficient operation of the body’s heat-releasing mechanisms. Once outside temperatures surpass the body’s internal temperature, these mechanisms reduce to a single process: evaporation. This can lead to excessive sweating and subsequent dehydration, impacting reaction time and posing safety hazards. Interestingly, sweat also plays a role in cold weather safety, where accumulated moisture under clothing can lead to a drop in body temperature, causing cold stress-related conditions.

To protect workers from injury due to an arc flash or flash fire, and to counter heat stress, it is paramount to select FR/AR garments appropriately rated for the hazard. Standards such as ASTM F1506, ASTM F1891, NFPA 2112 and ASTM F2733 offer guidance. Consideration should also be given to fabric characteristics, such as the following:

• Open-weave fabrics, which enhance air contact with the skin, promoting convection.
• Lighter-weight fabrics with an open weave, which facilitate the release of excess heat through radiation.
• Moisture-wicking garments, which aid in evaporation by moving moisture away from the skin.

Monitoring workers wearing additional PPE layers, such as arc flash suits or rain gear, is crucial to prevent heat retention or hindered evaporation.

The Impact of Purposeful Design

Let’s be honest, “comfort” isn’t exactly the first word that comes to mind when most people in the safety industry think of FR/AR garments. However, purposefully designed clothing, crafted with movement in mind, has emerged as a meaningful change in hot environments. The emphasis is on loose clothing, allowing for better circulation and airflow to mitigate the challenges posed by elevated temperatures. The focus is not just on protection but on garments that facilitate freedom of movement, recognizing the importance of comfort in demanding work conditions.

Optimizing Airflow with Minimal Layers
The latest innovations prioritize minimizing garment layers to maximize high airflow engineered into the fabrics. This departure from excessive fabric mass allows for more effective heat release. Striking a balance between protection and breathability, these advancements allow wearers to experience the benefits of natural air circulation, essential for comfort in challenging work environments.

The Crucial Role of Fit
How you wear FR/AR clothing and the fit of that clothing are critical elements in assuring optimal comfort. The relentless pursuit of the best fit is a universal goal across the industry. Fit considerations go beyond brand-specific claims, acknowledging the importance of a well-fitted garment in promoting wearer comfort and overall satisfaction.

Standardized Sizing and Expert Involvement
The ASTM D13.55 Committee on Body Measurement for Apparel Sizing plays a pivotal role in establishing global standards for human body measurements. The commitment to optimal fit is evident as clothing brands draw on ASTM D13.55 data, often incorporating it into their intellectual property for pattern creation and size run development.

Integration of FR/AR Fabric with Design and Fit
The synergy between the right FR/AR fabric, purposeful design and an optimal fit creates a protective barrier against radiant heat while facilitating air circulation through the fabric.

Additional Tips
Regardless of temperature, work efficiency is enhanced by incorporating loose clothing for improved airflow as well as purposefully designed garments that facilitate movement. Full-body protection against direct and indirect exposure to extreme conditions is crucial. Conducting wear trials before purchase or rental ensures the chosen garments are both comfortable and functional.

Moisture-wicking FR/AR base layers offer additional thermal protection and efficient moisture management. Adhering to industry standards, particularly verifying the outermost FR/AR layer’s sufficient arc rating, is vital to prevent break-open and maintain system integrity.

Lastly, drawing from the insights of occupational physician Ronda McCarthy, it proves beneficial to incorporate NIOSH-recommended measures and utilize the OSHA-NIOSH Heat Safety Tool app (see www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/heatapp.html). Best practices – such as hydration, rest breaks, acclimatization programs and awareness of symptoms – contribute to overall worker safety.

Conclusion
Combining PPE with weather-related engineering controls, education and training forms a robust and effective safety solution. The synergy of these elements helps to assure comprehensive protection against heat stress, arc flashes and flash fires.

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

Allison Bloodworth is Bulwark Protection’s director of merchandise. She has spent the last 25 years merchandising and developing apparel. Reach her at allison.bloodworth@wwof.com.

The roar of diesel engines fills the midnight air as a crew of linemen prepares to depart for a critical repair job. Their trucks are loaded with tools and equipment, ready to tackle a downed power line that lies miles away. But before they hit the open road, there’s one crucial hurdle to clear: ensuring that their vehicles and the way they operate them comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.

Electric utility providers operate a complex network of vehicles, from bucket trucks scaling towering heights to service vans navigating city streets. Each vehicle plays a vital role in ensuring a reliable flow of electricity. However, these workhorses on wheels also pose potential safety risks if they are not operated and maintained according to DOT regulations.

In this article, we are going to dive into the world of DOT compliance for electric utility providers. We’ll explore the regulations that govern these vehicles, the challenges companies face in ensuring adherence to those regulations and best practices for navigating the roadblocks. The goal is to demonstrate how a proactive approach to DOT compliance translates into a safer work environment, a more efficient operation and a positive reputation for the utility company.

FMCSA Regulations
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), a branch of the DOT, sets the standards for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating on public roadways. These standards encompass a wide range of aspects, including the following:

• Vehicle regulations: These regulations are for all CMVs. There are specific items that all CMVs must have in or on them at all times (e.g., a fire extinguisher, three reflective triangles, spare fuses). Each CMV must also have an annual DOT inspection. But wait, that’s not all. Every CMV must be in good operating condition and be safe to be on the road. There is a pile of regulations about that.
• Driver qualification: Anyone who operates a CMV must have a driver qualification (DQ) file. The file typically includes the driver’s application; their motor vehicle record; a copy of their driver’s license, medical card and annual review; road test results; clearinghouse query results; performance history evaluation; entry-level training records; and possibly some other documents depending on the type of CMVs they operate for you. (Quick tip: Remember to keep these documents separate from the driver’s personnel file.)
• Hours of service: Regulations dictate how long a driver can operate a CMV before a mandatory rest break. This helps prevent driver fatigue, a major contributor to road accidents. Now, most of you reading this article fall under the utility exemption, meaning that hours of service are not a factor for you, but you need to know that the utility exemption only applies if you are operating on existing utilities. Any construction of new utilities does not fall under that exemption.
• Vehicle maintenance and inspections: Regular preventive maintenance and thorough vehicle inspections are critical for ensuring the safe operation of CMVs. The FMCSA outlines specific maintenance and inspection procedures that companies must follow. There are parameters regarding when inspections must occur, how your maintenance records need to be kept and much more.

Intrastate vs. Interstate
Before we dive any deeper, let’s talk for a moment about the difference between intrastate and interstate regulations.

“Intrastate” means that you only operate in one state, while “interstate” means that you operate in multiple states. The way I remember the difference is that an interstate highway runs between multiple states. So, if I operate in multiple states, then I am interstate.

You might be thinking, “Dan, that’s great to know and all, but we don’t fall under federal regulations because we only operate intrastate; our people never cross state lines for any reason unless there is a state of emergency declared.”

To help address this, I want to quote something from the FMCSA itself. Pay close attention to the very last line of their answer below.

Question: What is the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce?

Answer: If you perform trade, traffic, or transportation exclusively in your business’s domicile state, this is considered intrastate commerce.

If your trade, traffic, or transportation is one of the following, this is considered interstate commerce. Source: 49 CFR 390.5.:

• Between a place in a state and a place outside of such state (including a place outside of the United States)
• Between two places in a state through another state or a place outside of the United States
• Between two places in a state as part of trade, traffic, or transportation originating or terminating outside the state or the United States

To really help everyone understand this, let me tell you about a company in Hawaii that we work with. They are an interstate company.

Wait, what? How is a company on an island considered an interstate company?

They absolutely fall into the interstate category simply because they pick up people from the airport who may or may not be flying in from another state or country. By doing this, they are considered an interstate company.

I understand that the company I’m referring to is not a utility provider, but the principle is still the same. If you are a power provider, is your electricity being produced in the same state where you provide it, or is it produced in another state?

If your operations are truly intrastate, then you still need to know your state’s CMV regulations because each state takes a different approach. Some states follow federal standards to the letter while others like to make their own rules. So, be sure to read and understand your state’s regulations. And if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me or my team. We are here to help in any way we can.

Compliance is Essential
Why is it so important to comply with DOT regulations? First, you should know that it’s not just about avoiding fines. There are tons of other reasons why compliance is essential for utility providers. Here are just a few:

• Safety first: Ensuring compliance with DOT regulations demonstrates to workers that you value and prioritize safety.
• Operational efficiency: Compliance helps to ensure less vehicle and operator downtime and thus greater efficiency in operations. Note: I recently spoke with a company that was using one of the largest compliance companies in the U.S. to help them with DQ files. What we discovered was that it was taking that company anywhere from three to eight times just to get the driver’s application completed properly. If you choose to work with a third party for your compliance needs, make sure they are truly helping – not hindering – your company when it comes to efficiency.
• Financial repercussions: In 2023, the FMCSA issued more than $26 million in fines from audits alone. Can your company really afford to be fined as the result of an audit? Or worse, can your company afford litigation costs?
• Public image: Utility trucks are moving billboards that can garner a lot of attention, especially when they are parked on the side of the road while work is being performed. You want your trucks to look great, and you want them – and their drivers – to be in full DOT compliance.

Conclusion
For utility companies, the world of DOT compliance can feel like a confusing maze of rules and regulations. But by understanding the basics and why they matter, you can take control, keep your team safe and keep your trucks on the road.

Intrastate versus interstate adds another layer, so be sure to research your state’s specific rules. Remember, even if you stay in one state, you still need to follow state-level CMV regulations.

And lastly, remember that DOT compliance should be about more than just avoiding fines. Compliance is also about keeping your crews safe, avoiding breakdowns that result in downtime and other issues, and demonstrating to your community that you take your work and responsibilities seriously.

About the Author: Dan Greer is the founder of Eclipse DOT (https://eclipsedot.com). He is a passionate safety advocate who found his calling in helping companies navigate the complexities of DOT compliance.

Gray wave. Silver tsunami. Population aging.

We’ve all heard the names and metaphors, and experts have talked about the phenomenon for years. In 2024, it’s truly upon us: The population, both in the United States and abroad, is getting older, with major implications for the workforce and how employers manage it.

But these descriptors don’t capture the full reality of the situation. Today’s workforce, which is older on average than in previous decades, is also more diverse than ever, including members of as many as five generations born across nearly a century. So, while researchers have anticipated the aging phenomenon for many years, employers – and their safety leaders in particular – now must deal with the broader issue of a truly multigenerational workforce, one with widely disparate health traits, risk factors and work styles.

This is a challenge that can spur frustration among safety professionals and the employees they help to protect; however, it can also be an opportunity for employers to develop holistic safety programs, leading to a more comprehensive and cohesive strategy with more positive outcomes across the age spectrum.

Identifying Shared Safety Risks
The wide generational distribution of today’s workers means their safety needs are highly varied, but there are risk factors that remain relevant to all workers regardless of age. Assessed together, these can serve as a useful foundation for an adaptable safety strategy that scales across the entire age range of the workforce. These are issues that safety professionals can begin to tackle on their way to addressing more specific challenges for both older and younger workers.

In terms of physical ailments, chronic pain and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are two that affect workers regardless of age.

Chronic Pain
As of 2021, research indicates that roughly 20% of American adults suffer from some form of chronic pain, equating to more than 50 million individuals. Among those, some 17 million experience high-impact chronic pain, which substantially affects their ability to perform basic tasks and participate in daily life. Aside from the well-understood effects pain has on worker performance (e.g., increased risk of musculoskeletal injury, diminished productivity, decreased engagement), it is also linked to risk factors such as depression and substance abuse (see http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7215a1). Other risks – like fatigue – snowball from chronic pain and its related effects.

Musculoskeletal Disorders
MSDs remain one of the most common work-related injury types in every field. The National Safety Council reported that two categories – overexertion/body reaction and slips/trips/falls – accounted for nearly 1 million total annual injuries, more than half of which required at least one day away from work (see https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/work-overview/top-work-related-injury-causes/). While workers ages 45 and above are more likely to experience MSDs, all age groups are affected. Overexertion injuries alone cost employers around $13 billion per year, with the total economic burden of MSDs at work falling somewhere between $45 and $54 billion annually (see www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/health-strategies/musculoskeletal-disorders/index.html).

Bridging the Generational Divide
Chronic pain and MSDs affect workers of all ages, but there are several factors that differentiate the five generations that exist in today’s workforce. Understanding these is key to developing effective holistic safety strategies.

The risks that come with age are fairly well-researched. As workers grow older, they are more prone to slips and falls, soft-tissue injuries and work-related pain that can impact their productivity. Workers of the Silent and Baby Boomer generations are increasingly facing joint issues, arthritis, back pain and chronic health problems that may keep them out of work for days at a time. Hearing and vision loss can also affect the ability to perform certain tasks.

Meanwhile, younger workers bring their own set of risk factors, many stemming from the social and technological landscape into which they were born. Millennials and Gen Z workers – who in many cases were using cellphones, laptops and tablets well before entering the workforce – are challenging safety professionals with pre-existing MSD risks that simply did not exist for previous generations. Ergonomists across industries report that this cohort joins the workforce with neck, back and shoulder pain that can be exacerbated by their everyday job duties.

All five generations have unique working and learning styles as well as different priorities that can make it challenging to manage them with a single strategy. Older workers who value face-to-face interaction and direct communication are likely to benefit from traditional training programs and in-person coaching from certified experts. Gen X, Millennial and Gen Z workers, who are typically more comfortable with technology, may respond better to a more modern approach to training. They are more likely to accept wearable devices, ergonomics software and gamified learning techniques.

Holistic Ergonomics for the Modern Workforce
Fortunately, a whole-worker approach to ergonomics can encompass the various learning styles, values and risk factors of all five generations of workers. Here’s how.

While the field of ergonomics has existed for decades, recent years have seen a dramatic shift in how employers utilize the science to manage safety outcomes. Informed by the NIOSH Total Worker Health framework of employee safety (see www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/), a new, holistic take on ergonomics includes five key elements, described below.

1. Wellness
Opportunities for rest and mobility are key to long-term employee wellness. While not often considered core to the ergonomics field, fatigue management, nutritional education and mental health counseling are deeply intertwined with the outcomes that ergonomists hope to secure for workers. A safety program centered on wellness drives the entire workforce toward a total worker health approach, and supporting worker wellness at all stages of life contributes to healthier, happier, more engaged employees who are less likely to suffer injuries.

2. Early Symptom Intervention
By utilizing wearable devices, new AI-based observation tools, and on-site monitoring and coaching, safety professionals can identify early signs of risk among workers of any age group. Hands-on pain-relief therapies and direct one-on-one coaching will help older workers deal with risk before it turns into an injury. Younger workers benefit from tools – such as ergonomically designed equipment, blue light filters and desktop ergonomics software – to target and retrain potentially risky behaviors before they develop into chronic pain and soft-tissue disorders.

3. Injury Prevention

Risk assessment has always been a key component of any ergonomics program, and it remains essential in today’s world. Ergonomic evaluations can benefit virtually every type of worker, targeting the most common sources of injury risk in workstation, task and facility design while also identifying problematic behaviors and biomechanical techniques. Regular breaks for frontline workers performing high-exertion tasks can curb injury rates; meanwhile, frequent opportunities to stand up and move are essential for those workers whose jobs are computer-based.

4. Return to Work
When workplace injuries occur, it’s incumbent upon employers to support workers through the recovery process. Hands-on therapies can alleviate pain and support long-term soft-tissue and joint health, while administrative interventions (e.g., task redistribution, job modification, gradual work hardening) will allow employees to rejoin the workforce while developing the strength and conditioning needed to ensure that injuries do not recur.

5. Technology
Technology is now occupying an increasing share of safety budgets as employers turn to mobile applications to support wellness, wearable devices to monitor fatigue and overexertion symptoms, and software to enhance existing ergonomics training programs. Likewise, tools such as exoskeletons and sensors can augment workers’ strength and track exertion data to help generate improvements in task design for the future.

Conclusion
Employers should continue to expect their workforces to include workers of several generations. Eventually, Generation Alpha will also join the workforce, bringing their own unique traits, values and risk factors. Successful health and safety outcomes will be delivered by organizations and leaders who act early to develop holistic ergonomics strategies and whole-worker solutions. For those who have yet to incorporate the multigenerational reality of today’s workforce into their programming, there’s no time like the present.

About the Author: Kevin Lombardo is the president and CEO of DORN Companies (https://dorncompanies.com), a Colorado-based ergonomics and injury prevention firm.

Frontline managers are crucial because they bridge organizational goals and frontline employees. They significantly influence workplace dynamics and performance outcomes. In this context, my company surveyed 110 safety professionals and interviewed 10 safety professionals across various industries – including construction, utility, wind energy, public works and manufacturing – to gain insights into the current state of frontline leadership skill development within organizations.

Our research reveals that the significance of frontline leadership skills cannot be overstated, as highlighted by this poignant quote from one construction company’s safety director: “We either have somebody who knows how to manage, who sets an example, who sees a corrective action before it becomes an issue. Or we have nothing.”

Despite their critical role, many frontline managers are promoted to leadership positions without adequate preparation, leading to a gap in leadership effectiveness. In fact, according to a McKinsey survey, only 10% of respondents believed that their company’s frontline manager training program adequately prepared managers for their leadership roles (see www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/how-companies-manage-the-front-line-today-mckinsey-survey-results).

This article delves into the efficacy of leadership training for frontline managers, drawing from research and case studies to underscore its significance and benefits.

The Imperative of Leadership Training for Improved Safety
In workplaces where occupational safety is a daily concern, frontline leadership skills become even more critical. Recently, in a study conducted across various construction companies, both newly promoted and experienced frontline managers underwent the Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) training program. The study’s findings (see www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437520300785) suggest a significant increase in the frontline managers’ safety practices and crew-reported safety-related conditions after the FSL training.

However, the FSL training is more than reviewing scenarios in which the manager’s safety or their team’s safety is in danger. The training introduces five critical safety leadership skills: leading by example; engaging and empowering team members; listening actively; developing team members through teaching and coaching; and recognizing team members for a job well done.

It should come as no surprise that frontline managers must learn fundamental leadership skills that any leader in any company must know. That’s because what makes a company a good place to work are many of the same things that make it a safe place to work. What makes a supervisor an excellent person to work for are many of the same things that make that supervisor capable of ensuring work can be completed safely.

There is no separation between safety leadership and leadership. What frontline leaders learn and apply to be better leaders will impact workplace safety because these skills are transferable. If a frontline manager can notice and address a safety concern, they can notice and address a production issue. If they can notice and address a work quality problem, they can do the same with a safety hazard.

The Role of Safety Departments in Leadership Development
Given the pivotal role of frontline managers in ensuring workplace safety, it is imperative that safety professionals take the lead in shaping their development. Their involvement in identifying the skills and activities to be covered in upcoming training is crucial, as this helps to ensure that the training is tailored to the organization’s specific needs and will make the largest possible impact on workplace safety.

In addition, as part of their daily responsibilities, safety professionals often interact with and support a wide variety of employees. They have unique experiences and insights into what people need and how they will respond to training. Their frontline interactions and comprehensive understanding of workplace dynamics position them as invaluable collaborators with human resources and learning and development departments to develop practical and effective leadership training classes.

Perceived Impact and Tangible Benefits
Our research has provided compelling evidence of the value and impact of frontline leadership training. Among organizations that have implemented such programs, 88% reported a noticeable improvement in their leaders’ effectiveness. The primary benefits cited by respondents were improved communication, enhanced team dynamics and heightened safety practices.

Our interview subjects confirmed these benefits. Training improved frontline leaders’ abilities to de-escalate situations, reduce personality conflicts, and professionally represent the organization to the public, customers, OSHA and other regulators.

Furthermore, they reported that leadership training improved team dynamics by fostering a culture of respect, inclusivity and empowerment. It also improved their ability to attract and retain the right employees. Frontline employees who like and respect their immediate supervisor, who feel like their immediate supervisor respects them and who aren’t micromanaged are more likely to stay with the company. As a result of lower turnover, companies reduce recruitment and onboarding costs.

In addition to reducing turnover, our interview subjects reported using their leadership training as a powerful recruitment tool, helping them to attract skilled talent and reinforcing the organization’s reputation as an employer of choice. Prospective employees are drawn to organizations that invest in their workers’ professional development and offer opportunities for advancement, thereby enhancing the organization’s competitive advantage in the labor market.

Improved safety was the third most reported benefit of leadership training for frontline managers and is likely the result of improved communication and team dynamics. Teams that communicate better and stick together longer have a greater foundation upon which to complete work safely.

One employee of a mechanical contracting company found the benefits of leadership training so significant that he said, “We will be busier over the next 18 months than we are right now, so we have added an additional class on top of the one we already had going. We’re doing that because we know we’re going to be busy 18 months from now, and we need to get the people ready now.” He draws a direct line from their leadership development efforts to the growth their company can sustain.

Effective leadership training programs not only equip frontline managers with essential competencies – such as communication, conflict resolution, decision-making and team management – but they also pave the way for personal growth and career advancement. By providing frontline managers with the tools and resources they need to succeed in their roles, organizations foster a culture of empowerment, accountability and continuous improvement, thereby inspiring and motivating these managers to reach new heights in their careers.

Calculating the Return on Leadership Development Investments
While the qualitative benefits of leadership training are clear, it is also important to consider the potential financial gains. Our research revealed that organizations have yet to systematically measure the financial impact of their leadership development efforts despite their significant effects on productivity, safety and employee satisfaction, all of which impact an organization’s bottom line. Future research could focus on quantifying these benefits to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the return on investment associated with leadership training initiatives.

Conclusion
The benefits of developing reliable frontline managers extend beyond immediate gains, contributing to long-term organizational success and profitability. Reduced turnover rates facilitate the retention of institutional knowledge, leading to greater efficiency and a more defined organizational culture. Moreover, effective leadership development initiatives are powerful recruitment tools, attracting skilled talent and reinforcing the organization’s commitment to employee growth and advancement. Combined, these are powerful forces for improving workplace safety.

Leadership training for frontline managers is not merely a discretionary expense but a strategic imperative for organizational success. By investing in comprehensive and tailored leadership development programs, organizations can cultivate a team of competent and empowered leaders capable of driving sustained growth, innovation and excellence. The involvement of safety departments in leadership development efforts ensures the integration of safety principles into leadership practices, fostering a culture of safety and accountability throughout the organization.

As organizations navigate an increasingly complex and dynamic business landscape, the importance of frontline leadership development cannot be overstated. By investing in the development of frontline managers, organizations can unlock their full potential, driving productivity, profitability and long-term success.

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

For more information about this topic, download the Frontline Leadership Development Case Studies at https://habitmasteryconsulting.com/case-studies/. Each study showcases a different organization’s approach to a different facet of frontline leadership development, including building a leadership pipeline, a yearlong safety leadership program and a multiyear program covering all facets of leadership skills.

Over the years, I have received many questions asking what it takes to become a journeyman lineworker after being hired as an apprentice. In response, I have prepared the following overview of the skills training I believe needs to be covered. Please note that this is only an overview; some companies will need to deliver training for their specific policies not covered here.

Introduction
To become a journeyman lineworker, approximately 8,000 hours of combination classroom and field training are required, with all on-the-job training (OJT) to be supervised by qualified electric utility journeymen mentors or supervisors in the field. If an apprentice has earned a certificate from an accredited line development school, the employer should evaluate the apprentice’s proficiency and understanding of that coursework. It’s possible that the training period with the employer could be shortened to give the apprentice credit for their previous training.

Acceleration of an apprentice development program should only occur after company management approval. Mentors (i.e., crew journeymen) should be available for apprentices in the field who are not working directly under a supervisor to ensure constant support during all training. I recommend that apprentices initially be categorized by employers as entry-level apprentices. These apprentices must meet all training and proficiency requirements before becoming advanced apprentices.

Apprentices must not be allowed to perform tasks they have not been trained in. Proficiency demonstrations are a requirement after they receive classroom training. Instructors and evaluators or assigned mentors should also evaluate each new apprentice to determine future training needs.

Instructors and employees involved in the OJT of the organization’s apprentices must understand that although the apprentices have been exposed to and are trained in specific areas/tasks, they are not necessarily proficient in these areas/tasks. Direct supervision is required while employees gain more experience and demonstrate their competence.

It’s important to remember that an apprentice should not work on exposed energized secondary or near exposed primary conductors until a minimum approach distance and distribution cover-up training session has been delivered and documented. Once the training session has been documented, the apprentice must be under the direct supervision of a journeyman mentor. They must never be allowed to work on or near energized distribution primary conductors or equipment at 600 volts or more without a journeyman lineworker either with them in a two-man bucket or in another bucket nearby. A list of assigned tasks should be completed by each apprentice and evaluated before proceeding to energized work alone, but bear in mind that a second qualified person shall be immediately available on the job site as required by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(l).

There is one exception. An apprentice who has been formally trained in single-phase underground distribution (UD) switching may cover exposed secondary with a 1910.269(a)(2) qualified person present for switching purposes only. Elbows in a dead front underground transformer are not considered exposed primary parts because the elbows are fully shielded to the ground.

Basic Line and Equipment Skills
Apprentice training begins with basic line and equipment skills. Training topics include climbing qualifications and the traditional skills and physical abilities necessary for a new employee on a line crew. Climbing qualifications should be completed within the first six weeks of employment.

Upon completing basic line skills training, apprentices are considered qualified climbers according to OSHA. Being qualified climbers does not mean they are proficient climbers, but OJT allows them to practice their climbing skills and gain more experience. Apprentices should be allowed to practice climbing skills at every opportunity with appropriate supervision so they can safely gain more experience.

An apprentice in this portion of the development program should also receive training in the following areas: safety and compliance; overhead distribution construction standards; overhead materials; basic hand tools; truck tools; knots and splices; tensioning down guys; wire identification; identifying pre-formed wire grips; compression connections; handline makeup and operation; introduction to overhead transformers; digging pole holes by hand and via mobile equipment; driving ground rods; load-buster operations; bucket truck rescue; streetlights; telescopic stick operation; secondary service makeup; company policies and operating procedures; prevention of vehicular fires; truck and equipment grounding; and work area traffic control and warning devices.

In addition, this portion of the training should include the basics of operating equipment, such as the following: bucket truck and digger derrick operation; truck setup; reading load charts; digging pole holes; installing power anchors; setting and removing poles; installing and removing transformers; backing short and extended trailers; hitching a trailer to a truck; extending and retracting material trailers; loading and unloading poles on a trailer; driving on the road with and without a load; open- and closed-center hydraulic systems; backhoe operations; digging; backfilling; power delivery bulletins; truck and equipment retrieval; truck and equipment grounding; proper vehicle chocking; and installing and removing poles in energized transmission and distribution lines.

Basic Underground Skills
Based on the type of work your company does, basic underground skills training can be incorporated into the first sections of the apprentice development program. This portion of the program provides apprentices with an introductory understanding of UD work. Training topics should include underground safety; job briefings; UD standards and systems; specifications; print symbols; reading construction prints and one-line diagrams; underground tools and materials; terminating primary elbows, splices and risers; installing and terminating underground transformers; ringing out and tagging cables; load-buster operations; secondary splices and terminations; installing parallel services; underground streetlights; writing switching orders; single-phase switching; isolating, tagging and grounding primary and secondary cables; power delivery bulletins; inspection of pad-mounted equipment; UD installation and operating procedures; and safe practices for making excavations.

Again, apprentices should work under the direct supervision of qualified journeymen lineworkers. Journeymen and supervisors must understand the importance of reinforcing basic underground skills so that apprentices can safely gain more experience.

Advanced Apprentice Training
At this point, apprentices should be trained in basic line and equipment skills and underground skills. They also will have gained additional experience and knowledge from closely supervised field exercises. Up next is the advanced apprenticeship training component of the development program. In this stage, apprentices perform work in the field, both from the pole and via aerial devices.

Initial training should be delivered in the following areas: line construction; print reading; framing poles; sagging and tying in conductors; transformer installations; single-phase transformers; open and closed delta banks; wye-wye banks; phase rotation; service connections; paralleling transformer banks; streetlight installation and maintenance; field installation; troubleshooting; system coordination; Kirchhoff’s law of current division; meter installations; and Ohm’s law and basic electricity. Apprentices shall receive OJT in a directly supervised environment.

As noted earlier, in this portion of the training, apprentices perform all fieldwork – except climbing tasks – from an insulating aerial device. After introductory training, apprentices should perform tasks on energized lines under the direct supervision of a qualified journeyman. Topics to be included in the introductory training are safety procedures for live-line work; job briefings; proper distribution cover-up; de-energizing for the protection of the employee; temporary grounding; energized conductors; paths to ground in the work area; replacing insulators on three-phase construction; polymer insulators and tracking; pin insulators; disc insulators; C-suspension; dead-ends; replacing a steel arm with a fiberglass arm; transferring conductors on three-phase construction; suspension; and climbing tasks on taller distribution poles.

Apprentices perform all work, except climbing tasks, on energized three-phase construction. The overhead training topics include replacing poles in energized conductors; transferring conductors; installing and removing gang-operated switches and reclosers; installing and replacing fused sectionalized switches; replacing lightning arresters; splicing tensioned conductors; climbing tasks on taller distribution poles; and online and offline capacitors.

Apprentices must be given work assignments that reinforce the skills and work methods learned in all types of overhead line work except reconductoring, for which they have not yet received specific training. This portion of the training does not cover reconductoring an existing three-phase line or adding conductors to an existing single-phase line. Distribution reconductoring requires all the training and experience gained through this development program, plus field experience gained while working on crews. The moving and setting of conductors also requires an understanding of NESC rules; the effects of conductors sagged at less than specifications; clearances on existing equipment; and truck and equipment grounding.

At the end of the overhead portion of the development program, apprentices’ skills and knowledge should be evaluated.

Advanced Underground Skills
An apprentice in the advanced underground portion of the development program receives training in the following areas: three-phase transformers and risers; installations and terminations; single-phase and three-phase switching; writing switching orders; operating manual and automatic switching cubicles; pad-mounted open delta banks; 1000-MCM terminations; when and how to use phasing sticks; service restoration and earth gradient devices; cable and fault locating; radar scopes/cable faults; impulse generators/thumpers; racking in and out of breakers and switchgear; and operating and switching customer-owned distribution systems.

Apprentices should be given work tasks and assignments that reinforce the methods and skills learned during their advanced underground training. Near the end of the OJT period, apprentices should undergo a knowledge and skills evaluation. Each apprentice must pass this evaluation to be eligible for promotion to a vacant lineworker position. Company management and safety and training employees should formally evaluate the apprentices.

Conclusion
As a reminder, the material included in this article is an overview. In no way does it include all the items that an apprentice must learn to become a journeyman lineworker. As with other industries, line work offers a continuous learning journey without end. This article merely addresses the first steps.

Lastly, keep in mind that all OSHA training should be provided by qualified instructors and certified by the employer before employees can be considered qualified.

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!

This isn’t the first time – and I suspect it won’t be the last time – that I have addressed the question of what work can be done under the digger derrick exemption found in OSHA’s Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926 Subpart CC). The issue has come up constantly since the matter of the digger derrick exemption was resolved, and just recently I once again received considerable pushback to an answer I provided on the topic for Incident Prevention magazine’s Q&A section.

Before we go any further, I want to define some terms I will use in this article for brevity’s sake. “Subpart CC” or “CC” refers to OSHA’s Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard. “CDAC” refers to the rulemaking committee that established the proposed standard in collaboration with OSHA’s Directorate of Construction. “DD” refers to a digger derrick, which is a truck-mounted extendable hydraulic boom equipped with an auger, a transferable pole grabber, a winch and typically a fiberglass insulating end extension.

An important aspect of the DD as far as OSHA is concerned is that the DD was purpose-designed by the utility industry to set wood poles. As a boom truck typically lift-rated in the 10- to 30-ton range, the winch and boom can be used to perform other lifts. However, according to utility industry research, over 90% of lifts performed by a DD are for setting electric utility poles and the apparatus typically mounted on those poles.

Subpart CC History
It has now been more than 15 years since the original Subpart CC standard was published, so a review of the subpart’s history and resulting utility litigation is probably useful. Until the Subpart CC standard was published, operating rules for cranes and DDs were spread across the OSHA General Industry and Construction standards. No specific training or licensing requirements existed for crane operators. There were rules but no detailed safety procedures for operating a crane in or near an energized environment, and there were no specific actions or activities required to establish stable ground under a loaded crane for effective support. No doubt, the Subpart CC rules were needed because the lifting industry as a whole – outside the utility sector – had a pretty poor safety record.

The issues with the CC rules for the power-line industry were significant. In the construction lifting industry at large, formal licensing under the CC rules found at 1926.1427 only affected one worker, the crane operator, among the 200 or more various craftspeople on some larger construction sites. In the utility industry, because journeymen lineworkers are skilled equipment operators, the original licensing requirements applied to every journeyman craft worker; that’s about four in six field personnel covering some 120,000 lineworkers in the U.S. to the tune of about $21 million annually. So, initially, OSHA did offer a narrow exception for setting poles, but it wasn’t enough.

The industry turned to our very effective industry support partners as well as Edison Electric Institute, a lobby organization, which was then under the leadership of Chuck Kelly. EEI was effective in demonstrating that the industry had a significantly disproportionate burden in complying with the new Subpart CC rules. They also demonstrated that the disproportionate burden was unnecessary considering the utility industry’s very good record of safety when using DDs. EEI and the utility industry were successful, and the exceptions contained within Subpart CC were defined and established. Here is where the problems began.

Understanding the Exemption
As to the exemption, I recommend that you read the preamble discussion OSHA published with the DD exemption revision in Subpart CC; it is available at www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2013-05-29.

As readers will see, in a specific discussion about transformers, OSHA limited use of the DD exemption to transformers and related equipment that is mounted/hung on the pole. In the revision to the exemption, after negotiations with EEI, OSHA very narrowly added padmount transformers as an exemption. A key part of the EEI/OSHA negotiation lies in the very specific terms discussed. The persuasion for OSHA was in EEI’s comments that a padmount transformer weighs the same as an aerial transformer, is often set in the same vicinity of the pole and is installed by the same crew.

Now the question is, what constitutes a padmount transformer in the exemption? That is answered by framing the discussion as to the weight of an aerial transformer being near the same as a padmount. That would seem to limit the DD exemption expansion to single-phase pads. When we set an aerial three-phase bank, we typically hang three single-phase transformers. We can bank two of the three single-phase URD padmount transformers together, and I have, but it is more common to install a three-phase padmount, which is three times heavier than an aerial transformer. Considering the terms of the EEI/OSHA negotiation and the preamble discussion, a three-phase pad would exceed the DD exemption.

Would you get caught using a competent, qualified operator who is not Subpart CC licensed to set a three-phase pad? That’s not likely under present conditions. OSHA has not established targeted enforcement of the Subpart CC digger derrick exemption – yet. The agency would only initiate an investigation of an operator’s license status if they were called to do an inspection related to a fatal incident or a complaint, or they may self-initiate an inspection if they were driving by and observed a condition that presented an immediate danger to life or health. But being unlikely to get caught is not justification for exceeding the provisions of the DD exemption. The rule is very narrowly written and defined. Decision-makers who read the preamble should heed the warning included in OSHA’s comments about arbitrarily expanding the DD exception. The agency did not want to create nor expand the exemption. In doing so, they issued a warning to the industry not to try to expand the exemption beyond those terms found in the preamble. Failure to heed that warning could inspire OSHA to revisit the exemption and eliminate it altogether.

Clarifying OSHA’s Language
Another question I regularly receive from readers is about this sentence from the preamble: “OSHA is revising the exemption in existing 29 CFR 1926.1400(c)(4) to include within the exemption the phrase ‘any other work subject to subpart V of 29 CFR part 1926’ as proposed.”

Again, in the preamble, OSHA explained the phrase “any other work” as follows: “This revision expands the exemption to remove from coverage under subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926 the types of non-pole, digger-derrick work described by EEI.” In other words, “any other work” as described by EEI in the negotiations. That described work was strictly limited to single-phase padmount transformers.

Here’s one more thought regarding how OSHA preceded their warning using the phrase “OSHA acknowledges.” Some have lobbied that the statement means OSHA “knows” we can use the DD exemption for other tasks, but that is incorrect. What that reference addresses is OSHA’s concern acknowledging random expansion of the exemption by utilities justifying additional uses of DDs outside the narrow exemption. When OSHA brought up the concern, EEI convinced them that the industry could employ DDs for lifting in substation construction, but it was not likely because most substation construction lifting required use of conventional truck cranes for the necessary reach and capacity. That satisfied OSHA, but they added the following warning at the end of the record to keep us honest:

“OSHA acknowledges that revising the exemption would extend the digger-derrick exemption to include some work at substations. However, EEI indicated that the employers in the electric-utility industry limit such uses to assembly or arrangement of substation components, and that these employers use other types of cranes instead of digger derricks to perform lifting and installation work at substations (see OSHA-2012-0025-0005: Jan. 2011 EEI letter). If OSHA finds that employers are using digger derricks increasingly for other tasks, the Agency may revisit this issue and adjust the exemption accordingly.”

In the final part of OSHA’s warning, the agency clarified post-incident investigation citations for a utility that was found violating the DD exemption, stating the following: “If an employer uses a
digger derrick for subpart V or telecommunications work without complying with all of the requirements in subpart V or Sec. 1910.268, then the work is not exempt and the employer must comply with all of the requirements of subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926. This clarification is consistent with OSHA’s explanation of the exemption in the preamble of the final rule (see 75 FR 47925-47926).”

In simple terms, if a utility is found noncompliant with the rules for DD operation, the exemption is invalidated, and the operation being cited by OSHA will be cited under all of the applicable rules of Subpart CC.

Why an Exemption Expansion?
OSHA uses the preamble text to support its citations. The preamble is pretty clear in this case. So, if OSHA didn’t really want to expand the exemption, why did they do it? There were likely several reasons, including avoiding another round of legal actions after failing against EEI in the minimum approach distance and transient overvoltage legal challenges to the 2014 final rule changes.

It is also reasonable to assume that OSHA’s intent was tight control over the entire lifting community. OSHA never wanted to establish an exemption and considered a crane to be a crane to be a crane, and that all crane operators should be specifically licensed to establish safety in lifting.

Based on EEI’s petition, OSHA found that the CDAC was very poorly represented by the utility and communications industry. The agency also discovered that the CDAC studies failed to recognize that utility industry incidents were nowhere near the level of incidents in the general lifting community. Further, OSHA found out that the financial obligation for utilities to license DD operators, who had an impressive safety record, was disproportionate to the general lifting community. And OSHA realized that 95% of the lifts performed by DDs – a number contributed by the IBEW – were very narrowly related to poles and pole-mounted equipment.

Hence, OSHA and EEI agreed to narrowly limit the exemption to the 95% of work for which DDs were specifically designed: poles and associated equipment mounted on those poles. There is no justification to assume that anything other than a transformer fits into the exemption.

In judging the issue of what is permitted in the DD exemption, it’s simply comparing the activities: flying a rack or bundle of travelers to a pole-top; flying in a 20-foot laminated transmission crossarm; hanging a three-phase transmission isolation switch or distribution regulators; setting rebar or steel in a substation; and comparing that activity to hanging a single-phase transformer. That is how compliance officers were instructed to look at it. If it’s not as simple as hanging a pot, it’s not allowed. That was the basis for adding padmounts to the exemption. Readers will notice that in the discussion of padmounts, nobody in the preamble record ever discussed their size/type. However, they did discuss weights, using the comparison of a single-phase transformer. So, from that perspective, we can correctly apply single-phase padmounts within the exemption. And using that logic, we can also assume a weight of fewer than 500 to 700 pounds, even though those particular values are not debated.

Final Note
A final note: The DD exemption only applies to construction qualified by OSHA as new installations or upgrading of strength or capacity of existing facilities. If a utility is merely replacing like-for-like facilities or performing maintenance on a structure using a DD, the work is not covered by Subpart CC, and the operator only needs to be qualified by the employer.

I doubt there will ever be a test case because as an industry we have an exceptionally good record with DD use. The issue is that if the industry wants to cheat, they should do it with a clear understanding of what the rules are and what the consequences could be – not just for the employer but for the whole industry.

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

Q: Why don’t all utilities use rubber gloves with hot sticks?

A: One of our supporting consultants sent us this question that he gets all the time. The answer is simple: There is no requirement in any standard to use rubber gloves with hot sticks. Rubber-gloving hot sticks has evolved as a work practice in the last decade. There is nothing wrong with choosing to use rubber gloves with hot sticks, and lineworkers have been known to do so during wet or snowy conditions. But many lineworkers with more than 20 years of experience will tell you that we never used rubber gloves routinely with hot sticks and never had an issue with that practice.

Why is there no requirement? Well, that’s based on history. The inspection and maintenance protocols of OSHA and ASTM as well as the use guidelines in IEEE – wherein hot sticks are utilized as primary protection for workers without using a secondary buffer like rubber gloves – have proven to be exceptionally reliable. Obviously, if we violated the standards and stopped testing, inspecting and cleaning sticks, hazards would arise. But that is not an excuse to start using rubber gloves. Adding rubber gloves to hot-stick use has created concern among work methods specialists because the heavy gloves are likely to impede grip on the stick, resulting in greater-than-necessary wear and tear on the muscles in the hands and arms, not to mention additional wear on the gloves themselves.

Another emerging issue with adding rubber glove use is that many in the industry have recognized a higher-than-normal incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome among lineworkers who use them. No scientific studies have been conducted that we are aware of, so the evidence is considered anecdotal, but most if not all lineworkers will tell you they experience hand cramps with heavy hand-tool use when wearing rubber gloves, especially those that are Class 2 and above. A reading of the medical literature on how carpal tunnel syndrome develops puts rubber gloves directly in the “yes” column as a potential issue. Over the years, many utility safety advisers have reported a high incidence of employees with this type of injury, and several of Incident Prevention’s consultants have reported issues that likely are related via surveys and interviews. We even know of interviews with hand specialists who agree that the use of rubber gloves presents a very reasonable risk of carpal tunnel injury.

Q: What does OSHA consider inclement or hazardous weather?

A: OSHA refers to this type of weather as “adverse.” While adverse weather is not often mentioned in the standards, OSHA would treat any employee’s unnecessary exposure to such weather as potentially hazardous, and it could make the work environment potentially hazardous as well. Obviously, lightning from an approaching storm is a risk, but slippery surfaces due to rain or ice are also conditions that OSHA would expect an employer to anticipate and to then either remediate or make work reassignments to prevent exposure. These horizontal standards are based on the expectation that the employer will perform a workplace hazard assessment to identify and remediate the identified hazard. That expectation applies equally to all electric utility workplaces. Specific to the utility arena, OSHA does address weather-related hazards in both the barehand section (see 29 CFR 1910.269(q)) and the line-clearance tree-trimming section (see 1910.269(r)). OSHA recognizes storm work in 1910.269(q)(4)(iv), preceding the rule with “except during emergency restoration procedures.” But even then, there is an expectation to reasonably judge conditions and work requirements, although that assessment is purely subjective. The bottom line is that the employer, including the crew supervisor, must be able to defend the decision to work in adverse weather. That subjective assessment is based on the nature of the adverse weather conditions, risk to the employee, risk to the public, and likelihood of a reasonable, timely outcome to the repair.

However, when it comes to rubber glove work, OSHA follows the consensus standards noted in Appendix G to 1910.269, “Reference Documents.” The inclement weather clause is found in IEEE 516, “IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energized Power Lines.” The statement applies to all insulating work methods that can be compromised by weather. Generally, those recommendations apply to normal operations or scheduled maintenance work.

Emergency work for the safety of the public may allow “wet” work under informed and carefully considered conditions. For instance, a lineman using a shotgun on a wood pole may be more likely to get tracking over his rubber gloves because he is part of a circuit to ground and the pathway is of lower resistance because of wet contamination. However, a lineman isolated in a bucket truck using a shotgun and rubber gloves would likely feel no tracking at all.

In part 7.4.2.4, “Typical work guidelines,” IEEE 516 offers additional guidance to help employers make work methods decisions. The typical work requirements contained in this subclause (see italicized text below) should only be used as a guide to develop work procedures. Further guidelines may be found in the NESC, OSHA regulations, state and local codes, and other national standards.

a) When working with voltages from 600 V up to 7500 V: With the use of proper protective equipment (e.g., line hoses, blankets), this voltage level may be worked directly from wood poles and other grounded structures.

b) When working with voltages from 7501 V up to 36000 V: For voltages up to 15000 V, installation of line hose, blankets, and other protective equipment can be performed from the structure using the rubber gloving or insulating tool method. For voltages above 15000 V, line hose, blankets, etc., may be installed with live-line tools or using the rubber gloving method from an insulating device. Additional insulating devices should be used when using the rubber gloving method to reduce the leakage current in the worker. Sleeves are used when there is no positive assurance that the arms cannot violate the phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground MAD for the voltage involved. Work in damp or foggy weather is often limited by the boom leakage current or the atmospheric humidity.

Q: Does OSHA require grounding of trucks used in energized power-line work?

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

How can we say the answer to your question is no when the first measure is using the best available ground? That answer is in found in this phrase from the rule: “Unless the employer can demonstrate that the methods in use protect each employee …” As we have written previously in Incident Prevention, the solution to employee safety is sometimes quite simple. If touching the truck can kill you, don’t touch the truck. If standing 2 feet from the truck exposes you to step potential, stand 10 feet away.

The purpose of grounding the truck is to clear the circuit by opening protectors if the grounded boom contacts the bus. A worker in contact with the truck is a parallel path to ground with the temporarily installed truck ground. It is only the coincidence of parallel resistances that may decide if that contact is lethal or not. If you ground, that is why the rule also demands that you ground in an equipotential arrangement. So, if you promote grounding of the truck to protect workers but do not employ equipotential mats, you are not in compliance with OSHA.

We encourage readers to review Jim Vaughn’s “A Close Look at Step and Touch Potentials” for a detailed review of the step and touch hazards related to grounded trucks. The article is available at https://incident-prevention.com/blog/a-close-look-at-step-and-touch-potentials/.

Q: Is fall protection required on rooftops where weatherheads exist?

Several years ago, Incident Prevention magazine published a response to a similar question. The discussion focused on an incident in which a lineman was pulled off a roof by a weatherhead that failed when he was trying to sag the service.

Here’s an explanation of the OSHA Construction fall protection standard’s preamble. The standard itself is found at 1926.500. A careful reading of it clearly indicates that none of the specified rules applies to or in any way addresses the nature, type and duration of utility workers on rooftops. Rooftops accessed by utility employees are sealed installations, warrantied by the roofing installer. It is not possible or practical to penetrate the roofing system to install an anchorage for a utility worker making a 15-minute connection to a weatherhead. It is also recognized by OSHA that the hour or more it would take to install the fall protections systems called out by the 1926.500 standard would unnecessarily expose the utility worker to hazards they likely would not face during the 15 minutes they would spend on the roof at the weatherhead.

At issue with rooftops is the lack of fall protection anchorages to which a utility worker could attach their fall protection. The lack of facilities and anchorages to attach to makes using fall protection infeasible. OSHA defines infeasible in 1926.500(b), stating that it means “impossible to perform the construction work using a conventional fall protection system (i.e., guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system) or that it is technologically impossible to use any one of these systems to provide fall protection.”

In the preamble to the final rule on walking and working surfaces, OSHA did address temporary work. As clarified by the agency, rooftop work is temporary in nature, meaning that it is “brief or short,” that it generally includes “those [tasks] that a worker is able to perform in less time than it takes to install or set up conventional fall protection,” and that “OSHA believes worker exposure to fall hazards is very limited.” Further, “OSHA agrees with stakeholders who said that requiring employers to install conventional fall protection in these instances could increase worker exposure substantially” (see Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 223).

Recognizing the infeasibility of erecting fall protection as described above, utilities across the U.S. do not require fall protection on rooftops when connecting services. Accordingly, utilities train employees on safe work practices, relying on the employees’ experience and the assumption that facilities installed by others are properly installed and will not be an unexpected or unrecognized risk to workers.

While Incident Prevention tries to provide guidance in compliance with OSHA and historical OSHA actions, every situation involving rooftop work may be interpreted differently by local enforcement. There is no direct answer to the issue, but we have provided what we hope is a bona-fide example of a successful appraisal of the risk, the exposure and the likelihood of a fall, as well as remediation based on OSHA’s own observations as noted in the preamble published in the Federal Register. This is information employers can use to assess their own policies and procedures.

Q: Is there any regulation regarding hydro-excavation operators and fall restraint while at the edge of an excavation?

A: Fall prevention is a general concept that applies wherever there is a fall hazard, and it is based on elevation and the potential of striking a lower level. If you read the preamble regarding pole excavations, OSHA does not expect us to provide fall protection for a hole if we are going to cover or fill that hole with a pole immediately after excavation. We are sure the preamble was assuming excavation by conventional digger derrick or post-hole diggers, but a pole hole is a pole hole no matter how it was excavated. Obviously, a poorly operated hydro excavator could create cave-in conditions that may not be expected with a digger derrick. So, the answer depends on two things: How big will the excavation be (i.e., will the nozzle fill the excavation?), and how long will the excavation be exposed?

If you are excavating for a pole and will set it or cover the hole when finished, no fall protection is needed. If you are excavating a 4-foot-by-6-foot-by-6-foot cable pit for splicing, fall protection is required.

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.

Stop-work authority is crucial in our industry. Understand me when I say this: If people aren’t using stop-work authority, they don’t have that authority even if it’s promoted on a bulletin board somewhere.

With that said, I want to propose START (self, task, assess, reduce, thrive) work authority to reduce the number of times you’ll need to stop work. I admit this is a play on words and that what I am proposing is very similar to stop-work authority, but I want to challenge the norm of defining “fitness for duty” as someone being present at the work site and “work planning” as being limited to a singular job briefing at the start of the day. We can do that by exercising START work authority.

Self
Safety starts with you. You cannot assume protection from other people or things. Before performing any task, complete a self-check regarding your fitness for duty and focus. Fitness for duty goes beyond showing up and breathing. Assessing your fitness includes considering your levels of rest, hydration and stress; whether you’ve done appropriate stretching; if there are drugs or alcohol in your system; your current mindset; and your task-specific training. To focus means to be as free from distractions as possible. Remember STAR during your self-check: stop, think, act, review.

Task
Identify the specific task to be performed within the scope of the job being completed. We cannot effectively assess and reduce job generalizations. For example, it is a generalization to say we’re setting up our work area and work zone. Part of that job is a task called lowering outriggers, and if we clearly define that task, protection is easy. Here’s a critical point: No 10-minute job briefing before work can cover all the tasks that will be performed. That’s why huddles or two-minute drills (i.e., task-specific discussions about what’s going to happen for the next five to 10 minutes) are essential to thrive.

Assess
Assess hazards as energy sources and risk as how much energy there is or could be along with how long you will be exposed to the energy source. This assessment, coupled with task identification, allows you to perform a key and often missed step in hazard and risk mitigation: reduction of energy and exposure. At this point, you should also assess what tools and equipment you need to perform your task and then make sure you have them readily available.

Reduce
Reduce energy and exposure based on task identification and your assessment of hazards and risks. Common opportunities for reduction include how often you climb ladders, poles or stairs; how many times you back a vehicle; where observers stand in relation to hazards; volume of and distance from noises; weight and distance of loads being lifted by equipment or people; how much traffic you drive or work around; and how long you work in hot or cold weather conditions.

Thrive
We limit ourselves when we define safety as surviving with the goal of no one getting hurt. Preventing harm is important, but let’s add encouraging growth to that and make the goal to protect and improve people. This happens when workers are empowered and continuously improve their technical and life skills. Shift the mindset from compliance and focusing on what could go wrong to ensuring things go right and learning how to make what we’re doing well even better.

Conclusion
My goal with this article isn’t necessarily for you to implement START work authority using this model. It is for every organization, team and individual to assess how ready they are for each task in terms of training, preparation, fitness and planning. Self: What are you doing to ensure your protection? Task: What are you doing for the next five minutes? Assess: What are the hazards and what is my level of risk? Reduce: What can I do to reduce energy and exposure? Thrive: How can I make myself and my team better?

Begin every day and every task safely. Call it START work authority, or maybe “obligation” is a better word, as we are all obligated to ourselves, our teams, our organizations, our families and our friends.

Learn More
You can learn more about this article by reading my book, “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle: Innovative and Practical Insights on the Art of Safety.” I also invite you to join me for the free July 10 webinar on this topic. I hope to see you there and at other Incident Prevention Institute events. Thank you for reading, stay safe and be well.

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: START Work Authority
July 10, 2024, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

Utility Solutions Inc., a leading provider of innovative solutions for the utility industry, proudly introduces BLUE STRIPE Link Sticks.

Designed to handle the toughest tasks, BLUE STRIPE Link Sticks offer a range of configurations tailored to your needs. With load ratings from 1,500 to 4,000 pounds, these sticks are indispensable for tasks such as insulating strap hoists and creating work clearance in electrical line work. The various configurations include the Swivel Eye, Hook, Hot Stick Operable Hook, Cross Arm, Pigtail Hook, Heavy Duty Pigtail Hook and Conductor Lift.

According to the company, the patent-pending Stick Operable Safety Hook is at the heart of BLUE STRIPE Link Sticks. The design automatically charges and locks into place when aligned with the hook, streamlining safety procedures and simplifying operations with a hot stick.

Need a custom solution? Our CNC machining and fiberglass capabilities make custom lengths and configurations a breeze. www.utilitysolutionsinc.com/products/blue-stripe-link-sticks/

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/