Skip to main content

LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?

Train the Trainer 101: ASTM F855 Grounding Equipment Specs Made Simple

Written by Jim Vaughn, CUSP on . Posted in .

I define safety as identifying and managing hazards to prevent incidents. That is accomplished using a broad array of tools and rules for the employer and workforce. Good safety professionals and trainers have to go beyond the OSHA and MSHA regulatory text to completely understand the rules. That is where preambles to the standards, interpretations, CPLs and consensus standards are needed.

In 29 CFR 1910.269 Appendix E, OSHA lists consensus standards that, as the introduction to Appendix E states, can be helpful in understanding and complying with the requirements of 1910.269. One of the referenced standards is ASTM F855-09. ASTM F855, “Standard Specifications for Temporary Protective Grounds to Be Used on De-energized Electric Power Lines and Equipment,” is a manufacturing specification. Procedures for protective grounding are outlined in IEEE Standard 1048, “IEEE Guide for Protective Grounding of Power Lines.”

Under OSHA and ANSI standards, the employer is required to:
• Determine the fault levels that workers may be exposed to.
• Determine what electrical characteristics are required for protective grounds to protect workers at those fault levels.
• Determine what physical characteristics are required of the grounding equipment.
• Determine what methods shall be employed to provide the best protection of employees using the selected equipment.
• Provide training on the procedures and applications of the selected grounding equipment.

Every safety professional who deals with protective grounding should have a copy of ASTM F855. The intent of the standard is to provide specifications for manufacturers. The value to safety professionals is that the standard clearly identifies what clamps do, how they are rated, and which ferrule and cable they are to be mated with.

About Testing
Grounds assembled by the employer require continuity integrity testing and inspection in order to comply with 1910.269(n)(4)(ii), which states that “[p]rotective grounds shall have an impedance low enough to cause immediate operation of protective devices in case of accidental energizing of the lines or equipment,” and ANSI C2 411(C)(1), which states that “[p]rotective devices and equipment shall be inspected or tested to ensure that they are in safe working condition.” IEEE 1048 11.2.2 describes recommended methods for performing both millivolt and high-current tests on ground assemblies.

If a protective ground installed in an equipotential arrangement has too much resistance, it will not protect workers. Resistance in the protective ground increases current across the worker in a fault. If the ground is improperly rated and fails before the system protection opens, the fault current will take any other available path, which includes personnel in contact with the faulted conductor.

The Construction of ASTM F855
The ASTM F855 standard has four parts:
1. Clamps for temporary protective grounds.
2. Ferrules for temporary protective grounds.
3. Cables for temporary protective grounds.
4. Construction of complete assemblies of protective grounds.

Clamps are rated according to three criteria categories in ASTM F855:
• By installation method as Type I, II or III.
• By strength and electrical requirements as Grade 1 to Grade 7.
• By internal jaw contact surface as Class A or Class B.

Clamp types I and II are for installation on conductors that have been de-energized and tested. Type I has a hot-stick eye and Type II comes fitted with a hot stick. Type III is usually installed using a formed T-handle and is intended as a first connection to a system neutral, pole bond, or grounded station or apparatus steel that does not require use of a hot stick.

Grade 1 to Grade 7 Clamps
Clamp grades 1 through 7 establish minimum requirements for physical strength and electrical characteristics in withstand rating, ultimate rating and continuous current, strength yield and ultimate strength.

The withstand rating is the current ratings the clamp can sustain in kA at 15 and 30 cycles without damaging the clamp. It is the rating used to determine the proper application of the clamp to the anticipated fault current.

The ultimate rating is the current ratings the clamp can sustain in kA at 6, 15, 30 and 60 cycles. The clamp must carry the rated current, but it is not required to survive the exposure to the point of being reused.

The continuous current rating is the current the clamp must conduct without overheating to failure.

Class A and B Ground Clamps
Class A clamps have a smooth-finished internal jaw contact surface. Class B clamps have serrations or crosshatch patterns on the contact surface intended to abrade or bite through corrosion products on the surface of the conductor.

Connections for Cable to Clamp
There are two connections required for cable to clamp – mechanical and electrical. Mechanical connections secure the cable to the clamp to prevent stress movement damage to the cable, also known as strain relief.

All cables must have strain relief. It may be accomplished using shrouded cable ferrules or by means of a separate cable clamp that is part of the ground clamp’s design. (See the “Ferrules” section of this article for a discussion of shrouded ferrules.) Strain relief may also be accomplished using the manufacturer’s heat shrink sleeves if the manufacturer has tested and listed the sleeves for strain relief application.

Electrical Connection
The electrical connection on the grounding clamp is known as the terminal. All clamps require a ferrule-to-terminal connection. It is not permissible to make a stranded conductor connection directly to a clamp.

There are nine ASTM termination styles designated for ground clamps. While not part of the F855 standard, the nine styles can be unofficially grouped into three basic terminal types:
1. Pressure-type terminal connections use a plain eye bolt inserted through a hole in the clamp. A plain stud-type ferrule is inserted in the eye. The nut on the bolt end of the eye is tightened, trapping the ferrule against the clamp.
2. Threaded female terminal connections accept externally threaded ferrule studs. The threaded ferrule comes with a spring washer and nut. The ferrule is screwed into the clamp terminal connector and locked into place with a backup spring washer and nut.
3. Drilled terminal connections have no internal threads. They use either an externally threaded ferrule or a ferrule that is drilled and internally tapped.

For externally threaded ferrules, a spring washer and two nuts are used. The threaded ferrule is inserted through the drilled terminal. A nut on either side of the terminal is tightened to trap the ferrule in place.

If a drilled and internally tapped ferrule is used, a bolt and lock nut are used to connect through the clamp’s drilled terminal into the ferrule.

Ferrules
Cable ferrules are sleeves compressed onto the cable end to protect the stranding of the cable when installed in a connecting terminal. To meet ASTM standards, temporary personal protective grounds must use multistranded flexible cable conductor installed in a rated clamp using protective cable ferrules.

Similarity of Metals in Terminal Connections
There are no dissimilar metals restrictions in the ASTM F855 standard. However, when assembling grounds, care should be taken to maintain conventional similarity of metals in the electrical connection to minimize connection corrosion.

Plain copper ferrules are usually used with bronze clamps. Tinned copper ferrules are commonly used with bronze or aluminum clamps, or with aluminum clamps that use bronze pressure terminal connectors.

There are no restrictions for using either copper or aluminum ferrules on high-flexibility ASTM-compliant copper grounding cable.

Ferrule Grades
Cable ferrules are classified by two criteria: Grade 1 to Grade 7 and Type I, III, IV, V and VI. At present, there is no Type II specification.

Ferrules are rated Grade 1 to Grade 7 in withstand, ultimate and continuous current just as clamp grades 1 to 7, making electrical ratings easy to match. The conductor size for each grade of ferrule also corresponds to the minimum single cable size specified for the clamp of the equivalent grade rating.

The nonthreaded stud connector of an ASTM-rated ferrule is always half-diameter size for each grade even though each grade of ferrule corresponds to a specific cable size. Threaded studs come in three sizes: 1/2-inch 13 UNC, 5/8-inch 11 UNC and 3/4-inch 10 UNC.

Ferrule Types
Ferrules are categorized according to ferrule-to-clamp connection method and by either shrouded or nonshrouded.

Shrouded ferrules have a two-part compression sleeve at one end of the ferrule. The narrow part of the sleeve is the cable connector that is crimped onto the conductor strands. Extending past the conductor sleeve is a wider sleeve called the shroud, which extends down from the cable connector over the cable insulation where it is also crimped as a method of strain relief.

Shrouded-type ferrules are designed to be used with ASTM-type grounding cable. Other highly flexible cable may be used for grounding assemblies. If the cable is not compliant with the ASTM standard, the insulation may be too thick to fit under the ferrule shroud.

Cables
Grounding cables are specified as Type I, II or III. The principal difference in each type is the temperature rating of the insulation and stranding of the conductor. Type I is elastomer 40 C to 90 C, minimum of 665 strands #30 or #34 AWG; Type II is elastomer 25 C to 90 C, 133 for #2 or 259 strands for 1/0 or larger; and Type III is thermoplastic 10 C to 60 C, minimum 665 strands of #30 AWG.

Type III cable’s upper temperature limit, like many other non-ASTM-rated cables, is lower than would be experienced in fault conditions and could burn under some fault conditions, producing toxic fumes.

Nonstandard Cable Use
ASTM F855 paragraph 32.4 allows, at the user’s discretion, the use of cables that are nonstandard. Most manufacturers will not use nonstandard cables in delivered assemblies. The concerns when considering non-ASTM-listed types of cable are insulation performance, proper stranding, quality of the strand lay and alloying of the copper strand materials in the conductor, all of which affect performance in a fault.

ASTM F855 Appendix X1.1 recognizes that much of the grounding cable in service has been constructed for welding use. Most of the cables in the market are constructed to ASTM standards and have performed well in utility use. In addition, the paragraph notes that many of these cables have been tested to the ASTM standard and have been found to meet the requirements of the standard.

Cable Capacity
The current ratings for grounding cables are higher than standard service cable ratings because of the specific application, lengths of cable in use and expected duration of applied currents. Continuous current ratings for ASTM-rated grounding-type cable is as follows:
• #2 – 200 amps
• 1/0 – 250 amps
• 2/0 – 300 amps
• 3/0 – 350 amps
• 4/0 – 400 amps
• 250 kcmil – 450 amps
• 350 kcmil – 550 amps

The standard includes ultimate current-carrying capabilities for cables derived from EPRI RP2446. Those capacities are rated/derated in worst-case conditions determined by the X/R factor. You can find a nontechnical explanation of the X/R factor below.

With the exception of Grade 7 in the ultimate category, all grades of clamps exceed the matching grade ground cable fault current ratings for the 6-, 15-, 30- and 60-cycle durations under the derated scenarios.

Conclusion
Over the years the utility industry has recognized that personal protective grounding has saved many lives. That performance is improved by the effective determination of the workers’ exposure, application of procedures to accommodate the exposure, and proper selection and maintenance of protective equipment. Good information and effective training are key to maintenance and continued improvement in this high level of workplace safety performance.

About the Author: After 25 years as a transmission distribution lineman and foreman, Jim Vaughn has devoted the last 15 years to safety and training. A noted author, trainer and lecturer, he is director of safety for Atkinson Power. He can be reached at jim.vaughn@atkn.com.

Editor’s Note: “Train the Trainer 101” is a regular feature designed to assist trainers by making complex technical issues deliverable in a nontechnical format. If you have comments about this article or a topic idea for a future issue, please contact Kate Wade at kate@incident-prevention.com.

Correction:The original practical guide to ASTM F855 was included in the 1990 version. For this article, we revised the guidance according to the 1997 revision of F855. In the 1990 edition, F855 did allow heat shrink for strain relief if approved by the shrink and ferrule manufacturer. However, it appears that F855 removed the acceptance of a compatible shrink installed over cable and ferrule as a means of cable restraint at least since the 1997 edition.

Additionally, a Salisbury by Honeywell representative pointed out to us that F855 Table 1 no longer includes the Ultimate 6 cycle rating and that ASTM F2249, “Standard Specification for In-Service Test Methods for Temporary Grounding Jumper Assemblies Used on De-Energized Electric Power Lines and Equipment,” is another excellent resource for safety and equipment maintenance professionals. We agree.

 

Calculating Fault Current
Calculation of fault current is best accomplished through the services of an engineer experienced in utility systems. Often the assumption is made that the worst-case fault is the current delivered at the substation’s transformer. Such calculation also assumes that the resistance between the station and the point of a fault will further limit the amount of power delivered into the fault.

This method is commonly referred to as the infinite buss theory. Infinite buss calculation is a simple Ohm’s law calculation of voltage divided by the circuit resistance measured in impedance.

X/R Factor
There are limitations on the acceptability of the infinite buss theory, principally the effect of reactance (X) and resistance (R). This is known as the X/R of the electrical system between the source and the point of the short circuit.

In the first few cycles of a short circuit, there is an asymmetrical factor in the current flow. If described using a sine wave diagram, instead of the waves equally arcing above and below the line known as point zero, most of the wave would be offset above the zero line. In engineering terms this is known as DC offset.

This DC offset asymmetry creates the initial high current in the first cycles of a short circuit. The DC component asymmetry drops off quickly because of I2r losses in the circuit.

These initial fault current levels are the basis for the differences in the 6-, 15-, 30- and 60-cycle ratings of the grounding system components. Over the duration of the fault, the components heat up and the ratings of the components decrease. In the same way, the initial fault current is high because of the DC component asymmetry, but drops off quickly due to I2r loss.

Fault current asymmetry is quantified as an X/R ratio or X/R factor. There are several methods of arriving at the total asymmetry of the fault current. In simple terms, the X/R factor, when known, becomes the basis for a multiplier that expresses the highest current available at the short-circuit location.

The X/R factor raises the fault current to the maximum thermal and mechanical stress that can be delivered by the electrical system. This maximum available fault current must be calculated to accurately select the required grounding components.

The Importance of Engineering Assistance in Ground Selection
Using a simple infinite buss calculation, a 40-MVA power transformer with an impedance of 4.775 percent is calculated to be able to deliver a fault current of 24,271 amps. If relying on this basic method for ground selection, a crew might select a Grade 3 ground with a 2/0 cable, rated at 27,000 amps.

Unknown to the crew, the circuit in question has a high reactive component resulting in an X/R ratio of 24.9. As a result of the high X/R ratio, the fault current is 38,809 amps. Instead of a Grade 3 clamp with 2/0 cable, the new information indicates a Grade 5 clamp with 4/0 cable is required.

IP ARTICLE VAULT 2004 - 2015

Human Performance Tools: Important or Critical?

2014 USOLN Safety Award Winners Announced

Arc Flash and the Benefits of Wearing PPE

Closing the Safety Gap

Chainsaw Safety, Planning and Precision Felling Techniques

Train the Trainer 101: Substation Entry Policies

Voice of Experience: How Does the Employer Ensure and Demonstrate?

December 2014 Q&A

December 2014 Management Toolbox

Lessons Learned, Successful Implementation of Behavioral Safety Coaching

The Pain Game: Preventing MSDs

Eliminating Excuses

Training for the New Century

Fall Protection by the Numbers

Injury Free Change

What It Takes to be a Safety and Compliance Leader

Why Single-Point Grounding Works

The Burning Question

Notes From the Underground

Leadership Influencing the Culture

Ergonomics: Preventing Injury

Taking Safety to the Next Level

4 Rules to Live By

Frostbite

A Friend in Need at Indiana Rural Electric Coops

Cleaning Rubber Goods for Safety

Lowering the Threshold

CAVE-IN! Increasing Job Site Safety & Reducing Costs

Keeping the ‘Fighter Pilots’ of Your Company Safe

Safety Comes First at SM Electric

Dramatic Results

Focusing on Safety at Comcast

When is a Lineman a Lineman?

Making Sure Everyone Goes Home Safe at Southern California Edison

Stay Alert! Work Safe!

Everyone Benefits at Charter Communications

Dissecting an OSHA Inspection

Top Five PPE Mistakes

Ultimate Protection

Learning Curve

Total Success at Dominion

NESC-2007 Update

Making Safe Choices

Tips for Improving Incident Investigation Interviews – Part 1: Preparation

The Key to Safety at KCP&L

Digging Out – The Interagency Snow Rescue Task Force

LockOut TagOut

Tips for Improving Incident Investigation Interviews- Part 2: Contact Time

Dreams Can Become Reality: SDG&E Flex Center

Bridging Communication Gaps

Equipotential Grounding at AEP

Training Development

Focusing on a Safety Culture at Consumers Energy

Substations: Eliminating the Dangers Within

Ensuring Safety at Grand Bahama Power

Perfect Storm – The Case for AED’s

Embracing Change: Think Human Performance

NESC 2007 FLAME RESISTANT CLOTHING

Managing Safety Rule Violations

Passion for Safety

How to Bulletproof Your Training

Tower Rescue Pre-planning Pays Off

Managing Safety

Effective Fall Protection for Utility Workers

Safety Information Superhighway

Inspection of Wooden Poles

Free Climbing vs. Safer Climbing

Safety Culture Success

Inspecting, Cleaning and Storing Live-Line Tools

Arc Flash – Are You in Compliance?

Human Performance

Training Second Point of Contact

Preventing Underground Damage

Keeping Things Safe in the Field and the Office

Winter Safety Vehicle Checklist

Strategies for Safety in the Wind Industry

What’s in a Number?

How to Choose and Use Ergonomic Hand Tools

Meeting the Challenge

Machine Safety

What You Need to Know About Substations

Moving from Operations into Safety or Training

Distribution Dispatcher or System Operator?

High Visibility and Arc Ratings for Flame Resistance

Stuck in the Mud

Aerial Rescue

Going With the Wind

Incident Analysis

Hidden Traps of Generator Use and Backfeed

Making the Right Choice

Soil Resistivity Testing & Grounding System Design: Part I of II

Succession Syndrome

Making Safety a Core Value

Floodwater Hazards and Precautions

Know the Signs and Symptoms of Heat-Related Illnesses

Huge Steps

Seamless and Compliant

Soil Resistivity Testing & Grounding System Design: Part II of II

Aerial Lifts

How Good Are Your Tailgates?

Root Cause Analysis

Maturity Matters

What Do We Do About Arc Hazard?

NESC-2012-Part 4: Summary of Change Proposals

A FULL Commitment

Arc Suppression Blanket Installation

What Does NFPA 70E Mean To You?

How Safe Are Your Ground Grids?

Introducing a New Certification Program for Utility Safety Professionals

Confused About Arc Flash Compliance?

Analyzing Safety and Hazards on the Job

Error-Free Performance

People Focused Safety

No Substitute

Error-Free Performance: Part II

Heard It Through the Grapevine

Best Practices

Line of Fire

Is Your Company Ready for the Next Disaster?

Preventing Employee Exposure to Pesticides

Compressed Gas Cylinder Safety

LOTO vs. Switching and Tagging

Are You on Cruise Control?

Solid Footing

Hand Protection

Crane & Derrick Compliance

Mind Control: Distractions, Stress and Your Ability to Work Safely

Rubber Insulating Line Hose

Procedure for Reducing Injuries

Huskie Tools Opens New Fiberglass Restoration Division

A92.2: The 2009 Standard

Vehicle Operation Winter Readiness

ATV Safety Begins with Proper Training

Innovate or Follow: The Argument Against A Best Practice

Northeast Utilities Takes Safety Off-Road

High-Pressure Hydraulic Injection Injuries

100 Percent Fall Protection: A Joint Union-Management Effort

Crew Foreman Needed: Who Do We Pick?

Behavior Safety: A Safety Program’s Missing Link

Challenges & Successes

Drop Zone Management: Expanding Our View of Line of Fire

Taking Stock of Your Fall Protection Compliance

Live-Line Tool Use and Care

Employee Training: How Hard Can It Be?

Supervisory Skills for Crew Leaders

Equipment: Back to Basics

A Second Look at Safety Glasses

Competition for a Cause

Human Behavior and Communication Skills for Crew Leaders

Cultivating a Mature Workforce

What’s Your Seat Belt IQ?

Substation Safety

No-Voltage Testing

Five PPE Safety Challenges

Safety Circuitry: The Power in the Brain

Arc Flash Exposure Revisited: NESC 2012 Part 4 Update

T&D Best Practices for Crew Leaders

CUSP Basics: Introduction to Human Performance Principles

Felling of Trees Near Power Lines

Working in Winter

Back to the Basics: PPE 101

Hearing Conservation: An Interesting Challenge

T&D Safety Management for Crew Leaders

Basic Qualifications of Employees

FR Layering Techniques

Safety Rules and Work Practices: Why Don’t They Match Up?

Effective Customer Relationships for Crew Leaders

The Value of Safety Certification

Safety Leadership in a Written Pre-Job Briefing

Communication: The Key to Great Safety

Safe Use of Portable Electric Tools, Cords and Generators

Keys to Effective Fall Protection

Integrity and Respect: Two of Our Most Important Tools

The Intersect: A Practical Guide to Work-Site Hazard Analysis

Strategic Safety Partners

Behavior Safety Training for Safety Committee Members

Combating Overuse and Overexertion Injuries

Safe Digging – Get the 411 on 811

Apprenticeship Training

How S.A.F.E.T.Y. Brought Bluebonnet Through the Fires

Formal vs. On-the-Job Training

That’s What I Meant to Say: Safety Leadership in Communication

The Value of Personal Protective Equipment

Safety and Human Performance: You Can’t Have One Without the Other

Oh, No! Changes in the Workplace

Performance Improvement: Barriers to Events

Train the Trainer 101: Ferroresonance Explained

Voice of Experience: Safety Excellence Equals Operational Excellence

A Mirror: Your Most Important PPE

Care of Portable Ladders

Voice of Experience: FMCSR Compliance: Driver Qualification Files

Train the Trainer 101: Enclosed Space Rescue

Keys to Evaluating and Comparing Arc-Rated and Flame-Resistant Fabrics

Raising the Bar, Lowering the EMR

How Six Sigma Can Improve Your Safety Performance

Detecting Shock Hazards at Transmission Line Work Sites

Care and Maintenance of Climbers

Voice of Experience: Are You Ready for the Big Storm?

Train the Trainer 101: Working from Crane-Mounted Baskets

Learning Leadership: The Leadership Paradigm Shift

Are You Prepared for the Next Generation of Lineworkers?

Implementing a Zero Injury Program

Public Safety and Our First Responders

Managing Cold Stress

Live-Line Work on the Jersey Shore

Soil Classification and Excavation Safety

Voice of Experience: The Definition of Personal Protective Equipment

Learning Leadership: Leadership Skill Set 1: Self-Awareness

Evaluating Crew Supervisors

Train the Trainer 101: Arc Hazard Protection

NESC and ANSI Z535 Safety Sign Standards for Electric Utility Power Plants and Substations

Working Safely with Chain Saws

The Globally Harmonized System for Classifying and Labeling Chemicals

Voice of Experience: The Cost of Business

Train the Trainer 101: Understanding Grounding for the Protection of All Employees

Learning Leadership: Leadership Skill Set 2: Self-Regulation

Occupational Dog Bite Prevention & Safety

Safety Awareness for Substations

Bighorn Sheep vs. Lineworkers: What’s the Difference?

OSHA Job Briefing Basics

Voice of Experience: Training for the Qualified Employee

Train the Trainer 101: ASTM F855 Grounding Equipment Specs Made Simple

Foundation Drilling Safety: The Aldridge Electric Story of Success

The Authority to Stop Work

Starting From the Ground Up

Understanding Step and Touch Potential

Multitasking vs. Switch-Tasking: What’s the Difference?

Voice of Experience: Incidents and the Failure to Control Work

Train the Trainer 101: Live-Line Tool Maintenance Program

Passing the CUSP Exam

Learning Leadership: Leadership Skill Set 4: Social Awareness

Ergonomics for Lineworkers

Are Your Temporary Protective Grounds Really Protecting You?

Voice of Experience: Working On or Near Exposed Energized Parts

Train the Trainer 101: Why You Need More than 1910 and 1926

Transitioning to FR Clothing

Leadership Skill Set 5: Social Persuasion

Safety Management During Change

Spice It Up!

The Singing Lineman

Emergency Action Plans for Remote Locations

Trenching and Excavations: Considerations for the Competent Person

Traffic Safety for Lineworkers

Using Best Practices to Drive Safety Culture

Voice of Experience: The Globally Harmonized System is Here

Train the Trainer 101: Grounding Trucks and Mobile Equipment

The Power of an Effective Field Observation Program

What OSHA’s Proposed Silica Rule Means to You

2013 USOLN Safety Award Winners Announced

Learning Leadership: Personal Protective Emotional Armor: Part 1

Electrical Capacitors in AC Circuits

Improving Safety Through Communication

The Benefits of The CUSP Credential

Voice of Experience: Why Did I Do That?

Train the Trainer 101: Practical Elements for Developing a Safety Culture

Learning Leadership: Personal Protective Emotional Armor: Part 2

Fact-Finding Techniques for Incident Investigations

Electrical Safety for Utility Generation Operations Personnel: A Practical Approach

Addressing Comfort and Contamination in Arc-Rated Clothing

Are You Your Brother’s Keeper?

2013 iP Safety Awards

A Key to Safety Performance Improvement

Salt River Project: Devoted to Safety Excellence

Train the Trainer 101: Safety Incentive Programs

Voice of Experience: OSHA 300 Record-Keeping Rules

Understanding and Influencing the ‘Bulletproof’ Employee

Sustaining Safety Successes

Accident Analysis Using the Multi-Employer Citation Policy

PPE: Much More Than Basic or General Protection

Voice of Experience: Understanding Enclosed and Confined Spaces

Train the Trainer 101: OSHA Forklift Certification Requirements

June 2014 Q&A

Injury Prevention Through Leadership, Employee Engagement and Analytics

NFPA 70E Arc Flash Protection for Nonexempt Industry Workers

The Final Rule

Distributed Generation Safety for Lineworkers

The Perils of Distracted Driving

August 2014 Q&A

Voice of Experience: OSHA Eye and Face Protection Standards

Train the Trainer 101: Fall Protection and the New Rule

Responding to Pole Fires

SRP Rope Access Program Addresses Towers of Power

Elements of an Effective Safety Committee

Mitigating the Risks of Aerial Patrols

Job Briefing for One

Culture Eats Programs for Breakfast

October 2014 Q&A

Voice of Experience: Flame-Resistant Apparel is Now PPE

Train the Trainer 101: Stringing in Energized Environments

The Risks and Rules of Chainsaw Operation

Behavior-Based Safety: What’s the Verdict?

Photovoltaic Solar Safety Management for Utilities

Drones and the Future of Tower Safety

Storytelling as a Management Tool

Safety and Common Sense

Snubbing to Steel Lattice Structures: Lessons Learned

February 2015 Management Toolbox

February 2015 Q&A

Voice of Experience: The Importance of Job Briefings

Train the Trainer 101: Addressing Anchorages

Recent PPE Changes and 2015 Trends

Growing a Human Performance Culture

Measuring, Planning and Cutting Methods for Chainsaw Operators

The Importance of Matching Evidence Marks in Accident Investigations

Safe By a Nose

Overhead Utility Hazards: Look Up and Live

April 2015 Management Toolbox

April 2015 Q&A

Voice of Experience: OSHA Updates to Arc-Rated FR Clothing Requirements

Train the Trainer 101: The OSHA-EEI Subpart V Settlement

The Safety Side Effect: How Good Supervisors Coincidentally Improve Safety

Facing Unique Challenges

The Roller-Coaster Life Cycle of IEEE 1307

The Power of Human Intuition

Thirty Years of Personal Perspective

The Most Important Tool on the Job Site

June 2015 Management Toolbox

June 2015 Q&A

Voice of Experience: Fundamentals of Underground Padmount Transformers

Train the Trainer 101: Back to Basics: ‘Gentlemen, This is a Football’

Arrive Alive

How to Navigate the FR Clothing Marketplace

Making the Switch

Understanding OSHA Electric Power Training Requirements

Distribution Switching Safety

Human Performance and a Rat Trap

August 2015 Management Toolbox

August 2015 Q&A

Voice of Experience: Power Generation Safety and the OSHA Update

Stringing Best Practices: Mesh Grips vs. Preforms

Understanding Safety Culture Through Perception Surveys

RF Safety for Utility Workers

2015 USOLN Safety Award Winners Announced

Train the Trainer 101: Practical Underground Safety: Handling Neutrals and Rescue

Voice of Experience: PPE Regulatory and Consensus Standard Requirements

December 2015 Q&A

December 2015 Management Toolbox

The 911 Dilemma

Spotters: A Critical Element of Site Safety

Coping With Industry Changes

The Safety Coaching Observation Process

Fundamentals of Substation Rescue Plans

Recruiting and Training the Next Generation

Shifting Your Organizational Safety Culture

Investigating Industrial Hygiene at Salt River Project

Train the Trainer 101: Practical MAD and Arc Flash Protection

Voice of Experience: Clearing Up Confusion About 1910.269

October 2015 Q&A

October 2015 Management Toolbox

N95 Filtering Face Pieces: Where Does Your Organization Stand?

Stepping Up Steel Safety Education

Rigging Fundamentals for Utilities

Arc Flash Mitigating Technologies and the OSHA Final Rule

Train the Trainer 101: Practical Personal Protective Grounding

OSHA and the Host-Contractor Relationship