Incident Prevention Magazine

I’ve worked in substations for most of my adult life, and I’ve picked up a few things along the way. Some were the result of good experiences, while others I learned through less than ideal circumstances. In this article, I want to share with you what I learned from my first experience with confined space rescue in a substation.

It was mid-August of 1983 in Florida and the outside temperature was in the high 90s. Inside the 69/13-kV transformer, the temperature was well over 100 degrees. Two journeymen were conducting an inspection inside the transformer when they discovered a problem in the winding. They called the lead man in to take a look. One of the journeymen climbed out of the transformer and the lead man climbed down to the bottom. He was in there for about 20 minutes, and as he began to climb out, his leg got stuck and he soon became claustrophobic and panicky.

The electric utility industry has a big problem on its hands. A great number of lineworkers born between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s either have reached or are nearing retirement age. As these individuals age out of the workforce, the industry will continue to experience an inevitable downturn of knowledge and talent.

The proof is in the numbers. According to a February 2015 report in Power Engineering magazine (see www.power-eng.com/articles/npi/print/volume-8/issue-1/nucleus/who-will-replace-nuclear-power-s-aging-work-force.html), approximately 20 percent of workers at U.S. electric and natural gas utilities are currently eligible for retirement, and 40 percent will be eligible in the next five years. The report also cited U.S. Department of Labor statistics, which indicate that up to 50 percent of the country’s utility workforce will retire in the next five to 10 years.

The burning question is, who’s going to step in to replace these workers? And once they’re hired, what’s the best way to go about training them to safely perform their job tasks?

In one way or another, culture helps to shape nearly everything that happens within an organization, from shortcuts taken by shift workers to budget cuts made by managers. As important as it is, though, it can seem equally as confusing and hard to control. Culture appears to emerge as an unexpected byproduct of organizational minutiae: A brief comment made by a manager, misinterpreted by direct reports, propagated during water cooler conversations and compounded with otherwise unrelated management decisions to downsize, outsource, reassign, promote, terminate and so on.

Culture can either grow wild and unmanaged – unpredictably influencing employee performance and elevating risk – or it can be understood and deliberately shaped to ensure that employees uphold the organization’s safety values.

At Salt River Project, a large utility based in metropolitan Phoenix, there are a great variety of jobs, situations, risks and exposures that must be addressed, assessed and controlled. Journeymen lineworkers labor in heat approaching 120 degrees on the desert floor, while hydrologists trudge around in near-zero-degree weather to examine snowpack on the mountainous Mogollon Rim. A pressman needs a hearing assessment to judge the impacts of a six-color press, while electronics technicians must be evaluated for radio-frequency exposure from telecommunications equipment. A warehouseman at a power plant in the high desert prairie requires education about hantavirus exposure from deer mice, while a call center representative needs an ergonomic evaluation to guard against back and joint issues.

So, while the term “industrial hygienist” may conjure visions of a W. Edwards Deming-like technician scrutinizing manufacturing processes, nothing could be further from the truth at SRP. Industrial hygiene encompasses scores of jobs within the water, power and telecommunications utility that serves much of central Arizona. Employees work in and around dams, irrigation ditches, power plants, high-voltage lines, state-of-the-art facilities and legacy buildings dating back to the Truman administration. Industrial hygienists assess risks for jobs that didn’t exist a year ago as well as occupations that have been in existence since SRP was founded in 1903.

Author’s Note: Before we get to the article, I want to thank the members of Incident Prevention’s editorial advisory board for their help in assembling this installment of “Train the Trainer 101.” They help me keep my head on straight, especially when I have ideas that are way outside the box. Even though I am also on the board, they still hold me to high standards of accountability and accuracy. These folks are a great asset to iP and make better writers of everyone who contributes to the publication.

Over the past year, iP subject matter experts have fielded many questions about how to meet the minimum approach distance (MAD) and arc flash (AF) rules published by OSHA in the 2014 final rule regarding 29 CFR 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V. The questions about MAD came from a variety of perspectives, but they were primarily submitted by contractors trying to facilitate the information transfer now required by 1910.269(a)(3) and 1926.950(c). Without information about a system’s fault characteristics, the contractor cannot determine MAD, either by calculation or via the tables in 1910.269 Appendix B and Appendix B to 1926 Subpart V. That means the contractors must fall back on the sometimes absurd provisions of alternative tables R-7 through R-9. In my work for a contractor, we have found that those alternative tables can make some work – particularly transmission work – very difficult, if not impossible, especially when faced with compact lattice structures or old construction standards on wood poles. For AF programs, that lack of information may be overcome effectively by experienced guesswork, but compliance by guesswork cannot be defended when the compliance safety and health officer asks how you determined the AF compliance requirements.

It’s now been 18 months since OSHA’s final rule regarding 29 CFR 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V was published. For the most part, the dust has settled and the industry has started to adjust to the requirements of the new standard. However, questions still abound regarding certain issues, and I’d like to address two of them – employee training and host-contractor information transfer – in this installment of “Voice of Experience.”

Q: Is equipotential grounding now a personal protective grounding method required by OSHA?

A: The answer is yes, even though OSHA doesn’t specifically say so in terms we easily understand. The terminology isn't OSHA's fault. As an industry, we adopt certain familiar ways of describing or discussing things and simply don't recognize what OSHA is trying to communicate unless we do some diligent research. In 29 CFR 1910.269(n)(3), OSHA requires arrangement of grounds to protect employees without using the word “equipotential.” The title of the rule, however, is “Equipotential zone.”

The full text of 1910.269(n)(3) 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.” By definition, that is equipotential grounding.

4 Time Management Mistakes You Might Be Making
You’re busy. Your employees and colleagues are busy. Just about all of working Americans are incredibly busy, with perhaps more demands on their time now than ever before. And while some of us are great at handling all that life throws our way, others struggle with how to best manage their time at work. Are you making any of the following mistakes? If you are, not to worry – once you’ve realized what you could be doing better, you can begin to move toward more refined time management skills.