Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast

In this episode of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick sits down with Mark Taylor, CUSP, and board chair of IUOTA. Mark shares his journey from working as an electrician in Calgary to becoming a safety leader in the utility industry. He reflects on the challenges of promoting safety culture in a dynamic workforce and how personal experiences, including the implementation of innovative safety programs, helped his teams achieve impressive results. Mark also discusses his tenure as IUOTA’s chair and the importance of sharing safety knowledge to ensure everyone gets home safe.

Key Takeaways:

1. Adapting Safety Practices for New Generations: Mark highlights the evolving nature of safety practices and the need to adjust communication styles to cater to younger workers who learn and respond differently.
2. Cultural Shift in Safety: His team’s success in reducing workplace injuries stemmed from fostering a culture of genuine care and engagement, shifting from a command-control model to a more collaborative one.
3. Importance of Mentorship and Knowledge Sharing: Mark emphasizes how sharing safety practices across utilities, particularly through IUOTA, has led to the adoption of innovative ideas without duplicating efforts.
4. Challenges of Safety Leadership: Mark’s personal stories of safety failures and successes offer valuable lessons, particularly the importance of verifying safety conditions and the role of supervisors in knowing and supporting their teams.

Check out the IUOTA Conference – Conference 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 #SafetyCulture #IUOTA #WorkplaceSafety #LeadershipInSafety #SafetyFirst

Gas Clip Technologies manufactures top-of-the-line gas detectors and accessories that meet every budget. Each product meets the highest standard of reliability and longevity to help ensure that every user’s safety remains uncompromised. Gas Clip’s MGC Simple and Simple Plus are a perfect example. The MGC Simple and Simple Plus have continuous run times of two years and three years, respectively. Additionally, after being charged and calibrated during manufacturing, neither the MGC Simple nor the Simple Plus requires recharging or routine calibration, although bump testing prior to every use is advised. Both detectors are designed to identify the presence and level of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, oxygen and combustible gases. www.gascliptech.com

FallTech has launched AXIS, the ultimate Minimum Required Fall Clearance and Safe Work Zone Calculator. This innovative tool redefines safety planning by replacing outdated paper charts with cutting-edge digital technology and decades of proven safety engineering expertise.

AXIS goes beyond the capabilities of a traditional calculator – it’s a game-changer in safety planning. With a focus on precision and reliability, AXIS delivers unparalleled accuracy tailored to specific FallTech self-retracting lifelines and job requirements.

Featuring a dynamic 3D digital interface, AXIS simplifies complex calculations into straightforward, accurate assessments, whether you’re planning or making on-site adjustments. This flexibility allows for quick recalculations for adjusted anchor points or minimum clearances, reducing downtime and ensuring maximum safety compliance. www.falltech.com

The Andax Spill Tray recently received the 2024 OH&S New Product of the Year Award for Spill Control & Containment.

The Andax Spill Tray Reusable Absorbent Drip Pad System is the ultimate solution for oil-selective spill containment, perfect for managing any drip or leak.

What sets the Andax Spill Tray apart is its innovative design featuring four sidewalls that act as a mini containment system, effectively preventing leaks from overflowing or leaking over the edge. The tray is reusable and made of a flexible PVC liner, offering a higher containment capacity than standard drip pads. Paired with multiple layers of bonded oil-selective absorbent pads, it ensures more reliable and efficient spill control. When the replaceable absorbent pad is saturated, simply replace it with a new one. www.andax.com

Bollé Safety, a leader in personal protective equipment eye protection, has launched SEAMLESS Vision, a new online ordering service for prescription safety glasses. This new platform is designed to make prescription safety eyewear accessible to professionals everywhere, streamlining the process while ensuring quality and convenience.
As pioneers in the prescription eyewear market, Bollé Safety is solving industry challenges that companies face in providing prescription safety glasses to employees. Traditional barriers such as time constraints, limited access to optical outlets and complicated ordering procedures often impede efforts. SEAMLESS Vision provides a digital solution to these obstacles, enhancing accessibility and efficiency through a user-friendly interface available on computers, tablets and mobile phones.

SEAMLESS Vision introduces a seamless, 100% digital platform that simplifies the ordering process for safety glasses with corrective lenses. This innovative service supports professionals by allowing precise pupillary distance measurements using advanced technology and offers comprehensive lens options, including both progressive and single-vision lenses. www.bolle-safety.us

Gray Tools has released a full line of insulated hand tools to meet the growing needs of commercial and residential electricians, industrial maintenance professionals, mobile/field service technicians and electric vehicle mechanics. The assortment consists of more than 275 products, including both sets and loose tools, with new tools continuing to be added as Gray expands the line. Each tool goes through a lengthy, labor-intensive process to ensure maximum protection for the operator up to 1,000 VAC.

Gray’s insulated line includes ratchets, sockets, wrenches, screwdrivers, nut drivers, pliers, hex keys and hacksaws, as well as a selection of uncommon tools. Various styles and sizes, including SAE and metric, are available to meet a range of job-site requirements. Each tool features a dual-colored insulation that serves as a visual safety indicator. If the outer orange layer of insulation becomes damaged, an inner yellow layer alerts the user that the tool is no longer safe for use.

Gray’s rigorous multistep insulation process is designed to meet or exceed ASTM F1505 standards for insulating adhesion, dielectric properties, flammability and durability. When the process is completed, each tool is charged with 10,000 volts of energy for 180 seconds to ensure its insulation resists potential electric shock. Other tests are performed to verify the flame resistance and durability of the insulating material. https://shopdynamictools.com, https://graytools.com

Beyond the Checklist – A New Model for Workplace Safety – Bill Martin, CUSP – critiques the current approach to workplace safety, where simply completing required safety activities like meetings and events often leads to minimal change. The text advocates for a new model where knowledge is actively applied, and feedback loops are created to assess the effectiveness of safety tactics. The speaker stresses that true improvement requires engaging the workforce in decision-making, testing new ideas, and fostering follow-through. Management-driven safety initiatives are often disconnected from real-world application, and the workforce must value and test new strategies for sustainable change.

Key Takeaways

1. Knowledge vs. Application: New safety information is meaningless unless there is a plan to implement it.
2. The Importance of Synchrony: Teams need to be aligned, much like in nature and sports, to successfully apply safety strategies.
3. Management-Driven Initiatives: Most safety programs are management-focused, but a worker-centered approach is necessary.
4. New Safety Models: Instead of “checking the box,” organizations need to involve workers in testing and evaluating safety measures.
5. Feedback Loops: Continuous feedback from workers can ensure the practical implementation of safety tactics.
6. Fostering Engagement: A model that incorporates workforce feedback and values is crucial for long-term improvement.

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/

#WorkplaceSafety #SafetyCulture #EmployeeEngagement #SafetyTraining #KnowledgeApplication #NewSafetyModel #WorkforceFeedback #SafetyInnovation #CheckTheBox #ContinuousImprovement

Utilities and utility contractors highly value safety. However, labor shortages can sometimes corner field supervisors into making a judgment call about whether an equipment operator is ready for the task. If Foreman A believes an operator is ready after several weeks of training but Foreman B believes the operator still needs several months, who is right? Training directors can support their field supervisors by objectively preparing operators to be ready for hazardous or complex work.

When time is of the essence, especially during storm response to return power to customers, field supervisors need to have confidence in the skill set of their crew. The worst time to find out that an operator isn’t ready is when they’re on the job site with live equipment and other people around. Without the ability to objectively assess operator readiness or adequately train them for high-risk scenarios, gaps in training might only become obvious in hindsight after a safety incident.

What Does a Good Training Strategy Look Like?
In a perfect world, training programs would quickly get classrooms of operators to full proficiency. They would easily identify operator weaknesses and provide the targeted practice needed to address them. They would even allow digger derrick, crane or earthmoving equipment operators to practice the most dangerous scenarios they could encounter, including rare events such as equipment faults that require split-second decisions to avoid an accident. Any assessments of operator abilities would be objective, data-driven and fair. In an ideal world, training programs would be available 24/7, with no cost to fuel or maintain equipment.

Some of these goals may sound far-fetched. But with the right technology, these goals could become reality.

Simulation: The First Step to Safe Training
While simulation has long been a mainstay of training programs in industries like aviation, the practice of using it for operator training in other industries is still relatively new. That short history, however, has already provided significant results. Among early adopters in utilities, construction and ports, simulation has helped cut training times; reduce in-field equipment reliance; lower both training costs and training-related emissions and equipment repairs; reduce operator cycle times; and train operators any time of day or year, regardless of weather conditions.

Each of these benefits is impressive, but the key value of using simulation comes from its ability to reduce the likelihood of a safety incident.

Part of simulation’s success comes from its ability to introduce operators to high-risk work in a safe environment, where you can simply press the restart button when something goes wrong. If the equipment tips over or contacts a power line in a simulated exercise, that mistake becomes a useful learning opportunity rather than a disaster. Operators can even practice these types of incidents to learn exactly why a particular shortcut is dangerous or which sensations to watch for before equipment passes the point of no return and begins to tip. Further, some companies will use simulators to recreate accidents that happened on their site to show new trainees what not to do in certain situations. This helps to fill gaps in training that are difficult, if not impossible, to address on real equipment.

When learning a new piece of equipment, the operator will make mistakes. It’s expected. If you are an instructor, you would much rather these mistakes happen in a safe environment where you can easily discuss them with students and offer guidance, as well as have a student practice an exercise repeatedly to build muscle memory.

“When training exclusively on live equipment, coaching was difficult,” said Shane Matthews, director of training and development at ElectriCom, a utility infrastructure contractor based in Indiana. “With the simulator, I can literally put hands on hands. I can move the trainee’s hands, coach them and have a discussion.”

Simulation allows instructors to address key safety risks before they become a problem. But there’s another type of technology that is taking training initiatives even further. It’s known as an intelligent training system.

Elevating Training with an Intelligent Training System
Simulation technology is at a point where training organizations can take advantage of the tremendous amount of data the simulator generates – such as trainee performance, physics data and machine behavior – to make strategic decisions.

Instructors can use a training system’s advanced reporting features to gain detailed information on everything from cycle time to idle time to safety violations (e.g., contacts with power lines). They can then use that data to offer targeted practice to operators and address any shortcomings before they become a safety risk.

Organizations can also save and store training data, gaining a concrete record of training initiatives that demonstrates due diligence.

However, to reduce an intelligent training system to its reporting features would only tell part of the story. At its core, an intelligent training system is a system that centralizes, enhances and simplifies the management of simulated instruction. It turns an approach that used to see one trainee on one simulator being supervised by one instructor into a training system that provides the opportunity to monitor, update and manage multiple simulators from one central and secure hub.

With an intelligent training system, one instructor can monitor multiple students at once via tablet, walking among them and offering guidance when necessary. Instructors can also inject faults – such as a flat tire – on demand to see how trainees react. Additionally, they can craft custom learning paths that require trainees to complete exercises at a certain score before they can continue to the next scenario.

All these features make the intelligent training system scalable. Organizations can add more simulators, controls or software for different equipment types at any time to suit training demands. The system also allows for secure and streamlined maintenance, updates and support, allowing training programs to evolve over time. An intelligent training system can continuously integrate new features and improvements as they are developed, ensuring that training programs do not become outdated over time.

Who Benefits from an Intelligent Training System?
Here are some ways this new approach to operator training can benefit all levels of an organization:

• Executives benefit from having a clear record of training in case of an accident, as well as robust operator data for costing projects.
• Instructors can test operator abilities before they move to the job site, using customizable scoring thresholds to ensure only those fully qualified move on.
• Recruiters can assess whether candidates have the qualifications they claim to have in their applications.
• Information technology support staff can connect an intelligent training system to the organization’s learning management system for efficient training program management.
• Human resources departments can evaluate their organization’s existing workforce, allowing them to uncover and nurture existing talent using objective, unbiased data.
• Instructors can use training data to offer personalized support to students, monitor many students at once and develop learning paths that best address their organization’s training needs.
• New operators can learn at their own pace, with concrete and objective data on where they are excelling and where they need to improve.
• Experienced operators gain easy access to new machines and the upskilling they need for professional growth.
• Best of all, operators can avoid becoming another statistic and cautionary tale.

Conclusion
With an intelligent training system, training programs and operator assessments become objective. Gaps in an operator’s abilities can be identified and addressed through targeted practice. Operators can also be thoroughly vetted before they join a team or step onto a work site. In the event of a safety incident, organizations can easily provide detailed training records to demonstrate due diligence. In short, the intelligent training system is a future-minded, data-driven system that is built to bring operator training to the next level.

About the Author: Alan Limoges serves as the manager of product growth at CM Labs (www.cm-labs.com), where he leverages a background in engineering and a track record of cultivating strategic partnerships.

Editor’s Note: Incident Prevention readers’ initial reaction to the following article might be, “HIPAA?” You are encouraged to check for yourself, but HIPAA – the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act – does not apply to the methodologies the author presents (see www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/faq/index.html). Incident Prevention recognizes that the author’s work is a deeper dive into the values of human performance recognition. The information presented can improve training and analysis by properly accommodating individual human characteristics that affect both learning and performance. You are encouraged to read on.

Our work systems are based on neurotypical norms and expectations. Neurotypical workers make up most of the workforce, and these workers fit easily into these work systems because they are tailored for them. However, neurodivergent workers make up a significant minority, estimated between 15-20% of the population (see https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/135/1/108/5913187). These workers have a range of neurological differences that include cognitive conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyspraxia, dyslexia and dyscalculia.

Neurodivergent workers may struggle to navigate work systems that do not accommodate their unique ways of processing information or consider how they interact with their peers and environment. These struggles make them vulnerable to work errors, accidents and injuries.

Let’s explore how to get beyond traditional work systems to address the needs of a neurodiverse workforce, starting with a few definitions. Then we will look at the different strengths and challenges of neurodivergent workers. Finally, we’ll learn how to build work systems that support inclusion and mitigate the risk of incidents.

Definitions
Understanding some key definitions helps clarify the concept of neurodiversity and fosters a more inclusive and supportive environment.

• Neurodiverse: Refers to a mixed group that includes both neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals.
• Neurotypical: A person who thinks and processes information in ways that are considered standard or typical in society.
• Neurodivergent: A person who identifies with one or more unique ways of thinking and processing information. This person’s brain diverges from what is considered typical in society. Neurodivergence does not determine cognitive ability, intelligence, knowledge or aptitude.
• Neurominority: Any neurodivergent group that differs from the neurotypical majority in terms of brain function and behavior.
• Acquired neurological conditions: Conditions that develop over time rather than being present from birth. Examples include mental health issues such as anxiety and depression.

Language shapes our understanding of diversity and human experience. Educating workers about respectful terminology is a great place to start.

Strengths Associated with Neurodivergent Workers
Neurodivergent workers bring a unique perspective to the workplace. Their diverse way of thinking, problem-solving skills and creativity contribute to innovative solutions that may not be present in more homogenous teams. Figure 1 details some of the strengths associated with neurodivergent conditions.

Common Challenges of Neurodivergent Workers
Many workers do not know they are neurodivergent. However, they usually sense something is “off.” They may be confused about why they struggle to complete certain tasks compared to their neurotypical peers. They may have been unfairly labeled as lazy, unreliable, incompetent, antisocial or overly sensitive. They may even start to believe these labels, introducing self-doubt and feelings of inadequacy.

Even if they are aware, neurodivergent workers may feel pressure to fit in and conceal their neurodivergent traits. This is referred to as “masking.” Masking can lead to emotional and mental exhaustion; loss of authenticity; increased stress and anxiety; social isolation; and burnout.

Figure 2 below describes common challenges associated with neurodivergent conditions. A neurodiverse worker may not experience every challenge listed.

Inclusive work systems not only help neurodivergent workers but also neurotypical workers who may find themselves struggling with mental health issues (acquired neurodiversity) or neurological illnesses that place them in the neurominority.

Sensory sensitivities, communication issues, and attention and focus problems are three primary challenges experienced by neurodivergent workers that may contribute to safety incidents.

1. Sensory Sensitivities
Neurodivergent workers often have an atypical sensory experience. Visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, taste and temperature preferences vary and are experienced differently compared to neurotypical workers. These differences significantly impact their daily work.

For example, an autistic worker may find it overwhelming to work in a noisy environment. Sensory overload may contribute to extreme emotional and physical reactions (e.g., meltdowns and shutdowns) and an inability to respond to emergency situations.

Below is a sensory sensitivities checklist that can be duplicated to aid with creating accommodations that may help to avoid accidents and injuries on the job due to sensory overload.

A sensory-friendly environment reduces the chance of accidents and injuries by helping the worker to maintain awareness.

2. Communication Issues
Neurodivergent workers experience communication differently than their neurotypical peers. Some neurodivergent workers may need written communication while others need spoken communication and/or a different type of visual communication.

A worker with ADHD may be distracted by both external interferences (noise, movement) and internal interferences (thoughts, daydreams). Since the worker’s focus is frequently shifting from what is being communicated to internal thoughts and external stimuli, there may be gaps in their understanding, and they may struggle to maintain attention to lengthy conversations and detailed instructions.

Autistic workers may have difficulty interpreting facial expressions, body language or tone of voice. They often experience anxiety trying to interpret sarcasm, metaphors and idioms. These workers need direct and literal communication. Otherwise, they may spend a significant amount of time and mental effort deciphering the intended meaning of the communication.

Dyslexia primarily affects reading and writing skills. Communication that requires quick reading comprehension or note-taking may be a challenge. Speech-to-text tools can help these workers with emails and taking notes.

Dyscalculia makes it difficult for workers to understand any communication that involves numbers. They could also struggle with navigational direction, such as traveling to a specific address or finding a location within a large plant. They may need to use supportive tools like calculators, a GPS or a facility map.

Dyspraxia can impact a worker’s speech, making it harder for them to convey their thoughts clearly. Dyspraxia also affects the motor coordination needed for typing and writing. Giving these workers time to express themselves, and offering ergonomic keyboards and mice, may assist them with ease of communication.

Don’t assume that poor communication from a worker means that they do not care about their job. Recognizing differences and understanding unique communication needs will promote a supportive work environment.

3. Attention and Focus Problems
Hazard recognition and adherence to safety protocols require attention and focus. There are much better ways to support neurodivergent workers than to tell them to pay more attention.

For example, a worker with ADHD may forget to wear PPE or use PPE improperly, reducing its effectiveness. Regular audits and refresher training may help these workers with better practices.

Sensory overload can interfere with an autistic worker’s attention and focus. Here are some ideas to help manage sensory sensitivities:

• Noise-canceling headphones
• Adjustable lighting
• Quiet zones
• Fragrance-free policies
• Climate control
• Flexible work hours

Workers with dyspraxia expend more energy organizing their thoughts and overcoming fine motor difficulties than their neurotypical peers. Finding ways to reduce fatigue – such as regular breaks or ergonomic adjustments – may minimize these challenges.

Dyslexic workers will find it challenging to focus on tasks that require extensive reading and note-taking. Reduce reading and writing demands, if possible. Alternatively, allow the extra time dyslexic workers may need to complete a reading and writing task and set realistic deadlines. The same ideas apply to dyscalculic workers on tasks that require working with numbers.

Recognizing these challenges not only enhances safety but also fosters a culture of understanding and respect that benefits the entire organization.

Building Inclusive Work Systems
An inclusive workplace is one that focuses on the health, safety and well-being of all workers in a neurodiverse workforce. It is possible to build systems to accommodate nearly everyone.

The Principles of Universal Design (see https://design.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/principles-of-universal-design.pdf) can help you create systems that are accessible to and usable for as many workers as possible. These principles were developed by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.

Wheelchair ramps are one example of universal design. They accommodate everyone – not just wheelchair users. They benefit elderly people, those recovering from injuries, parents with small children and visually impaired people.

Following are the seven principles and a description and example for each that may aid a worker with a neurodivergent condition.

The Principles of Universal Design provide a sturdy framework for creating a safe, productive work environment.

Protecting and Empowering the Neurodiverse Workplace
A workplace where neurodivergent workers feel supported and understood encourages these workers to embrace neurodivergence as a positive part of their identity. Educating staff about neurodivergence and associated challenges and strengths will also promote understanding among co-workers. Traditional work systems leave neurodivergent workers susceptible to greater physical and psychological hazards than their neurotypical peers. Inclusive work systems create a safer workplace for all.

About the Author: Barb Carr has worked for System Improvements Inc. (www.taproot.com) since 2006. She is a global instructor who teaches safety and quality professionals root cause analysis for better, stronger work systems and performance improvement.

In the utility industry, workplace safety is of vital importance. Utility workers face numerous hazards daily, from working at heights and handling electrical equipment to operating in confined spaces and dealing with extreme weather conditions.

To ensure the well-being of these essential workers, organizations must adopt a comprehensive approach that addresses both job characteristics and resource availability. By integrating the Job Demands-Control (JDC) model and the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, utility companies can create a safer and more supportive work environment that empowers their employees and reduces the risk of accidents and injuries.

The JDC Model: Empowering Workers Through Autonomy
The JDC model, developed by Robert Karasek, provides a framework for understanding how job demands and job control interact to influence employee stress and well-being. According to this model, high job demands combined with low job control can lead to increased stress and poor safety outcomes. On the other hand, when workers have high levels of job control, they are better equipped to manage their workload and make decisions that prioritize their safety.

In the utility industry, increasing job control can be particularly effective in mitigating the negative effects of high job demands. By giving workers more autonomy in deciding how to approach their tasks and empowering them to make decisions on the spot, organizations can foster a sense of ownership and responsibility for safety. This increased control allows utility workers to adapt to changing circumstances and address potential hazards proactively.

Several studies have investigated the relationship between job demands, job resources and safety outcomes in various industries. For example, Li et al. (2013) examined the impact of job demands and resources on the safety compliance and emotional exhaustion of crude oil production workers in China (see www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457512004216). The results indicated that job demands – such as psychological and physical demands – along with job resources – including decision latitude and support from supervisors and co-workers – significantly influenced workers’ emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. These factors played a crucial role in determining the occurrence of injuries and near misses in the workplace.

The COR Theory: Providing Essential Support
While the JDC model focuses on job characteristics, the COR theory, proposed by Stevan E. Hobfoll, emphasizes the importance of resource availability in managing stress and maintaining well-being. According to this theory, individuals strive to obtain, retain and protect valuable resources, such as time, energy and social support. When these resources are threatened, lost or insufficiently gained after investment, stress occurs.

In the context of utility workers, the COR theory highlights the need for organizations to provide adequate resources to support their employees. This includes ensuring that workers have the necessary tools, equipment and time to complete their tasks safely, as well as access to training and mental health support. When utility workers feel that they have the resources they need to manage their job demands, they are less likely to experience stress and more likely to engage in safe work practices.

Research has shed light on the importance of creating a positive work-life climate and providing adequate resources to support utility workers. Prapanjaroensin et al. (2017) found that fostering an environment that prioritizes work-life balance can have far-reaching benefits, including improved teamwork and safety climates, as well as reduced levels of personal burnout among staff (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.13348). These findings underscore the significance of investing in employee well-being and ensuring that workers have access to the tools and support they need to thrive in their demanding roles.

Integrating JDC and COR: A Synergistic Approach
By bringing together the insights of the JDC model and the COR theory, organizations can develop a comprehensive approach to workplace safety that addresses both job characteristics and resource availability. This cooperative approach recognizes that job control acts as a key resource that enables workers to manage their job demands effectively, aligning with the COR theory’s emphasis on resource conservation.

To implement this integrated approach, utility companies should focus on a few key strategies:

• Job redesign and resource provision: Redesigning jobs to increase worker control and autonomy can foster a sense of ownership and engagement. This can be achieved by involving workers in decision-making processes, allowing them to have input regarding their schedules and task assignments. Simultaneously, providing the necessary resources – such as appropriate tools, training and support – ensures that workers can perform their duties safely and efficiently.
• Creating a resource-rich environment: Establishing a work environment that prioritizes resource availability and support can significantly reduce the stress experienced by utility workers. This includes providing access to mental health resources, ergonomic tools and comprehensive safety training programs. By fostering a supportive atmosphere where workers feel valued and have the resources they need, organizations can mitigate job-related stress and improve overall safety outcomes.
• Integrating safety technology: Incorporating advanced safety technologies into the workplace can greatly enhance the safety of utility workers, particularly those operating in isolated or high-risk situations. Technologies that provide real-time safety alerts and improved communication, such as wearable devices and mobile apps, can monitor workers’ locations, detect emergencies and send immediate alerts to supervisors. These technologies not only provide a safety net for workers but also enable quick responses to potential hazards, preventing accidents before they occur.

Practical Implications and Real-World Examples
To illustrate the practical implications of integrating the JDC model and COR theory, let’s consider some real-world examples. Snyder et al. (2008) investigated the effects of job demands and control on workplace injuries among union blue-collar workers (see www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457508001000). The study found that the presence of safety control measures could effectively mitigate the negative impact of situational constraints, ultimately leading to a reduction in workplace injuries. This finding highlights the importance of implementing robust safety control measures in the utility industry to protect workers from inherent hazards.

Another example comes from a case study conducted by Ferreira et al. (2023) in Brazil, which focused on the electric power system industry. The study revealed that experienced workers were less likely to be involved in accidents compared to their less experienced counterparts. Furthermore, the study emphasized the vital role of mental health support in maintaining a safe work environment, as workers who received adequate mental health resources were better equipped to handle the challenges and stresses of their job.

These examples demonstrate the tangible benefits of applying the principles of the JDC model and the COR theory in the utility industry. By increasing job control, providing essential resources and prioritizing worker well-being, organizations can create a safer and more supportive work environment that empowers their employees and reduces the risk of accidents and injuries.

Conclusion
Enhancing workplace safety for utility workers requires a multifaceted approach that integrates the insights of the JDC model and the COR theory. By recognizing the interplay between job demands, job control and resource availability, organizations can develop targeted strategies to create a safer and more supportive work environment.

Increasing job control and autonomy allows utility workers to manage their tasks and make decisions that prioritize their safety, leading to improved job satisfaction and overall well-being. Simultaneously, providing adequate resources – such as necessary tools, training and support – helps mitigate the negative effects of high job demands and fosters a sense of support and value among workers.

To effectively implement these principles, utility companies should focus on job redesign, resource provision, creating a resource-rich environment and integrating advanced safety technologies. By adopting this comprehensive approach, organizations can develop a strong safety culture that prioritizes the well-being of their utility workers, reduces the risk of accidents and injuries, and contributes to a more engaged, satisfied and productive workforce.

As the utility industry continues to evolve, it is crucial for organizations to remain committed to the safety and well-being of their employees. By empowering utility workers through increased job control and resource availability, companies can create a future where every worker feels supported, valued and safe as they carry out their essential duties. Together, we can foster a culture of safety that benefits not only the workers themselves but the communities they serve.

About the Author: Andrew J. Goodwin, M.Sc., CSP, CRSP, CHMM, CFPS, RS/REHS, CUSP, works in the ET&D power construction contractor sector. He is also a current doctoral student in occupational safety and health at Columbia Southern University.

Hand protection has evolved in recent times, perhaps making the greatest advancements in the past decade. Although the primary focus of this article is hand protection for electrical shock and arc flash hazards, it also explores the multihazard protection incorporated into newer-generation hand protection, examines safe work practices and glove testing methods, and provides updates on international standards work.

A few decades ago, hand protection consisted of leather gloves (mostly cowhide) used mainly for mechanical protection. Hand protection evolved to address specific hazards, such as extreme heat or cold, vibration, cut resistance, conductivity, electrical (dielectric or voltage rated), and gloves that protect other gloves. Examining federal and consensus standards within the context of day-to-day tasks helps understand the need for multihazard protection.

Electrical Shock Protection
The specification for gloves used for protection against electrical shock is ASTM D120-22, “Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.” This specification covers electrical, mechanical and limited chemical tests. The electrical (proof) test is performed on every glove by filling it with water and placing the glove into a water bath so that the water inside and outside of the glove is level. An electrode is placed inside the glove, and the voltage is ramped up until the desired test voltage is reached; the voltage is then maintained for three minutes. The leakage current cannot exceed 5 mA-25 mA, depending on the type of glove tested. The test voltage level is substantially above the maximum-use voltage since the gloves are not in a stressed condition when tested. This assures the ability to protect from shock when in use. Two destructive tests are performed on a sample batch of gloves: the AC moisture absorption test and the AC breakdown test. The breakdown test is performed at a few kilovolts above the proof test, and the moisture absorption test is performed on proof-tested gloves soaked for an additional 16 hours. Gloves may receive a halogenation treatment to reduce surface friction. The rubber insulating glove is electrically strong but mechanically weak against damage such as abrasions, cuts and punctures. The specialized rubber in electrical gloves is leached of the proteins that typically cause allergic reactions since the proteins found in natural rubber allow conductivity at higher voltages.

For care and use, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.137, “Electrical Protective Equipment,” references ASTM F496, “Standard Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves,” and includes some of the requirements in the regulations, making these mandatory. The standard requires that field care and maintenance include (a) air (inflation) testing before the first use each day combined with a thorough visual examination; (b) storage in the item’s natural shape in a cool, dark, dry place; and (c) performing electrical tests – using the ASTM D120 proof test – on in-service gloves every six months. A very important but often ignored requirement is that a designated person be assigned to inspect gloves to ensure that the user is maintaining the gloves in satisfactory condition. Manufacturer-recommended glove dust liners or cloth-type glove liners are highly effective at moisture and sweat management and do not reduce glove life like baby powder or common talcum powder.

For most instances, OSHA 1910.137(c)(2)(vii) mandates that protector gloves be worn over insulating gloves. The most common protector gloves are cowhide. Leather was prescribed as an overprotector glove up to the NFPA 70E-2021 standard (discussed later in this article). ASTM F696-24, “Standard Specification for Leather Protectors for Rubber Insulating Gloves,” summarizes that the purpose of the leather overprotector is to fit snugly and without undue wrinkles over rubber insulating gloves specified in ASTM D120-22. Protector gloves are not work gloves, and if used as work gloves, they cannot be used as a protector again per ASTM F496. Sharp objects can easily damage the rubber glove, so using a protector glove for mechanical and thermal protection is essential. Interestingly, the ASTM D120 standard does allow for storage of the rubber glove inside a dry protector glove but warns against using wet protector gloves. Wet leather is known to leach products from the tanning process onto the rubber glove, resulting in premature failure. This is one reason that overprotector gloves should not be used in wet locations or on bare hands due to sweat. A more important reason, however, is that wet leather is conductive and reduces grip strength. This was one of the driving factors in the development of ASTM F3258-23, “Standard Specification for Protectors for Rubber Insulating Gloves Meeting Specific Performance Requirements”: to allow materials other than leather to increase dexterity, grip and wear, and to quantify arc flash protection.

Power utilities and commercial electricians use rubber insulating gloves. Power utilities may need to use live-line tools for working on live or energized voltages above 36 kV. They will rely exclusively on being insulated through the tool and an insulating aerial lifting device (e.g., a bucket truck) and will not – for the most part – use a rated rubber insulating glove for those voltages. Electrically rated gloves, as shown in Table 1, have a maximum AC use voltage of 36 kV (AC). Specialized live-line barehand work is regulated by the National Electrical Safety Code, and OSHA 1910.269(q)(3) permits barehand work. However, these workers may need cut protection or arc flash protection so that the appropriate standards can still be used.

Table 1: Glove Voltage from ASTM D120-22

Cut-Resistance and Clean Rooms Requirements
Electrical workers in pharmaceuticals, semiconductor manufacturing, aerospace and food plants utilize various work methods to avoid using leather protectors because of clean rooms requirements or food/chemical restrictions. OSHA 1910.137(c)(2)(vii) doesn’t allow the removal of the leather protector gloves for clean rooms conditions as it only focuses on finger dexterity for fine and small parts. This made it difficult for electrical workers to perform permitted energized tasks, such as energized troubleshooting or voltage verification for control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout). ASTM F3258-23 was first introduced in 2021 to address this gap. The standard allowed for testing and classification of protector gloves meeting the physical requirement of leather but allowing more classification using ANSI 105 hand protection selection criteria for cut, puncture and abrasion (optional) resistance. Testing certain types of leather with certain thicknesses showed relatively poor cut resistance, although the abrasion and puncture resistance of leather was reasonably good for most types of electrical work. Seamless coatings on the palm side of the gloves promoted grip even in oily conditions and allow more chemical resistance in many work settings.

Manufacturers have created multi-material gloves with cut-resistant layers, coatings and other features like impact resistance to improve gloves – and now specifically protector gloves – for electrical work. Knit gloves with a palm-side coating stretch over the user’s hands and provide a snug fit to promote excellent finger dexterity, grip and clean rooms usage. These benefits are countered by the fact that the snug fit may wrinkle the rubber glove, therefore being noncompliant with the ASTM F3258 and F696 requirement that protector gloves shall not wrinkle the rubber glove. However, other designs are becoming more available for protector gloves, and the new standard allows for even more innovation. During electrical work, especially energized/live troubleshooting and voltage measuring, users may need to don and doff the rubber gloves multiple times. If the rubber gloves are chosen to fit snugly to prevent the overprotectors from causing wrinkles, and there is sweat or moisture added to the mix, donning and doffing the gloves becomes challenging. This is the key reason that rubber gloves are selected to fit marginally loosely. Since the ASTM F3258 standard is new, manufacturers are still working toward innovative solutions to address these challenges. Unfortunately, as of press time, the most widely available ASTM F3258 gloves are for use on Class 1 rubber insulating gloves and higher.

Arc Flash Protection
Working on energized electrical circuits is required during troubleshooting, switching, controlling hazardous energy, emergency repairs or when design limitations prevent de-energization. When working live, the electrical worker may be exposed to (a) a shock hazard with no arc flash hazard, (b) an arc flash hazard with no shock hazard, or (c) both a shock hazard and an arc flash hazard. Traditionally, rubber insulating gloves with leather overprotectors worked well for arc flash protection. Over time, nylon straps and polyester cuffs were introduced with no arc test requirements. In higher incident energy cases (>8 cal/cm² or >Cat 2), these have melted and caused injury. The latest edition of ASTM F696 (2024) now requires polymeric materials in the cuff to withstand a minimum of 20 cal/cm² or be an arc-rated material or the leather used in the glove. Arc rating of the protector is optional for leather, but many manufacturers now offer arc-rated leather protectors. Protector gloves that test above 14 cal/cm² are optimal for utility workers requiring shock protection per OSHA 1910.269(l)(8)(v)(A), which states, “Arc-rated protection is not necessary for the employee’s hands … if the estimated incident energy is no more than 14 cal/cm².”

ASTM F2675, “Standard Test Method for Determining Arc Ratings of Hand Protective Products Developed and Used for Electrical Arc Flash Protection,” was first published in 2013. This test method allows for testing of all gloves, including rubber insulating gloves, leather overprotectors, knit cut-resistant gloves and multi-fabric gloves. It requires ignition testing for gloves that are not proven to be flame resistant. Both ASTM F696-24 for leather protectors and ASTM F3258-23 (leather, fabric or composite gloves) recognize arc ratings using ASTM F2675. ASTM F3258-23 protectors must achieve a minimum arc rating of 4 cal/cm² to prevent ignition of rubber insulating gloves. The ASTM F3258 standard and the fact that OSHA uses the term “protectors” (without using “leather”) are key reasons for dropping the word “leather” from “protector gloves” in the NFPA 70E-2024 edition.

International Standards
IEC 60903:2014, “Live working – Electrical insulating gloves,” referenced in NFPA 70E-2024, is not referenced in OSHA. It differs from the ASTM D120-22 standard in several aspects. There is no thickness requirement on electrical gloves, meaning that gloves meeting only the IEC standard may not be as durable as those meeting ASTM D120-22. However, they also include composite gloves, which are coated over a lining or other technology that enhances the mechanical properties (puncture and cut resistance) and are intended to be worn without protector gloves. These are common in Europe as they do not currently have a protector glove standard like ASTM F696-24 or ASTM F3258-23. From a U.S. perspective, this standard is important to watch as ASTM D120-22 is currently balloting adding composite electrically insulating gloves to the standard. In arc testing, they are much higher in protection, but the downside is that they are stiffer in use. Time will tell whether they are approved for use in the U.S. by OSHA and, if accepted, become common in live-line work.

An IEC project team has also been working on IEC 63232 (in process), which contains arc testing methods and an arc-rated glove and protector glove standard for international use. This new standard will be like the standards already in use in the U.S.

Concluding Remarks
When exposed to arc flash hazards without exposure to electrical shock hazards, any arc-rated glove with a proper arc rating is adequate. Arc-rated, cut-resistant gloves are ideal for switching and racking operations when no shock hazards are present.

If shock hazards are present, arc-rated protector gloves (leather or non-leather/ASTM F3258 or ASTM F696) are used with rubber insulating gloves up to 36 kV AC. OSHA requires arc ratings on gloves when the arc flash prediction is greater than 14 cal/cm2. Rubber insulating gloves with protectors meeting the latest specifications (ASTM F696-24 or ASTM F3258-23) ensure that melting cuffs are removed from the field.

Presently, there appears to be no ideal option for low-voltage installations (<600 volts) in clean rooms that present both shock and arc flash hazards (usually <12 cal/cm²). But with the rapid advancement of glove developments, a solution may not be that far off.

About the Authors: Zarheer Jooma, P.E., is a partner at e-Hazard (https://e-hazard.com). He has convened and chaired arc flash safety standards and is a member of both ASTM F18 and IEC TC 78. Jooma performs electrical network design, arc flash studies, electrical safety training, incident investigations and auditing. He is the technical paper review chair for two IEEE journals and chair for the IEEE Electrical Safety Workshop 2025.

Hugh Hoagland is retired from ArcWear (www.arcwear.com) and e-Hazard. An expert on arc flash and electrical safety, he continues to write standards for ASTM and IEC/ISO and also provides consulting services.

A trainer, speaking to trainees at the start of class: “Welcome, class. You are encouraged to ask questions and participate. Remember, if you have a question, 15% to 20% of the class probably has the same question.”

A trainee, a few hours later: “I have a question.” The trainee then asks the trainer a question related to the material.

The trainer, after walking to the board, writing the trainee’s question down and then crossing it out: “I have already covered this, and I’m not wasting time going over it again. You need to pay attention.”

Trainee: “You said we should ask questions.”

Trainer: “That didn’t include stupid questions.”

Trainee: “You’re a liar.”

Trainer: “I’d rather be a liar than an idiot.”

Seventeen years after this real-life interaction, during a break in a class I was teaching, the trainee shared his experience with me. He was almost in tears as he told me this was the first time he had participated or said anything during a training session in those last 17 years. He then choked up a little, shook my hand and thanked me for creating an environment in which he felt safe to do so.

As I reflected on this trainee, his intelligence, the insightful questions he asked during my class and the value he added by participating, I couldn’t help but wonder how many missed opportunities there had been during the last 17 years and the positive impact that trainee could have made on other training sessions and his peers. Yet sadly he said nothing and instead, as Mack Turner phrases it, audited all of his training.

Psychological Safety
We are really good at saying the right things. “You are encouraged to participate.” “If you see something, say something.” “Report errors, near misses and good catches.” “Have a questioning attitude and stop when unsure.” “Ask questions during job briefings.” But what are we actually communicating, and how safe do people feel doing the things we say we want them to do?

Here’s my blunt answer to that question: If they aren’t doing it, we aren’t encouraging it. For example, I can’t tell you how many times someone has gone on and on to me about how great their near-miss reporting program is. They’ll show me documentation and all kinds of materials they have created, and then I ask this simple question: How many near misses get reported? The answer is often zero and frequently less than five. Then starts the ABCDE (i.e., accuse, blame, complain, defend and deny, make excuses).

Legacy Culture
Most of these people and organizations are trying to do the right thing. They believe in what they are doing for the right reasons. But a negative legacy (a lasting impact of the past) is a difficult hurdle to overcome. We can’t just start programs – no matter how well-intended and good they are – and expect worker buy-in. Like the trainee from the story that I shared earlier, past experiences impact present decision-making.

So, what can we do? There’s obviously no simple answer to that question, but here are a few useful strategies to overcome legacy culture and foster psychological safety.

Admit failures. Step one in overcoming legacy culture and fostering psychological safety is to make an accurate assessment of where you have been, where you are now and where you want to be. For most organizations, a lot of negative legacy culture has been created through a top-down management approach and focusing on assigning blame after errors and incidents. If you want your people to report their errors, report yours. And then be open to feedback, ideas and suggestions. Ask for specific thoughts about what could have been done better and how event responses could have been handled differently.

Develop relationships and create culture. Both books I’ve written have “The Hurdle” in the title because safety leadership is challenging. And like a track-and-field athlete jumping over a hurdle, the run-up is key. Overcoming legacy culture and creating safe environments that foster psychological safety are hurdles in safety leadership, and the run-up to those hurdles is creating culture and developing relationships.

Involve and empower. No matter how great or well-intended any safety program or initiative may be, it will not be successful if people don’t buy into it. One of the best ways to create buy-in is to involve and empower people. That means more than sitting on a committee. It means they are part of the decision-making process. It means they are champions who conduct training and share information. And it means they are part of the evaluation and continuous improvement process.

Share successes. From a safety standpoint, most of what gets shared with frontline workers is negative. It’s incident reports, safety stand-downs, improvement initiatives and who got disciplined for what. Share successes and what went right, being sure to explain the positive impacts and results of those successes. This is critical with near-miss and good-catch reporting. Share what was reported, what actions were taken, and how it benefits the organization and each person in it.

Conclusion
Maybe what we’re really talking about here is human performance improvement. Acknowledge that people make mistakes and that we can learn from those mistakes when they are shared. Also acknowledge that culture is what drives behavior, and that positive reinforcement works.

Good or bad, you cannot change what has happened in the past. What you can influence is how the past is affecting the present. Admit failures, develop relationships, create culture, empower people and share your successes. That isn’t a perfect formula with guaranteed results, but it is a recipe for success.

Learn More
You can learn more about this article by reading my book “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle: Innovative and Practical Insights on the Art of Safety,” and I hope you’ll join me for the free webinar on this topic November 13 at 11 a.m. Eastern. Thank you for reading, stay safe and be well.

About the Author: David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM, is the director of professional development for Utility Business Media’s Incident Prevention Institute (https://ip-institute.com) and the author of “Frontline Leadership – The Hurdle” and “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle.” He has extensive experience and expertise in leadership, human performance, safety and operations. McPeak is passionate about personal and professional development and believes that intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are key to success. He also is an advanced certified practitioner in DISC, emotional intelligence, the Hartman Value Profile, learning styles and motivators.

About Frontline Fundamentals: Frontline Fundamentals topics are derived from the Incident Prevention Institute’s popular Frontline training program (https://frontlineutilityleader.com). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

Webinar: Make It Safe To …
November 13, 2024, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

Q: We are looking for some direction and opinions regarding SF6 gas switches. The SF6 switches we use on our campus are older and starting to pose problems. Some are leaking and others are very difficult to operate. Can you help?

A: Sulfur hexafluoride, or SF6, isn’t a topic or problem we can effectively deal with in this venue, but we can offer some direction along practical lines as SF6 has greatly fallen out of favor with regulatory agencies and – as a result – the industry as a whole. We understand that several states have SF6 “remove from service” dates on their environmental calendars.

SF6 is nontoxic and nonflammable, but it is a huge issue among environmentalists as a primary greenhouse gas contributor. If your SF6 gas switches are leaking, you must get that under control or expect to become a target. Again, SF6 is nontoxic, so a leak is typically no issue for employees, but it can displace oxygen in confined spaces at lower levels.

The biggest mistake we recall seeing with recharging SF6 is overpressure in the refill injection. Overpressure can stir up debris in the chamber and cause a flashover inside the breaker.

We suggest performing an audit of your breakers to begin a replacement program. Get a manufacturer’s engineer to assist you; the engineer can help develop a checklist to determine remediation or replacement of those breakers that can be rehabbed. Of course, the engineer would be glad to replace all of them, but that includes a big SF6 hazardous disposal hit, too. The engineer should be able to help you set up an assessment matrix for replacement orders.

The International Electrotechnical Commission specification for SF6 – IEC 60376 – is a universal standard that provides good guidance on handling used SF6. Keep in mind that the IEC guide is not U.S. law. Many states have greater restrictions on control of SF6.

Q: Does OSHA prohibit lifting of hot-line clamps to make or break loads? The rule reads as follows: “(i) The employer shall ensure that devices used by employees to open circuits under load conditions are designed to interrupt the current involved. (ii) The employer shall ensure that devices used by employees to close circuits under load conditions are designed to safely carry the current involved.”

A: This rule is often mischaracterized both by wording and intent as prohibiting opening or closing under load using a non-load-break switch or a bare hot-line clamp. The rule does prohibit opening or closing a switch or hot-line clamp (device) under load if an employee performing the task could be injured by the act. If the employee can safely perform the act, there is no violation.

To explain, there are two keys to properly interpreting this rule. One is the location of the rule. It is found in 29 CFR 1910.269(l), “Working on or near exposed energized parts.” The purpose of the paragraph is protection of employees, as stated in this sentence following the section’s title: “This paragraph applies to work on exposed live parts, or near enough to them to expose the employee to any hazard they present.” Paragraph (l) is about protecting employees.

When OSHA reviews potential violations of the standard, they typically consider three issues: whether a rule existed, if the employer knew about the rule and if an employee was exposed to danger by violating the rule. The agency will also review consensus standards and best practices as well as non-adopted consensus standards, which are sometimes used in de minimis conditions and General Duty Clause violations. We know this because when we read public notice citations, we find non-adopted consensus standard language used in the notice of violation without reference to the non-adopted standard. Returning to the intent of the OSHA standard, in this case, the intent of 1910.269(l) is to prevent injuries to employees. In the case of non-load-break dropout switches that have been opened under load using hot sticks millions of times without injury, the case for safety is not difficult to argue.

As a rule, most utility safety procedures would have some established guidance limits on lifting hot-line clamps simply to prevent damage to stirrups or hot-line clamp jaws that result in hot spots and continuing problems. We are aware that some utilities generally prohibit operating hot-line clamps under load, but we are not aware of any utilities that prohibit opening dropouts. In many cases, dropouts do come with load-break tool hooks. Load-break tools are typically used on unswitched capacitor banks and heavier loaded banked transformers. Still, all of these tools and devices are operated from the safety of a shotgun switch stick. Both the hazards and the techniques to safely open a switch or lift a hot-line clamp have been understood since Tips Tool Co. delivered the first clamp stick and hot-line clamp in 1918.

Lastly – to support the employer’s argument for safety in opening non-load-rated switches or taps – is an obscure OSHA response to a 1996 question (Question 26) submitted by Michael L. Harbaugh (see www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-03-26-3). In the response, OSHA reviewed the reasons for load break and hazards that exist if a non-rated switch should fail in operation. The last part of the OSHA answer states the following: “The employer would not be cited for a violation of paragraph 1910.269(l)(10) when employees are not exposed to the hazards involved. This would be the case if the non-load-break disconnecting device was operated from a remote position from where the employee using the device nor other employees could not be injured in the event the device failed.”

Q: Are insulated elbows in a pad-mounted, dead-front transformer considered insulated for the purpose of employee protection? In other words, is it legal to touch or handle a hot elbow with rubber gloves?

A: This is a question that comes up often. We still have instances where workers are manipulating dead-front elbows with rubber gloves, and they are getting hurt doing so.

Anyone who reads the OSHA literature or rules knows the agency qualifies “insulated” and “insulation” differently according to the application. OSHA 1910.269(x), “Definitions,” is not the first place everyone goes when trying to understand OSHA rules, but it should be near the top of the list of research resources. Here are definitions from that section for “insulated” and “insulation” that apply to the question:

Insulated. Separated from other conducting surfaces by a dielectric (including air space) offering a high resistance to the passage of current.

Note to the definition of “insulated”: When any object is said to be insulated, it is understood to be insulated for the conditions to which it normally is subjected. Otherwise, it is, for the purpose of this section, uninsulated.

Insulation (cable). Material relied upon to insulate the conductor from other conductors or conducting parts or from ground.

It is worthwhile here to note that what the “insulation” definition does not state is “making it safe to touch.” To further confuse the issue, OSHA 1910.269(t) allows moving cables by hand after inspecting them, stating the following in 1910.269(t)(6), “Moving cables”: “Except when paragraph (t)(7)(ii) of this section permits employees to perform work that could cause a fault in an energized cable in a manhole or vault, the employer shall ensure that employees inspect energized cables to be moved for abnormalities.” Paragraph 1910.269(t)(7) has a listing of observations and practices designed to minimize risks for failing cable. Despite the provisions of (t)(7), we say don’t move energized primary cable. De-energize it.

Now, back to the question of elbows. Manufacturers refer to dead-front elbows as insulated. Using the definition as provided by OSHA, that would mean “for the conditions to which they are normally subjected.” However, all of the literature provided for installation and operation of dead-front terminals repeats throughout that no one should touch energized elbows at the risk of serious injury or death. The manufacturers’ literature does not include exceptions like using rubber gloves; simply do not touch the elbows. It would seem then that the conditions normally subjected to would include “not to be touched.” That instruction alone is the basis for a policy or procedures prohibiting contact. The manufacturers also instruct users to follow state, federal and industry consensus practices for safely operating the devices. Then the issue is that unless a state operating rule prohibits touching dead-fronts, the federal standard by definition does not prohibit touching elbows. The exception would be from the numerous references throughout the standard to follow manufacturer design and operating instructions, although that instruction does not appear in any references that we can find in dealing with insulated parts.

Finally, there is one interpretation available that seems to follow the observations made so far. Our research again brought us to a request for interpretation, this time in a 2006 letter sent to OSHA by Michael L. Harbaugh (see
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2006-04-25-4). In their response, OSHA mentions a number of issues with the integrity of the insulation of elbows, including issues with leaking and poorly functioning drain wires that compromise the safety of the insulated elbows, closing with this instruction to Mr. Harbaugh: “Consequently, OSHA generally considers the elbow as not safe to touch with bare hands, and the employee would have to maintain a minimum approach distance of ‘avoid contact.’”

Q: Our company safety rules require that we test grounds yearly. We have been sending them to a lab to certify the tests, but economically, having increased the number of grounding cables by 600% in the last six years, both the turnaround and expenses are getting hard to manage. Our management seems to think testing must be performed by a testing lab. Can you help us understand the rules?

A: Testing and inspection to ensure grounds perform effectively is critical in assuring that the grounds perform as designed. Many companies, recognizing how important testing is, have adopted off-site testing – and over the years, many people have simply assumed that a certified lab is required. That’s not the case.

OSHA does not dictate testing methods or intervals for testing grounds, nor have they adopted any of the referenced standards for testing of grounds. That means the guides we use from IEEE and ASTM are not mandatory, but using them as guides is the right thing to do. OSHA does refer the employer to the IEEE and ASTM guides as “references” for information. There is some diligence and conscientious performance required to test grounds, but training and careful selection of personnel to do the testing are effective and expedient ways to keep grounds tested and ready for use in the field.

There are several test units available on the market. Buyers should do their research to determine which will provide the test criteria they need. DC units perform a DC resistance test. DC is not subject to induction or reactance, so a ground being tested by DC can be left coiled during the test. An AC test measures impedance, taking into account clamp spacing and arrangement of the cable, and can even be affected by the metal tube on the interior of a plastic or PVC table under the ground cable being tested. An AC test may be a better indicator of how a cable will perform in the field.

Besides AC/DC, there are essentially two ways to test your grounds in practice by utilities. One is the low-current ohm value method combined with a qualified visual inspection. The other is the full-current method. Both provide necessary information about the integrity of the grounds, and the information derived should be calculated into the peculiarities of the system they will be used on. Many grounds testers using low-current values simply show a pass/fail result. In reality, if we know the test values and the available system fault values, we can calculate risk to the worker and develop procedures and methods to provide the best possible protection.

High-current testing produces a two-part result and was considered by many to be a preferred method. The full-current test impresses a current across the ground under test, usually up to 200 amps, and will stress any poor connections to a degree not possible in a low-current ohms-resistance test. Comparisons of the two methods have regularly shown current testing to reveal connection issues not revealed in a low-current ohms test. Earlier editions of IEEE 1048, “IEEE Guide for Protective Grounding of Power Lines,” had discussions of grounds testing, including a discussion of high-current testing values, but eliminated that section from the most recent edition. For testing, IEEE 1048 now refers the reader to ASTM F2249, which does not describe in detail the value or process of high-current testing. ASTM does, however, include Annex B, which describes how high-current tests use the electrical stress imposed on the cable to proof-test the cable connections; this is done by performing an infrared scan of the cable after high-current loading it to check for hot spots that low-current resistance testing will not reveal. You will find the full-current test discussion and procedures in IEEE 1048-2009. Most high-current testing machines we are familiar with provide a graph associated with current rise and results in voltage drop calculated at maximum-rated fault current for the cable under test. Since voltage drop is critical in determining voltage across a lineworker, these readings are often preferred over impedance of a cable.

Do your research and select your test equipment in accordance with the needs of your system. Train your test operators to perform diligent and conscientious testing. It will pay off.

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

To emphasize the critical importance of the meter base checkout procedure, this installment of “Voice of Experience” will cover the proper procedures for (1) checking out a meter base before setting a self-contained meter on new services and (2) resetting a meter after it has been removed and the base has not been in use.

This article will also provide guidance on the worst-case scenario, which involves reconnecting a disconnected meter. This task, while rare, requires the utmost caution and adherence to safety guidelines. Understanding and preparing for this scenario is crucial for your safety and the safety of others.

Proper training should be completed before a worker is instructed to set a self-contained meter. Personal injury and damage to a customer’s property could occur if the recommended procedures covered in this article are not followed.

Avoiding an Incident
I want to begin by highlighting an issue that was discovered using the checkout procedure.

As you can see in the photos above, voltage was found on the load side of a meter base that had been disconnected in the past. Neighbors had provided service through an extension cord improperly connected to the home. This is one of many cases in which a worker who performed the proper meter base checkout procedure identified an issue, thereby avoiding a flash incident.

Unfortunately, sometimes the procedure is not used when necessary, which has led to catastrophic results on more than one occasion. I’m aware of a house that caught fire, an employee who suffered an arc flash incident, and a number of other ugly outcomes that I don’t have the time or space to mention in this article. These instances underscore the potential risks of neglecting the meter base checkout procedure.

Remember, the test-and-verify approach is not just a philosophy – it’s a necessity. Regardless of your expertise or years of experience, mistakes can be made. You should never make assumptions that everything is OK. The best approach is to take all measures of prevention and verification when setting a meter. It’s not just about doing the job; it’s about doing the job right, every time. And the right way to begin is by following the meter base checkout procedure.

Personal Experience
I first discovered the concept of proper procedures when I was just a young apprentice learning the trade. There were no OSHA regulations at that time; all we had was a company safety rule book that we didn’t read as much as we should have. Tasks were often learned in the field through watching others who supposedly knew how to perform those tasks safely. Most of the time, things went OK, thank goodness. But occasionally, I would discover that training was needed based on outcomes. At one point, I was the young apprentice on what we called the “Cut-In/Cut-Out Crew,” which consisted of me and a lineman who ran services and answered light calls. Once, at a new house, we opened the transformer switch and installed the #2 triplex service. We had the order and electrical permit, and everything was ready so that we could set the meter. We ran the service. I checked the line-side blocks of the 200-amp meter base, 120 on each leg, 240 volts across the lugs. I took the meter, set it in the load-side lugs, pushed it into the line-side lugs, and boom! It did not blow transformer fuses; a 5-amp Kearney can handle a lot of fault current. However, I found out later that the entrance cable in the wall had a Sheetrock nail or two driven in between the meter and the panel just inside the utility room. If I had used the meter base checkout procedure, I would have seen the dead short to ground on hot legs. Instead, a terrible arc in the utility room blew the Sheetrock open and insulation out of the floor. I left that day with a lesson learned: Regardless of the situation, check out the meter base for shorts and faults.

Later, a meterman named Jack Petty wrote a procedure that would eventually become a policy to identify shorts and loads on a meter base before installing a meter or reconnecting a meter to restore service. There are many reasons to use the procedure. For example, customers use illegal methods to steal electricity, and neighbors will pull extension cords next door to restore power when a meter is disconnected or partially removed. An unknown load on a meter could cause a fire when combustible material is left on an electric range and service is restored. It could also burn up a water heater that has no water service. Vacation homes in the South are often left vacant during the summer, with owners returning for winter and getting their utilities reconnected. I’m aware of house fires and damaged appliances caused by such circumstances.

Large homes or businesses with parallel service for larger loads and multiple meter bases also require proper ringing out and verification to ensure markings are correct. Never trust that a cable tag is correct. The tag can be improperly marked, or on some occasions, there may be no tag at all. Flashes and equipment damage have been caused by underground distribution services when the correct cables for disconnection were not identified. I have investigated multiple cases of this.

The Proper Method
The proper method for checking out a single-phase meter base requires the following steps:

• The line to neutral on each line-side lug. This will indicate the correct phase-to-ground and phase-to-phase voltage.
• A test of the load-side lugs, line to line, should be made left-side load to neutral, right-side load to neutral on the load side to identify shorts or loads.
• Finally, checking each meter lug line side to load on each side of the meter base will identify the possibility of an unknown load or appliance in the house when using the correct meter.

If you would like more information, I have a diagram and a PowerPoint of the procedure that illustrate all the safe measures described here. Reach me at rainesafety@gmail.com.

A three-phase self-contained meter base would require additional steps to cover the additional lugs on the line and load side. Note that this article does not cover a transformer-rated CT meter base.

As noted earlier, failure to use these procedures has resulted in many incidents, and I can share those details with any readers who are interested.

My final thought: Never assume it is OK to set or connect services without testing and verifying that the electrician has completed all work correctly and confirming that no one has tampered with the service before setting or reconnecting a meter.

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!

I perform audits of both utilities and contractors. When I work with them to do those audits, we include trucks and trailers. The trailers I’m talking about here are not the box vans behind tractors, but the general-duty trailers used to haul trenchers, backhoes, wire reels and padmount transformers. It’s no surprise that the trailer issues we discover are in keeping with the types and frequencies of violations that enforcement officials find on the roadways: those involving lights, load securement and brakes. Auditors also get a lot of questions about trailer safety, or more specifically, trailer rules, which are in place for trailer safety. I almost always receive those questions after an enforcement action has occurred.

Many enforcement actions have come about due to the efforts of states that have noticed trends in trailer-related incidents. The incidents didn’t involve semi-trailers pulled by tractors; they involved smaller trailers used in commercial environments where enforcement had not spent much focus. Without that focus, there was a lack of accountability, and now it’s caught up with us. States are enhancing their observations of commercial trailering, making stops and taking trailers out of service for numerous issues, most often related to brakes.

The inspiration for this article was a recent training visit I made to a central U.S. utility. On the way to the training location, I saw a utility crew on the side of the road with a state trooper. It turned out they were my training class for that day, so I got to ask them about the stop. It was about brakes. The trooper was getting ready to pull out from a doughnut shop (really, he was) when the crew passed in front of him. The trooper noticed the lack of a battery box and a battery, so he stopped them. He didn’t check to see whether the brakes were working because the lack of a battery on the electric braking system meant the breakaway emergency system wasn’t functional. The crew got a ticket, but they also caught a break. Since the yard was two blocks away, the state trooper allowed the crew to continue to the yard instead of putting them out of service. He also stopped by later that afternoon to see if the trailer brakes had been repaired. They had been.

Once during an audit, I came across a contract line crew with a malfunctioning pole-trailer braking system. The reason I knew it was malfunctioning was because the blue wire in the trailer’s electrical plug was pulled out of the plug and very noticeably hanging from the cord. The reason for that, the crew explained, was that the trailer brakes had locked up and wouldn’t release. They had to get 70 poles delivered to the right-of-way before the day was over, so they had no choice but to disconnect the brakes and “just be careful.” There are several unacceptable issues here, but the worst likely was not the crew’s fault. There were six crew members who held commercial driver’s licenses: one truck driver, two apprentices and three journeymen. This was not a fly-by-night operation, but for all the company did right, not one person on the crew realized the gain was dialed all the way up on the controller in the cab. That’s why the brakes locked up.

How many crews does your company send out with equipment they are not familiar with? How many crew members in your company will solve a problem like stuck brakes in a similar way? As we say at the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction (ISPC), even the very best programs you create are only as good as the training you conduct when you roll them out. To me, the issue with brakes is seriously overlooked and underrated. Big trucks handle very poorly in emergency maneuvers, and almost nothing makes an emergency more unmanageable than a 10-ton trailer pushing a truck where the driver doesn’t want to go.

Brakes Are Required
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation 393.42 is the rule on brakes. Any trailer over 3,000 pounds is required to have brakes. Trailers under 3,000 pounds must have brakes if the trailer axle weight exceeds 40% of the combined axle weight of the tow vehicle. The under-3,000-pounds rule and the 40% rule likely won’t apply in the line industry unless we get carried away with this electric truck thing. Trailers used in the line industry typically exceed 3,000 pounds.

While we are on this topic, I want you to take safety home with you, so keep in mind that an 18-foot fiberglass boat with a single outboard motor on a trailer typically weighs over 3,000 pounds. Since safety is the reason for brakes, it’s a safety issue if your boat trailer’s brakes are not functional or properly adjusted, even if enforcement doesn’t check privately owned trailers not used in commercial operations. Privately owned trailer crashes are just as deadly as commercial trailer wrecks.

Now, back to big trucks, trailers and brakes. In addition to brakes, the trailer must have an emergency breakaway system that applies the brakes in the event the trailer becomes disconnected from the tow vehicle. Electric braking systems use a controller that supplies 1 to 12 volts into the actuator system that delivers a proportional magnetic or hydraulic applied friction brake to the trailer wheels. On the electric system, a breakaway-system battery mounted on the trailer is actuated by a lanyard connected to a switch. If the trailer breaks away, the lanyard is pulled, activating the switch that applies the full battery voltage to the actuator, locking the brakes on the trailer.

Trailer surge brakes use the weight of the trailer against a hydraulic piston mounted in line with the trailer tongue to proportionally apply braking pressure to the trailer’s wheels. The emergency breakaway on a surge system uses a master cylinder actuated by a lanyard that applies full brake pressure to the trailer brakes. Now, not new but not as familiar are electric-over-hydraulic trailer-braking systems that use a combination of proportional electrical signal to hydraulic pressure device, usually a motor that produces the hydraulics to the drum or disc brakes. But as I wrote earlier, even the best systems that are periodically inspected and maintained by good mechanics are only as good as the training of the people who use them. That is often where we find issues in audits and roadside inspections. And speaking of roadside inspections, I’m aware of two recent reports of the Department of Transportation using empty school parking areas to pull over trucks with trailers for brake tests. Using the requirements of the table found in FMCSR 393.52, they set up a brake test zone and have the driver demonstrate the stopping ability of the loaded trailer.

Four Common Trailering Errors
So, with that message delivered about trailer brakes, here are four common trailering issues to be aware of:

1. Overloading the Trailer
With lineworkers, the policy often is, “if it fits, it flies.” This is not an uncommon problem. I sometimes remind lineworkers that when they are loading, securing and driving trucks, they are not lineworkers – they are CDL truck drivers. They know the rules, or at least they knew the rules when they qualified for their CDL. That’s not a criticism of lineworkers as much as it is a deserved criticism of employers. Of all the posters and safety topics you see in a year, how many are dedicated to calculation or review of trailering and trailer loads? On several occasions, I have heard lineworkers assume that if they gave me this trailer and these two 15,000-pound reels of wire, they must fit.

Recommendation: Periodically review trailering, load securement, calculations and weight labels. Even better, stencil axle ratings and load limits on trailer tongues for ready information access for crews.

2. Load Securement
Securement devices are called out in FMCSR 393.104. I frequently find loads secured with straps and chains or binders rigged over lightweight side rails that already are bent from previous tie-downs. These rails will bend further or fail during what should have been a manageable emergency maneuver. When rails fail, the load shifts, creating dynamic forces that can result in loss of trailer control.

Recommendation: Fleets should conduct periodic training on and reviews of load securement and rigging equipment for crews. In addition, they should ensure appropriate tie-downs compatible with issued rigging equipment are available at multiple points on trailers. Even better, paint designated tie-downs with contrasting paint so they are easily visible to operators.

3. Trailer Breakaway Check (FMCSR 393.43)
I have never found a crew that has performed a trailer breakaway test. Trailer breakaway systems are required to be applied for 15 minutes post-breakaway. To test the system, a worker actuates the breakaway lever while a second person listens for or observes the actuation of the armatures on the trailer and then times it out. If a battery does not maintain a charge for 15 minutes, it likely needs to be replaced. If hydraulics fail to maintain the brake for 15 minutes, the system is probably leaking. Either way, the system failed and will not perform in a breakaway or roadside inspection.

A related issue is that the brakes are not always properly functioning even though most braking systems automatically adjust. When ISPC audits utilities, we have drivers roll slowly ahead and manually apply the trailer brake controller to test the brakes. Occasionally we find drivers who don’t know how to do that. On rare occasions we find brakes that don’t work properly. If that’s the case, even if the breakaway works, it’s not going to stop the lost trailer from hitting that school bus. Trailer brakes and breakaway systems are part of a daily DOT driver’s inspection, but we rarely find the trailer getting the scrutiny given to the truck.

Recommendation: In your inspection documents, include prompts to periodically examine braking systems and conduct breakaway checks.

4. Trailer Connection Safety Chains
This gets confusing because of some clarity issues in the FMCSR. General-use trailers are covered in FMCSR 393.70(d). A reading of that paragraph makes it sound as though it only applies to semi-trailers and tow-dollies except for one “shall” reference in 393.70(d)(6) that references “tongue eye or other hitch device.” General-use trailers are “semi” trailers, meaning the rear is supported on its own axle and at least some of the load is supported by the towing vehicle. When it comes to securement devices, typically chains, this rule prevails. Some people also read FMCSR 393.71(h)(10)(ii) that requires crossed chains and think it applies to our trailers. It does not. There is nothing wrong with crossed chains, but in this case, the rule only applies to hinged tow bars used in drive-away/tow-away operations. The rule that applies to utility trailers – 393.70(d)(6) – does not require chains to be crossed. In fact, it doesn’t even require two chains. Two chains usually are used to meet the strength requirement of the rule. Strength of the chain is not spelled out, but it is required that the chain provide strength, security of attachment and directional stability. Strength is defined in rule 390.70(d)(3) as not less than the gross weight of the vehicle being towed, and that includes the means of attachment of the chain to the trailer tongue. I once found a 7/16th-inch safety chain pair connected to a trailer tongue with a 5/16th crossarm carriage bolt. I think that’s what the rule was intended to prevent.

Whether you cross them or not, here is what the chains are to accomplish in simple language:

• They should be strong enough to hold the trailer in case of disconnect.
• They should only be long enough to allow turns.
• They should be short enough that the tongue will not strike the ground if disconnected.
• They should be reliably connected to the towing vehicle.
• If one chain is used, it must be attached to the right of the centerline to prevent the tongue of the trailer from projecting into oncoming traffic in case of a disconnect.

A Final Piece of Advice
Here is my final advice that also comes from experience. When I bring up these issues to utilities and contractors, I often get pushback because there have not been instances of these issues causing incidents in their fleet. That may be true, but it is worth noting that these rules were established after considerable review and debate among industry professionals. It’s also important to realize that most of these rules were developed in post-incident investigations. Crashes are not caused by the parts that work correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Robert (RL) Eisenbach, CUSP, possesses 13 years of experience within the oil and gas industry and eight years of experience in low-voltage, distribution, transmission and substation electrical safety. He sat on OSHA’s Electrical Transmission and Distribution Task Team 2 and holds several industry-specific certifications.

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

Key Takeaways:

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways from this podcast:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2013, tree trimming was a different game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Know Your Voltage Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazard and Risk Assessment

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

Hazard and Risk Mitigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for reading, stay safe and be well.

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

About the Author: David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM, is the director of professional development for Utility Business Media’s Incident Prevention Institute (https://ip-institute.com) and the author of “Frontline Leadership – The Hurdle” and “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle.” He has extensive experience and expertise in leadership, human performance, safety and operations. McPeak is passionate about personal and professional development and believes that intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are key to success. He also is an advanced certified practitioner in DISC, emotional intelligence, the Hartman Value Profile, learning styles and motivators.

About Frontline Fundamentals: Frontline Fundamentals topics are derived from the Incident Prevention Institute’s popular Frontline training program (https://frontlineutilityleader.com). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/