Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast

Part 1 of this article began with discussion of the first American power systems, when lineworkers initially encountered the hazards of working on de-energized lines (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-evolution-of-personal-protective-grounding-part-1/). This led to early personal protective grounding (PPG) efforts using trial and error. We also reviewed Charles Dalziel’s contributions toward a greater industry understanding of dangerous current levels.

In short, Part 1 confirmed the need for PPG as a key lineworker safety precaution. In this second and final part, we will review PPG’s evolution as the industry designed and improved relevant equipment, conducted more testing and developed written standards.

1940-1970: Equipment Design and Improvements
In the 1940s, protective grounds were used sporadically depending on the utility company and the line crew foreman. It was a relatively common practice for lineworkers to make their own ground sets, using #6 soft-drawn copper and hot-line tap clamps. During this period, the industry began moving away from homemade grounding equipment in favor of equipment manufactured by companies including A.B. Chance, J.R. Kearney and Safety Live Line Co.

In the 1950s, A.B. Chance offered various PPG components. Around the same time, Safety Live Line Co. of Oakland, California, manufactured a grounding cluster that featured a removable twist-lock handle. It had been determined by this point that it is best to have the grounding conductors short-circuit the line and connect it to ground.

Further, using wood-handled sticks to install protective grounds had started to become standard. The grip-all or “shotgun stick” developed in the 1950s became popular for protective ground installation and removal. Some manufacturers made protective grounds with wood-handled sticks that were permanently attached to the grounding clamps. The sticks significantly improved safety, placing workers farther from conductors in case a hot line was grounded.

This era also saw an increased interest in testing. The “fuzzing” test procedure was included in the fourth edition of “The Lineman’s and Cableman’s Handbook,” published in 1964. The fourth edition also stated that after the test, two sets of grounds shall be placed on either side of the work area, within sight of the lineworkers.

The fifth edition of the handbook (1976) recommended using a voltage detector for testing, yet it also noted that fuzzing using “fuzz rings” could be effectively performed on higher voltages. These rings were not widely used and are now quite rare. A fuzz ring’s size and shape increased the sound level for lineworkers. It was also around this time when many power companies began providing documented rules and procedures regarding the application of personal protective grounds.

Bonneville Testing
In 1954, Bonneville Power Administration conducted comprehensive testing to evaluate the effectiveness of protective grounds in ensuring the safety of its lineworkers. The tests produced the following key findings:

• “The current practice utilized by most power companies of installing grounds on adjacent structures to the one being worked on will likely not provide adequate protection for the linemen in the event the line comes energized.”
• “The short-circuiting and grounding of all conductors at work locations, using jumpers and clamps of adequate current-carrying capacity, will likely provide sufficient protection for linemen.”

These results caused many power companies to reevaluate their protective grounding practices. Before the BPA testing, protective grounds were typically bracketed around the work location but not on the structure where the work was being done. The theory at the time was that grounds only needed to be placed between the worker and the energy source. From this point forward, the industry slowly evolved toward installing protective grounds at the work location. BPA also performed testing of personal protective grounds exposed to the high fault currents that were becoming more prevalent.

1970-1990: More Improvements
Considerable improvements were made to protective grounding equipment during this 20-year span, including equipment for use when stringing conductors and performing underground work. Manufacturers introduced equipment for testing components to ensure their capacity and reliability.

The sixth (1981) and seventh (1986) editions of “The Lineman’s and Cableman’s Handbook” listed the following requirements for effective protective grounding: a low-resistance path to earth; clean and tight connections; connections made to proper points; and adequate grounding equipment capacity.

The United States Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, which established OSHA. Over time, OSHA issued various regulations related to protective grounding. Here’s what a couple of the first ones stated:

• “Protective grounds shall be applied on the disconnected lines or equipment to be worked on.”
• “Visual inspections or tests shall be conducted to ensure that equipment or lines have been deenergized.”

During this period, power companies gradually started moving toward worksite grounding, with “single-point grounding” and other terms surfacing. The following statement was published in the seventh edition of “The Lineman’s and Cableman’s Handbook”: “The protective grounds are installed from ground in a manner to short-circuit the conductors so that the lineman and everything in the work area will be at equal potential.” It had also been determined that by short-circuiting a line, any protective devices supplying the line would rapidly relay out if inadvertently energized.

The steady rise in fault currents was another factor affecting adequate protective grounding, increasing the need for well-made grounding components, such as clamps and cables. In 1983, ASTM F855, “Standard Specifications for Temporary Protective Grounds to Be Used on De-energized Electric Power Lines and Equipment,” was first published. The comprehensive standard covered the design, materials, ratings and design testing of clamps, ferrules, cables and ground assemblies. It was a key element in standardizing and improving the quality of grounding components.

1990-2020: Equipotential Concept
As power companies and equipment manufacturers conducted more testing, they eventually concluded that the only safe way to protect lineworkers with PPG was to place them in an equipotential zone. In 1994, OSHA issued the 1910.269 standard, which contained this text at (n)(3): “Temporary protective grounds shall be placed at such locations and arranged in such a manner as to prevent each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential.” Companies then devised various grounding and bonding procedures to mitigate placing lineworkers between different potentials at the worksite. The industry was slow to change from conventional bracket grounding to worksite grounding as power companies felt compliance with the equipotential theory was unnecessary and would add considerable time to jobs.

Since 1994, the industry has generally accepted the use of bonding and grounding to prevent employees from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential.

ASTM F2249, “Standard Specification for In-Service Test Methods for Temporary Grounding Jumper Assemblies Used on De-Energized Electric Power Lines and Equipment,” was initially published in 2003. It provided guidelines for inspecting and testing protective grounds. Manufacturers including Hubbell Power Systems and Hastings developed ground component testers, line testers, simulators and other PPG improvements. Hubbell also issued its encyclopedia of grounding during this period, providing a comprehensive reference on the subject.

The IEEE 1048 standard published in 1990 provided the first comprehensive guide for protective grounding of power lines. Most recently updated in 2016, it remains an excellent source of PPG information.

This period also saw the development of several methods and types of equipment that would eliminate or minimize the potential differences lineworkers might encounter. These included significant improvements in grounding equipment and procedures for wire stringing.

Conclusion
We have come a long way from the days of pulling a chain attached to a water pipe over conductors. There is no question that the subject of PPG has become increasingly complex, with the industry’s experience and research evolving over the years. This complexity underscores the continued need for effective worker training and education. One condition, however, remains the same: PPG has always been a key element of safety for work on electric power systems. It is as important today as it was 100 years ago.

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

For decades, air has been used to effectively and inexpensively maintain phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground clearances of overhead distribution and transmission power lines and electrical equipment. Air’s extremely high resistance offers excellent protection against the passage of current. The greater the nominal system voltage, the greater the air gap required to prevent a flashover and short-circuiting.

Due to its dielectric properties, air is also used to protect workers from electric shock. Incident Prevention readers who work in the electric utility industry are familiar with the term “minimum approach distance” (MAD). Workers in industries that incorporate NFPA 70E into their electrical safety programs may use the term “restricted approach boundary” (RAB). Although there are slight differences between the two, both the MAD and RAB establish a physical air gap between the qualified worker and exposed energized parts or lines to prevent the worker from inadvertent shock. Readers should note that electric utilities are not covered by the scope of NFPA 70E; however, several portions of the standard offer useful information that utility organizations may want to consider.

Two Critical Components
MAD and RAB incorporate two critical elements to keep workers safe: an electrical component followed by an ergonomic component.

The electrical component – also called the “minimum air insulation distance” or “MAID” – serves to prevent an arcover/sparkover/flashover, in which the voltage stress is greater than the dielectric strength offered by a certain spacing of air. This phenomenon is referred to as the “voltage breakdown of air” or “dielectric strength of air.” Remember that while air offers superb resistance to the passage of electric current, it has voltage-based limitations much like any other insulating material.

The ergonomic component is a safety buffer known as the “inadvertent movement factor.” It targets human error when work is performed near energized parts, mitigating simple employee mistakes, such as overconfidence, loss of situational awareness and incorrectly calculating the distance to an exposed part. This component also accounts for unexpected body movement (e.g., reaching for tools or materials, adjusting PPE, swatting at flying insects).

When the electrical and ergonomic components are combined, a corresponding MAD/RAB is determined. Figure 1 shows the MAD/RAB of the worker’s body in relationship to an exposed energized part.

OSHA’s MAD can be derived via two methods. The first is to employ mathematical calculations. For elevations up to 3,000 feet, use Table R-3 (AC voltages) or Table R-8 (DC voltages) found in 29 CFR 1910.269. Calculations for elevations above 3,000 feet must include an altitude correction factor along with overvoltage transient considerations for voltages greater than 72.5 kV. The second method is to utilize the alternative distances listed in Table R-6 for voltages of 72.5 kV and less; for 72.6 kV to 800 kV, use Table R-7.

NFPA 70E’s RAB distances are predetermined values located in Table 130.4(E)(a) for AC systems and Table 130.4(E)(b) for DC systems. The distances listed in both the OSHA and NFPA tables are limited to work locations with a maximum elevation of 3,000 feet.

Crossing the MAD/RAB: Prescriptive Action Required
As mentioned, the MAD/RAB is established to prevent unintentional contact by providing an adequate safe work zone between the worker and the energized exposed parts. Crossing the MAD/RAB must be treated the same as making intentional contact with the energized parts.

This important point needs to be emphasized: The purpose of the MAD/RAB is to prevent unintentional contact – but entering the MAD/RAB must be treated as making intentional contact.

That is because both OSHA 1910.269(l)(3)(iii) and NFPA 70E 130.4(G) establish prescriptive actions to be taken before a qualified electrical worker is permitted to violate the MAD/RAB: either the worker is insulated from the exposed energized parts, or the exposed energized parts are insulated from the worker.

The first action is accomplished when the worker dons voltage-rated rubber gloves with protectors and, if necessary, rubber sleeves. To complete the second action, install voltage-rated rubber blankets and/or hose sleeves over the exposed parts. An old industry saying – “Rubber up or cover up” – was birthed from this regulatory mandate.

Easy Concept or Confusing Directive?
For most voltages, the OSHA and NFPA 70E tables define a specific minimum spacing listed in feet or meters. The greater the voltage exposure, the greater the distance needed to protect the worker. This is true with most MADs/RABs. An exception occurs in the two standards where increments of length establishing a physical gap have been replaced with this ambiguous phrase: “Avoid contact.”

In Appendix B to 1910.269, “Working on Exposed Energized Parts,” OSHA includes the following footnote: “For voltages of 50 to 300 volts, Table R-3 specifies a minimum approach distance of ‘avoid contact.’ The minimum approach distance for this voltage range contains neither an electrical component nor an ergonomic component.” That means no safety buffer exists. OSHA applies “avoid contact” from 50 to 300 volts, while NFPA 70E applies it from 50 to 150 volts.

At face value, “avoid contact” may appear to be an easy safety concept that needs no explanation. And when electrical workers are asked what “avoid contact” means to them, “Don’t touch it” is a common response. This is logical since neither OSHA nor NFPA 70E provides a technical definition of the phrase. Without clarification, employers and workers are left to interpret its meaning on their own.

Per Merriam-Webster, “avoid” means “to keep away from”; “contact” is defined as “the junction of two electrical conductors through which a current passes.” Consequently, when OSHA and NFPA 70E use the two words together, workers are guided toward an incorrect and dangerous interpretation. They consistently interpret “avoid contact” to mean nothing more than a warning to be careful or refrain from touching an energized part.

Does a warning constitute an adequate barrier between life and death? The obvious answer is no, with fatality data supporting this position. Let’s recall that although the purpose of the MAD/RAB is to prevent unintentional contact through safety margins, crossing it requires precisely the same practices as intentionally contacting exposed energized parts. To enter the MAD/RAB, the worker is required to insulate either themselves or the parts (i.e., rubber up or cover up). Whenever practical, workers should do both.

Secondary Voltages are Hazardous
Some individuals, especially those who work around primary voltages, might think 120 volts isn’t particularly dangerous. Many of us have even said, “It’s only 120 volts” or “It’s only secondary voltage.” But when we review OSHA’s preamble to the final rule, we find that at least 25 electric utility workers died after contact with “only” 120 volts (see www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2014-04-11).

OSHA also provided this clarification in the 2014 final rule: “The hazards posed by installations energized at 50 to 300 volts are the same as those found in many other workplaces. … The employee must avoid contact with the exposed parts, and the protective equipment used (such as rubber insulating gloves) must provide insulation for the voltages involved.” This means the worker must implement some type of active countermeasures that will prevent inadvertent contact with lower yet still hazardous voltages.

This concept is better understood by reviewing Figure 2, which shows the practice of rubber up and cover up while a worker takes voltage readings of an uninsulated, overhead, single-phase 120-/240-volt line. Note that while Figure 2 depicts bare wires, workers should wear rubber gloves whenever handling energized triplex or quadruplex secondary service drops. That’s because the insulation can become brittle due to weathering and crack while being handled.

What about working with equipment housed inside cabinets or enclosures, as shown in Figure 3? If the task is troubleshooting a 480-volt starter, Class 0 or 00 rubber gloves are adequate to protect the worker’s hands within the RAB of 12 inches. But in this example, are gloves alone adequate to protect the rest of the body? The answer is no due to the exposed parts mounted on the inside of the hinged door. Door hardware is normally energized at 120 volts, so the corresponding electric shock distance is “avoid contact.” If the worker’s understanding is “don’t touch it,” they would likely position their body to avoid touching the door-mounted components behind them. However, the worker could lose focus, become distracted and then step back into the door, or a breeze could move or close the door on the worker. Although the worker’s intention was to avoid contact, inadvertent contact occurs due to unconsidered factors.

A worker who understands the following is likely to take the action necessary to avoid making contact:

• The risks and severity of contact with secondary voltages.
• The purpose of the MAD or RAB (i.e., to avoid inadvertent contact with energized parts).
• The regulatory requirements that must be met to cross the MAD or RAB, either intentionally or unintentionally.

By placing a voltage-rated sheet or blanket over the exposed door parts, as shown in Figure 4, the worker prevents accidental contact and fulfills the MAD/RAB entry requirement to insulate exposed energized parts from themselves.

Conclusion
Electrical workers must be trained to understand that “avoid contact” does not simply mean “don’t touch it.” Workers also must be taught to properly respect secondary voltages, which can pose extreme health and safety hazards, including death. This pragmatic approach will help employers bridge knowledge gaps and reduce the number of preventable industry accidents and injuries.

About the Author: George T. Cole, CUSP, CESCP, CESW, CIT, SGE, is an instructor and electrical safety consultant for e-Hazard. Reach him at george.cole@e-hazard.com.

Arc flash labels are a commonplace requirement for photovoltaic (PV) projects. However, arc flash studies and the resulting labels are sometimes treated as check-the-box exercises. In my experience as an engineer, I have found that questions are rarely asked regarding integration of PV arc flash labels into a safe, effective operations and maintenance plan. Engineers who charge by the man-hour can generate these labels all day long, yet they aren’t the ones tasked with donning PPE to perform hot work. A fundamental link is missing in terms of safety.

Essentially, arc flash labels provide employees with critical PPE information when work must be performed near energized electrical equipment. But this could make hot work on energized electrical systems sound routine – and it shouldn’t be, ever.

Consider this scenario that a safety expert presented to students during an electrical safety training class in Baghdad: There is heavy nighttime fighting. After shrapnel cuts power lines to a hospital, the emergency generators don’t start. Do you rush to splice the wires back together, hot, because lives are at stake, time is of the essence, and the task is relatively simple?

The safety expert’s recommended response? An emphatic “no.” Unforeseen hazardous conditions could lead to worker injury or death and additional equipment damage in addition to prolonging the outage.

The bottom line here for workers is to perform assigned tasks de-energized whenever possible. Fully inspect and test to determine the scope of work. Make the necessary repairs, check again, and then safely re-energize. No shortcuts.

A Troubling Perspective
Occasionally a client will say they do not want to see PPE categories above Level 3, which is troubling for two reasons. One, if a job requires live troubleshooting, Level 3 PPE may not adequately protect workers. Two, the client’s perspective excludes any mention of the other five levels of the hierarchy of controls (i.e., elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering controls and administrative controls), plus it disregards the fact that certain arc flash hazards may be built into a system based on equipment selection long before the engineer of record begins their design work.

As most readers understand, PPE is a critical component of hazard protection for workers, but it is also their last line of defense. Employers that adhere to industry best practices use the other five levels of the hierarchy of controls to eliminate or mitigate identified worksite hazards, including arc flash risks.

Regarding equipment selection, I recommend that organizations seek and fully consider guidance from reputable, experienced engineers. For example, we may suggest that instead of building a 4,000-kWac system, the company should split it into two 2,000-kVA medium-voltage transformers powering 2,000-kW inverters. Why? If the client chooses a single 4,000-kVA transformer feeding a single 4,000-kW central inverter, they are guaranteed extremely high AC and DC arc flash energies on at least one side of the overcurrent protective devices.

How Bad is the Worst Case?
Engineers will occasionally fixate on identifying worst-case scenarios, examining more factors than necessary. But once we know the worst case, what should we do with that information? While some peer-reviewed industry papers cover worst-case scenarios from every conceivable angle, two IEEE papers reference real-world testing results that indicate true arc flash levels are two to 10 times lower than those calculated by standard methods (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9658515 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10188331).

Recently, I’ve seen client specifications for PV projects that require use of the Paukert method to calculate DC arc flash values. Some software packages offer users a choice between three major calculation methods (i.e., maximum power, Stokes/Oppenlander or Paukert). Unfortunately, a 2020 IEEE paper states that “none of the available DC arc-flash models are applicable for a PV plant” (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9181477). No recommended industry calculation methodologies have been adopted at the time of this article’s publication.

We can’t escape AC grid energy at any time of day, but we can escape most DC energy by avoiding noontime maintenance, even if avoiding peak power could result in longer clearing times by protective devices.

‘Routine’ Troubleshooting
Industry articles mention that arc flash labels are useful when selecting PPE for routine troubleshooting work. Again, while it is essential for workers to use PPE based on their hazard exposure, employers must strongly consider adjusting work practices and system designs to eliminate any need for routine troubleshooting.

Here is an example to help you understand what I mean. Few PV entities manage all the stages of a system’s life cycle (i.e., design, build, own and operate), which could explain their reluctance to invest in string monitoring versus the default design of zone monitoring only at the combiner-box or inverter level. Even with standard combiner-box monitoring, modern artificial intelligence systems can determine if a problem exists with one or more strings. Eventually, a site investigation will be needed to check every string in the combiner box because AI is not granular enough to do it, adding an hour or more to the on-site discovery time. Investing in additional instrumentation that more efficiently identifies problematic strings typically pays for itself by eliminating a “routine” safety hazard while also decreasing the number of truck rolls and employee time spent on-site.

Some inverters now provide IV curve tracing as a built-in feature. Unlike humans, this test equipment does not get tired after a long day of work in extreme heat or cold, which is helpful in accurately identifying and reporting anomalies.

A great number of AC circuit breakers in the main collection panels can be procured with full Modbus sensors and communication, which may sound like a luxury, but consider a worker who over-torques inverter cables at the circuit breakers. Localized heating begins to cause intermittent breaker trips, necessitating lengthy visits from an electrician to take multiple clamp-on meter readings. Now the cost may no longer seem excessive. If a bus voltage needs to be tested – a task that typically requires suiting up and opening the rear of a panelboard – why not spend $500 or less to install indicating lights and test jacks that are accessible from outside the panelboard?

From my perspective, a sizable portion of the money invested in hardware for PV projects could be diverted to safety enhancements with no adverse impact on production or total capital costs. Beyond PPE, use elimination, substitution, isolation, and engineering and administrative controls to eradicate any need for routine troubleshooting. A change in mindset is all that is required.

Two-Level PPE Systems
The following table shows some typical arc flash energy levels for major PV project components based on a review of 12 different PV projects. Most of the projects were in the community solar space of 2 to 5 MWac and a 1.3 to 1.5 DC/AC ratio.

Many facilities, recognizing the complexity of arc flash labels, have implemented a two-level PPE system. The first level is a Category 2 (8 cal/cm²) standard work uniform that also requires gloves, a face shield and other PPE as needed. The second is full Category 4 PPE for the rare occasions when Class 3 or 4 work is necessary. Without retraining, most employees can remember their regular uniform plus gloves and a face shield without issue.

Since there is little variation in arc flash energy levels among similar PV projects – and they are all quite similar – it may be relatively easy to establish a common set of practical arc flash labels for a given fleet of solar projects. Looking at the table above, they should prohibit hot work on any AC equipment upstream of the string inverters. All DC equipment is in the realm of typical Category 2 work clothes. That lower energy risk can be further reduced by work practices and their timing.

Conclusion
Engineers can calculate short-circuit currents and produce arc flash labels at any time, but they aren’t frequently consulted to assist in converting their dedicated efforts into safe, effective work practices. Arc flash labels don’t provide any guarantees, and human performance is far more critical to safety than the presence of a few labels. Ideally, PV owners will continue to use arc flash labels while also developing work methods and investing in equipment to ensure worker exposure to energized system components is a rare occurrence – one that requires a thorough preliminary review and a written hot-work permit.

About the Author: Joe Jancauskas, P.E., CUSP, PMP, has over 40 years of electrical power engineering experience, including 16 years in solar. He has been responsible for numerous arc flash studies as well as implementing an effective arc flash program for an electric utility.

The first four articles in this six-part series outlined the significance of an organizational safety management system (SMS) that involves all employees. They emphasized effective risk mitigation through a well-developed plan for continuous improvement, with a focus on human and organizational performance.

This article highlights critical operational processes that must be thoroughly assessed and refined to support organizational safety. Every operational unit must take proactive ownership of its safety protocols and practices, actively integrating safety measures into all aspects of its operational processes. By integrating safety into daily routines, each unit fosters a culture of responsibility and prioritizes employee safety.

This article also highlights key aspects from my experience in the electric power industry. We will follow the framework provided by ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems,” which addresses the following areas relative to implementation and operation:

• Operational planning and control
• Identification of operational issues
• Operational risk assessment
• Change management
• Operational process verification
• Procurement
• Contractors
• Emergency preparedness

I encourage readers to consider topics not covered in this article – including operational process verification and emergency preparedness – to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the principles associated with the Z10 standard.

Operational Planning and Control
This section of the standard emphasizes a crucial aspect of how organizations equip their employees for success.

Rules and procedures. Let’s begin by discussing the implementation of rules and procedures in the workplace. As a consultant, I have consistently encountered missing or ineffective procedures and/or rules during organizational safety assessments. Safety rules that reference OSHA regulations hold little value if there are no clear procedures defining what is expected to comply with those rules. One example is stating in the safety manual that equipotential zone grounding is required without clearly explaining how to achieve it within all aspects of work. Rules and procedures must provide clear directions so that employees know what is expected of them and can successfully comply.

Competency. Ensuring the competency of employees plays an extremely important role in an effective SMS. An employee isn’t necessarily competent just because they attended school or received specific training. Competency is based on the employee’s ability to demonstrate a specific skill on a regular basis, using all required safety procedures in response to identified hazards. I purposely included “regular basis” in the previous sentence because some employees can pass written and practical tests immediately after training but struggle when performing those tasks later in the field.

Additionally, competency should never be solely based on field experience and time on the job. Although both are important factors, they must be paired with a structured method to ensure employee competency through the demonstration of proficiency. It is crucial to remember that this principle also applies when organizations promote employees to leadership positions. Seniority should never be the only reason to promote someone who will be responsible for safely leading others.

Maintenance and inspection programs. These programs are essential SMS components that should encompass electrical and mechanical equipment as well as other critical systems that require regular maintenance to ensure safety. National codes, such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the National Electrical Code, emphasize the importance of electrical equipment maintenance for both employee safety and system reliability. Many organizations adhere to manufacturer recommendations for maintenance; however, some have neglected inspections and maintenance for years. When equipment and systems are not adequately cared for, the risk of hazards significantly increases, potentially impacting employees’ ability to work safely. I believe that strong maintenance and inspection programs are imperative for an organization to achieve safety success.

Identification of Operational Issues
The main directive of this section of the Z10 standard is to evaluate whether the organization has (1) conducted a thorough assessment of its work processes and (2) adopted improved methods, tools, equipment, installations, designs and technologies suitable for today’s workforce. As an industry consultant, I believe electric power organizations must stay informed about and adaptable to innovations that can enhance workplace safety and efficiency.

An example I recently encountered involved employees working in a remote area with no access to radio or cellphone service. This is a serious operational issue, even if some workers view it as normal. Should an electrical contact or other serious injury occur, the affected employees would have little chance of receiving life-sustaining support. I consider this unacceptable. Known communication challenges require immediate operational evaluation and improvement based on available tools, equipment, rescue supplies and technology.

Numerous organizations fall into the trap of accepting the status quo without questioning it, adopting a mentality of “this is the way it is.” This mindset fails to recognize the critical nature of regularly evaluating and improving the methods and practices that support employees, thus risking serious operational upsets. Organizational leaders should actively seek to identify areas for improvement, implement innovative strategies and foster an environment in which employees know their feedback is valued.

Operational Risk Assessment
Here is something else that leaders must consider: Have each of the organization’s operational units taken the necessary steps to identify high-risk jobs by asking, “What are the worst things that could happen on our worksites?” Let’s be honest: While many operational leaders acknowledge this concept, their discussions sometimes overlook employee safety. Earlier in this series, I explored the distinction between planned work and actual work. These two activities represent distinct realities in the workplace. Frequently, operational processes and discussions focus on how work is theoretically done, neglecting the actual execution by field employees.

According to the Z10 standard, an operational risk assessment should consider organizational factors that can increase risk, such as production pressures, poor communication and lack of resources. Here is a possible scenario: A contractor has been hired to build a new substation for a utility. While on-site, the contractor receives a request for emergent work: replacing equipment in an energized substation located within 5 miles of the existing work. Should the contractor dispatch additional personnel with the necessary expertise to work in an energized substation, or should they assign the project to existing staff with limited experience in that environment?

If this were a real scenario, many decisions would influence the answer. They are frequently made based on the project’s financial aspects for both the utility and the contractor, rather than the risks involved. Such situations often stem from a widespread culture of risk acceptance that overlooks the potential negative consequences of these decisions.

Change Management
Has your organization recently implemented a new work method or safety rule that has created confusion among employees, causing them to revert to previous practices? This is common in organizations that lack a structured strategy to effectively communicate and manage change.

Operational units often communicate change during safety or operational meetings. Consider, for example, an organization that purchases a new distribution line recloser. The recloser is introduced during a safety meeting, where its basic functions and safety requirements are explained. Several days later, employees are tasked with troubleshooting an area where the new recloser is located, despite having little knowledge about its design, installation or operation. While changes are commonly introduced at safety meetings, my professional experience suggests that they are only effective when paired with employee skills training and proficiency demonstrations based on specific task requirements.

After identifying significant opportunities to enhance their change-management processes, many large organizations have appointed personnel explicitly tasked with addressing them. Regardless of whether your organization has such specialized personnel, it is essential to clearly understand how change is identified, assessed and managed. This includes recognizing the potential impact of change on various operational units and ensuring that all team members are prepared to adapt. Effective management reduces resistance to change while also fostering safety culture growth within the organization. By actively involving all stakeholders and clearly communicating the reasons for change, organizations can more smoothly integrate new practices and policies.

Procurement
Does your organization effectively incorporate procurement into its safety and risk management planning? To illustrate procurement’s critical role, let’s continue examining the line recloser example provided above. In that scenario, the procurement department identifies a new line recloser that has been successfully adopted by several other utilities, as communicated by the sales team. The purchasing team decides to acquire 25 units for evaluation, aiming to determine whether the reclosers will perform as promised and enhance operational efficiency.

However, a significant oversight occurs: no risk assessment is conducted prior to the acquisition, and there is no clear strategy to integrate the new devices into the organization’s existing operational framework. This could lead to implementation challenges, particularly if the new technology does not align with current processes or safety protocols.

Scenarios like this one are common in organizations that fail to involve their procurement department in operational risk assessments and safety planning. This lack of collaboration can result in the purchase of new equipment that does not meet safety standards or operational needs, ultimately leading to unnecessary risks and complications in the field. To ensure a safer, more efficient operational environment, it is vital to implement a comprehensive approach that includes procurement in these discussions.

Contractors
It is also essential for utility organizations and contractors to establish a comprehensive safety management standard that effectively addresses the unique safety requirements of contractors, tailored to their respective risks. The Z10 standard emphasizes the necessity of developing a systematic approach to identify, assess and mitigate potential safety and health risks associated with contract work. This process enhances safety performance and fosters a proactive organizational safety culture.

When engaging contractors, electric power organizations have historically adopted a somewhat hands-off approach. This traditional method typically involves evaluating incident rates, confirming insurance limits and mandating adherence to OSHA standards. However, my experience indicates that these measures alone are insufficient to effectively mitigate the risks a host organization may face, particularly in the event of a catastrophe.

To address this, it is imperative to move beyond basic compliance. Organizations should conduct thorough prequalification processes, including assessing a contractor’s safety management system, past safety performance and safety training practices. Additionally, implementing regular safety audits and ongoing performance evaluations can help organizations ensure that contractors maintain high safety standards throughout the contract’s duration. Engaging in open communication and collaboration with contractors regarding safety expectations can lead to a deeper understanding of risks and the shared responsibility for safety outcomes. By adopting a more integrated and rigorous approach to contractor safety management, utility organizations can significantly enhance their ability to safeguard their employees and the public from potential hazards.

Summary
This article emphasizes the importance of thoroughly assessing and refining critical operational processes to embed and support safety within utility organizations. It highlights the ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019 standard as a framework for implementing an effective SMS, focusing on areas such as operational planning, operational risk assessment, change management, procurement and contractor oversight. By fully integrating safety into all aspects of operations and fostering a culture of accountability, organizations can better protect their workforce and improve system reliability.

About the Author: Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, is president and CEO of SET Solutions LLC. She is a 40-year veteran of the electric utility industry, a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network and past chair of the USOLN executive board. Tompkins worked in the utility industry for over 20 years and has provided electric power safety consulting for the last 25 years. An OSHA-authorized instructor, she has supported utilities, contractors and other organizations operating electric power systems in designing and maintaining safety improvement methods and strategies for organizational excellence.

There is an elephant in the room that plays a role in the safety culture of our industry. That elephant needs to be exposed, even though it’s going to be tough to do.

Based on a less-than-official count, 12 to 14 lineworkers have lost their lives on the job over the past six months. The estimate is “less than official” because no dependable central recordkeeping authority exists other than OSHA, and OSHA can’t post an incident until they have either closed the investigation or formally cited the employer.

Some of you reading this have experienced a co-worker being killed on the job. In most cases, there is an emotional period afterward during which we process the event, grieve our lost brother or sister, and feel a great deal of concern and compassion for their family. But after a short time, that person becomes a singular part of the work location’s unfortunate history. I know there are exceptions to that rule. Still, a deceased employee’s co-workers are rarely privy to everything that takes place after a lineworker is fatally injured.

A Unique Perspective
I have a unique perspective on deadly industry incidents. For the past 25 years, I have served as an industry expert in both OSHA and civil litigations, some of which didn’t begin until three to five years after the incident. In each case, I examine every exhibit related to both the incident itself and the post-incident investigation. I review the employer’s investigation, the OSHA investigation, the coroner’s report and the reports from local law enforcement. I also investigate the incident myself. Lastly, I compare all this data to statutory safety requirements, consensus standards and best practices, as well as the employer’s training and safety programs, records and manuals.

At the time I am writing this, I am keeping files for more than 40 fatal industry incidents. “Fatal industry incidents” is a more palatable way of referring to lineworkers who were killed on the job. I want to offer iP readers details about all 40-plus incidents so that they are shared industrywide, helping to prevent them from ever happening again. But as a consultant and expert witness, I routinely sign nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements that are in effect throughout litigation and into perpetuity. Here is a tip, though: If you really want to know what happened in a specific case and have the name of the injured or deceased worker, you can search for it on OSHA’s Fatality Inspection Data page (www.osha.gov/fatalities).

Very few employers or employee groups know how to react when a fatal incident occurs at their worksite. Defensive tactics are one thing I have found common in every instance. Obviously, as an employer, it is a gut-punch to have an employee die on the job. I have witnessed heads of companies in tears during post-incident factual reviews. But they still have companies to lead, so decisions must be made about what to say and do. Then there are the co-workers. It is human nature to want to defend the memory of the deceased and be sympathetic and caring toward their family.

Yet time and again, I have found myself on the witness stand, sharing pointed observations about fatal industry incidents with both plaintiff and defense attorneys. I use industry standards to back up my observations, explaining the exact errors people made that resulted in death. Families of the deceased are almost always in the gallery during my testimony, listening. Two things in particular bother me about these circumstances. First, I know the family is being forced to endure the pain of their loss once again. Second, it is possible that the worker’s death and the resulting litigation could have been avoided entirely if the industry had honestly, publicly confronted its bad actions and actors.

And that brings us back to the elephant in the room.

Problematic Actions and Behaviors
Most readers are familiar with the idiom, but for those who aren’t, “the elephant in the room” refers to a significant if not obvious issue that people are reluctant to address because the discussion will almost certainly be uncomfortable. The specific elephant I’m referring to in these pages is our general refusal to candidly discuss problematic industry actions and behaviors – and it is hindering us from preventing incidents that seriously injure or kill workers.

On social media, I constantly see videos of crews doing stupid stuff. I decided to start a personal PowerPoint collection of photos snipped from these videos, which I use in my consulting work when explaining to lawyers what we do out on the line and the things that were done incorrectly in our cases. In less than a year, I have gathered 75 images of dangerous work methods, even if some of them don’t technically violate any OSHA rules. You might be curious about how I chose those images. Clearly, I think the actions in the videos are wrong, but I was primarily motivated to select the images because each of them features an activity that also killed a lineworker in one of my many files. Keep in mind that these instances aren’t obscure in nature; they routinely occur in the field and bear repeated responsibility for avoidable incidents. Several of my colleagues who also serve as litigation consultants have the same opinion and experience as I do. And while I have commented on these social media videos, my input was not appreciated by numerous industry workers. That disrespect is precisely how the elephant in the room continues to endanger our workforce.

Conclusion
Some companies and employees have taken on the very serious work of honestly evaluating incidents without any preconceived notions or hidden agendas. I have attended dozens of meetings with utilities and contractors during which honest conversations were had about what happened and how they got to that point. The discussions led to subtle changes in training, protocols, rules and accountability that will almost certainly have a lasting impact on the safety and health of the workforce.

We can grieve the loss of an employee and be sympathetic toward their family while also telling the truth about what happened. These actions are not mutually exclusive. Yet rarely have I investigated a fatal incident that did not involve co-workers who were reticent to share their versions of what happened. Some have even gone as far as covering for mistakes that were made.

The bottom line is that it does no one any good if we don’t learn the real lessons that an honest incident evaluation can provide. We also do a disservice to the deceased worker’s memory when we take a less-than-candid approach to the investigation. The only positive outcome from an on-the-job fatality is ensuring that it can never happen again – because we learned lessons by being completely truthful and then passed the lessons on to the next generation of lineworkers.

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

For over 17 years, I have had the distinct privilege of writing for Incident Prevention magazine. I am genuinely honored that iP continues to publish my articles. My first column was about the four principles of distribution cover-up. At last count, I had written and submitted more than 100 articles over the years. During that time, many of my industry associates have also expressed interest in contributing to the magazine. To them and anyone else who wants to share their industry knowledge, I have and will always recommend contacting Kate Wade, iP’s editor, at kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com. She provides guidance about the submission and publication process and can answer any specific questions you might have.

If you are entertaining the idea of submitting an article, there is information I want you to know about what is required. Writing for a publication that is read around the world can be an intimidating task. You must do your homework. I have had many discussions with industry colleagues regarding their thoughts on work practices, regulations and standards. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but writing for a trade publication like iP requires identifying the correct reference materials and best practices. You must consider OSHA standards as well as the National Electrical Safety Code, ASTM and ANSI standards, and NFPA 70E (note: workers must follow 70E when maintaining low-voltage electrical systems inside buildings owned and operated by utilities).

When I first joined the safety world, Jerry Cates, Jim Lancour, Billy Carver and the safety staff I worked with helped me sort out the relevant codes and standards, teaching me the relationships between them and how they apply to industry work practices. You, too, must understand these things to craft an article that provides readers with valuable safety information meeting all the requirements industry employers are legally bound to uphold. iP has protocols in place to verify the accuracy of the articles contained within its pages – which I will cover a little later – yet it is also incumbent upon contributors to submit technically accurate documents.

Research, Verify, Write
I keep myself informed by reading often and listening to various podcasts. Part of my process is taking time to verify the accuracy of what I have read and heard. That is because I discovered long ago that even the slightest deviation from reality can create a great deal of confusion, something I encountered again just recently as I was reading an article about maintaining clearances. Here is my concern. A civil case I once consulted on involved both the improper selection of procedures and failure to follow the procedures while establishing a clearance, resulting in severe worker injuries and allegations of PPE failure. The investigation made it glaringly apparent why the accident and injuries occurred. I questioned how the employees identified the chosen procedures, the reasons they were not followed, and why no one – including the supervisor in charge of the crew who allowed all the errors to occur – asked questions about what was happening. Was there a lack of training? Was this a human performance issue? Could the crew members have read an article online or in a magazine that proffered erroneous information? Were they influenced by one of the many social media posts that highlight incorrect, unsafe industry work practices? The point here is that field employees can be directly influenced by what they see, hear and read.

That leads me back to my earlier statement. If you are thinking about writing an article for iP, you must start with research. Review the industry’s accident statistics. Consider which work methods appear to be the most misunderstood. For instance, I have found that 29 CFR 1910.269(l), (m) and (n) are the OSHA regulations that most perplex my clients. Paragraphs (p) and (q) are occasionally mystifying as well. As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of distribution cover-up and system grounding, which are the training programs my clients request most. But how much cover is enough? Multiple options exist for system and equipment grounding. Which ones are best? I typically choose the most conservative. Of course, when forming my opinions, I study the facts of the investigations and lawsuits I have consulted on over the last 18 years. They have educated me about the myriad ways employees misapply work practices and standards. Some industry professionals have said they do not agree with my opinions. Others have told me they have been doing cover-up or grounding their way for years and nothing bad has happened. That is all well and good. However, there is real risk involved when someone who does not fully comprehend the industry’s regulations and standards writes about them with the intention of helping readers safely control worksite hazards and mitigate risk.

The fact that many iP readers are interested in contributing to the magazine is a wonderful thing. Our industry can gain valuable and much-needed information and insight when workers share their experiences. Occasionally, though, writers submit articles to iP containing opinions that do not align with the minimum regulatory requirements we all must meet. The magazine welcomes writers’ opinions regarding task performance, but they cannot contradict OSHA standards.

iP’s Editorial Advisory Board
For all the reasons I have noted above, each article published in iP magazine is first reviewed by a dedicated editorial advisory board to ensure the accuracy of its contents. Currently serving as board members are Garrett Bush (Pike Enterprises); Rod Courtney (PowerGrid Services); Matt Edmonds (SET Solutions); Nazir Fazli (Los Angeles Department of Water & Power); George Gela (Berkshire Electric Transmission Consulting); and Mack Turner and Jim Vaughn (Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction). I am friendly with this group and have complete confidence in their efforts to ensure every iP magazine article fully aligns with our industry’s regulations and standards.

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

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

Q: We hear lots of opinions about whether a lineworker can lift a hot-line clamp that has a load on it. There is a rule that says disconnects must be rated for the load they are to break. We’ve been doing it forever. Are we breaking an OSHA rule or not?

A: We have answered this question before, but it won’t hurt to revisit it and use this opportunity to explain how OSHA analyzes a scenario to determine if it’s a regulatory violation. Most objections to operating a hot-line clamp (HLC) under load are based on 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(12)(i), which states that the “employer shall ensure that devices used by employees to open circuits under load conditions are designed to interrupt the current involved.” Some utilities prohibit operating HLCs energized, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Incident Prevention’s objective is to enlighten and educate the industry, not to judge an employer’s operational rules.

On its face, the rule seems to prohibit the use of an HLC to break load. Anyone could argue, then, that any operation of an HLC must be dead-break since HLC manufacturers offer no load-break value. However, when analyzing the intent of the rule, there are a couple points to consider.

First, if a non-rated HLC can’t be lifted under load, what about a dropout switch? We operate those thousands of times a day without employee injury, although sometimes an ill-advised operation does smoke a pole top. There is nothing in the rules that prohibits an employer or employee from making an informed and experience-based decision. The employer can – and should – establish criteria or protocols for operating HLCs or dropouts under certain load conditions. Primarily, the employer’s determination would be based on risk to the equipment and the employee. OSHA’s primary consideration is risk to the employee. As with the working-alone rule, there would be no violation if the device were operated by a hot stick from a position that prevented employee injury.

Second, what would be the solution to this scenario? If it required jumping out a jumper and installing a load-break switch, would that operation create additional risk exposure for the crew? Further, would adding the switch truly enhance the safety of the operation? In the very worst case, this scenario (i.e., operating the HLC under load) could be ruled a de minimis violation. Such a violation indicates that although OSHA recognizes a direct rule was broken, there was no other way – or no safer way – to execute the task, nor was there any risk to the employee. Regarding equipment damage, we try to operate without burning anything down, but OSHA’s bottom line is employee safety. The agency is not concerned with pole-top fires or system relays so long as no one is at risk of being injured.

Q: Setting up bucket trucks on slopes is a common issue, so why doesn’t OSHA provide any guidance about it?

A: Part of the answer is that OSHA doesn’t tell employers how to perform tasks. Though the most recent rulemaking has occasionally leaned toward dictating procedures, historically the rules have been written to tell the employer what must be accomplished in certain scenarios – not how to accomplish it. OSHA resorts to appendices when they want to tell us how to do something. The appendices contain procedural language, such as this statement found in Appendix C to 1910.269: “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will consider employers that comply with the criteria in this appendix as meeting § 1910.269(n)(3).” There is no specific OSHA guidance about truck setups on slopes. In the absence of a specific rule, under the General Duty Clause, the employer is expected to ensure safe equipment operation in the workplace under all conceivable conditions. The manufacturer is the employer’s most obvious resource for information about safe operation.

Regarding equipment and tool use, OSHA frequently references manufacturer design specifications throughout the rules. In any equipment incident, the manufacturer is the first place OSHA compliance officers will go. Employers may have competent engineers making determinations, but an employer’s policy for setting up a piece of equipment should be strictly governed by the manufacturer’s operator manual. It will list the maximum safe slope angle and the recommended orientation of the vehicle to the slope. And while it isn’t as common in utilities, many construction crews have a dozer on-site; provided there are no environmental considerations, an operator can cut a flat on which to set-lift equipment.

Q: We were recently discussing whether to ground equipment operating in a substation. If the station rock bed is good, how much electrical isolation does it provide? Is that reliable as protection from step and touch?

A: Understanding the purpose of the rock bed and how grids are designed will give you a good basis for developing your safe work plans. The resistivity of crushed rock used in substations is about 3000Ω-m depending on material, sieve size and condition. That crushed rock is part of a system of protection devised to conduct faults to earth, limit voltage rise across the station, and control potential gradients across the surface of the earth inside the station. In one sense, the ground grid acts like a large equipotential mat except that unlike the mat – which is a floating plane parallel connected to a conductive circuit – the substation grid is grounded at numerous points and serves as a series-conducting electrode, passing fault current into the earth. The grid itself is designed to meet grounding and fault-conducting duty and, in conjunction with earth’s resistance, an equipotential plane.

Still, at the speed of light, there are instantaneous differences across the mat that can create voltage rises between any two points. The three functions mentioned above are mostly accomplished by the grounds and grid installed and the layer of compressed earth over the grid. The rock layer’s resistivity is another buffer intended to keep the voltage gradient at a tolerable level in the event of a fault in the station. The risk of step potential depends on a worker’s proximity to the current source and the magnitude of the fault. A well-designed system has very low resistance to earth. The isolating rock layer provides resistance between the grid and walking surface, further reducing voltage rise between the worker’s feet. The design calculations are complex and based on relatively reliable assumptions, as evidenced by the thousands of hours personnel have spent in stations without incidents related to step potential.

However, grids do sustain damage, and rock decomposes and becomes contaminated. We cannot recommend using the rock layer as a principal means of protection since it can’t be tested to ensure it is providing isolation. The grid can protect against step potentials, but if your equipment contacts an energized bus in the station, touch potentials between your truck and the grid still exist. We advise treating the equipment operating in the station just as you would in the field. Use barricades to denote clearances, and keep your equipment isolated from touch while booms are in the air.

Q: We are a contractor that performs substation and transmission construction in the eastern U.S. Several of our clients have asked about our lockout/tagout program. We are exempt from LOTO in terms of overhead lines, but what about in substations?

A: We are not exempt from the requirements of hazardous energy control. “Lockout/tagout” is part of the issue; the term is somewhat foreign to the transmission and distribution side of the utility industry. OSHA’s 1910.269 standard has energy control requirements in parts (d) and (m) that are especially designed for the peculiarities of the industry, but that doesn’t mean we are exempt from 1910.147, “The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout),” common to all other industries. For every workplace, there is a basic requirement that the employer must perform analysis and create compliant, workplace-specific procedures to implement hazardous energy control. Transmission and distribution equipment in the field does not have lockable switches except where a switch’s mechanical or motor operators are at ground level.

In generation and substations, many devices are equipped and must meet the locking or tagging provisions of 1910.269(d), “Hazardous energy control (lockout/tagout) procedures.” Notice the term “lockout/tagout” in parentheses.

Lastly, the note to 1910.269(d)(1) states the following: “Installations in electric power generation facilities that are not an integral part of, or inextricably commingled with, power generation processes or equipment are covered under §1910.147 and Subpart S of this part.” OSHA 1910.147 is the old General Industry lockout/tagout standard, and Subpart S is the General Industry electrical standard. Appendix A to 1910.147 includes the minimal requirements for a typical program.

On a related note, by most interpretations, those parts of the plant not inextricably linked to the generation of electricity are shops, warehouses, meeting/training/office spaces and maintenance areas.

To recap, all employers must identify hazardous sources of energy and then provide means to isolate and control them. Once the hazards and control methods are established, the employer communicates the procedures and, as necessary, provides training on how to install the control devices. If an energy source can be locked out, it must have a lock installed unless the employer can ensure that tagging alone is an effective alternative. In the field, controls must be implemented so that system operations and employee safeguards are as reliable as installing locks.

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.

Think before you act.

That may be the single best piece of timeless wisdom we ever receive, especially when it comes to safety. And while it’s a simple concept, it’s not always our natural response, potentially presenting difficulties during job execution and task performance.

Keeping in mind that safety tools are designed to give us time to think, focus our attention properly and help us maintain positive control of our tasks, we must identify actions and conditions that indicate the need for them. These actions and conditions are verbal and physical triggers that can be used as reminders to pause and ensure we have verified assumptions and implemented task-specific safety plans for the work being performed.

“Hold my beer and watch this!” is one of my favorite verbal triggers. The statement indicates uncertainty and abnormal risk tolerance, presenting an opportunity – typically a very brief window of time – to stop ourselves and think before we act. Hopefully we never hear the hold-my-beer statement at work. These are some examples of what you are more likely to hear, especially if you are actively listening:

• “I think …”
• “It might …”
• “Let’s try it and see what happens.”
• “We’ve always done it this way.”
• “It’s common sense.”
• “What’s the worst that could happen?”

Try These Experiments
The next time you see someone getting ready to pick up a load using lifting equipment, ask them the load weight and the equipment’s capacity. My hope is that their answer consists of two specific numbers, yet my fear is that you will hear something like, “I’m not sure, but I know it will handle this load for the next five minutes.” That’s a verbal trigger indicating the worker should stop, verify the assumption and then lift the load safely. The alternative is to continue lifting based on the assumption, which could ultimately result in rigging and equipment failures, serious injuries and even death. To stay safe and be well, it is critical to identify verbal triggers and use them as prompts to pause and think before we act.

Here are a couple more brief experiments to try:

• Ask someone why they are using a certain work method to see if the answer is, “We’ve always done it this way.”
• The next time you finish speaking to someone, ask what they just heard you say to them. Does their response match what you intended to communicate?

The point here is to understand that humans sometimes make assumptions that require verification. Using verbal triggers to activate safety tools enables us to do just that.

Physical triggers include looks of confusion, shoulder shrugs, nonchalant body language, and misplaced focus and attention. They can also include limps, grimaces and other signs of pain that might indicate someone is unfit to perform their assigned task. As with verbal triggers, physical triggers must elicit a response and activate appropriate tools.

Conclusion
Sometimes I think we overcomplicate safety. Granted, protecting yourself in a high-hazard environment, like a permit-required confined space, might call for complex controls, but the simple practice of thinking before you act doesn’t have to be complex. I also think we rely too heavily on pre-job briefings as the entirety of our safety planning. While they are undoubtedly important, the entirety of your safety discussions and planning cannot be limited to a 10-minute briefing. Shifting from job generalizations to task-specific work planning is one key to staying safe. Verbal and physical triggers provide that opportunity.

As an industry, we pride ourselves on everyone having stop-work authority, as we should. Stop-work criteria is based on predetermined equipment and environmental conditions. For example, let’s say the wind starts blowing more than 30 mph while you are working aloft. That predetermined environmental condition would require you to cradle the bucket. I think most of us also understand that stop-work authority exists because people will naturally have questions and concerns during job execution. So, add verbal and physical triggers to stop-work training and encourage everyone to exercise their authority. In addition, practice identifying when other people have a question or concern – without them having to say anything.

We can assume or verify, hope or plan, use common sense or common knowledge, be surprised or informed, react or prevent. Most of that depends on whether we ignore or use verbal and physical triggers. You will find them everywhere if you are looking, and they will be extremely valuable if you use them to pause and think before you act. This is vital in enhancing your ability to 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. 

Verbal and Physical Triggers
November 12, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

This episode of “The Deep Dive” explores the hidden dangers of using standard synthetic ropes in high-voltage environments and the shift towards true dielectric ropes. We discuss how traditional ropes can become conductive when exposed to moisture and contaminants, turning them into a serious safety hazard. We also cover the importance of rigorous testing, proper maintenance, and the barriers to adopting this life-saving technology.

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/from-risk-to-reliability-improving-rope-safety-in-energized-environments/

Written by Patrick Barry on June 10, 2025. Posted in Worksite Safety.

Key Takeaways

• Traditional Ropes are a Hidden Danger: Standard synthetic ropes, often assumed to be non-conductive, can absorb moisture and contaminants, making them conductive and posing a significant risk in energized environments.
• True Dielectric Ropes are a System: A true dielectric rope is more than just a product; it’s a system that includes a specific design for electrical insulation, rigorous testing against global standards, and a commitment to proper maintenance throughout its lifecycle.
• Barriers to Adoption: The adoption of dielectric ropes has been slow due to factors like resistance to change, the misconception that they are only necessary for live-line work, and financial hurdles.
• Best Practices are Crucial: To ensure the safety and reliability of dielectric ropes, it’s essential to verify compliance with standards, store and maintain them properly, inspect them before each use, and provide thorough training for all workers.

Q&A

1. What is the main problem with using traditional synthetic ropes in high-voltage environments?

The main problem is that while the base material of these ropes (like polyester or polypropylene) is an insulator, the rope as a whole can absorb moisture, dirt, and oil. This contamination can make the rope conductive, turning it from a safe tool into a hidden hazard.

2. What makes a “true” dielectric rope different from a standard synthetic rope?

A true dielectric rope is designed specifically for electrical insulation from the start and is rigorously tested against global standards like IEC 62192 and ASTM F1701. These ropes are also meant to be maintained like any other critical insulating tool, with a focus on their entire lifecycle.

3. What are some of the barriers preventing the widespread adoption of dielectric ropes?

Some of the main barriers include a general resistance to change within the industry, with some believing the old ropes are “good enough”. Other barriers are the dangerous assumption that work is always de-energized, dismissing the importance of wet testing, and the financial hurdles associated with the higher upfront cost of these ropes.

#RopeSafety #ElectricalSafety #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #LinemanSafety #DielectricRope

In this episode of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Christian Connolly, CEO of Twiceme Technology, a Sweden-based smart safety company revolutionizing PPE with digital innovation. Christian shares his journey from fintech to safety tech, explains how wearable technology is transforming worker protection, and highlights Twiceme’s growing partnerships with leading PPE manufacturers like Bullard and Studson.

Listeners will learn how Twiceme is building a digital safety standard to streamline emergency response, enhance workplace efficiency, and ultimately save lives. Christian also offers a vision for the future of wearable safety technology, addressing challenges such as adoption, privacy concerns, and creating global standards for the utility industry.

If you’re interested in the intersection of safety, technology, and the future of work, this episode is a must-listen.

Key Takeaways

• Twiceme’s mission is to create a digital safety standard for PPE, enabling faster aid and fewer accidents.

• Partnerships with PPE manufacturers are critical to scaling adoption and making wearable safety technology the norm.

• Privacy concerns like HIPAA/GDPR are mitigated through local-only storage, ensuring worker control over personal data.

• Wearable safety tech adoption faces challenges (inertia, skepticism, form factor), but simplicity and usability drive success.

• Beyond safety, digital PPE solutions can deliver major cost savings and efficiency gains for utility companies.

3 Q&A for Promotion

Q1: What problem does Twiceme Technology solve for utility workers?

A1: It allows emergency responders to instantly access critical medical and contact information in the field, speeding up response times and potentially saving lives.

Q2: How does Twiceme address worker privacy concerns?

A2: All personal data is stored locally on PPE (like a helmet chip), not in a central database, giving workers full control over what information is shared.

Q3: What’s the long-term vision for wearable safety technology?

A3: To establish a universal digital safety standard across industries, reducing accidents, improving efficiency, and enhancing worker well-being worldwide.

Contact Info: christian.connolly@twiceme.com

#UtilitySafety #WearableTechnology #PPEInnovation #WorkplaceSafety #DigitalSafety #SafetyLeadership

The Flat Rack Tray is purpose-built for utility lineworkers who demand both safety and efficiency while working aloft. Its glove-friendly, humped middle section allows workers to easily grasp small parts while wearing bulky primary gloves, reducing fumbles and minimizing the risk of dropped hardware.

Designed to lay flat on a bucket liner, the tray maintains a stable, organized work surface even in challenging conditions. Its slim profile fits neatly under bucket covers for quick storage and transport, while the integrated 5/8-inch sidewalls help contain loose parts, preventing costly and hazardous drops.

Constructed from a proprietary polymer, the Flat Rack Tray is exceptionally durable, UV protected and weather resistant, ready to perform in all seasons. Integrated 3-inch hooks provide additional versatility.

By keeping tools and hardware within easy reach and secure at height, the Flat Rack Tray not only improves workflow efficiency but also supports critical jobsite safety. Rugged and lightweight, it’s designed for the demanding needs of today’s lineworkers – helping them work smarter, safer and with confidence. https://lineworkbucketproducts.com

Aircraft Dynamics offers the 360-degree Robolights LED strobe and flag holder for pole transportation safety, which utilizes 12 long-lasting LEDs to create a highly visible 60-flashes-per-minute strobe. The system is easy to deploy using a heavy-duty strap that attaches to all types of poles and sizes.

Featuring enhanced battery life, the strobe can operate for up to 1,400 hours in flash mode with two D-cell batteries, three times the industry standard, according to Aircraft Dynamics. https://aircraftdynamics.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. The company’s ArcJoule offers waterproof and breathable performance, high-visibility worker conspicuity, and 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, making it perfect for everyday use. Add the special rip-stop characteristic and you have a durable part of your work gear to get the job done. ArcJoule is currently in stock, ready to meet the demanding work environments of gas and electric utility companies. https://nascoinc.com

Youngstown Glove Co.’s 10-inch Secondary Expertex Hybrid (Part # 15-1499-10) is a new style of protector that is built to ASTM F3258 and designed to be worn over Class 0 and 00 rubber insulating gloves. ASTM F3258 opened up the protector category to new materials so long as those materials adhere to certain criteria. The idea is to allow greater innovation through the use of modern material technology. In this case, Youngstown is using high-visibility FR Nomex on the top of hand, an inherently flame-resistant knit fabric that offers excellent flexibility and a lightweight feel. The 0.6-mm sheep-grain leather palm offers near second-skin touch while maintaining adequate abrasion resistance and grip. Coupled with a rubber insulating glove, this next-generation protector achieves a new level of control for jobs that require the highest level of dexterity while maintaining electrical protection. https://ytgloves.com/products/10-secondary-expertex®-hybrid-protector

North American safety helmet innovator STUDSON has announced the availability of two new safety eyewear lines for customers: the Guardian and Watchman safety glasses. These options offer ANSI Z87+ impact certification, superior optical clarity and innovative design features.

The Guardian line features a secure fit with a classic look, incorporating an eight-base curve wrap design that provides comprehensive coverage with a lightweight feel. Multiple lens options accommodate various work environments: polycarbonate lenses for general indoor use; yellow-green mirrored polycarbonate lenses for high-glare conditions; black polarized polycarbonate lenses for enhanced visual comfort in bright conditions; and amber polarized polycarbonate lenses that provide superior contrast enhancement. All models are certified to ANSI Z87+ high-impact safety standards, Z80.3 optical clarity and safety testing, and CE certification for international compliance.

Watchman glasses are specifically built for high-output environments, combining lightweight comfort with full-wrap protection and high-contrast lenses to deliver clarity where it counts most. The line is ideal for jobsites, industrial facilities and demanding contractor use, featuring an ANSI Z87+ impact rating with anti-scratch and anti-fog coating. These glasses include a durable yet featherlight polycarbonate frame, comfort-grip nosepiece and temples, and an unrestricted field of view that allows workers to maintain full situational awareness. https://studson.com

When past winters were settling in, my family always took comfort with homemade cocoa. Last winter, one instance of preparing the hot beverage turned into a lesson about the nature of mistakes and the importance of planning for them. As my children worked together in the kitchen, one of my older daughters inadvertently spilled cocoa on one of her favorite sweaters. I stepped in, ready to help, and decided to soak the stained sweater in our utility sink as part of the cleaning process.

Filling the sink took longer than anticipated, so I left the room to tend to another task – and briefly lost track of time. Suddenly remembering the soaking sweater, I rushed into the laundry room and discovered that the sink had overflowed. Thankfully, only a quick cleanup was required. Better yet, the incident provided a valuable reminder about recovery capacity, or the ability to effectively respond to human error and unforeseen events.

Learning From Our Mistakes
In the aftermath of the laundry room mishap, I found myself considering the overflow hole, a small yet crucial design element common to many bathroom sinks. It serves as a safeguard, ensuring water has an escape route if an overfill occurs. This prompted a question: If bathroom sink overflows can be prevented by a simple precautionary feature, what precautionary features or systems have utility organizations implemented to handle mistakes and unforeseen events – and are they the right ones?

Errors are inevitable in any environment. The key to facilitating recovery is ensuring systems are in place that enable quick responses and minimize consequences when things go awry. Organizations should consider these four areas when planning for mistakes:

1. Preventive measures. It is prudent to identify and address errors before they escalate. These activities could involve process audits, training and/or real-time monitoring systems.
2. Rapid recovery protocols. Organizations should develop recovery plans (e.g., clear communication strategies, designated roles for crisis management) to help them bounce back swiftly after mistakes occur.
3. Feedback loops. Creating a culture that promotes learning from errors can result in process improvements that prevent recurrences.
4. Flexibility and adaptability. Systems should be designed with a focus on preventing mistakes while also remaining adaptable, enabling teams to respond effectively in unexpected situations.

Theory Into Practice
Errors can have significant implications in the utility sector, which means electric power organizations must have adequate recovery capacity to remain viable. Following are five real-world examples that demonstrate this capacity and reinforce key concepts discussed above.

1. San Diego Gas & Electric wildfire preparedness. In response to increased wildfire threats, SDG&E implemented rigorous protocols to minimize risks associated with its electrical infrastructure. The utility established a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan that included enhanced vegetation management and power shutoff strategies during high-risk weather events.

Lessons reinforced: This is one example of implementing preventive measures to avoid catastrophic consequences. SDG&E also emphasized rapid recovery protocols – such as communication with customers – to address potential outages and safety concerns, showcasing effective recovery capacity.

2. Pacific Gas & Electric pipeline explosion response. The 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion in California resulted in significant loss of life and property. In its aftermath, PG&E experienced intense scrutiny regarding its safety protocols and operational procedures. The company committed to substantial infrastructure improvements, implementing rigorous pipeline testing and monitoring while enhancing its emergency response capabilities.

Lessons reinforced: This case highlights the importance of learning from mistakes. PG&E’s response fostered an organizational culture centered on safety and accountability, helping to ensure that systems would be established for rapid recovery following unforeseen incidents.

3. Duke Energy outage management system enhancements. Facing challenges with customer communication during extensive weather-related outages, Duke invested in an enhanced outage management system that integrates real-time data. This has enabled improved tracking of outage conditions and faster response team deployment.

Lessons reinforced: This example emphasizes the significance of rapid recovery protocols, including effective communication strategies, to ensure that customers are promptly informed and impacts are minimized when outages occur.

4. Florida Power & Light storm readiness. FPL has made significant strides in preparing for hurricanes and other severe storms by reinforcing its infrastructure and implementing community education programs on storm preparedness. The company conducts drills, uses advanced technology to monitor weather patterns, and maintains clear lines of communication with customers about safety and power restoration efforts.

Lessons reinforced: FPL’s proactive measures help reduce the impact of storms in its service territory. By planning ahead and establishing clear recovery procedures, utilities can better minimize risks and strengthen their overall resilience.

5. Reliant Energy customer service improvements. Following a major blackout in 2008, Reliant faced customer backlash due to poor communication and slow response times. The company seized this opportunity to enhance its crisis management and customer service systems, introducing improved staff training, implementing new technologies to provide timely updates to customers, and developing a more robust feedback mechanism for understanding customer needs during outages.

Lessons reinforced: Reliant’s experience highlights the importance of establishing feedback loops and fostering an organizational culture that embraces learning from mistakes. By recognizing past errors and implementing necessary adjustments, the company improved its recovery capacity and customer satisfaction.

Conclusion
As we navigate our lives – filled with risks at work, at home and in between – let us embrace the lessons learned from both our everyday experiences and industry practices. Mistakes are a natural part of any process, so we should focus on developing the systems needed to effectively manage setbacks. By fostering a culture of learning, implementing preventive measures and establishing clear communication protocols, utility organizations can transform potential pitfalls into growth opportunities.

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, expert witness, leadership coach and keynote speaker, he has helped hundreds of organizations within every primary industry improve safety systems, strategy, culture, leadership and engagement. Galloway also hosts the highly acclaimed weekly podcast series “Safety Culture Excellence.”

In this compelling episode, Mark Taylor, CUSP, Senior Advisor of Corporate Services at Primary Engineering and Construction, joins us to explore how utility professionals perceive and manage risk. Drawing from decades of field and leadership experience, Mark discusses how a worker’s risk tolerance evolves over time, the importance of coaching over compliance, and how building trust and relationships within teams fosters a stronger safety culture.

We also discuss the generational shift in safety attitudes, how to encourage real “stop work” authority, and the power of employee buy-in—whether it’s safety glasses or safety protocols.

Whether you’re a safety leader, a utility worker, or a manager seeking to improve culture and communication, this episode is packed with practical wisdom and stories that resonate.

Don’t miss Mark’s insights, leadership tips, and a sneak peek into the upcoming IUOTA conference in San Diego.

Check out the IUOTA Conference – https://www.iuota.com/

Key Takeaways:

• Risk tolerance increases with experience—but so can complacency.

• Relationship-building is key to enabling true stop-work authority and a proactive safety culture.

• Coaching yields better long-term safety outcomes than compliance enforcement.

• Younger workers tend to question safety practices more—and that’s a good thing.

• When employees are heard and supported, buy-in follows naturally.

• Explaining the “why” behind safety rules is critical to adoption.

• Culture shifts start with caring—genuinely—about your team.

• Small gestures (like supporting preferred PPE purchases) can lead to major cultural wins.

Questions and Answers:

Q1: What is risk tolerance in the context of utility safety?

A1: Risk tolerance is a worker’s willingness to accept safety risks, often influenced by experience, previous outcomes, and personal comfort. Over time, routine exposure without consequences can raise that tolerance to unsafe levels.

Q2: How can leaders help reduce unsafe risk tolerance?

A2: By fostering open communication, encouraging curiosity, and modeling behavior that prioritizes elimination over mitigation. Leaders should promote a culture where anyone feels empowered to speak up.

Q3: What role does relationship-building play in safety?

A3: Strong relationships between leadership and field teams build trust. When workers feel respected and heard, they’re more likely to participate in safety discussions, report hazards, and accept coaching.

Q4: How can companies shift from compliance-driven to value-driven safety cultures?

A4: Start by caring deeply about workers, offering flexibility where possible (e.g., PPE preferences), involving teams in decisions, and always explaining the reasoning behind policies.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #RiskTolerance #SafetyCulture #StopWorkAuthority #SafetyLeadership #FieldSafety #UtilityWorkers #IncidentPrevention

Hastings Fiber Glass Products has released a new HV-250 Tel-O-Pole II, a 5-foot-longer version of its popular HV series of telescopic hot sticks. This product addition is a direct response to lineworkers worldwide who expressed a need for increased reach in various utility applications.

The HV-250 maintains the same trusted quality, durability and safety features users have come to expect from Hastings’ products, now with the added benefit of extended length. This enables lineworkers to safely perform tasks in situations where other hot sticks’ reach is limited, enhancing on-the-job efficiency and safety.

Hastings’ unique approach to creating a 50-foot version of its HV series allows the base to retain the same dimensions as the HV-245, making it easy for users to safely and effectively extend the sections of the stick to the full 50-foot length. www.hfgp.com

Saf-T-Gard recently announced the availability of the new Saf-T-Gard Voltgard Dura-Fit Leather Protector Gloves. Utilizing a novel, modified pattern to better fit the curve of all industry-standard rubber insulating gloves for long-lasting wear and safety, this new offering takes leather protector gloves to the next level.

Designed for use with Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 high-voltage rubber insulating gloves, the Saf-T-Gard Voltgard Dura-Fit Leather Protector Gloves are made using a tough, premium-grain cowhide leather and packed with a wide range of enhanced safety features. These include a durable, split-leather gauntlet cuff to extend protection past the wrist; an innovative action thumb design with an enlarged reinforcement to provide additional protection to critical wear areas; an adjustable Kevlar strap and flame-resistant buckle to comfortably and safely secure the gloves to the worker’s hands; and high-strength nylon-thread stitching for added comfort and protection. The gloves are also water-repellent. www.saftgard.com

Buckingham has reimagined fall protection with the new BuckSqueeze Lite, its lightest and most efficient wood-pole fall-restriction device to date. Weighing just 3.5 pounds, this innovation offers the trusted security of the original BuckSqueeze, now with advanced features designed for performance, comfort and ease of use.

The BuckSqueeze Lite features a slotted nose D-ring that interlocks with the rotosnap, forming a rigid connection that streamlines climbing and transitioning. An ergonomic handle provides maximum control, while the aluminum WebGrab with extended eye cam ensures smooth strap movement without binding.

The exclusive Treblekern Tough Rope inner strap offers superior durability with a built-in red wear indicator. The BuckHorn adjustment lever enables effortless strap adjustment without unloading. Aluminum carabiners ensure secure, easy connections.

Ideal for lineworkers seeking a lighter, more responsive device, the BuckSqueeze Lite is also fully modular, allowing field replacement of worn parts. https://buckinghammfg.com/products/bucksqueeze-lite-486dk4ma/

Twiceme Technology recently announced that Bullard will embed Twiceme’s smart safety technology in select models of its new Type II + safety helmets.

Twiceme-enabled Bullard helmets will empower safety managers to significantly improve operational efficiency while elevating safety protocols. Using Twiceme’s Safety Management Portal, organizations can streamline daily safety management procedures, manage inventory and inspections, maintain comprehensive worker documentation, and reduce incident response times, all while providing users with advanced protection from Bullard’s trusted helmet designs. www.bullard.com, www.twiceme.com

CM Labs Simulations – the leading vendor of simulation-based training solutions in the utilities, construction and ports industries – will showcase Intellia, its intelligent training system, October 7-9 at The Utility Expo in Louisville, Kentucky.

The company will also debut all-new Intellia equipment training packs, which are designed to help organizations build safer, more skilled crews with simulation training that mirrors real-world challenges. In addition, CM Labs will offer live, hands-on demonstrations of new changes coming to its walkaround inspection training. www.cm-labs.com

In this episode of Incident Prevention’s Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Mark Savage, Marine Corps veteran and founder of DeadBreak — a specialized underground electrical training and consulting company. Mark shares his professional journey, the gaps he identified in underground utility training, and how DeadBreak aims to bridge those gaps by offering curriculum development, hands-on training, consulting, and more. From the importance of replacing tribal knowledge with formal instruction to creating future pathways for veterans and apprentices, Mark’s passion for safety and legacy shines throughout. Whether you’re in the field, hiring apprentices, or overseeing training programs, this episode is a must-listen.

Key Takeaways:

1. Underground utility training lacks standardization — and DeadBreak is working to change that.

2. Mark Savage’s military background influenced his drive for structure, clarity, and service in training.

3. DeadBreak offers custom curriculum, onsite training, manhole rescue, and consulting.

4. Veterans are an untapped, ideal workforce for underground utility work.

5. Tribal knowledge and implied instructions can pose serious safety risks.

6. Proper training isn’t just about compliance — it’s about saving lives.

Three Questions & Answers for Listeners:

Q1: Why is underground utility work often overlooked in formal training?

A: Unlike overhead systems, underground systems vary widely by region and have traditionally relied on tribal knowledge, leading to inconsistent or nonexistent training standards.

Q2: What is DeadBreak’s mission?

A: DeadBreak aims to fill the training gap in underground electrical work by offering tailored curriculum, in-person instruction, safety-based onboarding, and mobile splicing teams.

Q3: How can employers improve underground job safety right now?

A: By investing in standardized training, eliminating implied knowledge, and ensuring tools and procedures are clearly understood and taught by qualified professionals.

Get ahold of Mark Savage:

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/

#UndergroundUtilities #UtilitySafety #ElectricalTraining #VeteranWorkforce #DeadBreak #CableSplicing #InfrastructureTraining #UtilityWorkforceDevelopment #WorkplaceSafety #SkilledTradesEducation

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

3 Questions & Answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode of the Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Jennifer LeFevre, Executive Director of the Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI), to explore how everyday decisions at work and at home can impact electrical safety. Jennifer shares insights into the mission of ESFI, the dangers of lithium-ion batteries, how utilities can access free safety resources, and why public education is critical to preventing electrical fires, injuries, and fatalities. Whether you’re a utility safety professional or simply want to protect your family, this episode is full of actionable advice that could save a life.

Key Takeaways:

• Electrical safety starts at home—complacency off the job can be just as dangerous as on it.

• Lithium-ion batteries require proper handling, charging, and disposal to prevent fires.

• ESFI offers free infographics and video shorts utilities can use to educate customers.

• Public education is prevention—sharing small safety habits can make a big impact.

• After disasters, generators and downed lines present serious electrical hazards that people often overlook.

Q&As summary:

Q1: Why should utility professionals care about electrical safety in the home?

A: Utility workers are trained to prioritize safety on the job, but Jennifer LeFevre reminds us that hazards exist at home too. Everyday items—like extension cords, electric blankets, or ladders near power lines—can cause serious incidents if not used safely. Translating workplace safety habits into the home can protect your loved ones.

Q2: What resources does ESFI offer to support electrical safety outreach?

A: ESFI provides free downloadable resources including infographics, short-form educational videos, and seasonal safety newsletters. These are designed for easy integration into utility newsletters, community outreach, and employee training programs.

Get in touch with Jennifer – Jennifer.LeFevre@esfi.org

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

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

#ElectricalSafety #UtilitySafety #SafetyEducation #LithiumIonBatterySafety #HomeAndWorkSafety #InjuryPrevention #ESFI #iP

Over the past 50 years, the electric utility industry has developed and implemented robust engineering controls, detailed work procedures and focused training to reduce injury and fatality rates among workers. However, the total well-being of the worker is another critical safety factor that utility organizations often don’t address.

Well-being encompasses physical health as well as mental, emotional and social dimensions that can significantly influence an individual’s capacity to make sound decisions, maintain situational awareness and successfully mitigate risks. Workers bring their whole selves to the job, which includes their stress, fatigue and other personal challenges. We leave serious gaps in our safety systems when we fail to account for these human factors.

The previous article I wrote for Incident Prevention provided an overview of total well-being and its impact on the workplace (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/making-the-safety-connection-the-impact-of-total-well-being-in-the-workplace/). This follow-up article offers practical tips, ideas and other information to help leaders integrate well-being into their organizational safety culture. When workers are holistically supported, they are better protected from harm, more engaged and productive, and more likely to thrive. It is time for our industry to move beyond the traditional definition of safety by recognizing total well-being as a core component of risk management.

Start with the person.
Most safety systems are built around physical safeguards, policies, procedures and personal protective equipment. Workers are trained to adapt to these systems. But even the most advanced tools and well-written procedures can fail if the worker employing them is fatigued, stressed or distracted.

Organizational leaders must recognize the human at the center of the safety system and understand that risk increases when workers feel mentally, emotionally or otherwise unbalanced. Strive to foster an environment in which workers (1) understand the connection between their well-being and their ability to work safely and (2) feel safe to speak up when they are struggling.

Tip: Well-being should be viewed as a responsibility shared among workers and leadership, not an individual burden.

Idea: Introduce workers to anonymous self-assessment tools that prompt them to consider questions such as, “Did I sleep enough last night?” or “Am I feeling mentally focused today?” When integrated into daily routines, these and other simple reflection exercises can spur important conversations and proactive safety decisions.

Conduct well-being check-ins during job briefings.
Every job must begin with a safety briefing, which is an ideal time to address not just physical risks but overall human readiness. In organizations with strong safety systems, leaders inquire about the physical, emotional and mental wellness of employees, especially in high-risk or repetitive work environments. For example, a job briefing form could include a prompt such as, “Have you had enough rest to do this task safely?” or “Are there any personal distractions you need support with today?”

Tip: Begin job briefings with a short mindfulness practice. A two-minute breathing or focus exercise can reduce anxiety, improve awareness and reset attention before work begins.

Idea: Launch “Mindful Minutes” during morning meetings. Invite workers to collectively pause and assess their stress levels and mental clarity. This reinforces psychological readiness as a part of doing the job well.

Treat well-being as a core part of safety programs.
Traditional safety programs often focus on external threats like machinery, voltages and confined spaces while downplaying internal threats such as sleep issues, unmanaged stress and poor nutrition. But expanding safety training to include human factors is necessary, not just progressive. Consider the way hydration is discussed on a hot summer day. Most workers understand that they must drink water to rehydrate themselves when they are sweating. But do they fully understand why hydration is so important in terms of their job performance?

Tip: Don’t stop at “Drink water on hot days.” Teach employees how dehydration affects muscle performance, cognitive function and emotional regulation.

Idea: Set up a hydration station stocked with low-sugar, high-electrolyte beverage options. Include a visual handout explaining how energy drinks and dehydration can impact concentration and reaction time on the job.

Provide accessible resources for total well-being.
Numerous companies offer well-being resources (e.g., employee assistance programs, apps, health benefits), but they can be misunderstood and underutilized.

Tip: Regularly talk to workers about well-being in the context of safety. Ensure they are aware of the support available to them and how to access it. Post employee assistance program information in break rooms, locker rooms and job trailers.

Idea: Post clear signage on vending machines and in cafeterias that identifies healthy food and drink options. Highlight how good nutrition affects energy levels, alertness and injury prevention.

Foster a culture of psychological safety.
One hallmark of a high-reliability organization is a working environment in which employees feel safe to speak up about risks, mistakes and their own well-being. Creating this environment begins with leadership.

Tip: Normalize conversations about stress, fatigue and emotional well-being. Train frontline leaders to recognize invisible hazards, such as mood changes, burnout and disengagement. Provide clear referral pathways for mental health and peer support resources.

Idea: Host “State of Mind” check-ins during weekly staff meetings. In five to seven minutes, a leader can share a personal well-being insight or challenge, then invite brief team reflections. These short exchanges help to build trust, reduce stigma and create a psychologically safe environment.

Tailor efforts to a multigenerational workforce.
Organizational well-being programs should resonate across all age groups, career stages and cultural backgrounds. What motivates a 25-year-old new-hire may differ from what motivates a 55-year-old lineman with three decades of experience. For example, younger employees often seek support for mental health, physical fitness and lifestyle balance. Older employees may prioritize joint health, mobility and chronic disease management.

Tip: Avoid one-size-fits-all programs. Offer flexible options, from digital wellness challenges to ergonomic assessments and tailored support groups.

Idea: Launch inclusive movement challenges that track daily steps or minutes of physical activity, measured by engagement, not weight loss. This keeps the focus on health rather than appearance or age.

Conclusion
As utility industry tools and technologies continue to evolve, we must not leave behind the people who keep the systems running. Workers are not just operators of equipment or followers of procedures. They are human beings navigating real lives, complete with personal challenges, stress and fluctuating energy levels. When company leaders understand this and embrace whole-person wellness as part of their safety strategy, they move beyond compliance into the realm of cultural transformation. The return on this investment isn’t just fewer incidents. The workforce becomes healthier and more focused, resilient, productive and committed.

Let’s stop expecting workers to leave their personal lives at the gate. That is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, let’s build systems that acknowledge, support and empower the whole person. In doing so, we won’t just send our employees home the same way they arrived – we’ll send them home even better.

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

I have written about grounding for the protection of employees numerous times in Incident Prevention magazine, addressing both the law and other issues. Let’s begin this installment with the understanding that “grounding for the protection of employees” – which is the phrase OSHA uses – means establishing an equipotential zone or EPZ. The purpose of grounding is to trip circuits. Grounding for the protection of employees can only be assured if it is arranged in an equipotential manner, preventing the worker from being exposed to a hazardous difference in potential. That’s the bottom line, and as I stated in the April-May 2025 issue of iP, equipotential grounding is the law (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/equipotential-grounding-is-the-law/).

By the way, I reference OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269, part of the General Industry standards, throughout this text. Readers should note that the rules are exactly the same in the 1926.962 Construction standard.

The EPZ Challenge for URD
Now, let’s talk about the difficulty of creating an EPZ for workers in underground residential distribution (URD), which is not exempt from OSHA’s grounding rules. As paragraph 1910.269(n)(3), “Equipotential zone,” states, “Temporary protective grounds shall be placed at such locations and arranged in such a manner that the employer can demonstrate will prevent each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential.” There are no exceptions.

But when it comes to URD, especially repairing a cable or replacing elbows or terminators, it’s impossible to create an EPZ by simply arranging ground connections. However, we do have an option found at 1910.269(n)(2), which, after spelling out the requirements for proper switching, states the following: “… [the employer] shall ensure proper grounding of the lines or equipment as specified in paragraphs (n)(3) through (n)(8) of this section. However, if the employer can demonstrate that installation of a ground is impracticable or that the conditions resulting from the installation of a ground would present greater hazards to employees than working without grounds, the lines and equipment may be treated as deenergized provided that the employer establishes that all of the following conditions apply: The employer ensures that the lines and equipment are deenergized under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this section; there is no possibility of contact with another energized source; and the hazard of induced voltage is not present.”

Paragraph 1910.269(n)(2) requires use of equipotential grounding to protect the employee, or the employer must meet the conditions of isolation to prevent employee exposure to any potential that could create an electrical hazard.

Here’s the issue, which will likely ring true with many iP readers. We have crews working URD with no consideration given to what would happen if the URD circuit were inadvertently energized. Maybe even worse, no consideration is given to the presence of neutral current flowing in the URD system. Here is my prime example: There is not an overhead crew in the industry – at least I hope not – who would approach an overhead distribution system, put a system neutral in a hoist, cut that system neutral and then grab both cut ends barehanded. Such an act would expose a worker to an open neutral circuit and the possibility of system voltage in that open. In reality, the voltage in the open neutral is low because we have multigrounded neutral systems. It must be high enough to break the resistance of your skin; if that happened, neutral current would flow through your body. Nobody is going to take that chance. In the past, whenever I took my crew to a job that required opening a neutral, we had detailed discussions about how to mach out the neutral and the hazard to be prevented. Yet a crew who just went through a similar exercise with the overhead neutral will then go work a URD cable repair job in a ditch and reconnect the concentric system neutral with their bare hands.

What’s Really Happening?
Part of the issue is that very few people know of someone being shocked or electrocuted during a concentric neutral repair – but it does happen. Employees in a ditch or working at night will begin reassembling a concentric connection and see a little spark when the conductors touch. That spark tells the tale. It wouldn’t exist if there were no difference in potential. The difference is created by a combination of (1) the distance between the open concentric and the remote ground and (2) the current that is being picked up by the concentric neutral when they touch.

You may be asking, “Why don’t we get shocked?” The answer is the 50-volt buffer, which isn’t actually 50 volts. It’s just universally accepted that 50 volts is the natural average resistance of human skin. That value has evolved from Charles Dalziel’s work on the effects of electrical current on the human body. In the margins of his reporting, Dalziel noted that some of his test subjects required a higher voltage than others to expose them to current flow. The 50-volt resistance is also supplemented by other forms of resistance that a worker is wearing, such as boots and leather gloves. If the voltage cannot penetrate the resistance of a worker’s skin, current can’t flow, and the worker won’t be hurt. The fact is, every time you get between a concentric neutral, you have exposed yourself to a potential difference between the two cut ends that simply wasn’t high enough to penetrate your skin and allow current to flow through your body.

So, if it’s an open neutral, why isn’t the voltage high? The answer is that a multigrounded system created incidental protection. If I’m working on phase B of a community three-phase URD system, phases A and C are parallel to phase B. If phases A and C are intact, they create a remote bond across my open phase-B concentric. In addition, at each transformer on either side of my open, there is a ground rod tying the concentric to earth. URD workers have benefited from this incidental protection since the first URD trouble job was issued.

No Simple Solution
Can you trust this protection? Under normal conditions, it appears to be universally but conditionally protective. If the URD system were exposed to a fault anywhere on the URD and/or overhead feed system, the resulting ground fault on the concentric would likely create a high potential difference between the concentric and the earth the worker is standing on.

The problem here is that there is no simple solution, particularly if the phase conductors are exposed, such as during an elbow or pothead terminator change or in the middle of stripping cable, even if it’s grounded at both ends. Grounding at a remote end of the cable produces a potential difference between that remote ground and the local ground the worker is standing on. The only way to equalize those potentials is to strip the cable down to the phase and attach a ground to an equipotential mat, which, of course, isn’t possible.

This is where the 1910.269(n)(2) “installation of a ground is impracticable” provisions come in. Isolation is the only true solution. It’s used in overhead all the time. If I open a set of switches and have a visible open, the conductor between those two visible opens is no longer dangerous given the (n)(2) provisions that it cannot become energized, that it’s not subject to any other mode of energizing and that the isolated conductor isn’t exposed to an induction hazard.

For continued discussion of URD isolation, see “Worker protection while working de-energized underground distribution systems” (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1256391), available through IEEE for a fee.

Visual Explanations
I’ve included three visual explanations on these pages demonstrating what happens when we isolate or attempt to isolate a URD cable. Since I can’t cover every isolation mode, I’m going to use the simplest one, which is incorporating the grounding bushing method you’re using to ground the remote end of a cable (see Image 1). Install the grounding bushing in the conventional manner and close the elbow. You’ve now confirmed that the cable is de-energized by a voltage check and the presence of a ground. When installing the grounding bushing, make the ground lead connection to the concentric lead on the elbow that you’re grounding. Once you’ve confirmed the condition of the cable, you must do two things: (1) lift the ground bushing out of the holding bracket in the enclosure and (2) cut the concentric below the ground lead, isolating it from the ring bond in the transformer, pad or switchgear. Using this method, you’ve totally isolated the cable, and you’ve put the phase conductor in series with the concentric, eliminating any possibility of capacitance on the cable.

Using the example of our phase-B trouble call, one problem is that, if any system abnormalities exist – like unintended opens in the concentric on phase A or C – cutting a concentric could interrupt the system neutral for the rest of the circuit. Usually, a simple amp clamp test can be conducted to determine potential issues. If all three concentrics are continuous, take an amp current reading at a three-phase takeoff or a switch pad. You should find current on all three concentrics, indicating continuity. To ensure total isolation, drop a blanket over the isolated terminator so that you don’t create contact between the concentric and other parts of the system when you close the cabinet or pad.

Images 2 and 3 are used in the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction’s personal protective grounding training protocols. iP is not offering them as mandatory solutions or recommendations. We are identifying the hazards and explaining how employers can effectively teach crews about them. Note that I am the author of all three images and give readers full authorization to use them in your training if you feel they could be helpful.

Image 2 demonstrates the electrical properties of isolating a URD cable as previously explained. On each end of the cable, the concentric has been cut free of the ring bond, putting the phase conductor in the elbow in series with the concentric on the cable. In addition, the elbow is draped with an orange blanket, but a 4-kV blanket would probably suffice. Now, look at the worker in the ditch, who’s holding a cable in each hand. The concentrics are not connected. Even if they were connected, no risk would exist for the worker because the concentrics are isolated at the remote end of the cable.

In Image 3, one small change creates an element of risk if it’s not properly understood. You can see that the concentric is still connected to the ring bond at each remote end of the cable. In this configuration, the phase conductor and concentric are still in series with each other. Additionally, the open phase conductor in the worker’s hands is parallel with the concentric. When the concentric is connected, it creates a bonding bridge across the open phase conductor. However, the concentric neutral bond will not be at the same potential as the open phase conductors because of the length of the cable, producing a resistance. It’s quite likely that, under normal conditions, the voltage between the open phase conductors would be very low, but there’s no telling what the potential difference could be in the event of a system fault. Image 3 also provides a visual representation (the meter) of the potential difference between the earth at the worker’s feet and the remotely grounded phase conductor.

Conclusion
The issues with URD grounding are complex, but we can’t ignore the potential for serious injury. The whole reason we ground a cable is because we think an undesirable event could occur. If we think an undesirable event could occur, why should our preparation only be half-complete? Understand the principle of current flow in the grounded URD system and consider isolation as an effective means of protecting our employees.

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

Personal protective grounding, or PPG, is arguably the most critical safety procedure affecting contemporary lineworkers. Over time, it has evolved to include numerous significant elements that contribute to the success of today’s comprehensive methods and procedures.

To adequately address these elements, this article will be presented in two parts. Part one, which you are now reading, covers PPG’s early years. Part two – scheduled to be published in the October-November issue of Incident Prevention – will cover the critical testing and development that led to the methods and procedures currently in use.

1890-1910: The Beginning
Early power systems were relatively simple. A small generating source was connected to a line that served a small number of customers, or sometimes just one. If a line needed to be worked on, the generator was simply shut down while the lineworkers completed their tasks. There were no other sources of energy or adjacent lines to be concerned with. Some early systems, such as one in Niagara Falls, New York, included parallel lines built from the generating station to the load center. This allowed either line to be de-energized for work while the other line provided service.

As power systems were expanded and interconnected with multiple energy sources, clearing and working on lines and equipment became increasingly hazardous. Disconnects, switches and other devices were developed to isolate equipment and sections of lines. But with no established clearance procedures, accidents began to occur in which lineworkers were electrocuted by inadvertently energized lines. They were also introduced to the hazards of induction from adjacent energized lines. During this period, there was virtually no use of protective grounding.

1910-1930: Initial Mitigation Measures
Lighting streets in larger cities was the first widespread use of electric power in the 1890s. Series circuits supplied several arc lamps. Because streetlight circuits required occasional work, accidents happened when station operators inadvertently closed switches while work was in progress. To improve safety, the industry began to employ switches that could be closed to ground series streetlight circuits after opening them.

As the network of power lines grew, lineworkers working on de-energized lines began to feel the impact of induction from adjacent lines. They soon discovered they would not get “bit” by induction if they connected a jumper from the conductors they were working on to earth.

The next protective grounding measure, developed in the early 1900s, was the portable grounding wire. Its use involved connecting one end of a bare wire to earth or, in some cases, a water pipe or fire hydrant. A rope was thrown over all phase conductors. The opposite end of the wire was pulled over the conductors and tied to an object on the ground so that it made positive contact with the phase conductors.

A slight improvement to the wire method was the grounding chain, a long chain typically made of copper, brass or Copperweld. One end was connected to the ground source; the other was pulled tight over the conductors with a rope. This method was included in the 1928 first edition of “The Lineman’s Handbook,” known today as “The Lineman’s and Cableman’s Handbook.” The original handbook emphasized the importance of always (1) connecting the grounding chain to the ground source before pulling it over the conductors and (2) removing the chain before disconnecting it from the ground source.

Little information exists about how underground systems were grounded during this early period. Power companies in large cities with downtown underground systems utilized a variety of homemade grounding devices for equipment in manholes. Initial efforts and development focused on grounding overhead lines, followed by underground. Most power companies developed their own methods and tools for grounding lines and equipment.

No documentation exists from these early periods to suggest that lines and equipment were tested before protective grounds were installed. One of the first testing efforts, developed by Pennsylvania Water and Power, required the lineworker to throw a crescent wrench tied to a conductor that was connected to the grounded tower with a 5-amp fuse. If the line was energized, the fuse would blow.

1920-1940: Grounding Sets with Insulating Handles
In the 1920s, some power companies developed wood-handled protective ground sets. This led to the cluster-type arrangement, in which three conductor jumpers were connected to the junction, where another longer conductor was used to connect to the ground source. Each phase jumper had its wooden handle, which resulted in an entire ground set assembly. These improvements provided a more effective method for grounding conductors and allowed lineworkers to position themselves at a safe working distance in the event an energized line was inadvertently grounded.

Before the 1930s, protective grounding of lines and equipment was not a standard practice for all power companies. In many cases, it was left up to the line crew foreman to decide whether grounds were necessary. By the 1950s, however, protective grounding had become a standard practice and was included as a requirement in power company safety rule books.

Here are two interesting rules from the 1929 Penn Central Light & Power Co. safety rule book:

• “Rule 251 b. When lines or apparatus are killed for work, they shall be grounded and shorted on both sides of the location where the work is going to be done, regardless of whether there is more than one source of energy.”
• “Rule 251 d. Grounds shall never be placed on the same pole or tower where the work is to be done, for when moving the conductor, the ground might become detached. The placement of grounds shall be at least one span away. Under no circumstances shall work be done on a line over one mile from the point of grounding, as sufficient static might be picked up over a greater distance to cause an accident.”

By the 1930s, protective grounding was becoming standard practice for working on de-energized lines and equipment. These two general grounding rules were established and implemented by power companies:

• Grounds shall be installed between the source of energy and the work area.
• Grounds shall be installed in a manner that grounds and short-circuits the conductors.

Up to this point, no comprehensive engineering studies had been conducted concerning protective grounding’s effectiveness in limiting current passing through a worker’s body. Most grounding equipment was made by power companies, with no standardization and limited testing. Procedures varied considerably among companies and regions, and while the number of accidents involving electrocutions had gone down, it was still excessive. The two general rules noted above evolved into an industry-wide practice known as “bracket grounding,” during which grounds are placed on both sides of the worksite.

An interesting graphic created by the Public Service Company of Northern Illinois highlights a 1929 procedure the company developed to ground 66- to 132-kV lines. As shown below, the handline was used to pull a grounding chain over the conductors, along with applying individual grounds to the conductors. Lineworkers were required to wear rubber gloves throughout the process.

1940-1950: Understanding Dangerous Current Levels
Prior to the 1940s, there were no recognized studies on the effects of electrical shock on the human body relative to current and voltage levels. Then, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Charles Dalziel (1904-1986) – a professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at the University of California, Berkeley – performed considerable research regarding shock injuries to humans and animals.

Dalziel’s research led to information that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various protective grounding methods. Here is a list of his key conclusions:

• The minimum current detected by the human body is 1.2 mA.
• The average let-go threshold of current is 9 mA.
• Ventricular fibrillation thresholds may occur above:
  • 03-second shock time duration: 1000 mA.
  • 3-second shock time duration: 100 mA.

Thanks to Dalziel’s research, the industry now had credible information it could use to evaluate and optimize PPG methods. That information, which remains relevant today, would eventually lead to several considerable safety improvements for electrical workers.

Conclusion
Hazards abounded in the early days of electrical line work. Industry pioneers navigated the unknown with limited PPG knowledge, equipment and procedures. Through trial and error, more effective grounding methods gradually emerged, laying the foundation for essential safety practices. These hard-earned lessons continue to underscore PPG’s critical role in protecting lineworkers.

In the second part of this article, we will explore critical testing that deepened the industry’s understanding of PPG. As tool companies became more actively involved, they contributed to the development and refinement of grounding techniques. Discussion will include key advancements and their importance in ensuring the safety of today’s lineworkers.

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

Sidebar: Line Terminal Ground Switches
In the 1920s, numerous companies began developing substation transmission-line ground switches and disconnects. They were primarily used to ensure the rapid operation of protective devices and to ground lines subjected to induction from adjacent lines. In many cases, line crews used ground switches as protective grounds. This practice was gradually eliminated as real-world experience demonstrated the improved safety of protective grounds at or near the worksite.

The first three articles in this six-part series addressed the critical nature and value of an organizational safety management system (SMS) that engages all employees and effectively mitigates risks through a developed plan for continuous improvement. This article focuses on human and organizational performance (HOP), an operational philosophy that utility organizations must incorporate into their SMS to achieve organizational safety success.

Over the years, traditional safety programs have primarily focused on managing employees, often overlooking the crucial systems designed to support them. Employees are expected to consistently make the right choices and adhere to safety rules 100% of the time, relying on the training they have received and the rules they must follow. When incidents occur, these employees may frequently be blamed; they are presumed to have been equipped with all the necessary tools and training to work safely yet opted not to utilize them. This scenario resembles a “Mission: Impossible” movie plot in which employees fail to “accept” their mission. While such a perspective is rarely accurate, many organizations continue to use a blame-centric model to tackle operational upsets, focusing on individual faults rather than improving organizational systems that empower and support employees.

HOP Overview
After discovering HOP, I was excited to learn more because it offered a fresh perspective that resonated with me. HOP enhances communication and understanding between employees and organizations, particularly in high-risk environments. It emphasizes the importance of grasping the reasons behind human errors and focuses on building resilient safety systems to support employees when they make mistakes. Rather than viewing human error as a failure to follow rules, HOP encourages us to recognize the underlying causes of mistakes and take action to address them.

The philosophy also encourages organizations to view errors as opportunities for learning and growth. Employees must recognize that mistakes are a normal part of life; this mindset helps to create safer work environments and fosters continuous improvement and innovation.

ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024, “Guidance and Implementation Manual for ANSI/ASSP Z10.0-2019 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems,” introduces the five HOP principles and describes the importance of a learning and improving culture within a new view of safety. Here is a list of the principles, which are highlighted in Chapter 2, “Understanding the Workplace: The New View of Safety.”

1. People will make mistakes.
2. Error-likely situations are predictable.
3. All human actions are influenced by the context in which they occur.
4. Operational upsets can be avoided.
5. How we respond to failure matters.

Principle 1: People will make mistakes.
In my consulting work, I sometimes ask senior leaders if they have made mistakes. The question is usually met with chuckles and agreements that everyone makes mistakes. That is when I drive home the point, highlighting that employees regularly make decisions that directly affect them and the organizations they work for. Often, these decisions must be made during high-risk work activities under significant pressure, when a mistake can be devastating. This first HOP principle becomes easier to understand when we consider all the dynamic forces involved in decision-making and recognize that humans are inherently imperfect.

Viewing mistakes as learning opportunities is key to fostering a positive company culture that promotes individual and organizational growth. While eliminating every error may not be realistic, organizations must aim to reduce the number of mistakes that result in unacceptable consequences. This emphasizes the importance of addressing human error in risk mitigation plans, which was discussed earlier in this series.

Principle 2: Error-likely situations are predictable.
“If you had only asked me, I could have told you that would happen.” Have you heard employees in your organization make that statement? It is not uncommon for people to sense potential problems yet fail to take action to resolve and learn from them.

An “error-likely situation” refers to an environment in which the likelihood of making mistakes increases when specific actions or tasks are being performed. The concept, defined in Volume 1 of the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Human Performance Improvement Handbook,” is linked to error precursors or error traps. These conditions increase the risk of making mistakes and usually exist before any errors occur. By identifying and removing such traps, we can minimize jobsite mistakes.

While it may be tempting to stick to familiar routines – especially if your organization has not experienced any serious injuries or fatalities – leaders must recognize that employees possess valuable insights that can influence the likelihood of errors. The key is to develop operational processes designed to identify and address error traps before, during and after work. By focusing on both task-related and individual factors throughout the work process, organizations can reduce the risk of mistakes and continuously improve their ability to predict and mitigate errors.

Principle 3: All human actions are influenced by the context in which they occur.
Numerous organizations face significant challenges with this principle relative to organizational culture. One real-life example is members of a work group who adhere to safety rules when the “safety guy” is present but revert to their usual unsafe practices once he leaves. This behavior indicates that the work group’s decision-making is influenced by an organizational culture that undervalues safety, directly affecting how work is performed.

It is essential to recognize that our environment and circumstances greatly impact our behavior and decision-making processes. Organizations must proactively identify and rectify the gaps in their operational control structures that support safety processes. These gaps can severely impede employees’ ability to make timely decisions, compromising safety and productivity. By fostering a culture of safety and continuously evaluating and improving operational controls, organizations can empower their employees and enhance overall performance. Prioritizing these improvements protects the workforce and contributes to the organization’s long-term success and sustainability.

Principle 4: Operational upsets can be avoided.
The most effective way to prevent operational upsets or disruptions is to learn from the work being carried out. It is crucial to acknowledge that opportunities for learning and growth occur daily as tasks are performed during regular operations. Many organizations focus solely on incidents, missing valuable chances to improve. An organization with a strong culture is more likely to thrive when it is not constantly in crisis mode, trying to address past issues.

The second chapter of ASSP GM-Z10.100-2024 identifies the importance of learning from daily work. Potential learning events highlighted in the standard include:

• Tasks that employees mostly do well but that are not always successfully completed due to the challenges involved.
• Tasks with issues being reported by employees.
• Tasks that have gone exceptionally well.
• Tasks involving the successful implementation of new designs, processes or procedures.
• Tasks that resulted in serious injuries or fatalities.

Our industry utilizes various initiatives and tools to learn from work – such as after-action reviews, observations, job hazard analyses and learning teams – which are essential for identifying issues. However, organizations must also act when they recognize improvement opportunities. Positive action fosters cultural growth, while a lack of action can cause the existing culture to crumble.

Principle 5: How we respond to failure matters.
An organization’s responses to operational upsets can make a considerable impact on company culture. Positive responses encourage a culture of learning and improvement. They also help employees feel empowered to grow in their commitment to safety. Negative or punishing responses cause fear and anxiety, potentially stifling employee creativity and growth. This kind of environment can erode trust and lower morale, ultimately pushing an organization’s strong culture toward possible extinction.

Some companies face challenges in deciding how to respond, often delaying the process for weeks or even years. Remember that a lack of response or a delayed response can be just as devastating as punishing behavior, preventing any opportunity for improvement.

Summary
Integrating HOP principles into an SMS is essential to fostering a culture of trust, learning and continuous improvement. By shifting from a blame-focused approach to one that acknowledges and addresses the underlying factors that influence human behavior, organizations can build more resilient systems and empower employees to engage more meaningfully in safety efforts. Recognizing that mistakes are inevitable and often predictable, leaders must proactively identify risks and implement effective solutions. Ultimately, how an organization responds to failure defines its safety culture and determines its ability to grow stronger from every challenge it faces.

About the Author: Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, is president and CEO of SET Solutions LLC. She is a 40-year veteran of the electric utility industry, a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network and past chair of the USOLN executive board. Tompkins worked in the utility industry for over 20 years and has provided electric power safety consulting for the last 25 years. An OSHA-authorized instructor, she has supported utilities, contractors and other organizations operating electric power systems in designing and maintaining safety improvement methods and strategies for organizational excellence.

In my consulting work, I’ve found there is some industry confusion regarding the relationship between a host utility and an independent contractor company. To help provide clarity, I’m going to kick off this installment of “Voice of Experience” with an overview of each party’s obligations from an OSHA perspective.

A contract employee performs work covered by a signed agreement between the host utility and the contractor company. The host’s construction coordinator must work with contract employees on the host’s system. The host must also provide training for the tasks contract employees are expected to perform. Further, the host’s management team determines all personal protective equipment to be used, the supervisory oversight required, and training and work schedules.

One exception is that a host utility should not record contract employee illness and accident data on their OSHA log; that should be captured in the contractor’s log. Also note that contract worker benefits must be supplied through the contractor company.

There is a risk of tort lawsuits if these obligations aren’t met. In addition, if a contract employee working on a host utility system is significantly injured or killed, OSHA’s 1999 Multi-Employer Citation Policy (see www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-124) could come into play. The host and contractor company are responsible for managing the job together to prevent accidents and monitor employee activities.

Four employer roles are defined by the 1999 OSHA policy. The host utility or contractor company may be considered an exposing employer (employees are exposed to a hazard) or a creating employer (the employer caused a hazardous condition that violated an OSHA standard). A controlling employer has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct violations or require others to fix them. A correcting employer has oversight to stop and correct work if noncompliance or unsafe practices are observed. Per OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(3)(iii), the contract and host employers shall coordinate their work rules and procedures so that all employees are adequately protected.

Construction Coordinator: A Critical Role
Based on the information above, it is obvious that either or both the host utility and contractor company can be held accountable and responsible for all jobsite employees. For example, an on-site construction coordinator who doesn’t put a stop to unsafe work practices could be cited for failure to do so as OSHA views an employer’s silence as consent for the unsafe work to continue.

This means host utilities must employ highly qualified, trained individuals as construction coordinators and ensure they fully understand system and equipment grounding principles. For instance, not all companies require employees to wear sleeves when performing energized work, but to comply with 1910.269(l), they must have an exceptional coverup, insulation and isolation program to enable safe work on exposed energized conductors and equipment.

Construction coordinators should visit jobsites at unannounced times when work is in progress. A coordinator who is on-site every day could give the impression that the host utility is “supervising” the job, which has the potential to become deeply problematic if an incident were to occur in which a worker sustained severe injuries or worse. Among other things, such circumstances can increase the likelihood that contract employees will file civil tort cases against host utilities.

Typically, a construction coordinator engages in two primary functions. The first is quality control, or confirming that the contractor is doing their work as well as can be expected while adhering to the host utility’s contract specifications. Quality control also requires the coordinator to verify that all work complies with applicable local, state, Department of Transportation and OSHA rules and regulations.

Second, to successfully manage a multiemployer project, the construction coordinator must fully understand the contents of the signed contract between the host utility and contractor company. Readers should note that if the host utility requires contract employees to engage in specific work practices that exceed the minimum OSHA requirements found in 1910.269, those practices must be described in the contract. If the contract does not reference specific practices, the OSHA standard provides the basic requirements to be met.

Let’s say a construction coordinator offers workers advice or suggestions regarding safe work methods that are purely the coordinator’s opinion (i.e., not found anywhere in the rules or contract). This is a red flag that the employer must address once it’s recognized. If an incident were to occur due to a coordinator’s misinformation, the investigation would involve the host utility and contractor company and include a review of any instructions or corrections the coordinator made. Both parties could face OSHA citations, and the host utility might even end up with a tort liability case filed against them.

I’ve occasionally discovered this when working with industry clients. A construction coordinator provides a suggestion or direction to employees about how to complete a task, but it’s not considered the best practice, or maybe they offer up incorrect work practices based on personal experience or procedures written by the host utility that conflict with regulatory requirements. These instances often occur due to erroneous interpretations of industry regulations, underscoring my earlier point that utilities must employ highly qualified, trained individuals as construction coordinators.

From Policy to Law
During preamble meetings when the 2014 OSHA regulatory updates were being developed, contractor companies shared one of their primary concerns – that host utilities sometimes failed to provide them with all the safety-related information they needed to comply with OSHA regulations on host systems. The choice was made to adopt language from the 1999 Multi-Employer Citation Policy into law. Found at OSHA 1910.269(a)(4), the rule details information that host utilities must provide to contractor companies, stating the following: “Existing characteristics and conditions of electric lines and equipment that are related to the safety of the work to be performed shall be determined before work on or near the lines or equipment is started. Such characteristics and conditions include, but are not limited to, the nominal voltages of lines and equipment; the maximum switching-transient voltages; the presence of hazardous induced voltages; the presence of protective grounds and equipment grounding conductors; the locations of circuits and equipment, including electric supply lines, communication lines, and fire-protective signaling circuits; the condition of protective grounds and equipment grounding conductors; the condition of poles; and environmental conditions relating to safety.”

Conclusion
I hope I have helped to clarify some of the industry misunderstandings regarding host utility and contractor relationships and responsibilities. If you have related questions not addressed here, feel free to reach out to me (rainesafety@gmail.com) or email Incident Prevention’s editor, Kate Wade (kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com). We will help you find the answers you need to best protect your workforce.

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

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

Q: If a crew is setting a steel pole between energized phases (69 kV), would the 3.29-foot minimum approach distance found in OSHA Table 6 apply, or should we defer to the 15-foot clearance?

A: Setting poles is new construction that OSHA covers in 29 CFR 1926.960, Table V-5, “Alternative Minimum Approach Distances for Voltages of 72.5 kV and Less.”

There is cover rated up to 72 kV phase to phase, so for a 69-kV system, cover can be used. Without cover, an electrical crew can use the 3.29-foot MAD for phase to ground. If cover is not used and a conductive object could enter the electrical component air gap for both adjacent phases of the 69-kV system, the 3.94-foot phase-to-phase MAD would apply.

MAD applies when work is being done by a qualified electrical crew and an electrically trained, qualified operator. The standard clearance applies when the crew members and equipment operator aren’t qualified.

OSHA’s rule states that no employee shall approach closer than the MAD unless they are insulated by gloves or the energized part is insulated by cover. You can choose either option. In the example you provided, cover is preferred because of the issues with load control. Of course, another option is spreading phases to increase space. There is no cover rated for system voltages above 69 kV, so isolation for 115 kV and above is the method to use.

Q: We are a small utility with few resources seeking guidance about layering arc-resistant PPE garments to achieve greater protection. We have some exposures in pad-mounted switching calculated at Category 4, and we understand the following:

• Layering two garments does not result in a simple mathematical combination of their individual arc ratings.
• Only testing can truly determine the protection of two garments worn together.
• The gold standard is to match garment ratings with assessed hazards.

With that said, it seems logical that two AR garments worn together would yield higher-level protection. My question is, can we layer Category 3 sweatshirts and medium-weight jackets over Category 2 shirts for tasks with arc risks greater than the rating of the Category 3 garments? Because we’re ideally looking for price deals, we don’t restrict garment procurement to one manufacturer. That makes testing each layer combination impractical and far outside our budget. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?

A: It might be justifiable and worthwhile to partner with just one garment vendor to meet your obligation to your employees. Combination testing is required to ensure worker protection levels. A manufacturer is unlikely to offer their lab results with a competitor’s product, and in your case, because you buy garments from various manufacturers, every purchase would be subject to a category value change. By opting to partner with a sole vendor, you gain access to information and support regarding layering designs and values.

As to your Category 4 URD exposures, the use of longer shotguns and sticks can move exposed workers farther from the source of an arc flash and may provide a way to keep exposures at Category 2. It’s the same with substations. Switching procedures can usually keep technicians far enough away that they rarely exceed Category 3, but we yield to your source calculations.

The bottom line is that you’re right. OSHA states that you cannot assume the combined arc thermal performance value, or ATPV, of layered materials because, as you said, they are not 1:1. If you’re layering garments made by more than one manufacturer to achieve a certain ATPV, OSHA’s expectation is that you tested the layers together using the industry-required standardized testing. On the other hand, if you’re layering garments from the same manufacturer, they have either already tested or will test the layers to identify the combined APTV.

Q1: Something came up during a grounding scenario that I’d never questioned before. Does OSHA require a visually verifiable air gap? Our answer to this was yes, absolutely, no question about it – it’s a widely agreed-upon best practice. But we have a utility customer who told us an open is verified by checking for the absence of voltage. Can you explain the correct approach?

Incident Prevention also received a second, related question from another reader.

Q2: We are working through the question of requiring a visual open on equipment owned by a big customer of ours. OSHA 1910.269(m), “Deenergizing lines and equipment for employee protection,” states that the employer must ensure disconnects, jumpers and other means are open. Having a visual open has always been the company procedure. In reading the regulation, however, I am struggling to understand what OSHA is saying. I think part of it is checking for lack of voltage, but the other part is having a visual on the contacts, whether that’s an open-air gap on a disconnect or one through a window on underground equipment. A camera that shows an internal target wouldn’t meet what I believe to be true. Can you help?

A: OSHA’s rules are open-ended, or what’s referred to as “performance based”; they state what must be accomplished. The employer decides how they will meet those expectations. A voltage check meets the requirement to ensure the facility is de-energized. The OSHA standard does not use the term “visual open” as a requirement. Whatever we decide to do, the procedure and solution employed to protect the worker must be defensible. We accomplish that by engaging in common industry practices.

In most cases, a visible open is only the beginning of protection for the worker. Ensuring that the open remains open and can’t inadvertently be closed is the second – and probably most important – part, especially where there are no “locks” that can be used to ensure an open switch stays open. Typically, the third part is having a written policy and/or training for those who rely on the open for their protection.

The OSHA rule calls out switches, disconnectors, jumpers and taps, and it requires the means to be inoperable. The standard doesn’t differentiate between untap and tape back or total removal. Jumper removal meets the obligation to be inoperable. The rule also requires tagging of the inoperable means, which must conclude with ensuring that no one with the capability could come by and replace a missing jumper. It’s the same with removing a barrel; you still tag for the highly unlikely but not impossible event that someone could come by with an extendo stick and a spare barrel.

The bottom line is that the open was created for worker protection and therefore must be tagged.

Most utilities frown on an open disconnect in an enclosure where the disconnect isn’t visible. For that reason, numerous manufacturers now offer view ports for visual observations of open contacts. A view port can be coupled with a locking or blocking mechanism, which is the second part (noted above) that ensures open contacts can’t be inadvertently closed.

Q: When and why did the industry begin using red for L1, white for L2 and blue for L3? Doesn’t the National Electrical Code standardize the colors on 240 volts (i.e., L1: black, L2: red and L3: blue) and 480 volts (L1: brown, L2: orange and L3: yellow)? Also, is there a different color code once you get above 480 volts?

A: Power-line installations are not subject to the National Electrical Code. We use the “X” and “H” 1/2/3 designations common to transformers, which are standardized in transformer consensus standards. In a single phase, X2 is a neutral bushing, but the conductor itself is usually bare past the bus jumper from the transformer. When we put notations in a customer’s meter, we typically use magic marker to label a 1/2/3 and rotational direction. We don’t color-code our line-side conductors; we use voltmeters.

The NEC does not designate phase colors, except the neutral being white or gray and ground wires being green or bare copper. The color conventions – red, black, orange, brown, and blue and yellow – are exactly that: conventions common to the electrical industry. So, what is required? If you put orange on one end of phase B, the other end of the same conductor must also be orange.

The purpose of using colors is to ensure workers can properly note phase rotation during the initial hookup. With single-phase, it doesn’t matter whether one is red or black or whether they’re the same at the other end. With three-phase, color was originally used to designate the high leg for open delta. Other colors have simply caught on, inspired by tape manufacturers and companies, like Brady, that make labels for wire.

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.

How you respond to other people and events matters. It matters a lot. Your responses – both as a leader and a member of the TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More) – impact every part of your life, including culture, relationships and safety.

Let’s start with this: “Responding” is a task. To perform the task well, we need tools that give us time to think, help us focus our attention and assist us in controlling our work, emotions, risk tolerance and decision-making. Now, keeping in mind that good tools help us work better and great tools help us think better, we’re going to discuss a great tool that will help optimize our response to any event.

When discussing principle one (“Take 100% responsibility for your life”) in his book “The Success Principles,” Jack Canfield offers up one of the most powerful tools I have ever learned to use: Event + Response = Outcome, or E + R = O. Essentially, this equation tells us that because we have little to no control over daily events (e.g., circumstances, people, timing), we must focus on our ideal outcomes and then influence those outcomes through our responses. Principle one concludes with a very powerful message: Pay attention … your results don’t lie.

To illustrate how the E + R = O tool works, think about driving near another vehicle whose driver has road rage. That driver’s actions are beyond your control, but your response to the situation is not. Pause to define your outcome (e.g., I want to arrive at my destination safely and on time) and you’ll likely choose not to engage with the other driver. That’s an excellent use of the tool.

What would happen during the same event if you were to respond differently? Maybe you don’t pause and have an emotional response, or perhaps you define your outcome as wanting to engage with the driver to get back at them. Either response would escalate the event and potentially result in a much different outcome, such as violence or a vehicle accident.

E + R = O or A B C D E?
In Chapter 1 of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” author Stephen R. Covey provides insight about being proactive. He writes about our Circle of Influence (how you respond) and our Circle of Concern (events happening to and around you). We can add a Circle of Control, which encompasses our responses, emotions and decisions. The test is simple. Events occur within your Circle of Concern. You either E + R = O or you A B C D E (accuse, blame, complain, defend and deny, and make excuses). If you A B C D E, you are spending too much time focused on events in your Circle of Concern. If you pause, define your outcome and respond appropriately, you are using the E + R = O tool well.

Let’s walk through how the tool works during a common event that can have a huge impact on safety, culture and relationships: I make an error. Do I respond by hiding it? Do I voluntarily report the error? If I report it, how will my leaders and organization respond? Will I be punished or ignored, or will my error be shared so we can apply lessons learned? As Doug Hill – a retired lineworker, safety culture champion and trainer for the Incident Prevention Institute – often says, “You can name and blame, or you can learn and improve. You can’t do both.”

The same principle applies to success. How you respond to success matters a lot. Think about someone exercising stop-work authority. How you respond to that also matters a lot, as do your responses to unsafe acts and conditions. And here’s one more thing that matters a lot: your responses to multiple events that happen each day, such as participating in a job briefing, attending a training session or teaching a class. Look for opportunities to respond well. If you don’t like the TEAM performance you’re seeing, spend more time evaluating your responses and less time focusing on events.

Conclusion
The primary value of the E + R = O tool is that using it gives you time to think. Pausing between the event and your response allows you to focus your attention. Make a habit of practicing this tool during simple events in low-risk environments so you can use it well when you really need it. The next time you encounter a challenging person or situation, ask yourself, “What is my desired outcome?” Once you have defined that with extreme clarity, the approach to handling the person or situation should become obvious, improving the likelihood that you will achieve your desired outcome.

E + R = O helps us with life skills. Employing this tool can enhance culture, safety, relationships, emotional intelligence and decision-making. To maximize its value, however, you must first be trained to use it properly.

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: Your Response Matters
September 3, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

In utility line work, safety is built on layers. Each layer is essential; ideally, if one fails, another layer will prevent alignment of all the holes in James Reason’s proverbial Swiss cheese.

Recently, while preparing a training presentation focused on switching procedures, de-energization and grounding, I found myself thinking through the process backward and forward. I considered the moment a line is still energized, imagining the scenarios that could unfold for a troubleman or line crew. Then I thought forward again, this time to the crew working behind an open switch, between grounds and in an equipotential zone.

One question kept surfacing: If grounding is meant to protect us in the event of re-energization, why don’t we always disable reclosing on the circuit we’re working? OSHA requires blocking remote supervisory control during de-energized and grounded work, but disabling reclosing is not mandated. That’s a critical gap in our safety net.

A Hidden Risk
Automatic reclosing is designed to restore power after temporary faults, such as a tree brushing a line. But when a line is intentionally de-energized and grounded for maintenance, any re-energization attempt could be catastrophic. If reclosing is left enabled, the breaker will attempt to reclose multiple times – even into a grounded fault – before finally locking out.

With reclosing disabled, time delays are removed, even on the first relay. Here’s how it works:

• The breaker trips on the first fault, typically within three to eight cycles depending on settings and voltage.
• No reclosing attempts are made.
• The circuit locks out immediately and remains de-energized.

Immediate lockout significantly reduces the risk of unexpected re-energization and ensures the line stays safely out of service until it is manually restored.

Why Does This Matter for Workers?
Grounding is not a guarantee of safety during high-energy fault events. Reclosing into a grounded line can:

• Cause arcing, equipment damage and violent whipping of ground jumpers.
• Expose workers to dangerous step and touch potentials.
• Lead to failure of personal protective ground jumpers due to excessive fault energy.

The longer the system continues to reclose, the greater the energy delivered into the fault. This could exceed the capacity of protective grounds, leaving the line energized and workers exposed.

The Hazards of Multiple Reclosing Attempts
The first reclosing attempt typically uses a fast-acting protection curve to quickly clear transient faults. However, second and third attempts often rely on slower inverse time-delay curves, allowing more time for faults to clear naturally. This results in:

• Longer energized durations.
• Increased energy delivered into the fault.
• Greater arc flash risk.
• Elevated likelihood of ground jumper failure, which could result in the line remaining energized.
• Higher potential for injury or death.

Remember, reclosing’s job is to remove the fault. If the fault is a grounded line with personnel present, reclosing works against us – not for us.

Final Word
Workers are exposed to increased risk as repeated reclosing attempts lengthen time delays, making the act of disabling reclosing when working on grounded lines not just a best practice but a potentially lifesaving act.

About the Author: Ben Browne, CUSP, has over 20 years of global experience in electric utility safety, risk management and sustainability leadership. He currently serves as the safety and environmental manager for S&C Electric Co.

In this special Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast episode for Extreme Heat Awareness Month, host Kate Wade welcomes Dr. Kevin Rindal of Vimocity and Scott Head of DragonWear to share essential strategies for preventing heat stress among utility workers.

They dive deep into how extreme heat affects the human body, why utility workers are especially vulnerable, and how modern flame-resistant (FR) clothing technology can dramatically improve comfort, safety, and productivity in the field.

Drawing on sports medicine principles, real-world utility experience, and advanced FR fabric design, this conversation is packed with actionable advice for safety leaders, crew trainers, and frontline workers alike.

Contact our guests – Dr. Kevin Rindal and Scott Head: kevin@vimocity.com and scott@dragonwear.com.

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

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

Key Takeaways:

• Utility workers are industrial athletes who need to manage hydration, acclimatization, and recovery like pro athletes do.

• Early signs of heat stress include confusion, irritability, and poor coordination—workers and supervisors need to spot these quickly.

• Modern FR clothing is engineered to wick moisture, provide stretch, offer UV and arc-flash protection, and even manage odor—reducing distractions and injuries.

• Dynamic warm-ups, proper hydration strategies, and electrolyte management are critical for heat adaptation.

• Safety leaders should equip crews with a “toolbelt” of resources: high-performance clothing, hydration plans, training, and real-time site monitoring for evolving heat risks.

3 Q&As from the Episode:

Q1: What actually happens to the body during heat stress?

A: Blood flow shifts from the brain and core to the skin to cool off, reducing cognitive sharpness. Early signs include confusion, irritability, and clumsy movements—critical warnings for supervisors to watch for.

Q2: How can clothing reduce heat stress risk?

A: Advanced FR garments like DragonWear’s Pro Dry Tech shirts use multi-fiber designs to wick moisture, offer stretch for movement, provide UV/arc-flash protection, and even manage odor—keeping workers cooler, drier, and focused.

Q3: What can crews do to prepare for working in extreme heat?

A: Start hydration the day before, sip water with electrolytes throughout shifts, do dynamic warm-ups to prime blood flow, and plan shaded breaks. Avoiding sugary or dehydrating drinks is also essential.

#UtilitySafetyPodcast #HeatStressPrevention #FRClothing #WorkerSafety #ExtremeHeatAwareness #DragonWear #IndustrialAthlette #Lineworker #OSHA

Twiceme Technology, the digital safety standard for jobsites and adventures, has named Securis, a Velotec Sports industrial head protection brand, as its latest PPE partner. Securis will integrate Twiceme’s smart safety technology into its entire product line, enhancing safety for industrial workers and streamlining organizational safety management.

Velotec Sports introduced the Securis brand in 2023 after a decade in outdoor protective headgear and will embed Twiceme chips into the shell of its Type II safety helmets. By partnering with Twiceme, Securis will enable its users to upload work-related documents and medical information to speed certification tracking and response times in the case of an emergency. First responders can immediately access critical data – including personal contacts, medical conditions and allergies – by scanning the Twiceme symbol on the back of a helmet during emergencies.

Securis helmets with Twiceme will be available starting in July 2025. www.securisprotect.com, www.twiceme.com

LineWise now offers a Horizontal Double Bundle Line Cart, available in a gas-powered or non-powered version. Designed for use on horizontal bundles spaced 18 inches apart, the new line cart offers a safe, specially engineered mobile platform for performing line inspection and maintenance on transmission lines.

The Horizontal Double Bundle Line Cart offers a 400-pound capacity with a single person occupancy limit, and it includes a foldable seat for operator comfort. Constructed of strong, lightweight aluminum alloy, the cart is bolted together, so there are no welded seams to crack. For added safety, the line cart has a toe board around the floor and two safety bars positioned over the conductors.

Customers can choose a gas-powered or non-powered version of the line cart. The non-powered model requires workers to manually pull themselves along the conductors to move the cart. The gas-powered version includes a 3.2-horsepower gasoline engine to propel the cart. The engine drives two of the cart’s four wheels and comes with a throttle control to adjust speed. It has a transmission with reverse and two forward gears for excellent control.

An optional tow bar assembly is offered for the non-powered Horizontal Double Bundle Line Cart. This helps to maintain balance and alignment of the cart on the conductors. It also allows lineworkers to pull the cart from ground level using a tow rope. https://line-wise.com

Cementex’s double-insulated pry bars, engineered with the company’s industry-leading insulation technology, provide the leverage required to pry open whatever is being worked on while maintaining a barrier against electrical hazards. The signature orange-over-yellow insulation offers clear visual safety indication, allowing users to both quickly identify wear and maintain compliance with stringent safety standards.

Manufactured in the U.S. with both American and globally sourced materials, Cementex double-insulated pry bars are tested to 10,000 volts and rated for live use up to 1,000 VAC/1500 VDC. Available in 12-inch and 36-inch options to suit various applications, they can tackle a range of diverse and demanding challenges. The technology also empowers customers to easily meet requirements such as OSHA safety-related work practices, the NFPA 70E standard and CSA Z462. Backed by a lifetime guarantee on mechanical parts and a two-year guarantee on insulation, these pry bars are built to last. www.cementexusa.com

Terex Utilities offers a variety of training opportunities that can be customized to fit customers’ needs. Training available to service personnel includes both hands-on and online opportunities. Maintenance training workshops are for mechanics working on Terex digger derricks and bucket trucks. Subjects and activities covered in these workshops may include understanding and using load charts; performing periodic inspections; troubleshooting PTO issues; changing the direction of a pump; and performing a leakage test on outriggers. The Master Mechanic Learning Center is an online training platform covering inspection, dielectric principles, hydraulic troubleshooting and other service issues.

Since 2012, Terex Utilities has published Tech Tips to answer frequently asked questions. Tech Tips address a single repair or replacement topic with step-by-step instructions and graphics. In 2024, customers downloaded these tips almost 15,800 times. Terex Tech Tips are continuously updated and expanded, so the company recommends checking back often to see what’s been updated. Topics cover a wide range of content, with some specific to Terex Utilities models and others that are more general in nature. Sign up for Tech Tips and stay updated on the latest Terex workshops and training on the company’s website. www.terex.com/utilities/en/support/technical-support/tech-tips/sign-up

J. J. Keller & Associates Inc. recently released a report for its inaugural “State of Environmental Health & Safety” benchmarking study, conducted by the J. J. Keller Center for Market Insights, the company’s collaborative research arm. The study is aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of how safety professionals perceive safety within their organizations and the overall state of safety in today’s workplaces.

Conducted from November 18 to December 2, 2024, the online survey was open to individuals responsible for environmental health and safety. The study reflects J. J. Keller’s ongoing mission to protect people and the businesses they run because, by identifying the challenges faced by EHS professionals, it becomes possible to foster improvements within the industry. www.jjkellersafety.com/resources/whitepapers/ehs-benchmark-study-2024

In this episode, we unpack the vital safety standards, OSHA regulations, and field-tested insights that govern bucket truck operations in the electric utility industry. Based on the article “Bucket Truck Safety: OSHA Standards and Other Considerations” by Danny Raines, CUSP, we dive into key differences between Class A and Class B trucks, daily control tests, fall protection, and the nuances of operating near energized lines. You’ll learn why dielectric testing matters, how improper tool placement can lead to serious hazards, and what often-overlooked basics can prevent catastrophic incidents. Whether you’re in utility operations, safety management, or just curious about what keeps linemen safe, this is your shortcut to understanding critical compliance.

Gain practical takeaways, understand real-world challenges, and walk away with a new appreciation for the safety systems behind the power grid.

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/bucket-truck-safety-osha-standards-and-other-considerations/

Key Takeaways:

• OSHA 1910.67 is the foundational standard for bucket truck safety.

• Daily lift control tests and proper bucket stance are mandatory safety practices.

• Class A (barehand) and Class B (gloving) trucks serve different functions and require different protective strategies.

• Fall protection is a non-negotiable requirement—fall distance and impact risk must be minimized.

• Misconceptions about insulation and inadequate cover-up procedures are common contributors to incidents.

3 Podcast Questions and Answers:

Q1: Why is OSHA 1910.67 considered the backbone of bucket truck safety?

A1: Because it outlines non-negotiable requirements such as daily lift control testing, safe bucket operation, and movement restrictions—all of which are essential to preventing falls and electrocution.

Q2: What’s the key difference between Class A and Class B bucket trucks?

A2: Class A trucks are designed for direct contact with high-voltage lines and rely on the boom’s insulation, while Class B trucks require full cover-up and rubber glove protection due to lower insulation properties.

Q3: What unsafe practice is commonly observed and highlighted in the article?

A3: Moving trucks with elevated booms without proper exemption, and workers failing to properly cover energized parts—both of which dramatically increase risk.

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

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

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.

#UtilitySafety #BucketTruckSafety #OSHAStandards #LinemanSafety #ElectricalUtilityWork

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

3 Questions & Answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

4 Questions to learn from this podcast with Answers:

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

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

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

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

Q3: How can utility workers improve safety culture?

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

Q4: What role does leadership play in utility safety?

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

Challenging the Status Quo: Rethinking Safety in the Utility Industry

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

USMWF’s MISSION

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

​

USMWF’s VISION STATEMENT

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

Read the article in iP Magazine – Read Here

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Connect with Kevin:

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

Resource Links:

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

Key Takeaways from this podcast:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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