June-July 2025 Q&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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