[Federal Register: June 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 114)][Proposed Rules] [Page 34821-34980]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn05-32]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical
Protective Equipment; Proposed Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
[Docket No. S-215]
RIN 1218-AB67
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to update the existing standard for the
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations and make it consistent with the more recently promulgated
general industry standard addressing the maintenance and repair of
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and
equipment. The proposal also makes some miscellaneous changes to both
standards, including adding provisions related to host employers and
contractors, flame resistant clothing, and training, and updates the
construction standard for electrical protective equipment, makes it
consistent with the corresponding general industry standard, and makes
it applicable to construction generally.
The existing rules for this type of work were issued in 1971. They
are out of date and are not consistent with the more recent,
corresponding rules for the operation and maintenance of electric power
transmission and distribution systems. The revised standard would
include requirements relating to enclosed spaces, working near
energized parts, grounding for employee protection, work on underground
and overhead installations, work in substations, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the transmission and distribution of
electric energy.
OSHA is also proposing a new standard on electrical protective
equipment for the construction industry. The current standards for the
design of electrical protective equipment, which apply only to electric
power transmission and distribution work, adopt several national
consensus standards by reference. The new standard would replace the
incorporation of these out-of-date consensus standards with a set of
performance-oriented requirements that is consistent with the latest
revisions of these consensus standards and with the corresponding
standard for general industry. Additionally, OSHA is proposing new
requirements for the safe use and care of electrical protective
equipment to complement the equipment design provisions.
In addition, OSHA is proposing changes to the two corresponding
general industry standards. These changes address: Class 00 rubber
insulating gloves, electrical protective equipment made from materials
other than rubber, training for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers, host-contractor
responsibilities, job briefings, fall protection (including a
requirement that employees in aerial lifts use harnesses), insulation
and working position of employees working on or near live parts,
protective clothing, minimum approach distances, deenergizing
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, protective
grounding, operating mechanical equipment near overhead power lines,
and working in manholes and vaults. These changes would ensure that
employers, where appropriate, face consistent requirements for work
performed under the construction and general industry standards and
would further protect employees performing electrical work covered
under the general industry standards. The proposal would also update
references to consensus standards in Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269
and would add new appendices to help employers comply with provisions
on protective clothing and the inspection of work positioning
equipment.
OSHA is also proposing to revise the general industry standard for
foot protection. This standard has substantial application to employers
performing work on electric power transmission and distribution
installations, but that applies to employers in other industries as
well. The proposal would remove the requirement for employees to wear
protective footwear as protection against electric shock.
DATES: Informal public hearing. OSHA will hold an informal public
hearing in Washington, DC, beginning December 6, 2005. The hearing will
commence at 10 a.m. on the first day, and at 9 a.m. on the second and
subsequent days, which will be scheduled, if necessary.
Comments. Comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
October 13, 2005.
Notices of intention to appear. Parties who intend to present
testimony at the informal public hearing must notify OSHA in writing of
their intention to do so no later than August 15, 2005.
Hearing testimony and documentary evidence. Parties who request
more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public
hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing
must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary
evidence postmarked no later than November 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, notices of intention to
appear, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence--identified by
docket number (S-215) or RIN number (1218-AB67)--by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
OSHA Web site: http://dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page.
Fax: If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you
may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier
service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-
215, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
N2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY
number is (877) 889-5627.) OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., E.S.T.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
http://dockets.osha.gov/, including any personal information provided.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments and background
documents that can be posted go to http://dockets.osha.gov/. Written
comments received, notices of intention to appear, and all other
material related to the development of this proposed standard will be
available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket
Office, Room N2439, at the address listed previously.
Hearing. The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries:
Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, Room N3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.
Technical information: Mr. David Wallis, Director, Office of
Engineering Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2277 or fax (202) 693-1663.
Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3647; 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
For additional copies of this Federal Register notice, contact
OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3101, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as
news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web
page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Development of Proposal
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
VI. State Plan Standards
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Public Participation'Comments and Hearings
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
XIII. Authority and Signature
I. Background
A. Acronyms
The following acronyms have been used throughout this document:
AED Automated external defibrillator
ALJ Administrative law judge
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFOI Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
EEI Edison Electric Institute
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FRA Flame-resistant apparel
FTE Full-Time Equivalent [Employee]
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IMIS OSHA's Integrated Management Information System
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NESC National Electrical Safety Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSH Act (or simply ``the Act'') Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
PRIA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SER small entity representative
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
WCRI Worker Compensation Research Institute
B. Need for Rule
Employees maintaining or constructing electric power transmission
or distribution installations are not adequately protected by current
OSHA standards, though these employees face far greater electrical
hazards than those faced by other workers. The voltages involved are
generally much higher than voltages encountered in other types of work,
and a large part of electric power transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to energized parts of the power system.
Employees performing work involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards, such as fall, electric shock, and burn hazards, that can and
do cause serious injury and death. As detailed below, OSHA estimates
that, on average, 444 serious injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with
better compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities would
be prevented through full compliance with the proposed standards.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. The
existing standard for the construction of electric power transmission
and distribution lines and equipment is contained in Subpart V of
OSHA's construction standards (29 CFR part 1926). This standard was
promulgated on November 23, 1972, over 30 years ago (37 FR 24880). Some
of the technology involved in electric power transmission and
distribution work has changed since then, and the current standard does
not reflect those changes. For example, the method of determining
minimum approach distances has become more exact since 1972, and the
minimum approach distances given in existing Sec. 1926.950(c)(1) are
not based on the latest methodology. The minimum approach distances in
this proposal are more protective as well as more technologically
sound. Additionally, parts of Subpart V need clarification. For
example, in existing Subpart V, there are three different requirements
relating to the use of mechanical equipment near overhead lines:
Sec. Sec. 1926.952(c)(2) \1\ and 1926.955(a)(5) \2\ and (a)(6).\3\
These provisions apply different requirements to these operations depending
on whether or not the mechanical equipment involved is lifting equipment
and on whether or not work is being performed on overhead lines. Two
different United States Courts of Appeals found these regulations to
be confusing even though they accepted OSHA's interpretation regarding
their application (Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. OSHRC, 567 F.2d 735
(7th Cir. 1977); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. OSHRC, 737 F.2d 350
(3d Cir. 1984)). In fact, the majority in the Wisconsin Electric decision
noted that ``[r]evision of the regulations by any competent draftsman would
greatly improve their clarity'' (Wisconsin Electric, 567 F.2d at 738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement reads as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment certified for work on the
proper voltage, mechanical equipment shall not be operator closer to
any energized line or equipment than the clearances set forth in
Sec. 1926.950(c) unless:
(i) An insulated barrier is installed between the energized part
and the mechanical equipment, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is grounded, or
(iii) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
(iv) The mechanical equipment is considered as energized.
\2\ This requirement reads as follows:
(5)(i) When setting, moving, or removing poles using cranes,
derricks, gin poles, A-frames, or other mechanized equipment near
energized lines or equipment, precautions shall be taken to avoid
contact with energized lines or equipment, except in bare-hand live-
line work, or where barriers or protective devices are used.
(ii) Equipment and machinery operating adjacent to energized
lines or equipment shall comply with Sec. 1926.952(c)(2).
\3\ This requirement reads as follows:
(6)(i) Unless using suitable protective equipment for the
voltage involved, employees standing on the ground shall avoid
contacting equipment or machinery working adjacent to energized
lines or equipment.
(ii) Lifting equipment shall be bonded to an effective ground or
it shall be considered energized and barricaded when utilized near
energized equipment or lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the newer general industry standards on the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations (29 CFR 1910.269) and electrical protective
equipment (29 CFR 1910.137) are not completely consistent with the
latest advances in technology represented by updated consensus
standards covering this type of work and equipment.
OSHA has different standards covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution systems and general industry work
on the same systems. In most instances, the work practices used by
employees to perform construction or general industry work on these
systems are the same. The application of OSHA's construction or general
industry standards to a particular job depends upon whether the
employer is altering the system (construction work) or maintaining the
system (general industry work). For example, employers changing a
cutout (disconnect switch) on a transmission and distribution system
would be performing construction work if they were upgrading the
cutout, but general industry work if they were simply replacing the
cutout with the same model.
Since the work practices used by the employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA standards should be identical. OSHA's
existing requirements are not, however. Conceivably, for work involving
two or more cutouts, different and conflicting OSHA standards might
apply. The inconsistencies between the two standards create
difficulties for employers attempting to develop appropriate work
practices for their employees. For this reason, employers and employees
have told OSHA that it should make the two standards identical. This
proposal does so.
C. Accident Data
OSHA has looked to several sources for information on accidents in
the electric utility industry in preparing this proposed rule. Besides
OSHA's own accident investigation files, statistics on injuries are
compiled by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Additionally,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes such accident data as
incidence rates for total cases, lost workday cases, and lost workdays.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
publishes accident data as part of its Fatality Assessment and Control
Evaluation Program.
Analyses of accident data for electric power transmission and
distribution workers can be found in the following documents, which
(like all exhibits) are available for inspection and copying in Docket
S-215 in the Docket Office:
(1) ``Preparation of an Economic Impact Study for the Proposed OSHA
Regulation Covering Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution,'' June 1986, Eastern Research Group, Section 4.
(2) ``Assessment of the Benefits of the Proposed Standard on
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Coding
Results and Analysis,'' October 5, 1990, Eastern Research Group.
(3) ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary
Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards for Work on Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR
1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, CONSAD Research Corp.,
Chapter 4.
To develop estimates of the potential benefits associated with this
proposal, CONSAD Corp., under contract to OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data. CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA's Integrated Management Information System, and the
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries developed by the BLS.
From these sources, CONSAD identified and analyzed injuries and
fatalities that would be addressed by this proposal. A description of
the methodological approach used for analyzing these data is included
in the final report submitted to OSHA from CONSAD. CONSAD's analysis
found that an average of 74 fatalities and 25 injuries involving
circumstances directly addressed by the existing or proposed standards
are recorded annually in the relevant databases. These accidents
include cases involving electric shock, burns from electric arcs, and
falls, which are the predominant types of accidents occurring in
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work.
D. Significant Risk
OSHA must show that the hazards the Agency addresses in a safety
regulation present significant risks to employees. OSHA has generally
considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000 employees over a 45-year
working lifetime as clearly representing a significant risk. Industrial
Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607,
655 (1980); International Union v. Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d
389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and Construction Trades Dept.,
AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos), 838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
As part of the regulatory analyses for this standard, OSHA has
determined the population at risk, the occupations presenting major
risks, and the incidence and severity of injuries attributable to the
failure to follow the rules established in the proposed standard. In
keeping with the purpose of safety standards to prevent accidental
injury and death, OSHA has estimated the number of accidents that would
be prevented by the new rule.
Electricity has long been recognized as a serious workplace hazard
exposing employees to dangers such as electric shock, electrocution,
electric arcs, fires, and explosions. The other hazards this rule
addresses, namely, falls and being struck by, struck against, or caught
between objects, are also widely recognized. The 227,683 employees
performing work covered by the proposed standards experience an average
of 444 injuries and 74 fatalities each year.\4\ Over a 45-year working
lifetime, more than 14 of every 1000 of these employees \5\ will die
from hazards posed by their work. As detailed in Section V, Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
later in this preamble, the Agency estimates that the proposed rule will
prevent 116 injuries and 19 deaths each year. Accordingly, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that hazards faced by employees performing
construction or maintenance work on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations pose a significant risk of
injury or death to those employees, and that this proposed rule would
substantially reduce that risk and would be reasonably necessary to
provide protection from these hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a detailed explanation of the number of employees
covered by the proposal and the number of injuries and fatalities
experienced by these workers, see Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later
in this preamble.
\5\ The number of fatalities expected to occur in 45 years is 74
fatalities x 45, or 3330. Thus, 14.6 employees in 1000 covered by
the proposal ((3330 fatalities/227,683 employees) x 1000) will die
from job-related hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Development of Proposal
A. Present OSHA Standards
OSHA adopted standards applying to the construction of power
transmission and distribution lines and equipment in 1972 (Subpart V of
Part 1926). OSHA defines the term ``construction work'' in Sec.
1910.12 as ``work for construction, alteration, and/or repair,
including painting and decorating.'' The term ``construction'' is
broadly defined in Sec. 1910.12(d) and Sec. 1926.950(a)(1) to include
alteration, conversion, and improvement of electric power transmission
lines and equipment, as well as the original installation of the lines
and equipment. However, Subpart V does not apply to the operation or
maintenance of transmission or distribution installations.
On January 31, 1994, OSHA adopted rules for the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution lines and equipment, Sec. 1910.269. This standard was
intended as a companion standard to Subpart V of the construction
standards to address areas where Subpart V did not apply. The new
standard was also based on the latest technology and national consensus
standards.
OSHA revised its electrical protective equipment standard in Sec.
1910.137 at the same time Sec. 1910.269 was issued. The revision of
Sec. 1910.137 eliminated the incorporation by reference of national
consensus standards relating to rubber insulating equipment and
replaced it with performance-oriented rules for the design,
manufacture, and safe care and use of electrical protective equipment.
Other OSHA standards also relate to electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work. The permit-required confined space
standard in Sec. 1910.146 applies to entry into certain confined
spaces found in this type of work. Section 1910.147 is OSHA's generic
lockout and tagging standard. Although this standard does not apply to
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations,
it formed the basis of Sec. 1910.269(d), which does apply to the
lockout and tagging of these installations. Subpart S of the General
Industry Standards and Subpart K of the construction standards set
requirements for unqualified \6\ workers who are working near electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In this preamble, ``unqualified worker'' (or ``unqualified
employee'') means an employee who does not have the requisite
training to work on or near electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution installations. For more information, see the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.950(b) in Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Relevant consensus standards
The National Electrical Safety Code (American National Standards
Institute Standard ANSI C2, also known as the NESC) was also taken into
consideration in the development this proposal. This national consensus
standard contains requirements specifically addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. The latest version of
ANSI C2 \7\ is much more up-to-date than Subpart V. However, ANSI C2 is
primarily directed to the prevention of electric shock, although it
does contain a few requirements for the prevention of falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ANSI/IEEE C2-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has adopted
standards related to electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. ASTM Committee F18 on Electrical Protective
Equipment for Workers has developed standards on rubber insulating
equipment, climbing equipment, protective grounding equipment,
fiberglass rod and tube used in live-line tools, and clothing for
workers exposed to electric arcs.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has adopted a
standard on electrical safety for employees, NFPA 70E-2004, Electrical
Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. Although it does not apply
to electric power generation, transmission, or distribution
installations, this standard contains requirements for unqualified
employees working near such installations.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is also
responsible for writing standards for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations and for work on those
installations. Many of these standards have been adopted by ANSI. Among
these IEEE standards are: IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for Maintenance
Methods on Energized Power-Lines, and IEEE Std. 1048, IEEE Guide for
Protective Grounding of Power Lines.
A list of consensus standards relating to electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work can be found in
existing Appendix E to Sec. 1910.269. OSHA considered the latest
editions of all the standards listed in this section of the preamble or
the Appendix in the development of the proposal.
C. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and
the Agency's own rulemaking regulations in 29 CFR Part 1911 require
OSHA to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH or the Committee) in setting standards for construction
work. Specifically, Sec. 1911.10(a) requires the Assistant Secretary
to (1) provide ACCSH with the draft proposed rule along with pertinent
factual information, (2) and to prescribe a period within which the
Committee must submit its recommendations on the proposal.
OSHA has a 10-year history of consulting with ACCSH on the proposed
construction standards for electrical protective equipment and electric
transmission and distribution work. The Agency has provided several
drafts of the proposed construction rules and updates on the status of
the proposal.
On May 25, 1995, OSHA first took a draft of the proposed
construction standards to ACCSH, providing the Committee with a draft
of the proposal and with a statement on the need for and background
behind the proposal. The Committee formed a workgroup to review the
document and report back to ACCSH. The workgroup provided comments to
OSHA. Although the Agency gave a status report on the proposal to the
Committee on August 8, 1995, ACCSH did not make any formal
recommendations to OSHA at that time.
The Agency provided a later draft of the proposal to ACCSH on
December 10, 1999. This time, the Committee made no comments. On
February 13, 2003, OSHA gave ACCSH a status report on the proposal and
summarized the major revisions in the draft.
On May 22, 2003, OSHA provided the Committee with the same copy of
the draft proposal that had been provided to the small entity
representatives who were participating in the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA) proceedings, which were being
conducted at that time. OSHA also explained the major issues being raised
by the small entity representatives on the draft proposal.
On May 18, 2004, ACCSH gave formal recommendations on OSHA's
proposal. OSHA sought ACCSH's recommendations on the proposal
generally, as well as on issues specifically related to host employer-
contractor communications and flame-resistant clothing. ACCSH voted
unanimously that: (1) The construction standards for electric power
transmission and distribution work should be the same as the general
industry standards for the same type of work; (2) requiring some
safety-related communications between host employers and contractors
was necessary; and (3) employees need to be protected from hazards
posed by electric arcs through the use of flame-resistant clothing.
ACCSH also recommended unanimously that OSHA issue its proposal,
consistent with these specific votes.
III. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act or the Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C.
651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health
standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b) and 658.
A safety or health standard ``requires conditions, or the adoption
or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or
processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A
standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of
Section 652(8) if:
A significant risk of material harm exists in the
workplace and the proposed standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk;
It is technologically and economically feasible;
It employs the most cost effective protective measures;
It is consistent with prior Agency action or supported by
a reasoned justification for departing from prior Agency action;
It is supported by substantial evidence; and
In the event the standard is preceded by a consensus
standard, it is better able to effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act
than the standard it supersedes.
International Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO II), 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994).
OSHA has generally considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000
employees over a 45-year working lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk (see Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum
Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980); International Union v.
Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989);
Building and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos),
838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
A standard is considered technologically feasible if the protective
measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with
available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed (see American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). A
standard is economically feasible when industry can absorb or pass on
the costs of compliance without threatening the industry's long-term
profitability or competitive structure (see American Textile Mfrs.
Institute v. OSHA (Cotton Dust), 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 (1981); Lead
II, 939 F.2d at 980). A standard is cost effective if the protective
measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives
that achieve the same level of protection (see LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
668).
All OSHA standards must be highly protective (LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
669) and, where practical, ``expressed in terms of objective criteria
and of the performance desired.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Finally, the OSH
Act requires that when promulgating a rule that differs substantially
from a national consensus standard, OSHA must explain why the
promulgated rule is a better method for effectuating the purpose of the
Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA
is using several consensus standards as the basis for its proposed
rule. The deviations from these consensus standards are explained in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this
preamble.
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule
This section discusses the important elements of the proposed
standard, explains the purpose of the individual requirements, and
explains any differences between the proposed rule and existing
standards. References in parentheses are to exhibits in the rulemaking
record. References prefixed by ``269'' are to exhibits and transcripts
in the rulemaking record from OSHA's earlier rulemaking on Sec.
1910.137 and Sec. 1910.269. These documents are available for
inspection and copying in the Docket Office under Docket S-015. (The
transcripts are listed in the docket as ``exhibits'' 100-X through 208-
X.)
OSHA is proposing a new construction standard on electrical
protective equipment, 29 CFR 1926.97, and a revision of the standard on
the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines
and equipment, 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V. The Agency is also
proposing changes to the general industry counterparts to these two
construction standards, 29 CFR 1910.137 and 1910.269, respectively. The
proposed construction standards may contain some nonsubstantive
differences from their existing counterpart general industry
requirements that are not separately included in the proposed revision
of the general industry standards. However, the Agency intends for the
corresponding construction and general industry requirements to be the
same in the final rule except to the extent that separate requirements
are supported by the rulemaking record. For example, the definition of
``designated employee'' in existing Sec. 1910.269(x) reads as follows:
An employee (or person) who is designated by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who is
knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the equipment and
the hazards involved.
OSHA is proposing a slightly revised version of this definition in
Sec. 1926.968, as follows:
An employee (or person) who is assigned by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who has
sufficient knowledge of the construction and operation of the
equipment and the hazards involved to perform his or her duties
safely.
The Agency does not believe that the proposed definition for
Subpart V is substantially different from the existing definition in
Sec. 1910.269(x). Therefore, OSHA is not specifically including the
proposed change to the definition of ``designated employee'' in the
proposed changes to Sec. 1910.269. The language in the final standards
(that is, Sec. Sec. 1910.269(x) and 1926.968) will be the same,
however, unless the record warrants a separate definition for
construction work.
In addition, the proposal references national consensus standards
in notes following various requirements. These references are intended
to provide employers and employees with additional useful sources of
information that can assist them in complying with the standards. OSHA
intends to review the latest editions of these consensus standards and
reference those editions when promulgating the final rule provided they
still provide suitable guidance.
A. Electrical Protective Equipment, Section 1926.97
Electrical protective equipment is in constant use during electric
power transmission and distribution work; and, appropriately, existing
Subpart V contains provisions related to this equipment. The existing
OSHA standards for electrical protective equipment in construction work
are contained in Sec. 1926.951(a)(1), which only applies during
construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. Electrical protective equipment, however, is used throughout
the construction industry. OSHA therefore believes that updated
personal protective equipment provisions should apply throughout the
construction industry, wherever such equipment is necessary for
employee safety, and that electrical protective equipment provisions
should not be limited to the use of this equipment in electric power
transmission and distribution work. Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
Sec. 1926.97, Electrical protective equipment, to replace Sec.
1926.951(a)(1), which incorporates by reference the following six
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item ANSI Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber insulating gloves................... J6.6-1971
Rubber matting for use around electric J6.7-1935
apparatus. (R1971)
Rubber insulating blankets................. J6.4-1971
Rubber insulating hoods.................... J6.2-1950
(R1971)
Rubber insulating line hose................ J6.1-1950
(R1971)
Rubber insulating sleeves.................. J6.5-1971
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ANSI standards were originally developed and adopted as
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. (In fact,
the latest revisions of these standards use the ASTM designations,
rather than using separate designations for both standards-writing
organizations.) As is typical of national consensus standards, the ASTM
standards are filled with detailed specifications for the manufacture,
testing, and design of electrical protective equipment. Additionally,
these standards are revised frequently, making existing Sec.
1926.951(a)(1) over a quarter century out of date. For example, the
most recent ANSI standard listed in the former OSHA requirement is
dated 1971. The most recent ASTM version available is a 2002 edition of
specifications on rubber insulating gloves. The complete list of
current ASTM standards corresponding to the ANSI standards is as
follows:
ASTM D120-02a, Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D178-01\e1\, Specification for Rubber Insulating Matting.
ASTM D1048-99, Specification for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
ASTM D1049-98\e1\ (Reapproved 2002), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
ASTM D1050-90 (Reapproved 1999), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Line Hose.
ASTM D1051-02, Specification for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
Additionally, ASTM has adopted standards on the in-service care of
insulating line hose and covers (ASTM F478-92 (Reapproved 1999)),
insulating blankets (ASTM F479-95 (Reapproved 2001)), and insulating
gloves and sleeves (ASTM F496-02a), which have no current counterparts
in existing Sec. 1926.951(a)(1).
In an attempt to retain the quality of protection afforded by the
ASTM standards, OSHA has developed proposed new Sec. 1926.97 which has
been derived from the ASTM documents but which has been written in
performance terms. OSHA recognizes the importance of the ASTM standards
in defining basic requirements for the safe design and manufacture of
electrical protective equipment for employees. Proposed Sec. 1926.97
would increase the protection presently afforded to power transmission
and distribution employees by the outdated ANSI/ASTM standards
incorporated by reference in the existing standard. The proposal
carries forward ASTM provisions that are performance oriented and
necessary for employee safety, but does not contain many of the
detailed specifications in those consensus standards. The proposal will
thus provide greater flexibility for compliance with these provisions
to the extent that worker safety warrants.
There are several reasons why adopting the ASTM standards in toto
would be inappropriate in this rulemaking. First, ASTM has revised each
of the currently referenced standards several times since they were
adopted in the former OSHA regulation. Because of the continual process
by which ASTM periodically revises its standards, any specific editions
that OSHA might adopt would likely be outdated within a few years.
Additionally, since the rulemaking process is lengthy, a complete
revision of OSHA's electrical protective equipment requirements every
three years or so to keep pace with the changes in the consensus
standards is not practical. (In fact, some of the ASTM standards will
likely be revised again during the rulemaking period.) To remedy this
problem, OSHA is proposing new Sec. 1926.97 to make the standards
flexible enough to accommodate changes in technology, obviating the
need for constant revision. Where possible, the proposed standard has
been written in performance terms in order to allow alternative methods
of compliance if they provide comparable safety to the employee.
Another difficulty with incorporation of the ASTM standards by
reference is that they contain details that go beyond the purposes of
the OSHA standard or that are not directly related to employee safety.
In proposed Sec. 1926.97, OSHA has tried to carry forward only
provisions that are relevant to employee safety in the workplace.
Furthermore, OSHA has attempted to simplify those provisions to make
the requirements easier for employers and employees to use and
understand. Because the revision places all relevant requirements in
the text of the regulations, employers would no longer have to refer to
the ASTM documents to determine their obligations under OSHA.
In striving for this degree of simplification, the Agency has tried
to use an approach that will accept new methods of protection that may
appear in future editions of the ASTM standards. OSHA recognizes that
such future editions of these standards might contain technological
advances providing significant improvement in employee safety, which
might not be permitted under proposed Sec. 1926.97. However, due to
the performance-oriented nature of the OSHA standard as compared to the
ASTM standards, conflicts between the two standards in areas affecting
employee safety are expected to be infrequent.
Furthermore, an employer who follows future versions of ASTM
standards would likely be covered by OSHA's de minimis policy as set
forth in OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-103 (Field Inspection Reference
Manual). Under that policy, a de minimis condition \8\ exists: (1) Where
an employer's workplace has been updated in accordance with new technology
or equipment as a result of revisions to the latest consensus publications
from which OSHA standards were derived, (2) where the updated versions result
in a ``state of the art'' workplace, technically advanced beyond the
requirements of the applicable OSHA standard, and (3) where equal or
greater safety and health protection is provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OSHA considers a de minimis condition to be a technical
violation of a standard only. However, because the employer is
considered to be in substantial compliance with the standard, the
Agency issues no citations or penalties, nor is the employer
required to bring his or her workplace into compliance with the
older standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.97 addresses the design
and manufacture of insulating blankets, matting, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves made of rubber (either natural or synthetic). See
the summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.97(b) for general
requirements on other types of insulating equipment.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i), blankets, gloves, and sleeves
would have to be manufactured without seams. This method of making the
protective equipment minimizes the chance that the material will split.
Because they are used when workers handle energized lines, gloves and
sleeves are the only defense an employee has against electric shock.
Additionally, blankets, gloves, and sleeves need to be seamless because
the stresses placed on the equipment by the flexing of the rubber
during normal use could cause a seam to separate. The other three types
of electrical protective equipment (covers, line hose, and matting)
generally provide a more indirect form of protection--they insulate the
live parts from accidental, rather than intended, contact--and they are
not usually subject to similar amounts or types of flexing.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require electrical protective
equipment to be marked to indicate its class and type. The class
marking indicates the voltage with which the equipment can be used; the
type marking indicates whether or not the equipment is ozone resistant.
This will enable employees to know the uses and voltages for which the
equipment is suited. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would also permit
equipment to contain other relevant markings, such as one indicating
the manufacturer's name or compliance with ASTM standards.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would require all markings to be
nonconductive and to be applied so that the properties of the equipment
are not impaired. This would ensure that no marking interferes with the
protection to be provided by the equipment.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require markings on gloves to be
provided only in the cuff area. Markings in other areas could possibly
wear off. Moreover, having the markings in one place will allow the
employee to determine the class and type of glove quickly. Furthermore,
OSHA would require in paragraph (c)(2)(vii) that rubber gloves normally
be worn under protector gloves. Because a protector glove is almost
always shorter than the corresponding rubber glove with which it is
worn and because the cuff of the protector glove can easily be pulled
back without removal, it is easy to see markings on the cuff portion of
the rubber glove beneath. Any marking provided on the rubber glove in
an area outside of the cuff could not be seen with the protector glove
in place.
Under the national consensus standards, electrical protective
equipment must be capable of passing certain electrical tests. In
proposed Sec. 1926.97(a)(2), OSHA incorporates these requirements. The
tests specified in the ASTM standards are very detailed. This is not
the case in the OSHA standard. Through the use of performance language,
the proposed rule would establish the same level of protection without
a lengthy discussion of test procedures.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) would require electrical protective equipment
to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltages in Table E-1
or the d-c proof-test voltages in Table E-2 of the standard (depending,
of course, on whether an a-c proof test or an equivalent d-c proof test
is performed). The proof-test voltages listed in these tables have been
taken from the current ASTM standards, which also contain details of
the test procedures used to determine whether electrical protective
equipment is capable of withstanding these voltages. These details have
not been included in the proposed rule. Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) replaces
them with a performance-oriented requirement that whatever test is used
must reliably indicate that the equipment can withstand the proof-test
voltage involved. To meet the requirements of the OSHA performance
standard, employers would normally get the assurance of the
manufacturer that the equipment is capable of withstanding the
appropriate proof-test voltage.\9\ Manufacturers typically look to the
ASTM standards for guidance in determining the testing procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As explained in the note at the end of paragraph (a), OSHA
deems equipment meeting the ASTM standards as being compliant with
the OSHA standard. Thus, an employer could simply look for equipment
labeled as meeting these standards. Manufacturers attest, through
this label, that their equipment is capable of passing all the
required tests, including the a-c or d-c proof tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) would require the proof-test
voltage to be applied for 1 minute for insulating matting and for 3
minutes for other insulating equipment. These times are based on the
proof-test times given in the ASTM design standards and are appropriate
for testing the design capabilities of electrical protective equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) would require rubber insulating
gloves to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage
indicated in Table E-1 of the standard after a 16-hour water soak. If
rubber insulating gloves absorb water, a reduction in insulating
properties will result. Water absorption is thus a critical property
because exposure to perspiration or rain is quite common while line
worker's gloves are in use. Electrical work is sometimes performed in
the rain, and an employee's perspiration is often present while the
gloves are in use. The soak test is needed to ensure that electrical
protective equipment can withstand the voltage involved under these
conditions.
When an a-c proof test is used on gloves, the resulting proof-test
current gives an indication of the validity of the gloves' make-up, the
dielectric constant of the type of material used, its thickness, and
the total area under test. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) prohibits the a-c
proof-test current from exceeding the current allowed in Table E-1. The
currents listed in the table have been taken from ASTM D120-02a.
Under paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), the maximum current for a-c voltages
at frequencies other than 60 hertz would be computed from the direct
ratio of the frequencies.
Gloves are filled with and immersed in water during the a-c proof
test, and the water inside and outside the glove forms the electrodes.
The a-c proof-test current is dependent on the length of the portion of
the glove that is out of water. Because the proof-test current is a
function of immersion depth, it is important to specify the depth in
the rule. Otherwise, employee safety could be compromised. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) in the proposed standard specifies that gloves
to be tested must be filled with and immersed in water to the depth
given in Table E-3 in the standard. This table was taken directly
from ASTM D120 and is valid for the proof-test currents listed in Table
E-1.
The allowable proof-test current must be increased for proof-tests
on gloves after a 16-hour water soak because the gloves absorb a small
amount of water, which results in slightly increased current during the
test. ASTM D120 allows an increase in the proof-test current of 2
milliamperes. If the proof-test current increases more than that, it
would indicate that the gloves absorbed too much water. OSHA has
proposed to allow a similar increase in proof-test current in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(C).
Since the relatively high voltages used in testing electrical
protective equipment for minimum breakdown voltage can actually damage
the insulating material under test (even if it passes), proposed
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) would prohibit protective equipment that has been
subjected to such a test from being used to protect employees from
electrical hazards. The intent of the proposal is to prohibit the use
of equipment that has been tested under conditions equivalent to those
in the ASTM standards for minimum breakdown voltage tests.
A note at the end of proposed Sec. 1926.97(a) indicates that all
the tests given in the paragraph are described in the listed ASTM
standards, as follows:
These [ASTM] standards contain specifications for conducting the
various tests required in paragraph (a) of this section. For
example, the a-c and d-c proof tests, the breakdown test, the water
soak procedure, and the ozone test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM standards.
This does not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing proposed Sec. 1926.97, the Agency would accept
any test that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard. However, the
proposal states explicitly that the ASTM tests listed in the note are
acceptable; and, if the ASTM specifications are met, an employer has
assurance that he or she is complying with proposed Sec. 1926.97. If
an employer uses other test methods, the Agency would determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether or not they meet the OSHA standard.
Around high-voltage lines and equipment, a luminous discharge,
called electric corona, can occur due to ionization of the surrounding
air caused by a voltage gradient which exceeds a certain critical
value. The blue corona discharge is accompanied by a hissing noise and
by ozone, which can cause damage to certain types of rubber insulating
materials. Therefore, when there is a chance that ozone may be produced
at a work location, electrical protective equipment made of ozone-
resistant material is frequently used. To ensure that ozone-resistant
material will, in fact, be resistant to the damaging effects of the
gas, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) requires this type of material (Type II) to
be capable of withstanding an ozone test that can reliably indicate
that the material will resist ozone exposure in actual use. As noted
earlier, standardized ozone tests are given in the ASTM specifications.
The proposed rule also lists signs of failure of the test, such as
checking,\10\ cracking, breaks, and pitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ASTM F819-00 \e1\, Standard Terminology Relating to
Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers, defines ``ozone cutting
and checking'' as: ``cracks produced by ozone in a material under
mechanical stress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(3) applies to the workmanship and finish of
electrical protective equipment. Because physical irregularities can
interfere with the insulating properties of the equipment, paragraph
(a)(3)(i) prohibits the presence of harmful defects that can be
detected by the tests or inspections required under Sec. 1926.97.
However, some minor irregularities are nearly unavoidable in the
manufacture of rubber goods, and these imperfections may be present in
the insulating materials without significantly affecting the
insulation. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) lists the types of imperfections that
are permitted. Even with these imperfections, electrical protective
equipment is still required to be capable of passing the electrical
tests specified in paragraph (a)(2).
Since paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.97 is written in performance-
oriented language, OSHA believes that it is important for employees,
employers, and manufacturers to have some guidance in terms of what is
acceptable under the proposed standard. OSHA also realizes that the
current ASTM specifications on electrical protective equipment are
accepted by employers and employees in the industry as providing safety
to employees and that existing electrical protective equipment is
normally made to these specifications. Furthermore, the proposal is
based on the provisions of these national consensus standards, although
the requirements are stated in performance terms. OSHA has therefore
included a footnote at the end of paragraph (a) stating that rubber
insulating equipment meeting the requirements of the listed ASTM
standards for this equipment are considered as conforming to the
requirements contained in Sec. 1926.97(a). The lists of ASTM standards
in the proposed rule (in the notes following paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)
and (c)(2)(ix)) contain the latest revisions of these standards. The
Agency has reviewed these documents and has found them to provide
suitable guidance for compliance with Sec. 1926.97(a).\11\ It should
be noted that the listed consensus standards are the only ones with
official recognition within the body of the standard. Future consensus
standards are not automatically given the same recognition but will
have to be reviewed by OSHA to determine whether they provide
sufficient protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OSHA has also reviewed earlier versions of these ASTM
standards and found them to afford protection equal to that of the
OSHA standard. Thus, the Agency will accept electrical protective
equipment meeting earlier versions of the consensus standards
provided the equipment meets the edition of the standard that was in
effect at the time of manufacture and provided the employer has
followed the use and care provisions set out in proposed Sec.
1926.97(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of the proposed Sec. 1926.97
addresses electrical protective equipment other than the rubber
insulating equipment addressed in paragraph (a). Equipment falling
under this paragraph includes plastic guard equipment, insulating
barriers, and other protective equipment intended to provide electrical
protection to employees. Some of the equipment addressed in paragraph
(b) is covered under a national consensus standard. For example,
insulating plastic guard equipment is covered by ASTM F968,
Specification for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for
Protection of Workers. Other types of protective equipment are not
covered by consensus specification.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require electrical protective equipment to
be capable of withstanding any voltage that might be imposed on it. The
voltage includes transient overvoltages as well as the nominal voltage
that is present on an energized part of an electric circuit. Equipment
withstands a voltage if it maintains its integrity without flashover or
arc through. This paragraph would protect employees from failure of
electrical protective equipment. Equipment conforming to a national
consensus standard for that type of equipment will generally be
considered as complying with this rule if that standard contains proof
testing requirements for the voltage involved. For types of equipment
not addressed by any consensus standard, OSHA is considering accepting
electrical protective equipment that is capable of passing a test
equivalent to that described in ASTM F712, Standard Test Methods for
Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection
of Workers. Guidance for performing dielectric tests of electrical
protective equipment is also given in IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized Power-Lines. OSHA invites comments on
whether these standards contain suitable test methods and whether
equipment passing those tests should be acceptable under the OSHA
standard.
The electrical test criteria set in ASTM F968 are summarized in
Table IV-1 and Table IV-2. The Agency believes that the performance
criteria proposed in paragraph (b)(1) minimize the necessity of setting
or specifically including similar criteria in the OSHA standard.
However, comments are invited on the need to set specific electrical
performance values in the OSHA rule and on whether Table IV-1 and Table
IV-2 could be applied to all types of electrical protective equipment
that would be covered by proposed Sec. 1926.97(b).
Table IV-1.--Withstand Voltage Proof Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof test withstand voltage (in service testing)
Rating kV Maximum use ---------------------------------------------------------------
Class [phis]- kV [phis]-g kV [phis]-g
[phis] (60 Hz) ---------------------------- Duration Criteria
60 Hz D-C min.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................... 14.6 8.4 13 18 1.00 No flashover other
3................... 26.4 15.3 24 34 1.00 than momentary as a
4................... 36.6 21.1 32 45 1.00 result of too-close
spacing of
electrode.
5................... 48.3 27.0 42 60 0.50
6................... 72.5 41.8 64 91 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-2.--Minimum Flashover Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum flashover test kV
Rating kV Maximum use [phis]-g
Class [phis]- kV [phis]-g ---------------------------- Criteria
[phis] (60 Hz) 60 Hz D-C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................... 14.6 8.4 14 20 No flashover other than
3.......................... 26.4 15.3 25 35 momentary as a result of
4.......................... 36.6 21.1 34 48 too-close spacing of
electrode.
5.......................... 48.3 27.0 43 61
6.......................... 72.5 41.8 67 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses the properties of insulating
equipment that limit the amount of current seen by an employee.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) would require electrical protective equipment used
as the primary insulation of employees from energized parts to be
capable of passing a test for current (that is, a proof test) when
subjected to the highest nominal voltage on which the equipment is to
be used. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would limit the current encountered
during the test to 1 microampere per kilovolt of applied voltage. This
requirement is intended to prevent the use of poor insulating materials
or good insulating materials that are contaminated with conductive
substances (for example, fiberglass-reinforced plastic coated with a
conductive finish), which could lead to electric shocks to employees
using the equipment. The limit for current has been taken from IEEE
Std. 516, and OSHA believes such a limit is reasonable and appropriate.
The Agency invites comments, however, on whether another value would
better protect employees.
When equipment is tested with ac voltage, the current measured
during the test consists of three components: (1) Capacitive current
caused by the dielectric properties of the equipment being tested, (2)
conduction current through the equipment, and (3) leakage current
passing along the surface of the equipment. The conduction current is
negligible for materials typically used in insulating equipment, and
the leakage current should be small for clean, dry insulating
equipment. The capacitive component usually predominates when
insulating equipment in good condition is tested. The second note to
paragraph (b)(2) summarizes this information.
The tests required under proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
would normally be performed by the manufacturer initially during the
design process and periodically during the manufacturing process.
However, some employers might want to use equipment that is made of
insulating materials but that is not intended by the manufacturer to be
used as insulation. For example, a barrier made of rigid plastic may be
intended for use as a general purpose barrier. An employer could test
the barrier under proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). If the
equipment passed the tests, it would be acceptable for use as
insulating electrical protective equipment. Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2)
makes clear that paragraph (b)(2) applies to equipment for primary
insulation; it is not intended to apply to equipment used for secondary
insulation or used for brush contact only.
Paragraph (c). Although existing Sec. 1926.951(a)(1) does not
contain provisions for the care and use of insulating equipment, OSHA
believes provisions of this type can contribute greatly to employee
safety. Electrical protective equipment is, in large part, manufactured
in accordance with the latest ASTM standards. This would probably be
the case even in the absence of OSHA regulation. However, improper use
and care of this equipment can easily reduce, or even eliminate, the
protection afforded by this equipment. Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
requirements on the in-service care and use of electrical protective
equipment to the design standards already contained in existing Sec.
1926.951(a)(1). These new provisions will help ensure that these safety
products retain their insulating properties.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require electrical protective
equipment to be maintained in a safe and reliable condition. This
general, performance-oriented requirement, which would apply to all
equipment addressed by new Sec. 1926.97, helps ensure that employees are
fully protected from electric shock.
Detailed criteria for the use and care of specific types of
electrical protective equipment are contained in the following ASTM
standards:
ASTM F 478-92, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Line
Hose and Covers.
ASTM F 479-95, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM F 496-02a, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating
Gloves and Sleeves.
OSHA based the requirements proposed in paragraph (c)(2) on these
standards.
Paragraph (c)(2) applies only to rubber insulating blankets,
covers, line hose, gloves, and sleeves. These are the only types of
electrical protective equipment addressed by consensus standards on the
care and use of such equipment. Rubber insulating matting, which is
addressed by the material design specifications in paragraph (a), is
not covered by any ASTM standard on its in-service care or by Sec.
1910.137(c)(2). This type of equipment is generally permanently
installed to provide supplementary protection against electric shock.
Employees stand on the matting, and they are insulated from ground,
which protects them from phase-to-ground electric shock. However,
because this type of equipment is normally left in place after it is
installed and because it is not relied on for primary protection from
electric shock (the primary protection is provided by other insulating
equipment or by insulating tools), it is not tested on a periodic basis
and is not subject to the careful inspection before use that other
insulating equipment is required to receive. It should be noted,
however, that rubber insulating matting is required to be maintained in
a safe, reliable condition under paragraph (c)(1).
Although the rubber insulating equipment addressed in Sec.
1926.97(a) is currently designed to be capable of withstanding voltages
of up to 40 kilovolts, such equipment is actually intended to be used
at lower voltages (see, for example, ASTM F 496 on the care and use of
rubber insulating gloves and sleeves). The use of insulating equipment
at voltages less than its actual breakdown voltage provides a margin of
safety for the employee. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) and Table E-4, the
proposal has adopted the margins of safety recognized in the ASTM
standards, restricting the use of insulating equipment to voltages
lower than the proof-test voltages given in Table E-1 and Table E-2.
Table E-4 contains the following note:
The maximum use voltage is the a-c voltage (rms) classification
of the protective equipment that designates the maximum nominal
design voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked.
The nominal design voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on
multiphase circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential is
considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if
the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or
isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on a grounded wye
circuit is removed.
In the general case, electrical protective equipment must be rated
for the full phase-to-phase voltage of the lines or equipment on which
work is being performed. This ensures that employees are protected
against the most severe possible exposure, that is, contact between one
phase conductor and another. However, if the employee is only exposed
to phase-to-ground voltage, then the electrical protective equipment
selected can be based on this lower voltage level (nominally, the
phase-to-phase voltage divided by [radic]3 ). For example, a three-
phase, solidly grounded, Y-connected overhead distribution system could
be run as three phase conductors with a neutral or as three single-
phase circuits with one phase conductor and a neutral each. If only one
phase conductor is present on a pole, there is no multiphase exposure.
If all three phase conductors are present, the multiphase exposure can
be removed by insulating two of the phases or by isolating \12\ two of
the phases. After the insulation is in place or while the employee is
isolated from the other two phase conductors, there is no multiphase
exposure, and electrical protective equipment rated for the phase-to-
ground voltage could be used. (It should be noted that, until the
multiphase exposure has actually been removed, the phase-to-phase
voltage remains the maximum use voltage. Thus, the maximum use voltage
of any insulation used to ``remove phase-to-phase exposure'' must be
greater than or equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on the system.)
OSHA requests comments on how employees can be insulated or isolated
from multiphase exposure to ensure the safe use of electrical
protective equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Depending on the configuration of the system, an employee
could be isolated from two of the phases on the pole by approaching
one of the outside phase conductors and working on it from a
position where there is no possibility of coming too close to the
other two phase conductors. Isolation of the employee may be
impossible for some line configurations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require insulating equipment to
be visually inspected before use each day and immediately after any
incident which might be suspected of causing damage. In this way,
obvious defects can be detected before an accident occurs. Possible
damage-causing incidents would include exposure to corona and exposure
to possible direct physical damage. Additionally, rubber gloves would
be required to be subjected to an air test along with the inspection.
In the field, this test usually consists of rolling the cuff towards
the palm so that air is entrapped within the glove. In a testing
facility, a mechanical inflater may be used. In either case, punctures
and cuts can easily be detected. The note following paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) indicates that ASTM F 1236-96, Standard Guide for Visual
Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber Products, contains (1)
information on how to inspect rubber insulating equipment and (2)
descriptions and photographs of potential irregularities in the
equipment.
During use, electrical protective equipment may become damaged and
lose some of its insulating value. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of proposed
Sec. 1926.97 lists types of damage that would cause the insulating
value to drop. The equipment may not be used if any of these defects
are present.
Defects other than those listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) may
develop during use of the equipment and could also affect the
insulating and mechanical properties of the equipment. If such defects
are found, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv) would require the equipment to
be removed from service and tested in accordance with other
requirements in paragraph (c)(2). The results of the tests determine if
it is safe to return the items to service.
Foreign substances on the surface of rubber insulating equipment
can degrade the material and lead to damage to the insulation.
Paragraph (c)(2)(v) would require the equipment to be cleaned as needed
to remove any foreign substances.
Over time, certain environmental conditions can also cause
deterioration of rubber insulating equipment. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(vi) would require insulating equipment to be stored so that it
is protected from injurious conditions and substances, such as light,
temperature extremes, excessive humidity, and ozone. This requirement
helps the equipment retain its insulating properties as it ages.
OSHA does not consider carrying the equipment on trucks for the use
of employees during the course of work to be storage. However, the
Agency does not believe that it is safe to store the equipment on
trucks for extended periods between use if such storage would expose
the equipment to extremes of temperature or humidity. It may be
necessary, under some circumstances, to store equipment indoors during
prolonged periods when employees would not be using it. Workers are
dependent upon electrical protective equipment for their safety, and
all reasonable means of protecting it from unnecessary damage must be
employed.
Rubber insulating gloves are particularly sensitive to physical
damage during use. Through handling conductors and other electrical
equipment, an employee can damage the gloves and lose the protection
they provide. For example, a sharp point on the end of a conductor
could puncture the rubber. To protect against damage, protector gloves
(made of leather) are worn over the rubber gloves. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(vii) recognizes the extra protection afforded by leather gloves
and would require their use over rubber gloves, except under limited
conditions.
Protector gloves would not be required with Class 0 or Class 00
gloves if high finger dexterity is needed for small parts manipulation.
The maximum voltage on which Class 0 and Class 00 gloves can be used is
1,000 volts and 500 volts, respectively. At these voltages, an employee
is protected against electric shock as long as a live part does not
puncture the rubber and contact the employee's hand. The type of small
parts encountered in work on energized circuits, such as small nuts and
washers, are not likely to do this. While the exception is necessary to
allow work to be performed on small energized parts, extra care is
needed in the visual examination of the glove and in the avoidance of
handling sharp objects. (A note to this effect is included in the
proposal.)
The other exception to the requirement for protector gloves is
granted if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility for damage
is low and if gloves at least one class higher than required for the
voltage are used. For example, if a Class 2 glove is used at 7500 volts
or less (the maximum use voltage for Class 1 equipment), if high
dexterity is needed, and if the possibility of damage is low, then
protector gloves need not be used. In this case, the additional
thickness of insulation provides a measure of additional physical
protection. This exception does not apply when the possibility of
damage is significant, such as when an employee is using a knife to
trim insulation from a conductor or when an employee has to handle
moving parts, such as conductors being pulled into place. To ensure
that no loss of insulation has occurred, paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) would
require any gloves used under this exception to be tested before being
used again.
Paragraph (c)(2)(viii), Table E-4, and Table E-5 would require
insulating equipment to be tested periodically to verify that
electrical protective equipment retains its insulating properties over
time. Table E-4 lists the retest voltages that are required for the
various classes of protective equipment, and Table E-5 presents the
testing intervals for the different types of equipment. These test
voltages and intervals were taken from the relevant ASTM standards.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ix) proposes a performance-oriented requirement
that the method used for the periodic tests give a reliable indication
of whether or not the electrical protective equipment can withstand the
voltages involved. As this is a performance-oriented standard, OSHA
does not spell out detailed procedures for the required tests, which
vary depending on the type of equipment being tested. On the other
hand, OSHA believes that it is important for employees, employers, and
testing laboratories to have some guidance in terms of what is
acceptable under the proposed standard. Therefore, following paragraph
(c)(2)(ix), OSHA has included a note stating that electrical test
methods given in the various ASTM standards on rubber insulating
equipment meet the proposed performance requirement. The Agency
believes that referencing acceptable test methods within the standard
will benefit employees, employers, and testing laboratories. As noted
earlier, this does not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing Sec. 1926.97(c)(2)(ix), the Agency would
accept any test that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard.
However, the proposal states explicitly that the listed ASTM tests
would be acceptable; and, if the ASTM specifications are met, an
employer has assurance that he or she would be complying with Sec.
1926.97(c)(2)(ix). If an employer uses other test methods, the Agency
will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not they meet the
Federal standard.
Once the equipment has undergone the in-service inspections and
tests, it is important to ensure that any failed equipment is not
returned to service. Paragraph (c)(2)(x) would prohibit electrical
protective equipment that failed the required inspections and tests
from being used by employees, unless the defects can be safely
eliminated. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(x) also lists acceptable means of
eliminating defects and rendering the equipment fit for use. Sometimes
defective portions of rubber line hose and blankets can be removed. The
result would be a smaller blanket or a shorter length of line hose.
Under the proposal, rubber insulating blankets may only be salvaged by
severing the defective portions of the blanket if the resulting
undamaged area is at least 560 mm by 560 mm (22 inches by 22 inches)
for Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 blankets. (Smaller sizes cannot be reliably
tested using standard test methods.) Obviously, gloves and sleeves
cannot be repaired in this manner; however, there are methods of
patching them if the defects are minor. Rubber blankets can also be
patched. The patched area must have electrical and physical properties
equal to those of the material being repaired. To minimize the
possibility that a patch will loosen or fail, the proposal would not
permit repairs to gloves outside the gauntlet area (the area between
the wrist and the reinforced edge of the opening). OSHA stresses that
the proposal would not permit repairs in the working area of the glove,
where the constant flexing of the rubber during the course of work
could loosen an ill-formed patch.
Once the insulating equipment has been repaired, it must be
retested to ensure that any patches are effective and that there are no
other defects present. Such retests would be required under paragraph
(c)(2)(xi).
Employers, employees, and OSHA compliance staff must have a method
of determining whether or not the tests required under proposed
paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(xi) have been performed. Paragraph
(c)(2)(xii) would require this to be accomplished by means of
certification by the employer that equipment has been tested in
accordance with the standard. The certification is required to identify
the equipment that passed the test and the date it was tested. Typical
means of meeting this requirement include logs and stamping test dates
on the equipment. A note following paragraph (c)(2)(xii) explains that
these means of certification are acceptable.
B. Electric Power Transmission and Distribution, Subpart V
OSHA is proposing to revise Subpart V of its construction
standards. This subpart contains requirements for the prevention of
injuries to employees performing construction work on electric power
transmission and distribution installations.
The proposed revision of Subpart V is based primarily on the
general industry standard Sec. 1910.269, Electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution, which was promulgated in January 1994,
rather than on existing Subpart V, which was promulgated in 1972. As
noted earlier in this preamble, the existing Subpart V is
technologically out of date and contains provisions that are poorly
written. OSHA believes that basing the revision of Subpart V on the
more recently promulgated Sec. 1910.269 will produce a standard that
will be easier for employees and employers to understand and will
better protect employees than a revision based on the existing
construction standard.
Section 1926.950, General
Section 1926.950, General, proposes the scope of revised Subpart V
and proposes general requirements for training and the determination of
existing conditions.
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.950 sets the scope of
revised Subpart V. OSHA intends the revision of Subpart V to apply to
the same types of work covered under the existing standard. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(1) has been taken directly from existing Sec.
1926.950(a) and (a)(1). As proposed, Subpart V would apply to the
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations. For the purposes of the proposal and the existing
standard, ``construction'' includes the erection of new electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration,
conversion, and improvement of existing electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment.
Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.950 explains the
application of the subpart with respect to the rest of Part 1926. The
proposed provision reads as follows: ``This subpart applies in addition
to all other applicable standards contained in this Part 1926.
Employers covered under this subpart are not exempt from complying with
other applicable provisions in Part 1926 by the operation of Sec.
1910.5(c) of this chapter. Specific references in this subpart to other
sections of Part 1926 are provided for emphasis only.'' All other
construction industry standards would continue to apply to
installations covered by the revised standard unless an exception is
given in Subpart V. For example, Sec. 1926.959(a)(2) would require the
critical components of mechanical elevating and rotating equipment to
be inspected before each shift. This provision would not supersede
existing Sec. Sec. 1926.500(a)(5) and (a)(6), which detail specific
requirements for the inspection of cranes. Also, in a change that OSHA
considers nonsubstantive, Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(iii) will be amended to
include language equivalent to that of the new provision at Sec.
1926.950(a)(2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1910.269 presently states:
``This section applies in addition to all other applicable standards
contained in this part 1910. Specific references in this section to
other sections of part 1910 are provided for emphasis only.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to Sec. 1910.269, Subpart V does not apply to work on
electric power generation installations or to the installations
themselves. The construction of an electric power generation station
normally poses hazards more akin to those of general construction
rather than those found in the operation and maintenance of the
generation plant. The only exceptions would be during the final phase
of construction of a generating station, when electrical and other
acceptance testing of the installation is being performed, and during
``reconstruction'' phases, when other portions of the generating
station would still be in operation. During these two operations, the
work being performed resembles general industry work, and the
appropriate work practices to follow are contained in the general
industry standard Sec. 1910.269. Therefore, rather than repeat the
relevant portions of Sec. 1910.269 in Subpart V, OSHA has simply
stated in Sec. 1926.950(a)(3) that such work shall comply with Sec.
1910.269. The Agency requests comments on whether Sec. 1910.269 should
apply to all work involving electric power generation installations, as
proposed, or whether the relevant requirements from Sec. 1910.269
should be contained in Subpart V.
Similarly, line-clearance tree trimming is not normally performed
as part of the construction of electric power transmission or
distribution installations. One exception occurs when trees are trimmed
along an existing overhead power line to provide clearance for a new
transmission or distribution line being constructed. Even here,
however, this work is not construction-like in nature. Therefore, OSHA
is also applying Sec. 1910.269 to line-clearance tree-trimming
operations, regardless of whether the work is considered to be
construction work. The Agency also requests comments on whether Sec.
1910.269 should apply to all work involving line-clearance tree
trimming, as proposed, or whether the relevant requirements from Sec.
1910.269 should be contained in Subpart V.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1926.950 addresses training for employees.
Subpart V currently contains no general provisions related to training
employees in the safety precautions necessary to perform electric power
transmission and distribution work. It is widely recognized that
electric-utility-type work requires special knowledge and skills.
Additionally, both existing Subpart V and the proposed revision of
Subpart V contain many safety-related work practice requirements that
are necessary for the protection of employees. In order to gain the
requisite knowledge and skills to employ these work practices,
employees must be adequately trained. Therefore, in the proposed
revision of Subpart V, OSHA has included training requirements based on
those in Sec. 1910.269.
Paragraph (b)(1) contains training requirements applying to all
employees performing work covered by Subpart V. Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
would require employees to be trained in the safety-related work
practices, safety procedures, and other personnel safety requirements
in the standard that pertain to their respective job assignments. This
training is necessary to ensure that employees use the safety-related
work practices outlined in proposed Subpart V.
Under paragraph (b)(1)(ii), employees would also be required to be
trained in and familiar with any other safety practices necessary for
their safety, including applicable emergency procedures. The proposed
rule would require employees to be trained in safe work techniques that
relate to his or her job. Additionally, if more than one set of work
practices could be used to accomplish a task safely, the employee would
need to be trained in only those work methods he or she is to use. For
example, an insulator on a power line could be replaced through the use
of live-line tools, through the use of rubber insulating equipment, or
by deenergizing the line. The employee would only have to be trained in
the method actually used to replace that insulator.
The proposal cannot specify requirements for every hazard the
employee faces in performing electric power transmission or
distribution work. Employers must fill in this gap by training their
employees in hazards that are anticipated during the course of jobs
they are expected to perform. The language of proposed Sec.
1926.950(b)(1)(ii) imparts OSHA's intent that safety training be
provided in areas that are not directly addressed by the standard but
that are related to the employee's job.
Under paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the training provided to an employee
would have to be commensurate with the risk he or she faces. This
provision is not contained in either existing Subpart V or Sec.
1910.269. This proposed requirement, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.332(c), is intended to ensure that an appropriate level of
training is provided. Employees who face little risk in their job tasks
need less training than those whose jobs expose them to the most
danger. OSHA believes that this provision will ensure that employers
direct their training resources where they will provide the greatest
benefit. At the same time, all employees will receive adequate training
to protect them against the hazards they face in their jobs. OSHA
notes, however, for employees who are currently provided the training
required by existing Sec. 1910.269, this training will be considered
sufficient for compliance with proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii). Proposed
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) does not require employers to make changes to
their training programs; rather it provides employers with options to
tailor their training programs and resources to employees with
particularly high-risk jobs.
Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.950 contains additional
requirements for the training of qualified employees. Because qualified
employees are allowed to work very close to electric power lines and
equipment and because they face a high risk of electrocution, it is
important that they be specially trained. OSHA believes that qualified
employees need to be extensively trained for them to perform their work
safely. Towards this end, the proposal would require that these
employees be trained in distinguishing live parts from other parts of
electric equipment, in determining nominal voltages of lines and
equipment, in the minimum approach distances set forth in the proposal,
in the techniques involved in working on or near live parts, and in the
knowledge necessary to recognize electrical hazards and the techniques
to avoid these hazards.
OSHA believes that there is a need for all employees to be trained
on a continuing basis. Initial instruction in safe techniques for
performing specific job tasks is not sufficient to ensure that
employees will use safe work practices all of the time. At OSHA's
hearing on Sec. 1910.269, Dr. Heinz Ahlers of NIOSH spoke about the
effect of training on accidents, as follows:
* * * I think in a majority of those instances, the fatality
involved the worker who had been appropriately trained for the
exposure that he subsequently came in contact with and just was not
following what the training and the company policy had involved.
[269-DC Tr. 47-48]
Continual reinforcement of this initial guidance must be provided
to ensure that the employee actually uses the procedures he or she has
been taught. This reinforcement can take the form of supervision,
safety meetings, pre-job briefings or conferences, and retraining.
Typically, adequate supervision can detect unsafe work practices with
respect to tasks that are routine and are performed on a daily or
regular basis. However, if an employee has to use a technique that is
applied infrequently or that is based on new technology, some follow-up
is needed to ensure that the employee is actually aware of the correct
procedure for accomplishing the task. A detailed job briefing, as
required under proposed Sec. 1926.952(d)(2), may be adequate if the
employee has previously received some instruction, but training would
be necessary if the employee has never been schooled in the techniques
to be used.
For these reasons, OSHA has supplemented the basic training
requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.950(b)(1) and (b)(2) with two
additional requirements: (1) a requirement for regular supervision
(that is, supervision that takes place on a periodic basis throughout
the year) and an annual inspection by the employer to determine whether
or not each employee is complying with the safety-related work
practices required by Subpart V and (2) a requirement for additional
training whenever
The regular supervision or annual inspection indicates
that the employee is not following the safety-related work practices
required by the standard,
New technology, new types of equipment, or changes in
procedures necessitate the use of safety-related work practices that
are different from those that the employee would normally use, or
The employee must use safety-related work practices that
are not normally used during his or her regular job duties.
These two provisions are contained in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).
The proposal includes a note indicating that the Agency considers
tasks performed less often than once per year to require retraining
before the task is actually performed. Instruction provided in pre-job
briefings is acceptable if it is detailed enough to fully inform the
employee of the procedures involved in the job and to ensure that he or
she can accomplish them in a safe manner. OSHA believes that this
requirement will significantly improve safety for electric power
transmission and distribution workers.
Under paragraph (b)(5), the proposal would require classroom or on-
the-job training or a combination of both. This allows employers to
continue the types of training programs that are currently in
existence. (See the discussion of Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) for an
explanation of how employers may treat previous training.)
An employee who has attended a single training class on a procedure
that is as complex as the lockout and tagging procedure used in an
electric generating plant has generally not been fully trained in that
procedure. Unless a training program establishes an employee's
proficiency in safe work practices and unless that employee then
demonstrates his or her ability to perform those work practices, there
will be no assurance that safe work practices will result. To address
this problem, the Agency is proposing paragraph (b)(6), which reads as
follows:
The training shall establish employee proficiency in the work
practices required by this section and shall introduce the
procedures necessary for compliance with this section.
The inclusion of paragraph (b)(6) and the demonstration of
proficiency requirement contained in paragraph (b)(7), discussed later
in this preamble, are intended to ensure that employers do not try to
comply with Sec. 1926.950(b) by simply handing training manuals to
their employees. These provisions will require employers to take steps
to assure that employees comprehend what they have been taught and that
they are capable of performing the work practices mandated by the
standard. OSHA believes that these two paragraphs will maximize the
benefits of the training required under the standard.
The employer would be required, by paragraph (b)(7), to determine
that each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices
involved. Until the employer makes this determination, the employee
would not be considered as being trained. Employers relying on training
provided by others are expected to take steps to verify that the
employee has indeed received it. For example, an employer could call a
previous employer or training facility or could check a union
employee's journeyman lineman credentials. Alternatively, an employer
could test the employee's knowledge of safe work practices. After these
steps have been taken, the employer could then, based on visual
observation of the employee, determine that that employee has been
trained in accordance with the standard and has demonstrated
proficiency in the work practices involved. A note following this
paragraph explains that employee training records, which are maintained
by many employers but which are not required by the standard, are one
way of tracking when an employee has demonstrated proficiency. OSHA
requests comments on whether the standard should require employers to
record employee training.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) describes how an employer may treat
training that the employee has received previously (for example,
through previous employment). If an employer can demonstrate that an
employee has already been trained, the employer does not have to
duplicate previous instruction provided that the employer: (1) Confirms
that the employee has the job experience appropriate to the work to be
performed, (2) through an examination or interview, makes an initial
determination that the employee is proficient in the relevant safety-
related work practices before he or she performs any work covered by
this subpart, and (3) supervises the employee closely until that
employee has demonstrated proficiency in all the work practices he or
she will employ. OSHA believes that it is unnecessary to require
employers to duplicate training the employee has received in the past.
However, the Agency believes that it is important for the employer to
take steps to ensure that the previous training was adequate for the
work practices the employee will be performing. It is possible, for
example, that an employee who has received training through an
apprenticeship program was not trained in the specific grounding
practices used by his or her current employer. The employer must
determine where the gaps in the employee's training are and provide
supplemental training to cover them. Otherwise, employees may follow
different practices that endanger not only themselves but their
coworkers as well. For example, a previously trained employee may have
been instructed to wear rubber gloves and sleeves, but his or her
current employer's practices require only rubber gloves but with the
extra insulation on conductors as required by proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(2). This employee will be unlikely to install all the
necessary insulation, increasing the risk to the employee and his or
her coworkers.
Existing Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) requires employers to certify
that employees have received the training required under that section.
The certification must be made when the employee demonstrates
proficiency in the work practices involved. To reduce unnecessary
paperwork burdens placed on employers, OSHA is proposing to eliminate
the requirement to certify training. The Agency believes that
compliance with the training requirements can be determined through
employee interviews; thus, the certification requirement is
unnecessary. OSHA does believe, however, that it is essential for the
employee to demonstrate proficiency in the work practices involved
before he or she is considered as having been trained satisfactorily.
Therefore, as described earlier, the proposal includes this as a
requirement. Comments are requested on whether or not the existing
certification requirement in existing Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) is
necessary and on whether or not the proposed alternative will better
protect employees.
The work covered by Subpart V is frequently done by an employer
working under contract to an electric utility. Traditionally, electric
utilities \14\ have had a workforce that was sufficient for the day-to-
day maintenance of the electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution system. Electric utilities would hire contractors when the
work to be performed went beyond routine maintenance. Thus, contractors
typically would perform the following types of work: new transmission
and distribution line construction, extensive transmission and
distribution line renovation (such as the replacement of a large number
of utility poles or the upgrading of the line to a higher voltage),
line-clearance tree trimming, generation plant overhauls, and repair of
extensive storm damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For the purposes of the discussion of Sec. 1926.950(c),
OSHA is using the term ``electric utility'' to include any employer
who hires a contractor to work on that employer's electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contractors performing electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work experience a disproportionate share of fatal
accidents in comparison to electric utilities. Table IV-3 presents the
number of fatalities experienced by electric utilities and their major
electrical contractors.
Table IV-3.--Fatalities by SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC Industry Year Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
783................................... Line-clearance tree-trimming contractors 1991 4
1992 7
1993 9
1994 4
1995 2
1996 6
1997 4
1998 5
---------------
Total............................. ........................................ .............. 41
---------------------------------------
1623.................................. Power Line Contractors.................. 1991 15
1992 12
1993 20
1994 21
1995 15
1996 11
1997 11
1998 12
---------------
Total............................. ........................................ .............. 117
---------------------------------------
1731.................................. Electrical Contractors.................. 1991 5
1992 6
1993 13
1994 9
1995 9
1996 6
1997 8
1998 9
---------------
Total............................. ........................................ .............. 65
---------------------------------------
4911.................................. Electric Utilities...................... 1991 33
1992 34
1993 28
1994 23
1995 36
1996 23
1997 20
1998 27
---------------
Total............................. ........................................ .............. 224
---------------------------------------
4931.................................. Combination Utilities (e.g., Electric 1991 2
and Gas Utilities).
1992 7
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 2
1997 2
1998 1
---------------
Total............................. ........................................ .............. 17
===============
Grand total................... ........................................ .............. 464
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA accident inspection data for the years 1991 through 1998.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.000
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Figure 1 shows the percentages of fatalities for the two groups.
These figures demonstrate that, while the overall number of fatalities
has not changed significantly, the proportion of fatal accidents has
shifted from electric utilities to their contractors, with nearly half
of the fatalities involving contractors.
The number of fatalities for the two industry groups does not tell
the full story. To determine the relative risk faced by employees, OSHA
must look at fatality rates, which represent the number of deaths per
1000 employees. Using employment data for 1997 from Section V,
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in this preamble, the Agency has calculated
fatality rates for electric utilities and their major contractors, as
shown in Table IV-4.
Table IV-4.--Fatality Rate by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric utilities Electrical contractors Line-clearance tree
---------------------------------------------------- trimmers
124408 Employees \1\ 43472 Employees \2\ -------------------------
Year ---------------------------------------------------- 35020 Employees \3\
-------------------------
Number of Fatality Number of Fatality Number of Fatality
fatalities rate fatalities rate fatalities rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991.............................. 35 0.28 20 0.46 4 0.11
1992.............................. 41 0.33 18 0.41 7 0.20
1993.............................. 29 0.23 33 0.76 9 0.26
1994.............................. 24 0.19 30 0.69 4 0.11
1995.............................. 37 0.30 24 0.55 2 0.06
1996.............................. 25 0.20 17 0.39 6 0.17
1997.............................. 22 0.18 19 0.44 4 0.11
1998.............................. 28 0.23 21 0.48 5 0.14
--------------
Total......................... 241 0.24 182 0.52 41 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards
for Work on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and
29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, CONSAD Research Corp. (CONSAD), full-time equivalent employment for NAICS
221110, electric power generation, NAICS 221120, electric power transmission, control, and distribution, and
NAICS 2211, publicly owned utilities, combined.
\2\ Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for NAICS 234910, water, sewer, and pipeline construction,
NAICS 234920, power and communication transmission line construction, and NAICS 235310, electrical
contractors, combined.
\3\ Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for SIC 0783, ornamental shrub and tree services.
As can be seen from this table, the fatality rates for contractors
are more than double the comparable rate for electric utilities.
OSHA believes that, for the protection of all employees performing
electric power generation,\15\ transmission, and distribution work, it
is essential that electric utilities hire contractors who have
employees with the skills, knowledge, training, tools, and protective
equipment necessary to perform this work safely. The safety of electric
utility employees as well as the safety of contractor employees depends
on this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Although Subpart V applies only to the construction of
transmission and distribution installations, the same requirements
on the duties of host and contract employers are being proposed in
Sec. 1910.269, which applies to the maintenance and operation of
electric power generation installations in addition to transmission
and distribution installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the safety of contract employees is dependent on
their skills, knowledge, training, tools, and protective equipment. The
requirements of Sec. 1926.950(b) generally ensure that all employees
have the requisite skills and training. Other requirements in the
standard, including Sec. Sec. 1926.954, 1926.957, and 1926.960,
address tools and protective equipment. However, these other provisions
do not adequately address the employees' knowledge of the actual
equipment they will be working on. For example, an employee might be
trained in the climbing of concrete poles. Climbing these structures
typically involves the attachment of temporary ladders into fittings on
the concrete poles. An employee with the general type of training in
climbing electric power transmission structures that contract employees
typically receive might not be aware of the specific attachment and
locking means used by the concrete poles and structures owned by the
electric utility that hires the contractor. Without this knowledge, the
employee could attach the temporary ladder incorrectly or fail to lock
it in place properly with possibly fatal results.
In addition, several provisions in the standard would require the
employer to assess certain hazards covered by the standard. For
example, Sec. 1926.960(g) would require employers to assess hazards
associated with electric arcs. Contract employers need to have
sufficient information about the electrical system so that they can
perform these hazard assessments.
The facilities owned by an electric utility pose hazards to
employees of contractors working on those facilities. For example,
overhead electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment owned by electric utilities pose serious fall, electrocution,
and electric shock hazards. Employees exposed to such hazards need to
be highly trained and skilled. If an electric utility hires a
contractor who uses unqualified employees on those lines and equipment,
the hazards posed by the utility's facilities will almost certainly
lead to injuries. If the contract employees are working on a power line
with the understanding that it is deenergized and if the contract
employees do not fully understand the electric utility's procedures for
deenergizing lines and equipment, then those employees could mistakenly
believe that a line is deenergized when it is not, with possibly fatal
results. Inadequate maintenance of an electric utility's facilities can
also lead to unexpected hazards for contract employees.
The safety of electric utility employees is also affected by the
contract employer's work. For example, a contractor's work could cause
an overhead energized line to fall on a deenergized line on which an
electric utility employee is working, creating hazards for the electric
utility employee. Additionally, a contract employee who is not familiar
with the utility's procedures for reenergizing lines and equipment
might inadvertently remove a tag protecting an electric utility
employee.
Although electric utility employees do not typically work with
contract employees, sometimes they do work together. For example, it is
common practice for contract employees and electric utility employees
to work side-by-side during emergency restoration operations, such as
those that follow a big storm. Additionally, contractors in electric
power generation plants will be working near employees working full
time in the plant.
It is clear from these examples that electric utility employers and
contract employers must cooperate and communicate if all employees
maintaining or constructing electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution facilities are to be adequately protected. Thus, OSHA is
proposing requirements in Sec. 1926.950 for each type of employer to
ensure the necessary exchange of information between electric utility
and contract employers. The proposed requirements have been taken from
similar provisions in the Agency's standard for Process Safety
Management, Sec. 1910.119(h).
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.950 would impose duties on
host employers that hire contractors to perform work on the host
employer's installations covered by Subpart V. Host employer is defined
as ``[a]n employer who operates and maintains an electric power
transmission or distribution installation covered by Subpart V of this
Part and who hires a contract employer to perform work on that
installation.'' This definition includes electric utilities and other
employers who operate and maintain an electric power transmission or
distribution installation. However, it does not include an employer who
owns but does not operate and maintain such installations. The Agency
believes that host employers who operate and maintain their electric
power transmission and distribution installations have expertise in
working safely on such installations. On the other hand, some entities
may own but not operate or maintain these installations. These entities
generally do not have the expertise necessary to work safely on
transmission or distribution lines and equipment and would have little
hazard-related knowledge to pass on to contractors. In addition, the
employees of such entities would have little if any exposure to hazards
created by a contract employer. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to exclude
such entities from having to comply with proposed Sec. 1926.950(c)(1).
The Agency invites comments on whether excluding such employers from
the host-contract employer provisions proposed in Sec. 1926.950(c)(1)
unduly jeopardizes employee safety and whether any of the provisions in
that paragraph could reasonably be applied to such employers.
OSHA is also not proposing to extend the host-contract employer
provisions to line-clearance tree-trimming contractors for work
performed by line-clearance tree trimmers who are not qualified
employees. Existing Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E) lists the paragraphs
that apply to line-clearance tree-trimming, and OSHA is not proposing
to add the host-contract employer provisions to that list. As noted
earlier, the fatality rate for line-clearance tree-trimming contractors
is lower than the rate for utilities. Thus, it appears that though
line-clearance tree-trimming operations are relatively hazardous, they
are still safer than power line construction, repair, and maintenance.
On the other hand, if a line-clearance tree-trimming operation is
performed by a qualified employee, then the host-contract employer
provisions would apply. (See existing Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E)(1).)
As long as they are using electrical protective equipment, these
employees are permitted to come much closer to energized parts than
unqualified employees, and the Agency believes that these employees
face hazards similar to contract power line workers.\16\ OSHA requests
comments on whether excluding line-clearance tree-trimming contractors
from the host-contract employer provisions proposed in Sec.
1926.950(c)(1) unduly jeopardizes employee safety and whether any of
the provisions in that paragraph could reasonably be applied to such
employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a full discussion of why existing Sec. 1910.269
applies different requirements to line-clearance tree-trimming
operations depending on whether or not the operation is performed by
a qualified employee, see the preamble to the final rule on electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work (January 31,
1994, 59 FR 4336).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract employer is defined as ``[a]n employer who performs work
covered by Subpart V of this Part for a host employer.'' This includes
painting contractors, line construction contractors, electrical
contractors, and any other contractors working on the construction of
electric power transmission and distribution lines.\17\ It does not
include contractors who might be present at a jobsite where some work
performed is covered by Subpart V, but who are not performing any
covered work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For Sec. 1910.269, this definition also includes
contractors working on an electric power generation installation
covered by that section. This would include boiler maintenance
contractors, conveyor servicing contractors, electrical contractors,
and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the host employer is aware of hazards that are present at
its facilities of which the contractor might not be aware. For example,
what appeared to be a static line on one electric utility's
transmission system was energized at 4,000 volts. Static lines are
typically grounded. An employee of a contractor, perhaps not
understanding that the line was energized, contacted the static line
and was electrocuted. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed Sec. 1926.950
would address this problem by requiring the host employer to inform
contract employers of any known hazards that the contractor or its
employees might fail to recognize. This provision should ensure that
the contractor will be able to take measures to protect its employees
from hazards posed by the host employer's workplace. Although this
provision would not require the host employer to inform the contract
employer of hazards the contract employees should be expected to
recognize, such as hazards posed by an overhead power line, the
proposal would require the host employer to inform the contract
employer of known hazards the contractor might not be aware of. For
example, if a host employer knows that a particular manhole on its
system is subject to periodic contamination from a nearby fuel tank,
that information must be relayed to the contractor.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) also covers information that a
contract employer would need to make any hazard assessments called for
under the proposed standard. For example, proposed Sec. 1926.950(d)
would require employers to determine existing conditions related to the
safety of the work being performed before work is started. Under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), the host employer would have to provide any
system parameters that the contract employer would need to satisfy
paragraph (d). These parameters could include such things as the
nominal circuit voltage, maximum switching transient voltages, and the
presence of any utility poles known by the host employer to have
defects that could affect employee safety. This is the type of
information that could affect the contractor's choice of work practices
or could otherwise affect the safety of the contractor's employees. In
addition, the contract employer would otherwise have difficulty
obtaining much of this information, if it could be obtained at all.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would not require the host employer to
survey the contract work areas for hazards. For example, this provision
does not require the host employer to inspect utility poles for damage or
defects before the contract employer starts working. The proposed rule
would require instead that the host employer provide all relevant and
known information to the contract employer. This paragraph does not
require host employers to acquire additional unknown information but does
require host employers to provide any information that was known by the
host employer.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require the host employer to
report observed contract-employer-related violations of Subpart V to
the contract employer. OSHA believes that host employers as a matter of
course observe employees of the contract employer, from time to time,
as they perform work under the contract. When the host employer
observes contract employees violating this standard, it is important
for the host employer to inform the contract employer so that the
contractor can correct the violations and prevent them from occurring
in the future. The contract employer is responsible for correcting
these violations, but may not be aware of them. Thus, the proposal
would require the host employer to report violations to the contract
employer so that the contract employer will know to take corrective
action.
Contracts between electric utilities and their contractors
typically contain provisions requiring contractors to meet OSHA
standards and other provisions addressing noncompliance with the terms
of the contract. OSHA believes that host employers should take
appropriate measures to enforce the terms of the contract with respect
to safe work practices and get the contractor to fix any uncorrected
violations. OSHA also believes that host employers should carefully
review the contracts of contractors who fail to correct violations
before renewing those contracts. The Agency requests comments on
whether the standard should require these or other actions on the part
of the host employer to promote compliance with OSHA standards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) addresses the responsibilities of the
contract employer. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require the contract
employer to instruct its employees in the hazards communicated to the
contractor by the host employer. A note following this paragraph
indicates that this instruction would be in addition to the training
provided under Sec. 1926.950(b). Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would
ensure that information on hazards the employees might face is conveyed
to those employees. The hazard information provided by the host
employer is essential to the safety of employees performing the work,
especially because it includes information on hazards that the contract
employees might not recognize. The contract employer would also be
required, under proposed Sec. 1926.950(b)(1)(ii), to train employees
in work practices for their safety, as related to those hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require the contract employer
to ensure that its employees follow the work practices required by the
standard and the safety-related work rules imposed by the host
employer. This proposed paragraph: (1) Recognizes that the contract
employer has the responsibility for the actions of its employees, and
(2) compels the contract employer to enforce compliance with safety and
health rules imposed by the host employer as if they were requirements
of the standard. The latter is particularly important. If the host
employer has imposed safety-related work rules on its contractors,
those rules are almost certain to impact the safety and health of
employees of the host and contract employers. For example, electric
utilities typically require contractors to follow the utilities'
procedures for deenergizing electric circuits. If the contract
employer's employees do not follow these procedures, a circuit the
contractor's employees are working on might not be properly deenergized
or a circuit the contractor was not working on might become
reenergized. These hazards could cause the electrocution of the
employees of either employer. OSHA invites comments on whether
requiring a contractor to follow a host employer's safety-related work
rules could possibly make the work more hazardous and, if so, how the
standard should address this possibility.
Even work rules imposed primarily for reasons other than employee
safety and health are likely to affect employee safety in one way or
another. Work rules that address the way electric equipment is
installed, for example, also affect the safety of the host employer's
employees. If the equipment is installed improperly, it can fail when
it is in use, possibly injuring an employee. Similarly, work rules
imposed primarily for the protection of the public can also affect
employee safety. For example, if a contractor's employees do not follow
a rule that requires trailer loads to be tied down, employees at the
host employer's facilities would be exposed to shifting or falling
loads in the same way that members of the public would be. OSHA
requests comments on whether host employers impose any work rules that
do not significantly affect employee safety and examples of such work
rules.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would require the contract employer
to advise the host employer of: unique hazards posed by the contract
employer's work; any unexpected hazards found while the contractor's
employees were working; and the measures the contract employer took to
correct host-employer-reported violations and to prevent them from
recurring. This provision enables the host employer to take any
necessary measures to protect its employees from hazards of which the
host employer would not otherwise be aware. This will help protect the
host employer's employees when they are working near the contractor's
employees (for example, when responding to an emergency) and when the
host employer's employees work on the same equipment after the contract
employer departs. It will also provide essential feedback to the host
employer on the safety performance of their contract employers. This
feedback will also help host employers satisfy their obligations under
the Agency's multiemployer enforcement policy (CPL 02-00-124).
OSHA's recognition of the need for employers on multiemployer
worksites to share responsibility for workplace safety and health is
reflected in the Agency's multiemployer enforcement policy. On
multiemployer worksites, citations are normally issued not only to the
employer whose employees are exposed to hazards (the exposing employer)
but, depending on the actions the employer has taken to detect
violations and protect employees, also to:
(1) The employer who creates the hazard (the creating employer);
(2) The employer who has the authority, by contract or practice, to
ensure that the hazardous condition is corrected (the controlling
employer); and
(3) The employer who has the responsibility for correcting the
hazard (the correcting employer).
OSHA's proposed requirements concerning host employers and
contractors do not affect the Agency's long-standing multiemployer
enforcement policy. Neither Sec. 1910.269(a)(4) nor Sec. 1926.950(d)
increase an employer's obligations or liability under that policy.
Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule changes OSHA's position'as
expressed in CPL 02-00-124 and various court cases (see, for example,
Anning-Johnson 94 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1193), Harvey Workover, Inc. (7
O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1687))-that each employer is responsible for the
health and safety of his or her own employees, and under certain
circumstances may be cited for endangering the safety of another's
employees. Because the proposed requirements will help increase
communication between host employers and contractors about known hazards,
however, the proposed requirements may help employers on multiemployer
worksites meet their obligations under CPL 02-00-124, as noted earlier.
In determining who to hold responsible under its multiemployer enforcement
policy, OSHA will look at who created the hazard, who controlled the hazard,
and whether all reasonable means were taken to deal with the hazard.
OSHA is not proposing to require the host employer to evaluate
contract employers' safety performance. However, contract employers
with poor safety performances are likely to jeopardize not only their
own employees but employees of the host employer as well. Even when a
host employer hires a contractor to perform jobs where employees of the
host will not be present under normal circumstances, employees of the
host employer will be present in some circumstances, such as during
quality control inspections, in the aftermath of an accident, and
during emergency restoration situations. In addition, the work
performed by a contractor can affect the safety of employees of the
host employer after the contractor is gone. (For example, if the
contractor fails to secure a crossarm to a utility pole properly the
crossarm could come down while an employee of the host employer is
working on the pole.) Therefore, OSHA requests comments on the need to
require host employers to evaluate the safety performance of their
contractors.
Frequently, the conditions present at a jobsite can expose
employees to unexpected hazards. For example, the grounding system
available at an outdoor site could have been damaged by the weather or
by vehicular traffic, or communications cables in the vicinity could
reduce the approach distance to an unacceptable level. To protect
employees from such adverse situations, the conditions present in the
work area should be known so that appropriate action can be taken.
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1926.950 would address this problem by requiring
conditions existing in the work area to be determined before work is
started. The language for this paragraph was based upon language in
current Sec. 1926.950(b)(1). A similar requirement can be found in
ANSI C2-2002 (the NESC), Section 420D.
The conditions found as a result of compliance with this proposed
paragraph would affect the application of various requirements
contained within Subpart V. For example, the voltage on equipment will
determine the minimum approach distances required under proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1). Similarly, the presence or absence of an equipment
grounding conductor will affect the work practices required under
proposed Sec. 1926.960(j). If conditions to which no specific Subpart
V provision applies are found, then the employee would be trained, as
required by proposed Sec. 1926.950(b)(1)(ii), to use appropriate safe
work practices.
OSHA does not intend to require employers to take measurements on a
routine basis in order to make the determinations required by proposed
Sec. 1926.950(d). For example, knowledge of the maximum transient
voltage level is necessary to perform many routine transmission and
distribution line jobs safely; however, no measurement is necessary in
the determination of what the maximum level is. It can be determined by
an analysis of the electric circuit, or the employer can assume the
default maximum transient overvoltages as discussed under proposed
Sec. 1926.960(c)(1). Similarly, employers can make determinations of
the presence of hazardous induced voltages and of the presence and
condition of grounds without taking measurements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ It may be necessary for measurements to be made if there is
doubt as to the condition of a ground or the level of induced or
transient voltage and if the employer is relying on one of these
conditions to meet other requirements in the standard. For example,
an engineering analysis of a particular installation might reveal
that voltage induced on a deenergized line is considerable, but
should not be dangerous. A measurement of the voltage is warranted
if the employer is using this analysis as a basis for claiming that
the provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.964(b)(4) or hazardous induced
voltage do not apply. In another case, further investigation would
be warranted if an equipment ground is found to be of questionable
reliability, unless the equipment is treated as energized under
proposed Sec. 1926.960(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1926.951, Medical Services and First Aid
Section 1926.951 proposes requirements for medical services and
first aid. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.951 emphasizes that the
requirements of Sec. 1926.50 apply. (See Sec. 1926.950(a)(2).)
Existing section 1926.50 includes provisions for available medical
personnel, first aid training and supplies, and facilities for
drenching or flushing of the eyes and body in the event of exposure to
corrosive materials.
Because of the hazard of electric shock when employees are
performing work on or with energized lines and equipment, electric
power transmission and distribution workers suffer electrocution on the
job. Many electric shock victims suffer ventricular fibrillation.
Ventricular fibrillation is an abnormal, chaotic heart rhythm that
prevents the heart from pumping blood and, if unchecked, leads to
death. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is necessary in the event of
electric shock so that injured employees can be revived. CPR must be
started within 4 minutes to be effective in reviving an employee whose
heart has gone into fibrillation.
To protect employees performing work on or associated with exposed
lines or equipment energized at 50 volts or more, OSHA is proposing to
require employees with first aid and CPR training to be available to
render assistance in an emergency. CPR training would be required for
field crews of two or more employees (a minimum of two trained
employees) and for fixed worksites (enough trained employees to provide
assistance within 4 minutes) in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii),
respectively.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i) would allow employers to train all employees in
CPR within 3 months of being hired in lieu of having two CPR-trained
persons on every field crew. If the employer chose this alternative for
field work, then only one CPR-trained employee would be required. In
practice, crews with more than one person would normally have two or
more CPR-trained employees on the crew, since all employees who had
been working for an employer more than 3 months would be trained.
However, employers who rely on seasonal labor (for example, those hired
only in the summer months) might have two-person crews with only one
CPR-trained employee for 3 months out of every year. Worse, that
trained employee would likely be the employee directly exposed to
electrical hazards, because new employees are typically hired as
helpers working on the ground away from most electrical hazards. OSHA
requests comments on whether allowing employers the option of training
all their employees in CPR if they are trained within 3 months of being
hired is sufficiently protective. The Agency also requests comments on
how this provision could be revised to minimize burdens on employers
while providing adequate protection for employees.
Someone must defibrillate a victim of ventricular fibrillation
quickly to allow a normal heart rhythm to resume. The sooner
defibrillation is started, the better the victim's chances of survival.
If defibrillation is provided within the first 5 minutes of the onset of
ventricular fibrillation, the odds are about 50 percent that the victim
will recover. However, with each passing minute, the chance of successful
resuscitation is reduced by 7 to 10 percent. After 10 minutes, there is very
little chance of successful rescue.
OSHA has chosen a 50 volts as a widely recognized threshold for
hazardous electric shock. Although it is theoretically possible to
sustain a life-threatening shock at this voltage, it is considered
extremely unlikely. In addition, other OSHA and national consensus
standards recognize this 50-volt threshold. For example, OSHA's general
industry and construction electrical standards require guarding of live
parts energized at 50 volts or more (Sec. Sec. 1910.303(g)(2)(i) and
1926.403(i)(2)(i)), and the general industry electrical safety-related
work practices standard requires electric circuits to be deenergized
starting at 50 volts or more if electric shock is the only hazard
(Sec. 1910.333(a)(1)). Similarly, the National Electrical Code and the
National Electrical Safety Code impose electrical safety requirements
starting at 50 volts.
Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.951 would require CPR
training to ensure that electric shock victims survive long enough for
defibrillation to be efficacious. This paragraph would allow the
employer to rely on emergency responders to provide defibrillation,
which is necessary to revive a victim who has suffered ventricular
fibrillation. A device that enables a CPR-trained individual to perform
defibrillation is now widely available. This device is called an
automated external defibrillator (AED). (See the Automated External
Defibrillator FAQ.) OSHA requests public comments on whether the
standard should require the employer to provide AEDs and, if so, where
they should be required. Commenters recommending a requirement for AEDs
should submit information on costs, safety, and efficacy of and
experience with these devices.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.003
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
OSHA has adopted guidelines for the evaluation of first aid
training by competent professionals as well as by compliance staff in
the context of workplace inspections (OSHA instruction CPL 02-02-053).
Because these guidelines are already in place, the Agency is not
proposing requirements related to the content or adequacy of first aid
or CPR training. The Agency will continue to use the guidelines in CPL
02-02-053 to determine the adequacy of first aid training courses
provided to employees.
In Sec. 1926.951(b)(2), OSHA is proposing that first aid supplies
required by Sec. 1926.50(d) be placed in weatherproof containers if
they could be exposed to the weather. This provision is intended to
ensure that first aid supplies do not get ruined by exposure to the
weather.
Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.951 would require first aid
kits to be maintained ready for use and inspected frequently enough to
ensure that expended items are replaced. In any event, they would have
to be inspected at least once a year. OSHA is proposing this provision
to ensure that first aid kits are maintained with all of the proper
equipment.
Section 1926.952, Job Briefing
In Sec. 1926.952, OSHA is proposing a requirement for a job
briefing to be conducted before each job. This section, which has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V, is based upon Sec. 1910.269(c).
Most of the work performed under the proposal requires planning in
order to ensure employee safety (as well as to protect equipment and
the general public). Typically, electric power transmission and
distribution work exposes employees to the hazards of exposed
conductors energized at thousands of volts. If the work is not
thoroughly planned ahead of time, the possibility of human error is
increased greatly. To avoid problems, the task sequence is prescribed
before work is started. For example, before climbing a pole, the
employee must determine if the pole is capable of remaining in place
and if minimum approach distances are sufficient, and he or she must
determine what tools will be needed and what procedure should be used
for performing the job. Without job planning, the worker may not know
or recognize the minimum approach distance requirements or may have to
reclimb the pole to retrieve a forgotten tool or perform an overlooked
task, resulting in increased exposure to the hazards of falling and
contact with energized lines.
When more than one employee is involved, the job plan must be
communicated to all the affected employees. If the job is planned but
the plan is not discussed with the workers, one employee may perform
his or her duties out of order or may otherwise not coordinate
activities with the rest of the crew, endangering the entire crew.
Employers performing electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work use job briefings before each job to plan the work
and communicate the job plan to employees. Therefore, OSHA is requiring
a job briefing before work is started.
Paragraph (c) of existing Sec. 1910.269 contains a requirement for
the employee in charge of the job to conduct the job briefing. OSHA has
found in enforcing this paragraph that some employers were placing the
entire burden of compliance with this rule on the part of the employee
in charge of the work, whether or not that employee was a supervisor.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing, in Sec. 1926.952(a)(1), that the
employer provide the employee in charge of a job with available
information necessary to perform the job safely. The note following
this provision indicates that the information provided by the employer
is intended to supplement the training requirements of Sec.
1926.950(b) and is likely to be more general in nature than the job
briefing provided by the employee in charge. The note also clarifies
that information covering all jobs for a day may be disseminated at the
beginning of the day. The information does not need to be provided at
the start of each job. OSHA understands that some employers assign jobs
through a dispatcher, who does not have the knowledge necessary to
provide a job briefing. The Agency thus invites comments on the
appropriateness of this requirement and welcomes suggested alternative
ways of requiring the employer to impart relevant knowledge about
hazards relating to specific assignments in the job briefing process.
Paragraph (a)(2) contains the proposed requirement for the employee
in charge of the job to conduct a job briefing. Proposed paragraph (b)
would require the briefing to cover: hazards and work procedures
involved, special precautions, energy source controls, and requirements
for personal protective equipment. These two requirements have been
taken from the introductory text of Sec. 1910.269(c).
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), at least one briefing would be
required before the start of each shift. Only one briefing in a shift
is needed if all the jobs are similar in nature. Additional planning
discussions would be required for work involving significant changes in
routine (proposed paragraph (c)(2)). For example, if the first two jobs
of the day involve working on a deenergized line and the third job
involves working on energized lines with live-line tools, separate
briefings must be conducted for each type of job.
Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), the required briefing would
normally consist of a concise discussion outlining the tasks to be
performed. However, if the work is particularly hazardous or if the
employees may not be able to recognize the hazards involved, then a
more thorough discussion would be required by paragraph (d)(2). With
this provision, OSHA recognizes that employees are familiar with the
tasks and hazards involved with routine work. However, it is important
to take the time to carefully discuss unusual work situations that may
pose additional or different hazards to workers. (See also the preamble
discussion of Sec. 1926.950(b)(4).) OSHA has included a note following
this paragraph to clarify that, regardless of how short the discussion
is, the briefing must still touch on all the topics listed in paragraph
(b).
OSHA recognizes the importance of job planning for all employees.
Although work procedure discussions would not have relevance for an
employee working alone, the Agency does not believe that an employee
who labors alone needs to plan his or her tasks any less than one who
is assisting others. OSHA is aware of several fatalities involving a
lone employee who could have benefitted from better job planning or
perhaps a briefing with the supervisor before the job started.
Therefore, OSHA has included a requirement in proposed paragraph (e)
for job planning for these employees.
Section 1926.953, Enclosed Spaces
The requirements being proposed in Sec. 1926.953 have been taken
from Sec. 1910.269(e). Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1910.269 applies to
maintenance work performed in enclosed spaces, and OSHA believes that
the requirements for performing construction work in these spaces
should be the same.
Section 1926.953 contains requirements for entry into and work in
enclosed spaces. An ``enclosed space'' is defined to be a space that
has a limited means of entry or egress, that is designed for periodic
entry by employees under normal operating conditions, and that is not
expected to contain a hazardous atmosphere, but may contain one under
unusual conditions. In this section, OSHA intends to cover only the
types of enclosed spaces that are routinely entered by employees engaged
in electric power transmission and distribution work and that are unique to
underground utility work. Work in these spaces is part of the day-to-day
activities performed by employees protected by this standard. Enclosed
spaces include manholes and vaults that provide employees access to electric
power transmission and distribution equipment. For reasons explained later,
this section does not address other types of confined spaces, such as boilers,
tanks, and coal bunkers, that are common to other industries as well.
These locations are addressed in OSHA's generic permit-required
confined space standard, Sec. 1910.146, which applies to all of
general industry, including industries engaged in electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. OSHA is also
developing a standard for confined space entry during construction work
(RIN 1218-AB47).
Proposed Sec. 1926.953 would apply to ``enclosed spaces.'' By
definition, an enclosed space would be a permit-required confined space
under Sec. 1926.146. An enclosed space meets the definition of a
confined space--it is large enough for an employee to enter; it has a
limited means of access or egress; it is designed for periodic, rather
than continuous, employee occupancy under normal operating conditions.
An enclosed space also meets the definition of a permit space--although
it is not expected to contain a hazardous atmosphere, it has the
potential to contain one.
In the preamble to the permit-required confined spaces standard,
OSHA acknowledged that ``the practices necessary to make confined
spaces that merely have the potential to contain hazardous atmospheres
(as opposed to one that contains a hazardous atmosphere under normal
operating conditions) safe are widely recognized and used throughout
various industries [58 FR 4486].'' The Agency recognized the electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution industry as one of
those industries (January 31, 1994, 58 FR 4489).
Section 1910.146 contains requirements that address hazards
associated with entry into ``permit-required confined spaces'' (permit
spaces). Section 1910.146 defines ``confined space'' and ``permit-
required confined space'' as follows:
Confined space means a space that:
(1) Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily
enter and perform assigned work; and
(2) Has limited or restricted means for entry or exit (for example,
tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers, vaults, and pits are
spaces that may have limited means of entry.); and
(3) Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.
Permit-required confined space (permit space) means a confined
space that has one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) Contains or has a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere;
(2) Contains a material that has the potential for engulfing an
entrant;
(3) Has an internal configuration such that an entrant could be
trapped or asphyxiated by inwardly converging walls or by a floor which
slopes downward and tapers to a smaller cross-section; or
(4) Contains any other recognized serious safety or health hazard.
The permit-required confined space standard requires employers to
implement a comprehensive confined space entry program. This standard
covers the wide range of permit-required confined spaces encountered
throughout general industry. Because the hazards posed by these spaces
vary so greatly, Sec. 1910.146 requires employers to implement a
permit system for entry into them. The permit system must spell out the
steps to be taken to make the space safe for entry and must include
provisions for attendants stationed outside the spaces and for rescue
of entrants, who could be disabled inside the space. However, an
employer need not follow the permit-entry requirements of Sec.
1910.146 for spaces where the hazards have been completely eliminated
or for spaces where an alternative set of procedures are observed. The
alternative procedures apply only where the space can be made safe for
entry through the use of continuous forced air ventilation alone. The
procedures, which are set forth in Sec. 1910.146(c)(5)(ii), ensure
that conditions within the permit space do not endanger an entrant's
life or ability to rescue himself or herself.
OSHA believes that Sec. 1910.146 is the proper place to regulate
permit-required confined spaces other than enclosed spaces. The
enclosed space requirements of the proposed rule are intended to
regulate a portion of electric power transmission and distribution work
that is routine and presents limited hazards to the qualified employees
covered by Subpart V who are performing that work. An estimated 14,350
employees are engaged in underground transmission and distribution work
(where most of the work covered by Sec. 1926.953 occurs\19\).\20\
Underground repair crews, in which these employees work, can typically
expect to enter a manhole once or twice a day.\21\ The enclosed space
entry procedure addressed by Sec. 1926.953 is a day-to-day part of the
routine of these workers. This type of work is unique to underground
utilities (such as electric, telephone, and water utilities), and the
hazards presented by these spaces are widely recognized by these
industries and their workers. Indeed, OSHA recognized this in
promulgating Sec. 1910.269 (January 31, 1994, 59 FR 4366).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Work in these spaces can be either maintenance work covered
by Part 1910 or construction work covered by Part 1926. In fact, it
is likely that both types of work are performed periodically over
the course of time.
\20\ ERG, ``Preparation of an Economic Impact Study for the
Proposed OSHA Regulation Covering Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution,'' p. 8-8.
\21\ Id., p. 8-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the hazards posed by the enclosed spaces covered in
Sec. 1926.953 are generally much more limited than the hazards posed
by permit spaces addressed in Sec. 1910.146 or in proposed Sec.
1926.33. By definition, ``enclosed spaces'' are designed for employee
occupancy during normal operating conditions. Electrical and other
energy systems would not have to be shut down, nor would the space have
to be drained of liquids for the employee to enter the space safely. On
the other hand, other ``permit-required confined spaces,'' such as
boilers, fuel tanks, and transformer and circuit breaker cases, are not
designed for employee occupancy and require energy sources to be
isolated and fluids to be drained from the space before an employee can
safely enter.
The hazards posed by enclosed spaces consist of (1) limited access
and egress, (2) possible lack of oxygen, (3) possible presence of
flammable gases, and (4) possible presence of limited amounts of toxic
chemicals. The potential atmospheric hazards are caused by an enclosed
space's lack of adequate ventilation and can normally be controlled
through the use of continuous forced air ventilation alone. Practices
to control these hazards are widely recognized and are currently in use
in electric, telecommunications, and other underground utility
industries. Such practices include testing for the presence of
flammable gases and vapors, testing for oxygen deficiency, ventilation
of the enclosed space, controls on the use of open flames, and the use
of an attendant outside the space. These practices are already
required by Sec. 1910.269(e) for the maintenance of electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution installations. Section
1910.146, itself, recognizes permit spaces that are equivalent to
enclosed spaces and sets separate provisions, similar to those
contained in proposed Sec. 1926.953, for those spaces.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains the scope of the enclosed space
provisions. As previously noted, enclosed spaces are defined as spaces
that have limited means of entry or egress, that are designed for
periodic entry by employees under normal operating conditions, and that
are not expected to contain hazardous atmospheres but may contain them
under unusual conditions. These spaces include manholes and unvented
vaults. This paragraph also notes (1) that Sec. 1926.953 applies to
routine entry into enclosed spaces in lieu of the permit-space entry
requirements of Sec. 1910.146, and (2) that the generic permit-
required confined spaces standard, Sec. 1910.146, applies to entries
into enclosed spaces where the precautions taken under Sec. Sec.
1926.953 and 1926.965 do not protect entrants.
The ventilation in vented vaults prevents a hazardous atmosphere
from accumulating, so vented vaults are proposed to be excluded from
coverage. However, the intake or exhaust of a vented vault could be
clogged, limiting the flow of air through the vaults. The employee in
such cases would be exposed to the same hazards as those presented by
unvented vaults. Additionally, the mechanical ventilation for a vault
may fail to operate. To ensure that the employee is protected from the
hazards posed by lack of proper ventilation, the proposed rule exempts
vented vaults only if a determination is made that the ventilation is
in full operating condition. The determination must ensure that
ventilation openings are clear and that any permanently installed
mechanical ventilating equipment is in proper working order.
Some employers may want to comply with Sec. 1910.146 for entry
into enclosed spaces falling under Sec. 1926.953. Because the
provisions of Sec. 1910.146 protect employees entering enclosed spaces
to the same degree as Sec. 1926.953, OSHA will accept compliance with
Sec. 1910.146 as meeting the enclosed space entry requirements of
Sec. 1926.953. A note to this effect has been included immediately
following paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) proposes the general requirement that employers
ensure the use of safe work practices by their employees. These safe
work practices must include procedures for complying with the specific
regulations contained in paragraphs (e) through (o) and must include
safe rescue procedures.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require employees who enter enclosed
spaces or who serve as attendants to be trained in hazards associated
with enclosed space entry, in the entry procedures, and in rescue
procedures. This training will ensure that employees are trained to
work safely in enclosed spaces and that they will be prepared in the
event that an emergency arises within the space.
OSHA believes that there is a need for rescue equipment to be
available in the event that an injured employee must be retrieved from
the enclosed space. The Agency has decided to adopt a performance
approach here and is proposing, in paragraph (d), that the employer
provide equipment that will assure the prompt and safe rescue of
injured employees. The equipment must enable a rescuer to remove an
injured employee from the enclosed space quickly and without injury to
the rescuer or further harm to the fallen employee. A harness, a
lifeline, and a self-supporting winch can normally be used in this
manner.
Some conditions within an enclosed space, such as high temperature
and high pressure, make it hazardous to remove any cover from the
space. For example, if high pressure is present within the space, the
cover could be blown off in the process of removing it. To protect
employees from such hazards, proposed paragraph (e) would require a
determination of whether or not it is safe to remove the cover. This
determination may take the form of a quick check of the conditions
expected to be in the enclosed space. For example, the cover could be
checked to see if it is hot and, if it is fastened in place, could be
loosened gradually to release any residual pressure. An evaluation must
also be made of whether conditions at the site could cause a hazardous
atmosphere to accumulate in the space. Any conditions making it unsafe
for employees to remove the cover are required to be eliminated (that
is, reduced to the extent that it is no longer unsafe). This provision
is intended to require a check of whether the cover is hot, a
determination of whether there were conditions in the area conducive to
the formation of a hazardous atmosphere within the enclosed space, and
a check (typically by means of loosening the cover slightly) of whether
there was a hazardous pressure differential between the two sides of
the cover. A note to this effect is included following proposed
paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (f) would require that openings to enclosed
spaces be guarded to protect employees from falling into the space and
to protect employees in the enclosed space from being injured by
objects entering the space. The guard could be in the form of a
railing, a temporary cover, or any other temporary barrier that
provides the required protection.
Proposed paragraph (g) would prohibit employees from entering
enclosed spaces that contain a hazardous atmosphere. Once the hazardous
atmosphere is removed (for example, by ventilating the enclosed space),
employees would be allowed to enter. If an entry is to be made while a
hazardous atmosphere is present, the entry is required to conform to
the generic permit-required confined spaces standard, Sec. 1910.146.
The use of the term ``entry'' in this paragraph of Sec. 1926.953 is
consistent with the use of that term in Sec. 1910.146, and OSHA is
proposing to include the Sec. 1910.146 definition of ``entry'' in
Subpart V.
Proposed paragraph (h) addresses the use of an attendant outside
the enclosed space to provide assistance in an emergency. An attendant
would be required if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns near
the opening. The purpose of the attendant would be to protect the
entrant from traffic hazards while the entrant is entering or exiting
the space and to provide assistance in an emergency. However, the
attendant would not be precluded from performing other duties outside
the enclosed space, as long as those duties do not interfere with the
person's function as an attendant. The attendant would be required to
have the first aid training required under Sec. 1926.951(b)(1).
This proposed provision would require the attendant to remain
outside the enclosed space during the entire entry procedure. The
intent of this paragraph is to require the presence of a person with
first aid training outside the enclosed space if a hazard exists due to
traffic patterns outside the space. If this person were to enter the
enclosed space, he or she might be unable to assist the employee
already within the space. For example, if traffic hazards are present
in the area of the opening to the enclosed space and if the attendant
entered the space, then both the attendant and the workers he or she is
intended to protect would be vulnerable upon leaving. No one would be
present to minimize or control the traffic hazards. Therefore, the
proposed rule explicitly states that the attendant is required to
remain outside the enclosed space.
On the other hand, if no traffic hazards are present, an attendant
would still be required under proposed Sec. 1926.965(d) while work is
being performed in a manhole or vault containing energized conductors.
The major, though not the only, hazard in this case is that of electric
shock. Assistance can be provided to a victim of electric shock by
another person in the manhole or vault. Therefore, the provisions of
Sec. 1926.965(d)(2) would permit the attendant required under that
paragraph to enter the manhole or vault for brief periods of time in
nonemergency conditions when no traffic hazards are present.
Proposed paragraph (i) would require test instruments used to
monitor atmospheres in enclosed spaces to be kept in calibration, with
a minimum accuracy of 10 percent. This will ensure that
test measurements are accurate so that hazardous conditions will be
detected when they arise. OSHA considers 10 percent to be
the minimum accuracy needed to detect hazardous conditions reliably.
However, because proposed paragraph (i) would require the test
instrument to be kept in calibration at all times, a higher accuracy
might be necessary to keep the test instrument in calibration.
As noted earlier, because of the lack of adequate ventilation,
enclosed spaces can accumulate hazardous concentrations of flammable
gases and vapors, or an oxygen deficient atmosphere could develop. It
is important to keep concentrations of oxygen and flammable gases and
vapors at safe levels; otherwise, an explosion could occur while
employees are in the space, or an oxygen deficiency could lead to the
suffocation of an employee. Toward these ends, paragraphs (j), (k),
(l), (m), (n), and (o) address the testing of the atmosphere in the
space and ventilation of the space.
Proposed paragraph (j) would require the atmosphere in an enclosed
space to be tested for oxygen and would require that the testing be
done with a direct-reading meter or similar instrument. However,
continuous forced air ventilation is permitted as an alternative to
testing. Such ventilation would ensure that there is sufficient oxygen
\22\ in the enclosed space. (See also paragraph (m) for requirements
relating to the length of time ventilation must be provided before
employees are allowed to enter the space.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The definition of ``hazardous atmosphere'' determines what
concentractions of oxygen are considered hazardous. (See the
discussion of this term under the summary and explanation of Sec.
1926.968 later in this preamble.) Paragraph (g) of proposed Sec.
1926.953 would prohibit entry into an enclosed space while a
hazardous atmosphere is present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (k) would require the internal atmosphere of the
enclosed space to be tested for flammable gases and vapors. The results
of the test must indicate that the atmosphere is safe before employees
can enter. So that the results are accurate and are relevant to the
atmosphere in the space at the time of employee entry, testing is
required to be performed with a direct reading meter or similar
instrument. Test equipment that samples the atmosphere so that the
samples can be forwarded to a laboratory for analysis does not meet the
requirements of this paragraph. The flammability test must be
undertaken after the steps taken under paragraph (j) ensure that the
enclosed space has sufficient oxygen for accurate results.
If flammable gases or vapors are detected or if an oxygen
deficiency is found, proposed paragraph (l) would require the employer
to provide forced air ventilation to assure safe levels of oxygen and
to prevent a hazardous concentration of flammable gases or vapors from
accumulating. As an alternative, an employer could use a continuous
monitoring system that ensures that no hazardous atmosphere develops
and no increase in flammable gas or vapor concentration occurs. The
definition of hazardous atmosphere contains guidelines for the
determination of whether or not the concentration of a substance is at
a hazardous level. OSHA is including a note to this effect after
paragraph (l). An identical note appears after paragraph (o).
Paragraph (m) proposes specific requirements for the ventilation of
enclosed spaces. When forced air ventilation is used, it is required to
be maintained before entry for a period of time long enough to purge
the atmosphere within the space of hazardous amounts of flammable gases
and vapors and long enough to supply an adequate concentration of
oxygen. After the ventilation has been maintained for this amount of
time, employees can then safely enter the space.
OSHA has decided not to specify a minimum number of air changes
before employee entry into the enclosed space is permitted. Instead,
the Agency places the burden on the employer to ensure that the
atmosphere is safe before entry. The employer can discharge this duty
either by testing to determine the safety of the atmosphere in the
space or by a thorough evaluation of the air flow required to make the
atmosphere safe. In this way, the safety of employees working in
enclosed spaces will not be dependent on speculation by a supervisor or
an employee.
Paragraph (m) would also require the air provided by the
ventilating equipment to be directed at the area within the enclosed
space where employees are at work. The forced air ventilation would be
required to be maintained the entire time the employees are present
within the space. These provisions would ensure that a hazardous
atmosphere does not reoccur where employees are working.
In order to ensure that the air supplied by the ventilating
equipment will provide a safe atmosphere, proposed paragraph (n) would
require the air supply to be from a clean source and would prohibit it
from increasing the hazards in the enclosed space. For example,
positioning the air intake for the ventilating equipment near the
exhaust from a gasoline or diesel engine would contaminate the
atmosphere in the enclosed space. This practice would not be allowed
under the proposal.
The use of open flames in enclosed spaces is safe only when
flammable gases or vapors are not present in hazardous quantities. For
this reason, proposed paragraph (o) would require additional testing
for flammable gases and vapors if open flames are to be used in
enclosed spaces. The tests would have to be performed immediately
before the open flame device is used and at least once per hour while
the device is in use. More frequent testing would be required if
conditions indicate the need for it. Examples of such conditions
include the presence of volatile flammable liquids in the enclosed
space and a history of hazardous quantities of flammable vapors or
gases in a given space.
Section 1926.954, Personal Protective Equipment
Section 1926.954 proposes requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE), which includes eye and face protection, respiratory
protection, head protection, foot protection, protective clothing,
electrical protective equipment, and personal fall protection
equipment. In accordance with Sec. 1926.950(a)(2), paragraph (a) of
proposed Sec. 1926.954 emphasizes that the requirements of Subpart E
of Part 1926 apply.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements for personal fall protection
systems. In paragraph (b)(1), OSHA is proposing that personal fall
arrest systems meet the design, care, and use requirements of Subpart M
of Part 1926. The note following proposed paragraph (b)(1) indicates
that this provision applies to all personal fall arrest systems used in
work covered by Subpart V. Thus, even if another construction standard
requires the use of fall protection equipment, Sec. 1926.954(b)(1)
would require a personal fall arrest system to meet Subpart M when that
form of fall protection is selected for use in work covered by Subpart
V.
For example, Sec. 1926.453(b)(2)(v) requires employees working
from aerial lifts to wear a body belt with a lanyard attached to the
boom or basket. Section 1926.453 sets the duty to provide fall
protection but does not set criteria for the fall protection equipment
to meet. Because the note following proposed Sec. 1926.954(b)(1) would
require fall arrest systems to meet Subpart M of Part 1926 and because
Subpart M prohibits the use of body belts in fall arrest systems, a
body belt worn by an employee performing electric power transmission or
distribution work from an aerial lift could only be used as part of a
restraint or tethering system, which would prevent the employee from
falling.\23\ (See the note following Sec. 1926.453(b)(2)(v).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The proposal would have a similar effect on work covered by
Sec. 1910.269. Paragraph (c)(2)(v) of Sec. 1910.67 also contains a
requirement for employees covered by the general industry standards
to wear a body belt and lanyard when working from an aerial lift.
Section 1910.67 sets the duty to provide fall protection but
provides no criteria for the fall protection equipment to meet. The
proposed note following Sec. 1910.269(g)(1)(i) states that personal
fall arrest systems used with aerial lifts must meet Subpart M of
Part 1926. Thus, a body belt would not be permitted to be used as
part of a personal fall arrest system for work from aerial lifts
covered by Sec. 1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hazards of using a body belt as part of a fall arrest system
are widely known and documented (54 FR 31449-31450; 59 FR 40703). Since
the fall arrest forces are more concentrated for a body belt in
comparison to a body harness, the risk of injury in a fall is much
greater with a body belt. In addition, an employee can fall out of a
body belt in a fall. Lastly, an employee faces an unacceptable risk of
further injury while suspended in a body belt as he or she awaits
rescue. Because of these hazards, paragraph (d) of Sec. 1926.502,
which sets requirements for personal fall arrest equipment in
construction, has prohibited body belts from use in a personal fall
arrest system since January 1, 1998; body harnesses must be used
instead.
In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA is proposing revised requirements for
work positioning equipment. Section 1926.959 of existing Subpart V
contains requirements for body belts, safety straps, and lanyards. This
equipment has traditionally been used as both work positioning
equipment and fall arrest equipment in the maintenance and construction
of electric power transmission and distribution installations. However,
fall arrest equipment and work positioning equipment present
significant differences in the way they are used and in the forces
placed on an employee's body. With fall arrest equipment, an employee
is given freedom of movement within an area restricted by the length of
the lanyard or other device connecting the employee to the anchorage.
In contrast, work positioning equipment is used to support an employee
in position while he or she works. The employee ``leans'' into this
equipment so that he or she can work with both hands free. If a fall
occurs while an employee is wearing fall arrest equipment, the employee
will free fall up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) before the slack is removed
and the equipment begins to arrest the fall. In this case, the fall
arrest forces can be very high, and they need to be spread over a
relatively large area of the body to avoid injury to the employee.
Additionally, the velocity at which an employee falls can reach up to
6.1 meters per second (20 feet per second). Work positioning equipment
is normally used to prevent a fall from occurring in the first place.
If the employee does slip and if the work positioning equipment is
anchored, the employee will only fall a short distance (no more than
610 millimeters (2 feet)). This limits the forces on the employee and
the maximum velocity. Additionally, because of the way the equipment is
used, the employee should not be free falling. Instead, the work
positioning equipment will be exerting some force on the employee to
stop the fall. This will further limit the maximum force and velocity.
OSHA recognized the differences between the two types of equipment
in Subpart M, Fall Protection for Construction. In this standard the
two types of equipment are regulated separately, and different
requirements apply to the two fall protection systems.
In this proposal, OSHA would again apply requirements to personal
fall arrest systems that differ from those that apply to work
positioning equipment. Personal fall arrest systems would have to meet
Subpart M of Part 1926, as would be required by proposed Sec.
1926.954(b)(1). Work positioning equipment would have to meet the
requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.954(b)(2). Employers engaged in
electric power transmission and distribution work could use the same
equipment for fall arrest and for work positioning provided the
equipment met both sets of requirements. In fact, several manufacturers
market combination body harness-body belts, which can be used as fall
arrest systems by employees working on horizontal surfaces or as work
positioning systems supporting employees working on vertical surfaces.
OSHA requests comments on whether or not there are unique situations in
electric power transmission and distribution work that warrant
different requirements than those contained in existing Subpart M or in
this proposal. Information is also requested on how any suggested
changes will protect employees in an equivalent manner.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) has been taken from existing Sec.
1926.959 and from ASTM F887-04, Standard Specifications for Personal
Climbing Equipment, which is the latest edition of the national
consensus standard applicable to work positioning equipment. As in the
proposed standard on electrical protective equipment (Sec. 1926.97)
discussed earlier in this preamble, OSHA is proposing requirements
derived from the ASTM standard but written in performance-oriented
terms. Detailed specifications contained in the ASTM standard, which do
not directly impact the safety of employees, have not been proposed.
The Agency believes that this will retain the protection afforded by
the ASTM standard, but will allow flexibility in meeting the OSHA
standard and will accommodate changes in the ASTM standard without
corresponding changes in the OSHA standard. Differences between the
proposal and existing Sec. 1926.959 are explained in the following
discussion of paragraph (b)(2).
While the ASTM standard does not cover lanyards, proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would apply many of the ASTM requirements to lanyards. Existing
Sec. 1926.959 imposes the same basic requirements on lanyards, and
OSHA believes that lanyards used as work positioning equipment for
electric power transmission and distribution work already meet these
requirements. Comments are requested on whether or not any of the
proposed requirements should not be applicable to lanyards used as work
positioning equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) would require hardware for body belts
and positioning straps to be drop-forged, pressed, or formed steel or
to be made of equivalent material. This hardware would also be required
to have a corrosion-resistant finish. Surfaces would have to be smooth
and free of sharp edges. This provision ensures that the hardware is
strong enough to withstand the forces likely to be imposed, is durable,
and is free of sharp edges that could damage attached positioning straps.
This requirement is equivalent to existing Sec. 1926.959(a)(1),
except that the existing standard does not permit hardware to be made
of any material other than drop-forged or pressed steel. The ASTM
standard requires hardware to be made of drop-forged steel. The drop-
forged steel process produces hardware that more uniformly meets the
required strength criteria and that is expected to retain its strength
over a longer useful life. It is possible, however, for other processes
to produce a product that is equivalent in terms of strength and
durability. Additionally, Sec. 1926.502(d)(1) and (e)(3) require
``connectors'' (that is, hardware) to be made of the same types of
material as those specified in proposed Sec. 1926.954(b)(2)(i).
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to permit hardware to be made of
alternative materials. Comments are invited on whether or not these
alternative materials will provide adequate safety to employees.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would require buckles to be capable
of withstanding an 8.9-kN (2,000-lbf) tension test with a maximum
permanent deformation no greater than 0.4 millimeters (0.0156 inches).
This is the same as existing Sec. 1926.959(a)(2). The requirement is
intended to ensure that buckles do not fail if a fall occurs.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) proposes that D rings be capable of
withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf) tensile test without cracking or
breaking. This provision, which is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(a)(3), is intended to ensure that D rings do not fail if a
fall occurs.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iv) would require snaphooks to be capable
of withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf) tension test without failure. A
note following this provision indicates that tensile failure is
considered to be distortion of the snaphook sufficient to release the
keeper.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) would prohibit the use of leather or
leather substitutes from being used alone as a load bearing member in a
body belt or positioning strap. Existing Sec. 1926.959 contains no
equivalent requirement. The proposed paragraph, which has been taken
from ASTM F887-04, sections 14.2.1 and 15.2.1, is necessary because
leather and leather substitutes do not retain their strength as they
age. Because this loss in strength is not always easy to detect by
visual inspection, it can lead to failure under fall conditions.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) would require that plied fabric used
in positioning straps and in load bearing portions of body belts be so
constructed that raw edges are not exposed and that the plies do not
separate. Existing Sec. 1926.959 contains no similar requirement.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) has been taken from ASTM F887-04,
sections 14.2.2 and 15.2.2. This requirement is intended to prevent
plied fabric from separating, which could weaken a body belt or
positioning strap and cause it to fail under load.
Although work positioning equipment used in electric power
transmission and distribution work is not intended to be used as
insulation from live parts, positioning straps could come into
accidental contact with live parts while an employee is working. Thus,
it is still important for this equipment to provide a certain level of
insulation. Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and (b)(2)(vii)(B) would
require positioning straps to be capable of passing dielectric and
leakage current tests. This provision is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(b)(1). The voltages listed in these paragraphs are alternating
current. The note following proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(B) indicates
that equivalent direct current tests would also be acceptable.
ASTM F887-04 does not require positioning straps to pass a
withstand voltage test. Instead, it states in a note that the fabric
used must pass a withstand voltage test.\24\ OSHA invites comments on
whether or not performing a withstand test on positioning straps is
necessary for employee safety in electric transmission and distribution
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ It is not clear whether the ASTM provision is mandatory.
Notes in ASTM standards are not supposed to contain requirements,
but the particular note in question (Note 2 following section
15.3.1) uses the word ``shall,'' which normally indicates that the
provision is mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(C) and (b)(2)(vii)(D) would require
positioning straps to be capable of passing tension tests and buckle
tear tests. Existing Sec. 1926.959 has no equivalent requirements.
These tests, which have been taken from ASTM F887-04, sections 15.3.2
and 15.3.3, are intended to ensure that individual parts of positioning
straps have adequate strength.
If an electric arc occurs while an employee is working, the work
positioning equipment must be able to support the employee in case he
or she loses consciousness. Additionally, the positioning strap or
lanyard must be resistant to igniting, because, once ignited, it would
quickly lose its strength and fail. Therefore, paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(E)
would require positioning straps to be capable of passing a
flammability test, which is described in Table V-1. This requirement
and the test in Table V-1 itself has been taken from ASTM F887-04,
section 15.3.4. Existing Sec. 1926.959 contains no comparable
provision.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(viii) would require the cushion part of a
body belt to be at least 76 millimeters (3 inches) wide, with no
exposed rivets on the inside. This requirement is essentially identical
to existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(2)(i) and (ii).
Existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(2)(iii), which requires the cushion part
of the body belt to be at least 0.15625 inches thick if made of
leather, is not contained in the proposed rule. The strength of the
body belt assembly, which is addressed by this existing specification,
is adequately covered by the performance-based strength criteria
contained in proposed Sec. 1926.954(b)(2)(xii). Additionally, as noted
previously, load bearing portions of the body belt would no longer be
permitted to be constructed of leather alone under proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(v).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ix) would require that tool loops on a
body belt be so situated that the 100 millimeters (4 inches) at the
center of the back of the body belt are free of tool loops and any
other attachments. This requirement, which has been taken from ASTM
F887-04, section 14.4.3, is similar to existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(3).
It is intended to prevent spine injuries to employees who fall onto
their backs while wearing a body belt.
Existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(3) permits a maximum of four tool loops,
and existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(2)(iv) requires the belt to contain
pocket tabs for the attachment of tool pockets. ASTM F887-04 contains a
similar requirement for pocket tabs. OSHA does not believe that these
two provisions are necessary for the protection of employees. These
requirements ensure that body belts are suitable as tool belts and
contribute to the usefulness of the body belt. However, they do not
contribute significantly to the safety of employees; OSHA has thus not
included similar requirements in the proposal.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(x) would require liners to be used around
the bar of D rings. This provision, which is the same as existing Sec.
1926.959(b)(4), is intended to prevent wear between the D ring and the
body belt fabric. Such wear could contribute to failure of the body
belt during use.
A snaphook has a keeper that is designed to prevent a D ring to
which it is attached from coming out of the opening of the snaphook.
(See Figure 2.) Nevertheless, if the design of the snaphook is not
compatible with the design of the D ring, the D ring can roll
around, press open the keeper, and free itself from the snaphook. (See
Figure 3.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.004
To address this problem, for many years, ASTM F887 had a
requirement for snaphooks to be compatible with the D rings with which
they are used. Even with this requirement, however, accidents resulting
from snaphook roll-outs have still occurred. Several factors account
for this. First, while one manufacturer can (and most do) thoroughly
test its snaphooks and its D rings to ensure ``compatibility,'' no
manufacturer can test its hardware in every conceivable combination
with other manufacturers' hardware, especially since some models of
snaphooks and D rings are no longer manufactured. While an employer
might be able to test all the different hardware combinations possible
with his or her existing equipment, the employer normally does not have
the expertise necessary to run such tests in a comprehensive manner.
Second, snaphook keepers can be depressed by objects other than the D
rings to which they are attached. For example, a guy (a support line)
could fall onto the keeper while an employee was repositioning himself
or herself. This could allow the D ring to escape from the snaphook,
and the employee would fall as soon as he or she leaned back into the
work positioning equipment.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing, in paragraph (b)(2)(xi), that
snaphooks used as part of work positioning equipment be of the locking
type. A locking-type snaphook will not open unless the employee
releases its locking mechanism. Because their are thousands of existing
non-locking snaphooks currently in use, OSHA is considering phasing in
the requirement for older equipment or completely grandfathering
existing equipment that otherwise complies with the proposal. The
Agency requests comments on this.
OSHA is proposing three requirements for snaphooks to ensure that
the keeper does not open without the intentional release of the
employee using it. First, for the keeper to open, a locking mechanism
would have to be released, or a destructive force would have to be
placed on the keeper (paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(A)). Second, a force in the
range of 6.6 N (1.5 lbf) to 17.6 N (4 lbf) would be required to release
the locking mechanism (paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(B)). Third, with a force on
the keeper and with the locking mechanism released, the keeper would not
be allowed to open with a force of 11.0 N (2.5 lbf) or less. Before the
force exceeds 17.6 N (4 lbf), the keeper would have to begin to open
(paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(C)). These requirements have been taken from ASTM F887-04,
section 15.4.1. Paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(C), relating to the spring tension on the
keeper, is the same as existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(6).
Existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(7) requires body belts, pole straps, and
lanyards to be capable of passing a drop test, in which a test load is
dropped from a specified height and the work positioning equipment
arrests the fall. The test consists of dropping a 113.4-kg (250-lbm)
bag of sand a distance of either 1.2 meters (4 feet) or 1.8 meters (6
feet), respectively for pole straps and lanyards.
The use of a bag of sand to represent a human body is one way to
test work positioning equipment. However, because the bag of sand can
be fitted with the body belt in different ways, the results of the test
may not be consistent among different testing laboratories. To overcome
this, ASTM 887-04 has adopted a drop test that uses a rigid steel mass
of a specified design. To compensate for differences between a rigid
mass and the more deformable human body, the ASTM standard uses a lower
test mass, 100 kg (220 lbm), and a shorter drop height, 1 meter (39.4
inches). OSHA believes that the ASTM test is equivalent to the existing
OSHA test. OSHA also believes that adoption of the ASTM test, because
it will result in more uniform testing, will better protect employees.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to replace the sand bag drop test
given in existing Sec. 1926.959(b)(7) with a less-detailed version of
the ASTM test in proposed Sec. 1926.954(b)(2)(xii). OSHA requests
comments on whether this change is reasonable and appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(A) would require the test mass to be
constructed of steel or equivalent material having a mass of 100 kg
(220.5 lbm). This mass is comparable to the 113.4-kg (250-lbm) bag of
sand given in the existing OSHA standard. Even though the test mass is
lighter than a heavy power line worker, the required test method places
significantly more stress than an employee of the same mass because the
test drop is 0.3 meters (1.28 feet) more than the maximum permitted
free fall distance and because the test mass is rigid. OSHA believes
that this test indicates that a body belt is sufficiently strong for
the heaviest line worker who will use it, even those substantially
heavier than the test mass. However, the Agency requests comments on
whether the proposed test is adequate.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(B) and (b)(2)(xii)(C) give the
attachment means for body belts and for positioning straps,
respectively. These provisions would ensure that the work positioning
equipment being tested is properly attached to the test apparatus.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(D) would require the test mass to be
dropped a distance of 1 meter (39.4 inches). This is equivalent (given
the rigid test mass) to the existing standard's test distance of 1.2
meters (4 feet) for pole straps. Existing Sec. 1926.959 requires
lanyards to pass a 1.8-meter (6-foot) drop test. However, that standard
sets no limit on the free fall distance required for the work
positioning equipment covered under that standard. The drop distance
was based primarily on the accepted practice of allowing a 1.8-meter
(6-foot) maximum drop into a body belt-lanyard combination or a 0.6-or
0.9-meter (2-or 3-foot) maximum drop into a body belt-pole strap
combination. Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv) specifies a 0.5-meter (2-
foot) maximum free fall distance, eliminating the need to drop test
lanyards at more than 1.2 meters (4 feet).
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(E) and (b)(2)(xii)(F) specify
acceptance criteria for tested equipment. Body belts would have to
arrest the fall successfully and be capable of supporting the test mass
after the test. Positioning straps would have to arrest the fall
successfully without allowing an arresting force exceeding 17.8 kN
(4,000 lbf). Additionally, snaphooks on positioning straps would not be
permitted to have distorted sufficiently to allow release of the
keeper.
Three notes apply to paragraph (b)(2).\25\ The first note indicates
that paragraph (b)(2) applies to all work positioning equipment used in
work covered by Subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ These notes appear immediately after paragraph
(b)(2)(xii)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second note indicates that body belts and positioning straps
that conform to ASTM F 887-04 are deemed to be in compliance with the
manufacturing and construction requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section provided that the body belt or positioning strap also conforms
to paragraphs (b)(2)(iv), which contains a more stringent strength
requirement than ASTM F887-04, and (b)(2)(xi), which requires snaphooks
to be of the locking type. OSHA's proposal is based on this ASTM
standard; and, with the exception of those two provisions, is
consistent with that consensus standard.
The third note indicates that body belts and positioning straps
meeting existing Sec. 1926.502(e) on positioning device systems are
deemed to be in compliance with the manufacturing and construction
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.954 provided
that the body belt or positioning strap also conforms to proposed Sec.
1926.954(b)(2)(vii). This provision requires positioning straps to pass
certain electrical and flame-resistance tests. It also requires
positioning straps to withstand a tension test and a buckle tear test.
These tests ensure that positioning straps have suitable electrical and
mechanical properties to withstand the stresses that can be imposed by
power line work. Body belts and positioning straps that are parts of
positioning device systems addressed by Sec. 1926.502(e) serve the
same function as work positioning equipment in proposed Subpart V. OSHA
believes that body belts and positioning straps that meet the design
criteria specified by Sec. 1926.502(e) will generally be sufficiently
strong for power line work. However, to be fully suitable for power
line work, positioning straps should also meet the electrical, flame-
resistance, and other characteristics proposed in Sec.
1926.954(b)(2)(vii).
The Agency believes that the last two notes to proposed Sec.
1926.954(b)(2) will help manufacturers determine whether or not their
equipment meets the OSHA standard. Employers will thus be able to
determine, in most instances, whether or not work positioning equipment
meets the OSHA standard without having to conduct their own tests.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) addresses the care and use of fall
protection equipment. Fall protection equipment provides the maximum
intended safety only when it is properly used and maintained. Existing
Subpart V recognizes this fact in Sec. 1926.951(b)(3). Existing Sec.
1926.951(b)(1) requires the use of fall protection equipment when
employees are working at elevated locations on poles, towers, and
similar structures; Sec. 1926.951(b)(3) requires this equipment to be
inspected before use each day. While it has carried these requirements
forward into the proposal, OSHA believes that these requirements must
be supplemented by additional requirements so that employees will be
fully protected from fall hazards faced during electric power
transmission and distribution work. Therefore, OSHA is proposing
requirements from Sec. 1910.269(g)(2) and from Sec. 1926.502(e)
relating to the care and use of fall protection equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) would require work positioning
equipment to be inspected before use each day to determine if the
equipment is safe for use. (Paragraph (d)(21) of Sec. 1926.502
contains an equivalent requirement for fall arrest equipment to be
inspected before use.) This paragraph would prohibit defective
equipment from being used. This requirement helps ensure that the
protective equipment in use will, in fact, be able to protect employees
when called upon to do so. This requirement is equivalent to existing
Sec. 1926.951(b)(3), except that the prohibition on the use of
defective equipment is stated explicitly rather than being implied. A
thorough inspection of fall protection equipment can detect such
defects as cracked snaphooks and D rings, frayed lanyards, loose
snaphook keepers, and bent buckles. A guide to the inspection of this
equipment is included in Appendix G.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) would require personal fall arrest
systems to be used in accordance with Sec. 1926.502(d).
Personal fall arrest equipment is sometimes used as work
positioning equipment during electric power transmission and
distribution work. So that the employee can comfortably lean into the
body harness when the equipment is used in this fashion, the normal
attachment point would be at waist level. Paragraph (d)(17) of Sec.
1926.502 requires the attachment point for body harnesses to be located
in the center of the employee's back near shoulder level or located
above his or her head. Such an attachment point would prevent the
employee from performing his or her job. Therefore, OSHA is proposing
to exempt personal fall arrest equipment used as work positioning
equipment from this requirement, if the equipment is rigged so that the
maximum free fall distance is 0.6 meters (2 feet). This exemption is
proposed in paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) would require the use of a personal
fall arrest system or work positioning equipment to be used to protect
employees working at elevated locations more than 1.2 meters (4 feet)
above the ground on poles, towers, and similar structures if other fall
protection has not been provided. The term ``similar structures''
includes any structure that supports electric power transmission or
distribution lines or equipment, such as lattice substation structures
and H-frame wood transmission structures. The use of fall protection
equipment would not be required while a qualified employee is climbing
or changing location on a structure if the structure is safe to climb.
The proposal lists examples illustrating when the structure would be
unsafe to climb without fall protection: the presence of ice or high
winds, structure designs that could cause the employee to fall, and the
presence of contaminants on the structure that could cause the employee
to lose his or her grip or footing.
Two informational notes follow proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii)
explain certain aspects of the proposed provision. The first note
indicates that this requirement would not apply to portions of
buildings, electric equipment, or aerial lifts. This note refers to the
relevant portion of the construction standards that would apply in
those instances (that is, Subpart M for walking and working surfaces
generally and Sec. 1926.453 for aerial lifts). The first note applies
only to the ``duty'' requirement in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) to use fall
protection equipment; it does not apply to other fall protection
requirements in Sec. 1926.954.
The second note indicates that employees who have not completed
training in climbing or in the use of fall protection equipment would
not be considered to be ``qualified'' for the purposes of paragraph
(b)(3)(iii). These employees, who have not demonstrated that they can
safely climb structures without using fall protection, would need fall
protection anytime they are more than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the
ground.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii), which is comparable to existing
Sec. 1926.951(b)(1), is based on Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)(v). After
analyzing the extensive record built on fall protection during the
Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking, OSHA concluded that employees could safely
climb and change location on poles, towers, and similar structures
without the use of fall protection equipment. OSHA has carried the
general industry standard's fall protection requirements forward into
proposed Subpart V with two changes. First, the term ``fall arrest
equipment'' has been changed to ``personal fall arrest system'' for
consistency with other OSHA fall protection standards (notably Part
1926, Subpart M). Second, and more significantly, OSHA is proposing to
omit the use of travel restricting equipment as a recognized fall
protection system for electric power transmission and distribution
work. OSHA originally proposed to recognize this equipment in Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(v); no comments in the rulemaking record suggested
leaving it out of the final general industry standard. However, travel
restricting equipment is more appropriate for work on open-sided
platforms, where employees can walk around the working surface with the
travel restricting equipment keeping them from approaching too close to
an unguarded edge. The Agency does not believe that this type of
working surface is found on poles, towers, or similar structures.
Therefore, the inclusion of travel restricting equipment in fall
protection requirements for work performed on these structures is
inappropriate.\26\ OSHA invites comments on whether or not travel
restricting equipment should be recognized in Sec. 1926.954(b)(3)(iii)
and on whether or not electric power transmission and distribution
structures contain open-sided platform-like working surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ OSHA is also proposing to omit the use of travel
restricting equipment as an acceptable form of fall protection in
Sec. 1910.269(g)(2) for employees working from poles, towers, and
similar structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that the conditions listed in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) are not the only ones warranting the use of fall
protection. Other factors affecting the risk of an employee's falling
include the level of competence of the employee, the condition of a
structure, the configuration of attachments on a structure, and the
need to have both hands free for climbing. In fact, OSHA believes that
climbing without the use of fall protection is only safe if the
employee is using his or her hands to hold onto the structure while he
or she is climbing. If the employee is not holding onto the structure
(for example, because the employee is carrying tools or equipment in
his or her hands), fall protection is required under the final rule.
Video tapes entered into the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record by EEI
(269-Ex. 12-6),\27\ which they claimed represented typical, safe
climbing practices in the utility industry, demonstrate employees using
their hands to provide extra support and balance. Climbing in this
manner will enable an employee to continue to hold onto the structure
in case his or her foot slips. If the employee is not using his or her
hands for additional support, he or she would be much more likely to
fall as a result of a slip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Exhibits in the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record (denoted
as ``269-Ex'') can be found in Docket Number S-015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general industry electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution standard, in Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)(v), requires the use of
fall protection systems when work is performed at heights more than 1.2
meters (4 feet) above the ground. The existing standards in Subpart M
of Part 1926 require fall protection (usually in the form of guard rails) for
situations where employees are exposed to falls of more than 1.8 meters
(6 feet). Additionally, in existing Sec. 1926.951(b)(1), OSHA requires
fall protection to be used by ``employees working at elevated
locations'' without specifying the height at which such protection
would be necessary. The Agency is proposing to retain the Subpart V
requirement, but clarify it as requiring protection to be initiated at
1.2 meters (4 feet) to be consistent with Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)(v),
which deals with the same hazard. Comments are requested on whether or
not the Sec. 1910.269 distance of 1.2 meters (4 feet) is appropriate
for electric power transmission and distribution construction work.
Work positioning equipment is intended to be used with the employee
leaning into it, with the equipment supporting the employee and keeping
him or her from falling. During work on towers and horizontal members
on poles (such as crossarms), however, the employee sometimes stands or
sits on a structural member, and the work positioning equipment is not
providing any support for the employee. In such cases, the work
positioning equipment is functioning more like personal fall arrest
equipment. OSHA has previously concluded that body belts, which can be
used as part of work positioning equipment, are not suitable for use as
part of a personal fall arrest system.
Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 1926.502 limits the maximum free fall
distance for work positioning systems to 0.6 meters (2 feet). OSHA is
adopting this same limit in Sec. 1926.954. However, in electric power
transmission and distribution work, anchorages are not always
available. Many utility poles provide no attachment points lower than
the lowest crossarm. If an employee is working below the crossarm,
there will be nothing to which he or she can attach the work
positioning equipment. The work positioning equipment is still
providing a certain degree of fall protection, even in this case. The
equipment holds the employee in a fixed work position and keeps him or
her from falling. Therefore, proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv) would
require work positioning equipment to be rigged so that the employee
can free fall no more than 0.6 meters (2 feet), unless no anchorage is
available.
OSHA requests comments on whether or not this requirement will
provide sufficient protection for employees, on what portable devices
(such as a Pole Shark,\28\ Pole Choker,\29\ or similar devices) can be
used as suitable anchorages, and on what alternative measures can be
taken to protect employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A Pole Shark is a device that uses jaws and a spur wheel to
grip the pole and provide an anchorage for climbing wood poles.
\29\ A Pole Choker is a pole strap with an integrated choker
strap. The choker strap is tightened against the pole to prevent the
pole strap from sliding down the pole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(v) would require anchorages used with
work positioning equipment to be capable of sustaining at least twice
the potential impact load of an employee's fall or 13.3 kN (3,000 lbf),
whichever is greater. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1926.502(e)(2), is intended to ensure that an anchorage will not fail
when called upon to stop an employee's fall. It should be noted that,
under proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the employee is not required to be
tied to an anchorage if one is not available.
In paragraphs (b)(3)(vi), OSHA is proposing that snaphooks on work
positioning equipment not be engaged to any of the following:
(1) Webbing, rope, or wire rope;
(2) Each other;
(3) A D ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
(4) A horizontal lifeline; or
(5) Any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
These provisions, which have been taken from Sec. 1926.502(e)(8),
prohibit methods of attachment that are considered unsafe because of
the potential for accidental disengagement of the snaphooks during use.
Section 1926.955, Ladders and Platforms
Proposed Sec. 1926.955 addresses ladders and platforms. Paragraph
(a) notes that requirements for portable ladders are contained in
Subpart X of the construction standards and apply to work covered by
Subpart V, except as noted in proposed Sec. 1926.955(b). This
paragraph also proposes that the requirements for ladders in Subpart D
of Part 1910 apply to fixed ladders used in electric power transmission
and distribution construction work. Fixed ladders used in electric
power transmission and distribution construction work are also
considered fixed ladders under Subpart D of the General Industry
Standards when used during normal maintenance activities. OSHA believes
that the Part 1910, Subpart D standards should also apply during
construction work. It should be noted that OSHA has proposed a revision
of Subpart D of the General Industry Standards (April 10, 1990, 55 FR
13401). The Agency requests comments on whether the proposed
incorporation of the general industry standard for fixed ladders is
warranted, especially in light of the proposed revision of Subpart D.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements for special ladders and
platforms used for electrical work. Because of the nature of overhead
line work and the limitations of structures available for ladder
support, OSHA is proposing to exempt portable ladders and platforms
used on structures or on overhead lines from the general provisions of
Sec. Sec. 1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12), which deal with ladder
support and placement. An example of these exempted ladders is a
portable hook ladder used by power line workers to work on overhead
power lines. These ladders are hooked over the line or other support
member and are lashed in place at both ends to keep them steady while
employees are working from them.
To provide employees with protection that approximates that
afforded by the ``exempted'' Subpart X provisions, paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) would apply to these special types of ladders and
platforms. The proposed requirements provide that these special ladders
and special platforms be secured, specify the acceptable loads and
proper strength of this equipment, and provide that they be used only
for the particular types of application for which they are designed.
(The ratings and design of this equipment are specified by the
manufacturer and can usually also be found in standard references, such
as ASTM F 1564-95, Standard Specification for Structure-Mounted
Insulating Work Platforms for Electrical Workers. See Appendix E to
proposed Subpart V.) In the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking, OSHA concluded
that these alternative criteria provide for the safe use of this
special equipment, and the Agency is proposing to extend the
application of these alternative criteria to work covered under Subpart
V.
In Sec. 1926.955(c), OSHA is proposing to prohibit the use of
portable metal and other portable conductive ladders near exposed
energized lines or equipment. This paragraph addresses the hazard to
employees of contacting energized lines and equipment with conductive
ladders. However, in specialized high-voltage work, the use of
nonconductive ladders could present a greater hazard to employees than
the use of conductive ladders. In such situations, the clearances
between live parts operating at differing voltages and between the live
parts and grounded surfaces are large enough that it is relatively easy
to maintain the minimum approach distances required by proposed
Sec. 1926.960(c)(1). Voltage is induced on objects in the
vicinity of these high-voltage lines. Using a conductive ladder can
minimize the voltage differences between objects \30\ within an
employee's reach, reducing the hazard to the employee. Therefore, the
proposal would require a conductive ladder to be used where an employer
can demonstrate that the use of a nonconductive ladder would present a
greater hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ These voltages do not normally pose an electrocution
hazard. However, the involuntary muscular reactions from contacting
objects at different voltages can lead to falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1926.956, Hand and Portable Power Tools
Proposed Sec. 1926.956 addresses hand and portable power tools, as
stated in paragraph (a). Portable and vehicle-mounted generators
supplying cord-and plug-connected equipment are also covered by this
proposed section. These requirements have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(i). Existing Subpart V contains requirements for hydraulic and
pneumatic tools in Sec. Sec. 1926.950(i) and 1926.951(f). These
requirements have been retained in proposed Sec. 1926.956(d).
Electric tools connected by cord and plug would be required to meet
paragraph (b). If the equipment is supplied by the wiring of a building
or other premises, existing Subpart K of Part 1926 would continue to
apply, under proposed Sec. 1926.956(b)(1), as it does now. If premises
wiring is not involved (in which case Subpart K does not currently
apply), paragraph (b)(2) would require that the tool frame be grounded
or that the tool be double insulated or that the tool be supplied by an
isolating transformer with ungrounded secondary. Any of these three
methods can protect employees from electric shock, which could directly
injure the employee or which could cause an involuntary reaction
leading to a secondary injury. Given the widespread availability of
double-insulated tools, OSHA requests comments on whether the option
permitting tools to be supplied through an isolating transformer is
still necessary.
Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.956 would require that
portable and vehicle-mounted generators provide a means for grounding
cord- and plug-connected equipment and allows the frame of the
generator to serve as the grounding electrode (reference ground).
Paragraph (c)(4) would require the neutral conductor to be bonded to
the generator frame. These proposed requirements are based on existing
Sec. 1926.404(f)(3).
Proposed paragraph (d) would apply to pneumatic and hydraulic
tools.
Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.302 requires hydraulic fluids to be
fire resistant. Insulating hydraulic fluids are not inherently fire
resistant and additives that could make them fire resistant generally
make the hydraulic fluid unsuitable for use as insulation. Because of
this and because hydraulic fluids must be insulating to protect
employees performing power transmission and distribution work, existing
Sec. 1926.950(i) exempts insulating hydraulic fluids from Sec.
1926.302(d)(1). OSHA is proposing to continue this exemption in Sec.
1926.956(d)(1). The Agency requests information on whether or not fire-
resistant insulating hydraulic fluids are available or are being
developed.
Safe operating pressures would be required to be maintained by
paragraph (d)(2). This protects employees from the harmful effects of
tool failure. Of course, if hazardous defects are present, no operating
pressure would be safe, and the tools could not be used. In the absence
of defects, the maximum rated operating pressure (as specified by the
manufacturer or by standard references) is the maximum safe pressure. A
note to this effect has been included in the proposed rule.
If a pneumatic or hydraulic tool is used where it may contact
exposed energized parts, the tool would be required to be designed and
maintained for such use (paragraph (d)(3)). Hydraulic systems for tools
used near live parts would need to provide protection against the
formation of a partial vacuum in the hydraulic line (paragraph (d)(4)).
A pneumatic tool would have to provide protection against the
accumulation of moisture in the air supply (paragraph (d)(5)). These
three requirements protect employees from electric shock by restricting
current flow through hoses.
If hydraulic tools are used so that the highest point on the system
is more than 10.7 meters (35 feet) above the oil reservoir, a partial
vacuum can form inside the line. This can lead to loss of insulating
value in tools used on high voltage lines and to the failure of the
system while the employee is working on the power line. During the
rulemaking process on Sec. 1910.269, the IBEW reported that two
accidents resulted from such an occurrence (269-DC Tr. 613). To stress
the importance of the requirement proposed in paragraph (d)(4), OSHA
has included a note following this paragraph stating that hydraulic
lines without check valves having a separation of more than 10.7 meters
(35 feet) between the oil reservoir and the upper end of the hydraulic
system can promote the formation of a partial vacuum. Whether or not a
partial vacuum will result in the loss of insulating value and trigger
the need to take measures to prevent the formation of a partial vacuum
will, of course, depend on the voltage involved.
Paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) propose work-practice requirements to
protect employees from the accidental release of pressure and from
injection of hydraulic oil, which is under high pressure, through the
skin and into the body. The first of these two provisions would require
the release of pressure before connections in the lines are broken,
unless the quick-acting, self-closing connectors commonly found on
tools are used. In the case of hydraulic tools, the spraying hydraulic
fluid itself, which is flammable, poses additional hazards. The other
provision would prohibit employees from attempting to use their bodies
in order to locate or stop a hydraulic leak.
Paragraph (d)(8) proposes that hoses not be kinked. Kinks in
hydraulic and pneumatic hoses can lead to premature failure of the hose
and to sudden loss of pressure. If this loss of pressure occurs while
the employee is using the tool, an accident could result.
Section 1926.957, Live-Line Tools
Proposed Sec. 1926.957 contains requirements for live-line tools,
some of which are commonly called ``hot sticks.'' This type of tool is
used by qualified employees to handle energized conductors. The tool
insulates the employee from the energized line, allowing the employee
to safely perform the task at hand. For example, a wire tong, a slender
insulated pole with a clamp on one end, is used to hold a conductor at
a distance while work is being performed. Common types of live-line
tools include wire tongs, wire tong supports, tension links, and tie
sticks.
Paragraph (a) would require live-line tools to be designed and
constructed to be able to withstand 100,000 V/ft if made of fiberglass,
75,000 V/ft if made of wood, or other equivalent tests. (The voltage
per unit length varies with material because the two different
insulating materials are capable of withstanding different voltages
over equal lengths. A higher design standard for wood would cause most
wood to fail to meet the specification. A lower design specification would
allow substandard products into service. Paragraph (a), which contains the
design criteria for materials used in live-line tools, is based on the
capabilities of the materials in question.) Since the withstand voltages
are consistent with those in existing Sec. 1926.951(d), for fiberglass tools,
and with ASTM F 711-02, Standard Specification for Fiberglass-Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) Rod and Tube Used in Live-Line Tools (the material comprising the
insulating portion of a live-line tool), tools complying with standards
currently in use in the industry continue to be acceptable. A note to
this effect is included after proposed Sec. 1926.957(a)(1). Together
with the minimum approach distances in Sec. 1926.960(c)(1), paragraph
(a) of proposed Sec. 1926.957 protects employees from electric shock
during use of these tools.
Paragraph (b) addresses the condition of tools. The requirements
proposed in this paragraph are intended to ensure that live-line tools
remain in a safe condition after they are put into service. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1) would require live-line tools to be wiped clean and
visually inspected before each day's use. Wiping the tool removes
surface contamination that could lower the insulating value of the
tool. Inspecting the tool will enable the employer and employee to
discover any obvious defects that could also adversely affect the
insulating value of the tool.
If any contamination or defect that could lower the insulating
value or that could adversely affect the mechanical integrity of the
live-line tool is present after the tool is wiped, it could be
discovered during the inspection, and the tool would have to be removed
from service, as required by paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph protects
employees from the failure of live-line tools during use. Tools removed
from service would have to be examined and tested under proposed
paragraph (b)(3) before being returned to service.
The performance criteria given in paragraph (a) are intended to be
``design standards'' and are to be met at the time of manufacture. The
test voltages and length of time that they are applied during the
manufacturing process are not appropriate for periodic retesting of the
hot sticks because the live-line tools could sustain damage during the
test.
During the rulemaking on Sec. 1910.269, OSHA found that, although
no injuries related to the failure of a hot stick could be found in the
record, evidence did indicate that these tools have failed in use
(without injury to employees) and that employees do depend on their
insulating value in using them to handle energized conductors (January
31, 1994, 59 FR 4378). The Agency believes that the fact that live-line
tools are not typically used to provide protection for employees in the
rain (when work is normally suspended) probably accounted for the lack
of injuries in the record. Regardless, live-line tools might be used
under wet conditions,\31\ in which case it is important to ensure that
these tools will retain their insulating qualities when they are wet.
In addition, employee safety is dependent on the insulating integrity
of the tool--the results of a failure of a live-line tool would almost
certainly lead to serious injury or death whenever the tool is the only
insulating barrier between the employee and a live part. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing rules on the periodic examination and testing of
live-line tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Neither the proposed rule nor Sec. 1910.269 prohibits use
of live-line tools under wet conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although inspection can detect the presence of hazardous defects
and contamination, the Agency is concerned about whether the daily
inspections proposed in paragraph (b)(1) will, indeed, detect these
problems. In fact, referring to live-line tools that had failed in use,
a Georgia Power Company study submitted to the rulemaking record on
Sec. 1910.269 stated: ``Under visual inspection all the sticks
appeared to be relatively clean with no apparent surface irregularities
[269-Ex. 60].'' These tools also passed a ``dry'' voltage test, but
failed a ``wet'' test. While the study further noted that the surface
luster on the sticks had been reduced, apparently the normal visual
inspection alone was not able to detect such defects as the ones that
caused these tools to fail.
To address these concerns, OSHA is proposing requirements for the
thorough examination, cleaning, repair, and testing of live-line tools
on a periodic basis. The tools would undergo this process on a 2-year
cycle and any time tools are removed from service on the basis of the
daily inspection required by Sec. 1926.957(b)(2). The proposed rule
would first require a complete examination of the hot stick (paragraph
(b)(3)(i)). After the examination, the tool would have to be cleaned
and waxed, or it would have to be repaired and refinished if necessary
(paragraph (b)(3)(ii)). According to proposed Sec.
1926.957(b)(3)(iii), a test would also be required: (1) After the tool
has been repaired or refinished, regardless of its composition; (2)
after the examination if the tool is made of wood or hollow FRP; or (3)
after the examination if the tool is solid FRP rod or foam-filled FRP
tube, unless the employer could demonstrate that the examination has
revealed no defects that could cause the tool to fail during use. The
test method used would be required to be designed to verify the tool's
integrity along its full length and, if made of FRP, its integrity
under wet conditions (paragraph (b)(3)(iv)). The test voltages would be
75 kV/ft for FRP and 50 kV/ft for wood, and the voltage would have to
be applied for a minimum of 1 minute (paragraph (b)(3)(v)). Other
equivalent tests are permitted. The proposed rule also includes a note
referring to IEEE Std. 516-2003, which contains an excellent guide to
the inspection, care, and testing of live-line tools.
Section 1926.958, Materials Handling and Storage
Section 1926.958 proposes requirements for materials handling and
storage. Paragraph (a) proposes that Subpart N of Part 1926 continue to
apply.
Paragraph (b) addresses the storage of materials in the vicinity of
energized lines and exposed parts of energized equipment. Paragraph
(b)(1) proposes requirements for areas to which access is not
restricted to qualified employees only. In general, materials are not
allowed to be stored within 3.05 meters (10 feet) of the lines or
exposed parts of equipment. This clearance distance must be increased
by 0.10 meters (4 inches) for every 10 kilovolts over 50 kilovolts. The
distance must also be increased to account for the maximum sag and side
swing of any conductor and to account for the use of material handling
equipment. Maintaining these clearances protects unqualified employees,
who are not trained in the recognition and avoidance of the hazards
involved, from contacting the energized lines or equipment with
materials being handled.
However, the work practices these unqualified workers would employ
in handling material stored near energized lines are addressed by
Subpart K of Part 1926. The general approach taken in the proposed
revision of Subpart V is to provide safety-related work practices for
qualified employees to follow when they are performing electric power
transmission and distribution work. Safe work practices for unqualified
employees are not addressed in proposed Subpart V because these
practices are already spelled out in Subpart K of the construction
standards (see in particular Sec. 1926.416 for work performed near
electric power circuits). In addition, much of the work performed by
unqualified employees near overhead power lines falls outside the scope of
Subpart V. For example, employees laying sewer lines or handling building
materials on a housing project are not performing electric power transmission
or distribution work, and their work operations would not be covered by Subpart V.
OSHA believes it is more appropriate to address work practices used by unqualified
employees working near overhead power lines in Subpart K, because that
is the standard in which employers who are not involved in electric
power transmission or distribution work would look to find requirements
addressing electrical hazards.
Paragraph (b)(2) proposes to regulate the storage of materials in
areas restricted to qualified employees. If the materials are stored
where only qualified workers have access to them, the materials may be
safely stored closer to the energized parts than 3.05 meters (10 feet),
providing these employees have sufficient room to perform their work.
To ensure that enough room is available, paragraph (b)(2) would
prohibit material from being stored in the working space around
energized lines or equipment. (See the discussion of Sec. 1926.966(b)
for an explanation of the proposed requirements for access and working
space.)
The working space about electric equipment is the clear space to be
provided around the equipment to enable qualified employees to work on
the equipment. An employee enters this space to service or maintain the
electric equipment. The minimum working space specifies the minimum
distance an obstruction can be from the equipment. For example, if a
switchboard is installed in a cabinet into which an employee will
enter, the inside walls of the cabinet must provide a minimum working
space to enable the employee to work safely within the cabinet.
The minimum approach distance to be maintained from a live part is
the limit of the space about the equipment that a qualified employee is
not permitted to enter. The minimum approach distance a qualified
employee must maintain from an energized part (covered in proposed
Sec. 1926.960(c)(1)) is smaller than the working space that is
required to be provided around the part. The employee must ``enter''
the working space and still maintain the minimum approach distance.
Materials must be stored outside the working space so that employees
are not tempted to work on energized equipment in cramped quarters if
access is necessary in an emergency and so that there is sufficient
room to allow an employee to move the materials without violating the
minimum approach distance.
Section 1926.959, Mechanical Equipment
Requirements for mechanical equipment are proposed in Sec.
1926.959. Paragraph (a) proposes general requirements for mechanical
equipment used in the construction of electric power transmission or
distribution lines and equipment. Paragraph (a)(1) serves as a reminder
that Subparts N and O of the construction standards contain pertinent
requirements for the operation of mechanical equipment. However, two
requirements for the operation of mechanical equipment near energized
power lines are contained in those two subparts--Sec. Sec.
1926.550(a)(15) and 1926.600(a)(6)--that OSHA has determined not to
apply to qualified employees. (Under the proposed rule, these two
requirements would continue to apply to unqualified employees.)
Proposed Subpart V contains appropriate requirements for the operation
of mechanical equipment by qualified employees near energized power
lines and equipment. While the proposed Subpart V provisions would
allow qualified employees to operate equipment closer to energized
lines and equipment than permitted by the two generic construction
standards, the proposal also contains the relevant safeguards for
protecting employees. These safeguards include special training for
qualified employees (Sec. 1926.950(b)(2)) and the use of special
safety procedures for such operations (Sec. 1926.959(d)). Because of
this, OSHA believes that the proposal will provide more appropriate
protection for electric power transmission and distribution workers
than Sec. Sec. 1926.550(a)(15) and 1926.600(a)(6).
Paragraph (a)(2) would require the critical safety components of
mechanical elevating and rotating equipment to be inspected before use
on each shift. A thorough visual inspection would be required. It is
not necessary to disassemble equipment to perform this visual
inspection. The note following this paragraph describes what parts OSHA
considers to be critical safety components, that is, any part whose
failure would result in a free fall or free rotation of the boom. These
parts are critical to safety because their failure would immediately
pose serious hazards to employees.
Paragraph (a)(3) would prohibit the operator of an electric line
truck from leaving his or her position at the controls while a load is
suspended, unless the employer can demonstrate that no employee,
including the operator, might be endangered. This ensures that the
operator will be at the controls if an emergency arises that
necessitates moving the suspended load. For example, due to wind or
unstable soil, the equipment might start to tip over. Having the
operator at the controls ensures that corrective action can be taken
quickly enough to prevent an accident.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements for outriggers. Paragraph
(b)(1) would require vehicular equipment provided with outriggers to be
operated with the outriggers extended and firmly set as necessary for
the stability of the equipment in the particular configuration
involved. The stability of the equipment in various configurations is
normally provided by the manufacturer, but it can also be derived
through engineering analysis. This paragraph also prohibits the
outriggers from being extended or retracted outside the clear view of
the operator unless all employees are outside the range of possible
equipment motion. Where the work area or terrain precludes the use of
outriggers, paragraph (b)(2) would permit the operation of the
equipment only within the maximum load ratings as specified by the
manufacturer for the particular configuration without outriggers. These
two paragraphs are intended to help ensure the stability of the
equipment while loads are being handled and to prevent injuries caused
by extending outriggers into employees.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require mechanical equipment used to
lift or move lines or other material to be operated within its maximum
load rating and other design limitations. It is important for
mechanical equipment to be used within its design limitations so that
the lifting equipment does not fail during use and so that employees
are not otherwise endangered.
Even in electric-utility operations, contact with live parts
through mechanical equipment causes many fatalities each year. A sample
of typical accidents involving the operation of mechanical equipment
near overhead lines is given in Table IV-5. Industry practice and
existing rules in Subpart V of the construction standards require
aerial lifts and truck-mounted booms to be kept away from exposed
energized lines and equipment at distances greater than or
approximately equal to those proposed in Table V-2 (A-C Live-Line Work
Minimum Approach Distance). However, some contact with the energized
parts does occur during the hundreds of thousands of operations carried
out near overhead power lines each year. If the equipment operator is
distracted briefly or if the distances involved or the speed of the equipment
towards the line is misjudged, contact with the lines is the expected result,
rather than simple coincidence, especially when the minimum approach distances are
relatively small. Because these types of contacts cannot be totally
avoided, OSHA believes that additional requirements are necessary for
operating mechanical devices near exposed energized lines. Paragraph
(d) of proposed Sec. 1926.959 addresses this problem.
Table IV-5.--Accidents Involving the Operation of Mechanical Equipment Near Overhead Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of fatalities
----------------------------------------------------
Type of equipment Grounded Type of Accident
Total ---------------------------------------
Yes No ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boom Truck/Derrick Truck......... 9 2 ........... 7 Boom contact with
energized line.
Pole contact with
energized line.
Aerial lift...................... 8 ........... 1 7 Boom contact with
energized line.
Lower boom contact with
energized line.
Employee working on
deenergized line when
upper boom contaced
energized line.
Winch on lift used on
energized line arced to
nearby ground.
Vehicle.......................... 2 ........... 1 1 Line fell on vehicle.
Unknown type of vehicle
and type of accident.
----------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 19 2 2 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA accident investigation data (269-Ex. 9-2 and 9-2A).
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require the minimum approach
distances in Table V-2 through Table V-6 to be maintained between the
mechanical equipment and the live parts while equipment was being
operated near exposed energized lines or equipment. This provision
would ensure that sufficient clearance is provided between the
mechanical equipment and the energized part to prevent an electric arc
from occurring and energizing the equipment. The requirement to
maintain a minimum approach distance also lessens the chance that the
mechanical equipment will strike the lines and knock them to the
ground.
Aerial lifts are designed to enable an employee to position himself
or herself at elevated locations with a high degree of accuracy. The
aerial lift operator is in the bucket next to the energized lines and
can easily judge the approach distance. This minimizes the chance that
the equipment will contact an energized line and that the energized
line will be struck down should contact actually occur. Furthermore,
the employee operating the lift in the bucket would be protected from
the hazards of contacting the live parts under the provisions of Sec.
1926.960. As the aerial lift is insulated, employees on the ground are
protected from electric shock in the case of contact with the lines.
Lastly, proposed Sec. 1926.959(c) and other provisions would protect
against the possibility that the aerial lift would strike down the
power line. Therefore, proposed paragraph (d)(1) would provide an
exception to the requirement to maintain specific minimum approach
distances for the insulated portion of an aerial lift operated by a
qualified employee in the lift. It should be noted that the employee
must still maintain the minimum approach distances required in proposed
Sec. 1926.960(c)(1). Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.960 would
still require the employee to maintain the required distance from
conductive objects at potentials different from that on which he or she
is working, and proposed Sec. 1926.959(d)(1) would require the
conductive portions of the boom to maintain the same distance from such
objects. It should also be noted that the insulating portion of the
boom can be bridged by improper positioning of the boom or by
conductive objects suspended from the aerial lift platform. For
example, the insulating portion of the boom will be bridged if it is
resting against a grounded object, such as a utility pole or if the
employee in an aerial bucket is holding onto a grounding jumper. For
the purposes of proposed Sec. 1926.959(d)(1), OSHA would not consider
the aerial lift to be insulated when the insulation is bridged.
Determining the distance between objects that are themselves
relatively far away from a mechanical equipment operator standing on
the ground can sometimes be difficult. For example, different
perspectives can lead to different estimates of the distance, and lack
of a suitable reference can result in errors. In addition, an operator
may not be in the best position to observe the clearance between an
energized part and the mechanical equipment. For example, an
obstruction may block his or her view of the clearance. An extra person
would be required, by paragraph (d)(2), to observe the operation and
give warnings when the specified minimum approach distance is
approached unless the employer could demonstrate that the minimum
approach distance could be accurately determined by the operator.
An aerial lift operator would not normally need to judge the
distance between objects that are relatively far away. In most cases,
an aerial lift operator is maintaining the minimum approach distance
from energized parts relatively close to the employee, and it would be
easy for the employee to stay far enough away. However, even an aerial
lift operator may have difficulty maintaining the minimum approach
distances in certain circumstances. Sometimes, congested configurations
of overhead power lines may necessitate maintaining clearance from more
than one conductor at a time. Other times, an aerial lift operator may
need to judge the distance between the lower uninsulated portion of the
boom and a conductor well below the employee. In situations like these,
where the minimum approach distance may be difficult for an aerial lift
operator to maintain, an observer would be required.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require one of three alternative
protective measures to be taken if the equipment could become
energized. The first option (paragraph (d)(3)(i)) is for the energized
lines exposed to contact to be covered with insulating protective
material that will withstand the type of contact that might be made during
the operation. The second option (paragraph (d)(3)(ii)) is for the equipment
to be insulated for the voltage involved. Under this option, the mechanical
equipment would have to be positioned so that uninsulated portions of the equipment
could not come within the specified minimum approach distance of the
line. The third option (paragraph (d)(3)(iii)) is for each employee to
be protected from the hazards that might arise from equipment contact
with the energized lines. The measures used would have to ensure that
employees would not be exposed to hazardous differences in potential.
(The following paragraphs describe the types of measures that must be
taken. The employer must take all of these measures unless he or she
can demonstrate that the methods in use protect each employee from the
hazards that might arise if the equipment contacts the energized line.)
The proposal is intended to protect employees from electric shock in
case contact is made.
On the basis of the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record, OSHA
concluded that vehicle grounding alone could not always be depended
upon to provide sufficient protection against the hazards of mechanical
equipment contact with energized power lines (January 31, 1994, 59 FR
4403). On the other hand, the Agency recognized the usefulness of
grounding as a protective measure against electric shock, when used
with all of the following techniques:
(1) Using the best available ground to minimize the time the lines
remain energized,
(2) Bonding equipment together to minimize potential differences,
(3) Providing ground mats to extend areas of equipotential, and
(4) Using insulating protective equipment or barricades to guard
against any remaining hazardous potential differences.
The proposed rule recognizes all these techniques, which (1)
minimize differences in potential, (2) minimize the time employees
would be exposed to hazardous potentials, and (3) protect against any
remaining hazardous potentials. Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of proposed Sec.
1926.959 contains the performance-oriented requirement that would
assure that employees are protected from the hazards that could arise
if the equipment contacts the energized parts. The protective measures
used would be required to ensure that employees are not exposed to
hazardous differences in potential. Information in Appendix C to
proposed Subpart V provides guidelines for employers and employees that
explain the various measures and how they can be used. A note
referencing this appendix has been included in the proposal.
Section 1926.960, Working on or Near Exposed Energized Parts
Proposed Sec. 1926.960 covers the hazards of working on or near
exposed parts of energized lines or equipment as noted in paragraph
(a). The provisions of this section have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(l).
Paragraph (b) proposes general requirements for working on or near
live parts. Paragraph (b)(1) would require employees working on or with
exposed live parts (at any voltage) of electric lines or equipment and
employees working in areas containing unguarded, uninsulated live parts
operating at more than 50 volts to be qualified. Without proper
training in the construction and operation of the lines and equipment
and in the electrical hazards involved, workers would likely be
electrocuted attempting to perform this type of work and would also
expose others to injury, as well. In areas containing unguarded live
parts energized at more than 50 volts, untrained employees would not be
familiar with the practices that are necessary to recognize and avoid
contact with these parts.
The definition of ``qualified employee'' contains a note to
indicate that employees who are undergoing on-the-job training are
considered to be qualified if they have demonstrated an ability to
perform duties safely and if they are under the immediate supervision
of qualified employees. (See the definition of this term in proposed
Sec. 1926.968 and the discussion of this definition under the summary
and explanation of Sec. 1926.968.) Therefore, employees in training,
under the direct supervision of a qualified employee, would be
permitted to perform work on live parts and in areas containing
unguarded live parts. OSHA believes that the close supervision of
trainees will reveal errors ``in the act,'' before they cause
accidents. Allowing these workers the experience of performing tasks
under actual conditions may also better prepare the employees to work
safely.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require lines and equipment to be considered
as energized unless they have been deenergized under the provisions of
Sec. 1926.961. Existing Sec. 1926.950(b)(2) requires electric lines
and equipment to be considered as energized until determined to be
deenergized by tests or other appropriate means. The existing standard
does not spell out what those appropriate means are. Additionally, even
if the line or equipment has been tested and found to be deenergized,
it may become reenergized through contact with another source of
electric energy or by someone reenergizing it at its points of control.
Proposed section 1926.961 contains requirements for deenergizing
electric power transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
Unless the procedures contained in that section have been followed,
lines and equipment cannot reliably be considered as deenergized.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) has been taken from the last sentence of the
introductory text of Sec. 1910.269(l)(1).
Two-person rule. If an employee working on or near energized
electric power transmission or distribution lines or equipment is
injured by an electric shock, a second employee will be needed to
provide emergency care to the injured employee. As noted under the
summary and explanation of Sec. 1926.951(b)(1) discussed earlier in
this preamble, CPR must begin within 4 minutes after an employee loses
consciousness as a result of an electric shock. OSHA is proposing to
require the presence of a second employee during certain types of work
on or near electric power transmission or distribution lines or
equipment to ensure that CPR begins as soon as possible and to help
ensure that it starts within the 4-minute window. (Note that Sec.
1926.951(b)(1) would require at least two people trained in emergency
first aid procedures, including CPR, for field work involving two or
more employees at a work location. Also, note that, in the discussion
of that proposed paragraph, OSHA is requesting comments on whether to
require AEDs along with training in CPR.)
Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed Sec. 1926.960 would require
(unless exempted by paragraph (b)(3)(ii)) the presence of at least two
employees during the following types of work involving exposed
energized parts:
(1) Installation, removal, or repair of lines that are energized at
more than 600 volts,
(2) Installation, removal, or repair of deenergized lines if an
employee is exposed to contact with other parts energized at more than
600 volts,
(3) 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,
(4) Work involving the use of mechanical equipment, other than
insulated aerial lifts, near parts energized at more than 600 volts,
and
(5) Other work that exposes an employee to electrical hazards
greater than or equal to those posed by these operations.
This rule is based on Sec. 1910.269(l)(1)(i). The first four work
operations are those that expose employees to the greatest risk of
electric shock as demonstrated by the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record.
OSHA has included the fifth category to cover types of work that, while
not specifically identified in that record, pose equal or greater
hazards. The operations covered under Sec. 1910.269(l)(1)(i) are
performed during construction as well as during maintenance. In fact,
the construction operations are similar in nature to those performed
during maintenance work, and the Agency believes that the hazards are
the same. For example, using mechanical equipment near a 7200-volt
overhead power line during the construction of a new line poses hazards
that are equivalent to those posed during the use of mechanical
equipment to replace a damaged pole on an existing line of the same
voltage. Similarly, the installation of a new transformer near a 14.4-
kilovolt line poses the same hazards as the replacement of a
transformer near a 14.4-kilovolt line. Thus, OSHA is proposing to
extend the general industry requirement to construction.
However, some work can be performed safely by a single employee or
must be performed as quickly as possible for reasons of public safety.
The proposal, in Sec. 1926.960(b)(3)(ii), recognizes this type of work
by granting exceptions to the two-person rule for the following
operations:
(1) Routine switching of circuits, if the employer can demonstrate
that conditions at the site allow this work to be performed safely,
(2) Work performed with live-line tools if the employee is
positioned so that he or she is not within reach of or exposed to
contact with energized parts, and
(3) Emergency repairs to the minimum extent necessary to safeguard
the general public.
These exceptions are based on Sec. 1910.269(l)(1)(ii). OSHA
intends for these exceptions to be applied narrowly in view of the
accidents that have occurred even under these limited conditions (269-
Ex. 9-2). For example, accidents involving hot stick work have
typically occurred only when the employee was using a live-line tool
but was close enough to energized parts to be injured--sometimes
through direct contact, other times by contact through conductors being
handled. Employees have been injured during switching operations when
unusual conditions, such as poor lighting, bad weather, and hazardous
configuration or state of repair of the switching equipment, were
present. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) addresses this scenario by requiring
the employer to demonstrate that the operation can be performed in a
manner to mitigate the hazards so that the work could be performed
safely. For example, the employer could provide supple- mental lighting
for work performed where lighting was inade quate.
The requirement for at least two employees to be present during
certain operations does not apply generally if the voltage of the
energized parts involved is 600 volts or less. The Sec. 1910.269
rulemaking record contained conflicting data regarding the safety of
performing work at these voltages. Some witnesses and commenters said
that it was safe to perform such work, but the data in the rulemaking
record suggested that may not be true (269-Ex. 9-2). More recent
accident data indicate little change. Table IV-6 shows the number of
electrocutions for various voltage ranges for the years 1991 through
1998. In the years 1991 to 1994, an average of 3.0 fatalities occurred
per year involving voltages of 600 volts or less. For the years 1995 to
1998, when Sec. 1910.269 was fully in effect, the average dropped
slightly to 2.5. Consequently, OSHA is requesting comments regarding
the safety of employees working on lines and equipment operating at 600
volts or less. What types of work can be performed safely by an
employee working alone? What additional precautions are necessary for
an employee working on lines or equipment operating at 600 volts or
less to make the work safe without the presence of a second employee?
Table IV-6.--Fatalities by Voltage and Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 600 V to 20 100kV and
Year 600 V kV 20 to 80 kV higher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991........................................................ 3 24 2 1
1992........................................................ 5 24 2 0
1993........................................................ 3 23 3 1
1994........................................................ 1 21 2 2
1995........................................................ 2 22 4 5
1996........................................................ 4 16 0 2
1997........................................................ 1 16 3 1
1998........................................................ 3 13 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA database of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution accidents. These data include
only cases involving electrocution in which the voltage was indicated in the accident abstract.
Minimum approach distances. Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec.
1926.960 would require employees to maintain minimum approach distances
from exposed energized parts. The minimum approach distances are
specified in Table V-2 through Table V-6. This provision has been taken
from Sec. 1910.269(l)(2).
Electric power systems operate at a given nominal voltage. However,
the actual voltage on a power line varies above and below that nominal
voltage. For very brief periods, the instantaneous voltage on a line
can be 3 or more times its nominal value.
The safe minimum approach distance is intended to assure that an
electric arc will not form, even under the most severe transient
overvoltages that can occur on a system and even if the employee makes
foreseeable errors in maintaining the minimum approach distance. To
determine what this distance is for a given voltage, OSHA must first
determine the size of the air gap that must be present so that an arc
does not occur during the most severe overvoltage on a system. This gap
is the electrical component of the minimum approach distance. To
determine the minimum safe approach distance, OSHA must then add an
extra distance to account for ergonomic considerations, or human error.
The electrical component depends on five factors:
(1) The maximum voltage,
(2) The wave shape of this voltage,
(3) The configuration of the ``electrodes'' forming the end points
of the gap,
(4) The insulating medium in the gap, and
(5) The atmospheric conditions present.
The NESC subcommittee having responsibility for the ANSI C-2
minimum approach distance tables adopted a change in minimum approach
distances for the 1993 edition of the National Electrical Safety Code.
The NESC subcommittee developed the minimum approach distance tables
using the following principles:
ANSI/IEEE Standard 516 \32\ was to be the electrical basis
of the NESC Rules for approach distances: Table 4 (Alternating Current)
and Table 5 (Direct Current) for voltages above 72.5 KV. Lower voltages
were to be based on ANSI/IEEE Standard 4. The application of ANSI/IEEE
Standard 516 was inclusive of the formula used by that standard to
derive electrical clearance distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ANSI/IEEE Std. 516-1987 (the edition in effect when the
NESC subcommittee revised the minimum approach distances) listed
values for the electrical component of the minimum approach
distance, both for air alone as an insulating medium and for live-
line tool sticks in air, that were accepted as being accurate when
the standard was adopted (by IEEE) in 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altitude correction factors were to be in accordance with
ANSI/IEEE Standard 516, Table 1.
The maximum design transient overvoltage data to be used
in the development of the basic approach distance tables were:
3.0 per unit for voltages of 362 KV and less
2.4 per unit for 500 to 550 KV
2.0 per unit for 765 to 800 KV
All phase-to-phase values were to be calculated from the
EPRI Transmission Line Reference Book for 115 to 138 KV.
An inadvertent movement factor (ergonomic component)
intended to account for errors in judging the approach distance was to
be added to all basic electrical approach distances (electrical
component) for all voltage ranges. A distance of 0.31 meters (1 foot)
was to be added to all voltage ranges. An additional 0.3 meters (1
foot) was to be added to voltage ranges below 72.6 KV.
The voltage reduction allowance for controlled maximum
transient overvoltage was to be such that the minimum allowable
approach distance was not less than the given approach distance
specified for the highest voltage of the given range.
The transient overvoltage tables were to be applied only
at voltage ranges inclusive of 72.6 KV to 800 KV. All tables were to be
established using the higher voltage of each separate voltage range.
Relevant data related to the determination of the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach distance include a typical arm's
reach of about 610 millimeters (2 feet) and a reaction time to a
stimulus of 0.2 to more than 1.0 second (269-Ex. 8-19). To prevent an
employee from breaching the air gap required for the electrical
component, the ergonomic distance must be sufficient for the employee
to be able to recognize a hazardous approach to an energized line and
withdraw to a safe position. Thus, the distance should equal the
response time multiplied by the average speed of an employee's movement
plus ``braking'' distance. (This is comparable to the calculation of
total braking distance for a motor vehicle. This distance equals the
initial speed of the vehicle times the driver's reaction time plus the
braking distance for the vehicle itself after the brakes have been
applied.) The maximum reach (or range of movement) may place an upper
bound on the ergonomic component, however.
For system voltages up to 72.5 kV, phase-to-phase, much of the work
is performed using rubber gloves, and the employee is working within
arm's reach of energized parts. The ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance must account for this since the employee may not have
time to react and position himself or herself out of danger. A distance
of 610 millimeters (2 feet) for the ergonomic component appears to meet
this criterion and was, in fact, adopted by the NESC subcommittee. OSHA
also accepts this value. Therefore, for voltages of 751 V to 72.5 kV,
the minimum approach distances proposed in Sec. 1926.960 adopt the
electrical component of minimum approach distance plus an ergonomic
component of 0.61 meters (2 feet).
For operations involving lines energized at voltages over 72.5 kV,
the applicable work practices change. Generally, live-line tools are
employed to perform the work while equipment is energized. These tools
hold the energized part at a fixed distance from the employee, ensuring
that the minimum approach distance is maintained during the work
operation. Even when hot sticks are not used, as during live-line bare-
hand work, employees use work methods that more tightly control their
movements than when they perform rubber glove work, and it is usually
easier to plan ahead of time how to keep employees from violating the
minimum approach distance. For example, employees planning a job to
replace spacers on a 500-kV overhead power line can use an envelope (or
bounds) of anticipated movement for the job and ensure that the work
procedure they use keeps this envelope entirely outside the minimum
approach distance. All the employees' movements during the job would be
kept within the envelope. Additionally, exposure to conductors at a
potential different from the one on which work is being performed is
limited or nonexistent. This is because the distance between conductors
is much greater than the distance between conductors at lower voltages
and because higher voltage systems do not present the types of
congestion that are commonly found on lower voltage systems. Therefore,
a smaller ergonomic component is appropriate for the higher voltages.
The NESC subcommittee accepted a value of 0.31 meters (1 foot) for this
component. OSHA has adopted this distance as well. Therefore, for
voltages over 72.5 kV, the minimum approach distances proposed in Sec.
1926.960 adopt the electrical component of the minimum approach
distance plus an ergonomic component of 0.31 meters (1 foot).
The ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance is only
considered a safety factor that protects employees in case of errors in
judging and maintaining the full minimum approach distance, so that the
employee does not breach the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance. The actual working position selected must account
for the full range of movements that could normally be anticipated \33\
while an employee is working. Otherwise, the employee would violate the
minimum approach distance while he or she is working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Anticipated movements include those necessary to perform
the work as well as ``unexpected'' movements that an employee could
reasonably be anticipated to perform, such as adjusting his or her
hard hat, clothing, or equipment. See Appendix B to Subpart V for a
discussion of the selection of working position with respect to
minimum approach distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design of electric power circuits over 72.5 kV sometimes does
not provide sufficient clearance between energized parts at different
potential or between energized parts and grounded surfaces to permit
employees to maintain the base minimum approach distances given in
proposed Table V-2. The Agency has adopted the approach of the NESC
subcommittee in the proposal to permit work on such systems so long as
additional measures are taken to reduce the required minimum approach
distance. Proposed Table V-3, Table V-4, and Table V-5 recognize the use
of gaps and other means of decreasing the surge factor on energized lines
as acceptable methods of reducing the required minimum approach distance.\34\
These tables list minimum approach distances for various surge factors and
phase-to-phase voltages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The decreased surge factor reduces the maximum transient
voltage on the line and thus reduces the electrical component of the
minimum approach distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal thus provides smaller minimum approach distances for
systems with surge factors that are limited by means such as system
design, switching controls, and temporary protective gaps. Frequently,
built-in or temporary limits on the surge factor on a system can result
in a minimum approach distance that is small enough to permit work to
be performed without additional protective measures. Because the line
worker cannot determine surge factors at the jobsite, surge factor
reduction is permitted only when the employer can demonstrate, through
engineering analysis, that the possible surges on the line will be held
to values no more than permitted under Table V-3, Table V-4, and Table
V-5. Methods of controlling and determining the surge factor for a
system are given in Appendix B to proposed Subpart V.
OSHA accepted the principles adopted by the NESC subcommittee in
forming the minimum approach distance tables in final Sec. 1910.269.
OSHA reviewed the technical information supporting the subcommittee's
action and found that the data justify the NESC criteria. After the
adoption of final Sec. 1910.269, the NESC Committee issued a tentative
interim amendment correcting some errors in calculating the minimum
approach distances published in ANSI C2-1993. The same minimum approach
distances are contained in the latest edition of that standard, ANSI
C2-2002. In Table V-2 through Table V-6, OSHA is proposing to adopt the
NESC minimum approach distances, as corrected.\35\ The Agency believes
that this will protect employees from all likely exposure conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ OSHA is also proposing to make similar changes to Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Table V-5 contains minimum approach distances for d-c
voltages between 250 and 750 kilovolts, nominal. These distances have
been taken directly from Table R-9 of Sec. 1910.269. Since systems of
d-c voltages other than those listed are rare, no distances were
presented for them in the table.
As noted earlier, proposed Table V-3 through Table V-5 permit
reduced minimum approach distances for systems having known maximum
transient overvoltages. These tables are based on Table R-7 through
Table R-9 of Sec. 1910.269.
The minimum approach distances proposed in Subpart V for voltages
over 750 volts are intended to provide a sufficient gap between the
worker and the line so that current could not arc to the employee under
the most adverse transient voltage that could be imposed on the line,
plus an extra amount for inadvertent movement on the part of the
employee. The electrical component of these distances is based on
scientific and engineering test data, and the ergonomic component is
based on the conditions likely to be present for the different types of
work to be performed on electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution circuits. By contrast, the minimum approach distances in
existing Subpart V were based on standard industry practice in effect
in 1972, when that standard was promulgated. OSHA believes that the
proposed minimum approach distances, which are based on sound
engineering principles, will provide significantly better protection
for employees than the existing standard.
Table R-6 in existing Sec. 1910.269 specifies ``avoid contact'' as
the minimum approach distance for voltages between 50 and 1,000 volts.
To make the proposal consistent with ANSI C2, OSHA is proposing to
adopt minimum approach distances of 0.31 meters (1 foot) for voltages
between 301 volts and 750 volts and 0.65 meters (2 feet, 2 inches) for
voltages between 751 volts and 15 kilovolts. This increase in the
minimum approach distance at the lower voltages should help prevent
employees from contacting circuit parts energized at these still
dangerous levels.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ OSHA is also proposing to make similar changes to Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal allows employees to come closer than the minimum
approach distance to energized parts under certain conditions, as
listed in proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii).
Existing Sec. 1926.950(c)(1)(i), from which proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1)(i) has been taken, permits the employee to be insulated,
guarded, or isolated from the live parts. The language specifically
recognizing guarding and isolation has been omitted from the proposal.
However, it should be noted that the introductory language in final
Sec. 1926.960(c)(1) requires minimum approach distances to be
maintained from ``exposed'' energized parts. Guarded live parts,
whether they are guarded by enclosures or barriers or are guarded by
position (isolated), are not addressed by this requirement as they
would not be considered ``exposed.'' Including language exempting live
parts that are ``guarded'' or ``isolated'' would be redundant and could
lead to misinterpretation of the rule. Additionally, similar
redundancies in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of Sec. 1926.950 have
not been carried forward into paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) of
proposed Sec. 1926.960. To clarify the rule, however, a note has been
included following paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to indicate that parts of
electric circuits meeting paragraph (f)(1) of Sec. 1926.966 are not
considered as ``exposed'' unless a guard is removed or an employee
enters the space intended to provide isolation from the live parts.
Proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1)(i) contains the first exception to
maintaining the minimum approach distances--insulating the employee
from the energized part. This insulation, for example, can take the
form of rubber insulating gloves and rubber insulating sleeves. This
equipment protects the employee from electric shock as he or she works
on the line or equipment. Even though uninsulated parts of the
employee's body may come closer to the live part being worked on than
would otherwise be permitted by Table V-2 through Table V-6, the
employee's hand and arm would be insulated from the live part, and the
working distances involved would be sufficient protection against arc-
over. As noted earlier, the minimum approach distance tables include a
component for inadvertent movement, which is unnecessary for employees
using rubber insulating equipment. In the worst case situation, an
employee would be working on a line requiring a 0.84-meter (2-foot, 9-
inch) minimum approach distance. The electrical component of this
minimum approach distance is 0.23 meters (9 inches).\37\ The distance
from the hand to the elbow is about 0.3 meters (1 foot), and it would
be nearly impossible to work closer than this distance to a line being
held in the hand. Therefore, the employee would be about 0.3 meters (1
foot) away from the conductor at a minimum, and, thus, in the worst
case would still be more than the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance from the conductor. This would protect the employee
from sparkover. In any event, the accident data in the record show that
the overriding hazard to employees is posed by other energized conductors
in the work area, to which the minimum approach distances still apply.
The rubber gloves, of course, provide protection only for the line on
which work is being performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The minimum approach distance for 36.1 to 46.0 kV, the
highest voltage range that can be worked using rubber insulating
gloves, is 0.84 meters (2 feet, 9 inches). The electrical component
of the minimum approach distance is the minimum approach distance
minus the ergonomic component, 0.65 meters (2 feet), which equals
0.23 meters (9 inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to ensure that conductors on which the employee is
working cannot move unexpectedly while the employee is protected
against contact only by rubber insulating gloves and sleeves. It would
be considered a violation of the minimum approach distance requirement
proposed in Sec. 1926.960(c)(1) for an employee to be insulated from
an energized part only by rubber insulating gloves and sleeves if the
part is not under the full control of the employee at all times. OSHA
is making this explicit in the parenthetical text in proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1)(i) (and also in proposed Sec. 1910.269(l)(2)(i)). For
example, if an employee were cutting a conductor, that conductor would
either need to be restrained from moving toward the employee after
being cut or additional insulation would have to be used to protect the
conductor from striking uninsulated parts of the employee's body.
The insulation used would have to be designed for the voltage.
(Proposed new Sec. 1926.97 gives use voltages for electrical
protective equipment.) As a clarification, paragraph (c)(1)(i) notes
that the insulation is considered as protection only against parts upon
which work is being performed; the required minimum approach distances
would have to be maintained from other exposed energized parts.
As a second exception to maintaining the minimum approach
distances, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed Sec. 1926.960 allows the
energized part to be insulated from the employee. Such insulation could
be in the form of insulating blankets or line hose or other suitable
insulating equipment. Again, the insulation would have to be adequate
for the voltage.
Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) recognize the protection
afforded to the employee by an insulating barrier between the employee
and the energized part. As long as the insulation is appropriate and is
in good condition, current will not flow through the worker, and he or
she is protected.
The third exception (paragraph (c)(1)(iii)) to the maintenance of
the minimum approach distances is to insulate the employee from exposed
conductive objects other than the live part upon which work is to be
performed. Much of the work performed under this option is called
``live-line bare-hand'' work. (For specific practices for this type of
work, see the discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.964(c).) In this type
of work, the employee is in contact with the energized line, like a
bird on a wire, but is not contacting another conductive object at a
different potential. Because there is no complete circuit, current
cannot flow through the worker, and he or she is protected.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires employees to maintain minimum approach
distances from ``exposed'' energized parts, except as noted above. A
note following paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that parts of electric
circuits meeting paragraph (f)(1) of Sec. 1926.966 are not considered
as ``exposed'' unless a guard is removed or an employee enters the
space intended to provide isolation from the live parts.
Several accidents occurred when employees working from aerial
lifts, either insulated or uninsulated, grabbed an energized conductor.
OSHA is concerned that some employers may believe that this practice is
safe without following the procedures outlined in proposed Sec.
1926.964(c) on live-line bare-hand work. OSHA requests comments on
whether or not the proposed rule will adequately protect employees from
this type of accident and on what additional requirements, if any, are
needed to prevent this type of accident.
According to testimony in the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking, between
five and six percent of accidents experienced by power line workers
were caused when the upper arm of an employee wearing rubber insulating
gloves without sleeves contacted an energized part (269-DC Tr. 558-
561).\38\ This is a significant portion of the total number of serious
accidents occurring among electric line workers. The Agency believes
that these injuries and fatalities are clearly preventable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ OSHA believes that most, if not all, of these accidents
involved contact with conductors and equipment other than the one on
which the employee had been working. It would be very unlikely that
an employee would touch his upper arm or shoulder against the part
on which he or she was working with his or her hands. On the other
hand, it would be more likely that the employee touched his or her
upper arm or shoulder against a different live part than the one on
which he or she is working. The employee's attention would be on the
live part on which work is being performed but might not be on other
nearby live parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of rubber insulating sleeves would certainly have prevented
most of these accidents. However, as demonstrated by the safety record
of some electric utility companies, the extensive use of insulating
equipment to cover energized parts in the employee's work area would
also appear to prevent employees' upper arms and shoulders from
contacting live parts (269-Ex. 46). In fact, if every energized part
within reach of an employee was insulated, electrical contacts
involving other parts of the body, such as an employee's head or back,
would be averted as well. The NESC subcommittee on work rules also
recognized this method as providing protection to employees.
Existing Subpart V does not require any protection for employees
working on or near exposed live parts beyond the use of rubber
insulating gloves. To prevent the types of accidents described above
from occurring in the future, the Agency has decided to require
protection in addition to that required by existing Subpart V.
The proposal includes a provision, Sec. 1926.960(c)(2)(i), that
would require the use of rubber insulating sleeves (in addition to
rubber insulating gloves), unless live parts that could contact an
employee's upper arm or shoulder are insulated. Employees would be able
to work without sleeves by installing rubber line hose, rubber
blankets, and plastic guard equipment on energized equipment. However,
an employee installing such protective equipment on energized lines
would have to wear rubber sleeves unless his or her upper arms and
shoulders are not exposed to contact with other live parts during this
operation.
OSHA believes that paragraph (c)(2)(i) incorporates the most
effective approach to preventing accidents involving work on or near
exposed live parts.
Several accidents have occurred while employees were performing
work (generally on deenergized lines) near energized parts without
using rubber insulating equipment. Because the employees were
concentrating on their work, which did not involve the energized parts,
the employees did not pay attention to the distance between them and
the energized parts and violated the minimum approach distance. When
OSHA cited the employers for violations of existing Sec. 1926.950(c),
the employers successfully argued that the standard permits employees
to work near energized parts without the use of electrical protective
equipment, as long as they maintain the minimum approach distance
involved. They further argued that, because they require their
employees to maintain these distances and because their employees have
been trained, the accidents were a result of unpreventable employee
misconduct. (See, for example, Central Kansas Power Co., Inc., 6 OSHC
(BNA) 2118, 1978 WL 6886 (No. 77-3127, 1978).)
OSHA does not believe that working very close to, but not on,
energized parts without the use of electrical protective equipment is a
safe practice. The Agency further believes that Sec. 1910.269, which
also allows this practice, is not effective in preventing these
accidents and has concluded that further regulation is warranted.
Toward this end, OSHA has gone beyond Sec. 1910.269 by proposing two
additional requirements:\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ OSHA is also proposing to make similar changes to Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) If work is performed near exposed parts energized at more than
600 volts but not more than 72.5 kilovolts and if the employee is not
insulated from the energized parts or performing live-line bare-hand
work, the employee would have to work from a position where the
employee would not be able to reach into the minimum approach distance
(proposed Sec. 1926.960(d)(2)), and
(2) If the employee is to be insulated from energized parts by the
use of insulating gloves or insulating gloves with sleeves, the
insulating gloves and sleeves would have to be put on and removed in a
position where the employee would not be able to reach into the minimum
approach distance (proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(2)(ii)).
These two provisions taken together will ensure that an employee
working near energized parts will not be able to reach within the
minimum approach distance unless using rubber insulating equipment.
Thus, any time an employee is within reach of the minimum approach
distance, he or she would need to be wearing rubber insulating gloves
or the energized parts would need to be insulated from the employee,
and any employee who is not protected by insulating equipment would
need to stay far enough away from energized parts that he or she could
not reach within the minimum approach distance.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would ensure that employees don
rubber insulating gloves and sleeves from a safe position. OSHA is
aware that some employers have a ground-to-ground rule requiring their
employees to wear rubber insulating gloves before leaving the ground to
work on energized lines or equipment and to leave the gloves and
sleeves on until the employees return to the ground. This practice
ensures that employees are indeed wearing the rubber gloves and sleeves
before they reach the energized area and eliminates the chance that an
employee will forget to don the protective equipment once he or she
reaches the work position. Other employers simply require their
employees to put their gloves and sleeves on before they enter the
energized area. This practice normally requires the employee to use his
or her judgment in determining where to begin wearing the protective
equipment. The proposal recognizes both methods of protecting
employees, but ensures that the rubber gloves and sleeves are being
worn once the employee reaches a position from which he or she can
reach into the minimum approach distance. The Agency requests comments
on the need for this requirement and on whether or not the provision as
proposed will protect employees from the hazards involved.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would ensure that an employee who is not
insulated from parts energized between 600 volts and 72.5 kilovolts is
working at a safe distance from the parts. This provision does not
apply to voltages of 600 volts and less to permit work on equipment
without requiring the employee to cover energized parts unnecessarily.
Much of the work performed at these lower voltages involves the use of
insulating hand tools in a panelboard or cabinet. The chance of
contacting a live part with the shoulder is extremely low because of
the layout of live parts within the enclosure. The electrical
clearances between energized parts for voltages in this range are small
enough that all energized circuit parts will normally be in front of
the employee, enabling the worker to maintain the required minimum
approach distance easily. The proposed paragraph does not apply when
the voltage exceeds 72.5 kilovolts, because the minimum approach
distances generally become greater beyond this voltage and because
rubber insulating equipment cannot be used for these higher
voltages.\40\ OSHA requests comments on the need for this requirement
and on whether there are other effective means of protecting employees
from the hazard involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The maximum use voltage for Class 4 rubber insulating
equipment is 36 kilovolts. The highest voltage on which this
equipment can be used is 62 kilovolts if there is no multiphase
exposure. This voltage falls in the Table V-1 range of 46.1 to 72.5
kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.960 would require employees
to position themselves, to the extent that other safety-related
conditions at the worksite permit, so that a shock or slip would not
cause the worker's body to move towards exposed parts at a potential
different from that of the employee. Since slips, and even electric
shocks, are not entirely preventable, it is important for the employee
to take a working position so that such an event will not increase the
severity of any incurred injury. This proposed requirement was taken
from Sec. 1910.269(l)(3). There is no counterpart to this requirement
in existing Subpart V.
The Agency believes that it is important for an employee to work
from a position where a slip or a shock will not bring him or her into
contact with an energized part unless other conditions, such as the
configuration of the lines involved, would make another working
position safer. The position taken must be the most protective
available to accomplish the task. In certain situations, this work
position may not be the most efficient one. The language proposed in
Sec. 1926.960(d)(1) recognizes situations that preclude working from a
position from which a slip would bring the employee into contact with a
live part. The language contained in this provision also allows such
options as guarding or insulating the live part as alternative means of
compliance.
Connecting and disconnecting lines and equipment. Paragraph (e)
addresses the practices of connecting and disconnecting lines and
equipment. Common industry practice, as reflected in ANSI C2-2002,
Section 443F, is to make a connection so that the source is connected
as the last item in sequence and to break a connection so that the
source is removed as the first item in sequence. In this way,
conducting wires and devices used to make and break the connection are
deenergized during almost the entire procedure. These practices would
be required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2). Since these wires and
devices must be handled during the procedure, the proposed requirements
would reduce the chance for an electrical accident. Also, to prevent
the disconnected conductors from being energized, loose ends of
conductors must be kept away from live parts, as would be required by
paragraph (e)(3). These three proposed provisions, which have no
counterparts in existing Subpart V, have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(l)(5).
Paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 1926.960, which was taken from
Sec. 1910.269(l)(6)(i), would prohibit the wearing of conductive
articles by employees working within reach of exposed live parts of
equipment if these articles would increase the hazards associated with
accidental contact with the live parts. If an employee wants to wear
metal jewelry, he or she can cover the jewelry so as to eliminate the
contact hazard. This requirement is not intended to preclude workers
from wearing metal rings or watch bands if the work being performed
already exposes them to electric shock hazards and if the wearing of
metal would not increase the hazards. (For example, for work performed
on an overhead line, the wearing of a ring does not increase the likelihood
that an employee would contact the line, nor would it increase the severity
of the injury should contact occur.) However, this requirement would protect
employees working on energized circuits with small clearances and high current
capacities (such as some battery-supplied circuits) from severe burn hazards to
which they would otherwise be exposed. The rule also protects workers
who are only minimally exposed to shock hazards from being injured as a
result of a dangling chain's making contact with a energized part. This
provision has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Protection from electric arcs. Proposed paragraph (g) addresses
clothing worn by an employee. After reviewing the rulemaking record on
Sec. 1910.269, OSHA determined that electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers face a significant risk of
injury from burns due to electric arcs (January 31, 1994, 59 FR 4388-
4389). OSHA also concluded that certain fabrics increase the extent of
injuries to employees caught in an electric arc or otherwise exposed to
flames. Therefore, the Agency adopted two rules: (1) paragraph
(l)(6)(ii) of Sec. 1910.269, which requires that employees exposed to
flames and electric arcs be trained in the hazards related to the
clothing that they wear, and (2) paragraph (l)(6)(iii) which prohibits
apparel that could increase the extent of injuries received by a worker
who is exposed to a flame or electric arc. OSHA also included a note
following paragraph (l)(6)(iii) to indicate the types of clothing
fabrics that the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record demonstrated were
hazardous to wear by employees exposed to electric arcs.
Since Sec. 1910.269(l)(6)(iii) became effective on November 1,
1994, employees have continued to suffer burn injuries working on
energized lines and equipment. From January 1, 1990, to October 30,
1994, there were 46 accidents investigated by Federal or State OSHA
involving burns that would have been addressed by Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(iii). These 46 accidents resulted in 71 total injuries.
Averaged over this period, there were 9.5 accidents and 14.7 injuries
per year. From November 1, 1994, to December 31, 1998, there were 17
such accidents resulting in 26 injuries. Averaged over this period,
there were 4.0 accidents and 6.2 injuries per year. Thus, while the
clothing rule in Sec. 1910.269 appears to have helped reduce the
number of accidents and injuries by more than 50 percent, for two
reasons, OSHA believes that the remaining risk of burn injury is still
serious and significant. First, these accidents represent only a small
fraction of those that have actually occurred during this time.
Employers are only required to report to the Agency accidents involving
fatalities or three or more hospitalized injuries. OSHA does not
investigate accidents that are not reported by employers (that is,
those involving two or fewer hospitalized employees and no deaths)
unless it results in extensive property damage or presents potential
worker injury and generates widespread media interest. (See OSHA
directives CPL 02-00-103 and CPL 02-00-094.) Consequently, most injury-
producing accidents, even serious ones, are not investigated by the
Agency. Second, the reported burn injuries are very serious and costly.
Eighty-four percent of the burn injuries were fatalities or required
hospitalization. Eighty-seven percent of the accidents for which the
severity of the injury was noted involved third-degree burns. Such
burns are extremely painful and costly, typically requiring skin grafts
and leaving permanent scars.
OSHA's existing clothing requirement in Sec. 1910.269 does not
require employers to protect employees from electric arcs through the
use of flame-resistant clothing. It simply requires that an employee's
clothing do no greater harm. Because of the serious nature of the still
remaining risk to power workers from electric arcs, the Agency believes
that the standard should be revised to require the use of flame-
resistant clothing, under certain circumstances, to protect employees
from the most severe burns. The electric power industry is beginning to
recognize this need as evidenced by the many employers who provide
flame-resistant clothing to employees, by the work of ASTM in writing
standards that provide for arc ratings of protective clothing, and by
the ongoing work towards a protective standard by the committee
responsible for writing work rules for the NESC. The National Fire
Protection Association also recognizes the need to protect employees
working on energized equipment from the hazards posed by electric arcs.
In addition, when Sec. 1910.269 was promulgated, there were no
standards for clothing to protect employees from the thermal hazards
resulting from electric arcs. Since then, ASTM has adopted such
standards. These standards ensure not only that clothing does not
ignite but that it is rated to provide protection against a given level
of heat energy. Apparel that meets the ASTM standards is labeled with
the amount of heat energy that it can absorb under laboratory test
conditions without letting through sufficient heat to cause a second-
degree burn. Clothing is currently widely available in ratings from
about 4 cal/cm2 to over 50 cal/cm2. In general,
the higher the rating, the heavier the clothing.
As described more fully below, OSHA has decided to propose a rule
that would require employers to estimate the heat energy from electric
arcs that may be encountered by employees and to provide clothing that
will be flame resistant if it could be ignited when an electrical fault
occurs and that can protect against the estimated level of energy when
an electric arc occurs. The Agency believes that this rule, which is
proposed in Sec. 1926.960(g), will ensure that employees wear
protective clothing that is reasonably protective for the hazards they
are facing.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ OSHA is also proposing to make similar changes in Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.960 would require the
employer to assess the workplace to determine if employees are exposed
to hazards from flames or electric arcs. This provision ensures that
the employer evaluates employee exposure to flames and electric arcs so
that employees who do face such exposures can be protected. Because
Sec. 1926.960 applies to work performed on or near energized parts of
electric circuits, employers can base a portion of the assessment
required by paragraph (g)(1) on a determination of which employees
perform energized work covered by this section. It should be noted,
however, that until a line or part of an electric circuit has been
completely deenergized following the procedures required by Sec.
1926.961, including any required testing and grounding, the line or
part would have to be treated as energized.
Once an employer determines who is exposed to hazards from flames
or electric arcs, the next step in protecting these employees is a
determination of the extent of the hazard. Paragraph (g)(2) would
require the employer to estimate the maximum amount of heat energy to
which employees would be exposed. This estimate can be used in the
selection of protective clothing, as discussed later.
OSHA is aware of various methods of calculating values of available
heat energy from an electric circuit. These methods are listed in Table
IV-7. Each method requires the input of various parameters, such as fault
current, the expected length of the electric arc, the distance from the arc to
the employee, and the clearing time for the fault (that is, the time
the circuit protective devices take to open the circuit and clear the
fault). Some of these parameters, such as the fault current and the
clearing time, are known quantities for a given system. Other
parameters, such as the length of the arc and the distance between the
arc and the employee, vary widely and can only be estimated. OSHA is
not endorsing any of the methods listed in Table IV-7. The Agency
requests comments and information on these and any other available
methods of calculating incident heat energy from electric arcs.
Table IV-7.--Methods of Calculating Incident Heat Energy From an
Electric Arc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces,
NFPA 70E-2004, Annex D, ``Sample Calculation of Flash Protection
Boundary.''
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, and Floyd II, H.L., ``Predicting Incident Energy
to Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V Power Distribution
Systems,'' Record of Conference papers IEEE IAS 45th Annual Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Conference, September 28-30, 1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan
Privette (widely available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by
Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of heat energy calculated by any of the methods is
approximately proportional to the square of the distance between the
employee and the arc. In other words, if the employee is very close to
the arc, the heat energy is very high; but if he or she is just a few
more centimeters away, the heat energy drops substantially.
In addition, the fault current and clearing time are
interdependent. Typically, the higher the fault current, the shorter
the clearing time. It is quite possible that the maximum heat energy
will result from a fault current that is well below maximum but that
results in a relatively long clearing time. In order to calculate the
worst case heat energy, an employer would have to perform a range of
calculations for each system area.
Furthermore, the method of calculation can affect the results. Each
method yields somewhat different values using the same input
parameters. This is partly because of the unpredictability of an
electric arc and partly because of the different ways the methods were
developed. Some, like the NFPA 70E method, are based in theory. Others,
like the IEEE 1584 method, are based on empirical data. Whichever
method is used, it is important to use it within its limitations. For
example, the values produced by the Heat Flux Calculator must be
adjusted if employees are exposed to energy from a multiphase fault or
if the heat energy would be reflected by nearby surfaces.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ This exposure is known as ``arc in a box.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the variability imposed by these factors, OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that it is not possible to predict exactly how
much energy an employee would face if an electric arc occurs. On the
other hand, it is clear that when more electrical energy is available
more heat will be generated by an electric arc and the potential for
severe injury is greater. The Agency believes that greater protection
is warranted when greater hazards exist. Thus, OSHA is proposing a
standard that requires reasonable, but not exact, estimates of the heat
energy to which an employee could be exposed.
Additionally, OSHA is not proposing a standard based entirely on
worst-case exposure. The worst case occurs when an electric arc powered
by the maximum available fault current is against an employee's skin.
In such cases, the distance between the employee and the arc is zero,
and the energy is extremely high even for relatively low-current arcs.
The Agency does not believe it is reasonable to require a
correspondingly high degree of protection for relatively low-energy
arcs, which would put employees in very heavy clothing.
On the other hand, OSHA believes that it is appropriate for the
employer to provide a level of protection that is reasonably related to
the thermal hazard involved. A 50-cal/cm2 exposure calls for
more protection than a 5-cal/cm2 exposure. Although none of
the methods can predict precisely how much heat energy an employee will
face, they do provide a good indication of the relative severity of the
exposure and the approximate level of protection needed. Thus, the
Agency is proposing a rule that it believes requires reasonable
estimates of the amount of heat energy an employee is likely to face
and to provide a corresponding level of protection. OSHA requests
comments on whether the proposed rule requires an appropriate level of
protection and clearly defines employer obligations with respect to the
estimates of the maximum available heat energy.
Two notes following proposed Sec. 1926.960(g)(2) help explain how
to comply with the rule. The first note states that Appendix F to
Subpart V provides guidance on the estimation of available heat energy.
This appendix discusses various methods of estimating electric arc heat
energy levels and provides tables that can also be used for this
purpose. OSHA requests comments on this appendix and on whether
additional information is available to help employers and employees
estimate available heat energy. The second note indicates that the
employer may use broad estimates representing multiple system areas if
the employer uses reasonable assumptions about the exposure
distribution throughout the system and if those estimates represent the
maximum exposure for those particular areas. This note clarifies that
the rule is not intended to require separate calculations for each job
or task.
Much of the flame-resistant clothing available today comes with an
arc rating.\43\ In basic terms, an arc rating indicates that a fabric
is not expected to transfer sufficient thermal energy to cause a
second-degree burn when tested under standard laboratory conditions
exposing the fabric to an electric arc that radiates an energy at or
below the rating.\44\ Proposed paragraph (g)(5) would require that
employees who are exposed to hazards from electric arcs wear clothing
with an arc rating greater than or equal to the heat energy estimated
under proposed paragraph (g)(2). This clothing will protect employees
exposed to various levels of heat energy from sustaining severe burn
injuries in areas covered by the clothing. The note following paragraph
(g) explains that Appendix F to Subpart V contains information on the
selection of appropriate clothing. This appendix contains information on
the ignition threshold of various fabrics, the thermal performance of
typical arc-rated clothing, ways of estimating available heat energy,
and ways of selecting clothing to protect employees from burn injuries
resulting from electric arcs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The ASTM standards governing arc rating require the fabric
being tested to be flame resistant. Thus, no nonflame-resistant
clothing has an arc rating.
\44\ Arc rating is defined in ASTM F1506-02ae1,
Standard Performance Specification for Flame Resistant Textile
Materials for Wearing Apparel for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed
to Momentary Electric Arc and Related Thermal Hazards: ``a value
that indicates the arc performance of a material or system of
materials. It is either the arc thermal performance value (ATPV) or
breakdown threshold energy (EBT), when the ATPV cannot be
determined by Test Method F1959.'' ASTM F1959-99 defines ATPV as
``in arc testing, the incident energy on a fabric or material that
results in sufficient heat transfer through the fabric or material
to cause the onset of a second-degree burn based on the Stoll
curve.'' That same standard defines EBT as ``the average
of the five highest incident energy exposure values below the Stoll
curve where the specimens do not exhibit breakopen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with the requirements for the employer to assess hazards
(proposed paragraph (g)(2)) and for employees to wear clothing with a
rating appropriate for this assessment (proposed paragraph (g)(5)),
there are still situations that could arise under which an employee's
clothing could ignite and lead to severe burn injuries. For example, an
employee wearing a cotton-polyester blend jacket over his or her arc-
rated shirt could be injured if the jacket ignites or melts when an
electric arc occurs. Thus, OSHA is proposing, in paragraphs (g)(3) and
(g)(4), additional provisions intended to prevent the ignition or
melting of an employee's clothing.
Proposed Sec. 1926.960(g)(3) would prohibit clothing that could
either melt onto an employee's skin or ignite and continue to burn.
This rule is equivalent to existing Sec. 1910.269(l)(6)(iii).\45\ This
proposed provision would ensure that employees exposed to electric arcs
do not wear clothing presenting the most severe burn hazards. A note
following this provision lists fabrics that are specifically prohibited
unless the employer demonstrates that the clothing is treated or worn
to eliminate the hazard. This note is the same as the note following
existing Sec. 1910.269(l)(6)(iii). OSHA requests comments on whether
additional fabrics pose similar hazards and should be added to the
note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The existing rule prohibits clothing that could increase
the extent of injuries to an employee if an electric arc occurs. The
Agency interprets this rule as prohibiting clothing that could melt
or that could ignite and continue to burn in the presence of an
electric arc faced by an employee (Memorandum to the Field from
James W. Stanley, ``Guidelines for the Enforcement of the Apparel
Standard, 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(6), of the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution Standard'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would require employees to wear flame-
resistant clothing whenever: (1) The employee is exposed to contact
with live parts energized at more than 600 volts (paragraph (g)(4)(i));
(2) the employee's clothing could be ignited by nearby flammable
material that could be ignited by an electric arc (paragraph
(g)(4)(ii)); or (3) the employee's clothing could be ignited by molten
metal or electric arcs from faulted conductors in the work area
(paragraph (g)(4)(iii)). (A note to proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iii)
indicates that this provision does not apply to conductors capable of
carrying the maximum available fault current. The design of the
installation is intended to prevent these conductors from melting.) The
listed conditions are those in which employees' clothing has been
ignited in several of the burn accidents examined by OSHA.
OSHA could have, more simply, required clothing that could not
ignite and continue to burn under the heat energy conditions estimated
pursuant to proposed paragraph (g)(2). However, as noted earlier, these
estimates do not entirely reflect the heat energy produced by worst
case conditions. If the other parameters affecting the energy in an arc
are held constant, the heat energy rises exponentially with decreasing
distance between the arc and the employee. Thus, an electric arc that
touches an employee's clothing releases much more energy than the same
arc at a distance equal to the minimum approach distance. For example,
the heat energy from a 51-millimeter-long arc, generated by 20
kiloamperes of fault current at 15 kilovolts, and clearing in 6 cycles
is 1.23 cal/cm2 if the arc is 650 millimeters away, but is
1971 cal/cm2 if the arc is 10 millimeters away.\46\ None of
the common fabrics listed in Table 11 in Appendix F to Subpart V
(explained below) would ignite if the arc was 650 millimeters away from
the employee, but every one would ignite if the arc was only 10
millimeters away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ These heat energy estimates are calculated using ARCPRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The closest an electric arc was to an employee in electric power
accidents over the years 1991 to 1998 occurred in 17 cases in which an
employee contacted an energized conductor or was touching the electric
arc. In eight of those cases, an employee's clothing apparently
ignited.\47\ On the other hand, none of the accidents involved contact
with circuit parts energized at 600 volts or less. OSHA believes that
the cases that have occurred demonstrate a significant risk that an
employee's clothing could ignite and cause serious, even fatal, burn
injuries from ignited clothing when an employee contacts circuit parts
energized at more than 600 volts. Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that an employee must wear flame-resistant clothing any time
he or she is subject to contact with live parts energized at more than
600 volts. The Agency requests comments on whether the requirements for
flame-resistant clothing in proposed Sec. 1926.960(g)(4) are
reasonable and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The accident description indicated that the clothing
ignited or stated that the extent of the burns or the location of
the burns was such that clothing ignition was likely to have
occurred. For example, in one case, a 4100-volt conductor fell onto
an employee's chest. The employee survived the electric shock but
died from second- and third-degree burns over 60 percent of his
body. The electrical burns from the contact were probably localized
to the area near the point of contact. It is likely that the
employee's clothing ignited to cause burns that were spread over 60
percent of his body though the accident description did not state
that clothing ignition occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is not proposing to require a specific level of protection for
skin that is not covered by clothing. Employees' hands, which are
frequently the closest body part to an electric arc, would typically be
protected by rubber insulating gloves and leather protectors when the
employee's hands are at greatest risk of injury. Although neither
rubber insulating gloves nor leather protectors have arc ratings,
because of their weight and thickness, they typically provide greater
protection from electric arcs than light-weight flame-resistant
clothing. Their protective value is borne out in the accident data--
none of the burn injuries to employees hands involved an employee
wearing rubber insulating gloves. OSHA requests comments on whether the
standard should require complete protection for an employee's entire
body.
Payment for Protective Clothing. As described earlier, OSHA is
requiring employers to ensure that their employees (1) wear flame-
resistant clothing under certain hazardous conditions, and (2) when
working on energized parts of the electric power system, wear clothing
with an arc rating greater than or equal to potential heat energy
exposures estimated for those parts. OSHA considers the protective
clothing required by paragraph (g) to be PPE. The protective clothing
would reduce the degree of injury sustained by an employee when an
electric arc occurs. In some cases, the clothing would prevent injury
altogether. Unlike many OSHA standards, the proposal would not require
that employers provide protective clothing at no cost to employees.
However, OSHA is considering including an employer-payment requirement
in the final rule and is seeking comments on the issue.
OSHA has a longstanding policy that employers must provide and pay
for PPE, except, in some cases, where the PPE is personal in nature and
usable by the employee off of the job. This policy is supported by the
plain language of the OSH Act and its legislative history. (For a
complete discussion of OSHA's policy, see OSHA's preamble to the
employer payment for PPE proposal, 64 FR 15402 (March 31, 1999).) Many
OSHA health standards include language explicitly stating that
employers must provide PPE ``at no cost'' to employees. See, for
example, 29 CFR 1910.1018(h)(2)(i) and (j) (inorganic arsenic); 29
CFR 1910.1025(f)(1) and (g)(1) (lead); and 29 CFR 1910.1048(g)(1) and (h) (formaldehyde).
The regulatory text and preamble of some safety standards also make clear
that employers must pay for PPE. See 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(4)(iv) (confined spaces);
and 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(iii) (logging).
Because not every OSHA standard explicitly states that employers
must pay for PPE, in 1999, OSHA proposed regulatory language to clarify
that employers are responsible for the cost of PPE, with only a few
exceptions (64 FR 15402). The proposal added language to OSHA's general
industry, shipyard, construction, marine terminal, and longshoring
standards that ``[a]ll protective equipment, including [PPE] * * *
shall be provided by the employer at no cost to employees [64 FR 15441
(emphasis added)].'' Exceptions were given for safety-toe protective
footwear and prescription safety eyewear, provided that the employer
permits them to be worn off of the job site, they are not used in a
manner that makes them unsafe for use off of the job site, and they are
not designed for special use on the job (64 FR 15441). OSHA recently
reopened the rulemaking record on its employer payment for PPE
proposal. to solicit comment on PPE that might be considered tools of
the trade. See 69 FR 41221 (July 8, 2004).
OSHA also recently proposed that employers in general industry,
maritime, and construction, pay for protective clothing for employees
exposed to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). See 69 FR 59465-59466 (Oct. 4,
2004) (``Where a hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin
or eye contact with chromium (VI), the employer shall provide
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to
employees, and shall ensure that employees use such clothing and
equipment.''). The Agency said that employers are in the best position
to select and obtain the appropriate protective clothing and that by
providing and owning protective clothing, the employer will better
maintain the integrity of it (69 FR 59456). The proposal also prohibits
employees from taking contaminated protective clothing home; employers
are responsible for laundering or disposing of contaminated protective
clothing (69 FR 59456).
OSHA believes that requiring employers to pay for the protective
clothing that would be required by this proposal may also improve the
safety of employees. Like Cr(VI), the purchase of protective clothing
may be best handled by electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution employers, who have all of the information related to the
parameters of the electric power system and are in the best position to
select and purchase clothing necessary to protect employees from
injury. Moreover, an employer-payment requirement could also help
ensure that protective clothing is replaced promptly when its
protective qualities erode. Some stakeholders have told OSHA that
employees, if required to pay for their own protective clothing, may
delay replacing damaged protective clothing for financial reasons. Any
delay in replacing an article of protective clothing that has worn
thin, or that contains holes or other openings, could endanger
employees. Such damaged clothing does not provide adequate protection
to employees exposed to electric arcs.
Unlike Cr(VI), however, this proposal contains no prohibition on
employees' taking certain protective clothing home, wearing certain
protective clothing off of the job, and laundering such clothing. OSHA
has not included an employer-payment requirement in this proposal
because it does not have enough information at this time on the types
and weights of protective clothing, if any, that may be routinely worn
outside of work.\48\ There may be certain types of lightweight
protective clothing that employees wear both at work and at home. OSHA
believes it needs more information from the public on this clothing
before including a general requirement that employers pay for
protective clothing. In the PPE payment proposal, OSHA expressly
exempted safety shoes and prescription eyewear from the general
employer-payment requirement, in part because such equipment was
personal in nature and could be used outside of work. See 64 FR 15402.
OSHA is seeking information from the public as to whether protective
clothing worn by employees performing power generation, transmission,
and distribution work falls into this same category of PPE. OSHA is
also incorporating the record of the employer payment for PPE
rulemaking into the record of this rulemaking and will give due
consideration to all relevant comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ OSHA notes that, for ease of analysis only, it has included
a cost to employers for providing protective clothing in its
economic feasibility analysis--in addition to its economic impact
analysis under Executive Order 12866 and the RFA--even though such a
requirement is not expressly included in the proposal. See Section
V, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is seeking comments on its findings on protective clothing
generally in addition to the following specific questions:
1. Are there types or weights of protective clothing that employees
typically wear outside of work? Do employers restrict the types or
weights of protective clothing that employees are allowed to wear
outside of work?
2. Do employers typically provide the types of protective clothing
required by the proposal at no cost to employees? Do some employers
provide certain types or weights of protective clothing at no cost to
employees, while requiring other types or weights of protective
clothing to be paid for by employees? Should OSHA include an employer-
payment requirement for heavier weights or particular types of
protective clothing, but not lighter weights or other types? If so,
please specify what weights or types of protective clothing should be
exempt from an employer-payment requirement.
3. OSHA realizes that in the construction industry crews of
employees are sometimes hired through local unions. This results in a
variable workforce for many contractors. A contractor that hires
employees in this manner may have to buy protective clothing for more
employees than would an employer with a more stable workforce,
particularly for protective clothing that only fits one employee. OSHA
requests comment on whether, given this hiring practice, an employer-
payment requirement is appropriate in the construction industry. Are
there any alternative approaches that would be responsive to this
variable workforce situation and would also be protective of
construction workers performing electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work?
4. Should OSHA not address the payment for protective clothing
specifically in the final rule and, instead, follow the outcome of the
general employer payment for PPE rulemaking?
To protect employees from contacting energized parts, paragraph (h)
of proposed Sec. 1926.960 would require fuses to be installed and
removed using insulated tools or gloves when a terminal is energized at
over 300 volts or when live parts are exposed at any voltage over 50
volts. When an expulsion fuse operates on a fault or overload, the arc
from the fault current erodes the tube of the fuse holder. This
produces a gas that blasts the arc out through the fuse tube vent or
vents, and with it any loose material in the way. Employees could be
injured by the arc blast or by particles blown, by the blast,
in their eyes. Employees should never install or remove such fuses
using gloves alone. Therefore, paragraph (h) would also require
employees installing expulsion-type fuses energized at 300 volts or
more to wear eye protection, would have to use a tool rated for the
voltage, and would have to stand clear of the fuse's exhaust path. This
paragraph, which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, has been
taken from Sec. 1910.269(l)(7).
Paragraph (i) explains that covered conductors are treated under
the standard as uninsulated. (See the definition of ``covered
conductor'' in Sec. 1926.968.) The covering on this type of wire
protects the conductor from the weather but does not provide adequate
insulating value. This provision, which has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(l)(8).
Paragraph (j) proposes a requirement that noncurrent-carrying metal
parts of equipment or devices be treated as energized at the highest
voltage to which they are exposed unless the installation is inspected
and these parts are determined to be grounded. Grounding these parts,
whether by permanent grounds or by the installation of temporary
grounds, would provide protection against ground faults. This
requirement, which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, is based
on Sec. 1910.269(l)(9).
Paragraph (k) would require devices used to open circuits under
load conditions to be designed to interrupt the current involved. It is
hazardous to open a circuit with a device that is not designed to
interrupt current if that circuit is carrying current. Non-load-break
switches used to open a circuit while it is carrying load current could
fail catastrophically, severely injuring or killing any nearby
employee. This requirement, which has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(l)(10).
Section 1926.961, Deenergizing Lines and Equipment for Employee
Protection
Proposed Sec. 1926.961 addresses the deenergizing of electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment for the protection of
employees. Transmission and distribution systems are different from
other energy systems found in general industry or even in the electric
utility industry itself. The hazardous energy control methods for these
systems are necessarily different from those covered under the general
industry generic standard on the control of hazardous energy sources
(Sec. 1910.147). Transmission and distribution lines and equipment are
installed outdoors and are subject to being reenergized by means other
than the normal energy sources. For example, lightning can strike a
line and energize an otherwise deenergized conductor, or a line could
be energized by unknown cogeneration sources not under the control of
the employer. Additionally, some deenergized transmission and
distribution lines are subject to being reenergized by induced voltage
from nearby energized conductors or by contact with other energized
sources of electrical energy. Another difference is that energy control
devices are often very remote from the worksite and are frequently
under the centralized control of a system operator.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing to cover the control of
hazardous energy sources related to transmission and distribution
systems. This is the same approach used in Sec. 1910.269. In fact, the
requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.961 have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(m). Existing Subpart V also contains procedures for
deenergizing transmission and distribution installations. The
differences between the existing requirements, which are contained in
Sec. 1926.950(d), and those proposed in Sec. 1926.961 are discussed
later in this preamble.
In addition to setting forth the application of Sec. 1926.961,
paragraph (a) explains that conductors and equipment that have not been
deenergized under the procedures of Sec. 1926.961 have to be treated
as energized. As noted earlier in this preamble under the summary and
explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.960(b)(2), existing Sec.
1926.950(b)(2) requires electric equipment and lines to be considered
as energized until determined to be deenergized by tests or other
appropriate means. OSHA believes that the appropriate procedures for
assuring that lines and equipment are deenergized are contained in
proposed Sec. 1926.961 and that a simple test for a deenergized
condition cannot be relied upon to ensure that lines and equipment
remain deenergized.
Some systems are under the direction of a central system operator
who controls all switching operations. Other systems (mostly
distribution installations) are not under any centralized control.
These systems are energized and deenergized in the field without the
direct intervention of a system operator. Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
Sec. 1926.961 states that all of the requirements of proposed
paragraph (c) would apply if a system operator is in charge of the
lines and equipment and of their means of disconnection. Paragraph
(b)(2) defines the general rule for crews working on lines that are not
under the control of a system operator. In the usual case, one employee
is designated to be in charge of the clearance. In general, all of the
requirements in paragraph (c) would apply, with the employee in charge
of the clearance taking the place of the system operator. In this
manner, the proposal provides protection against the unintended
energizing of transmission and distribution lines without requiring all
lines to be under the control of one employee. One employee in a crew
will be in charge of the clearance for the crew; procedures will be
followed to ensure that the lines are truly deenergized; tags will be
placed on the lines; and procedures will be followed to remove the tags
and reenergize the lines.
However, in some cases, certain requirements contained in paragraph
(c) are not necessary for the safety of employees. If only one crew
will be working on transmission or distribution lines and if the means
of deenergizing the lines is accessible and visible to and under the
sole control of the employee in charge of the clearance, the provisions
requiring tags on the disconnecting means are unnecessary. Therefore,
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) would exempt a portion of the requirements
of paragraph (c) from applying to work that is performed by a single
crew of employees,\49\ if the means of disconnection of the lines and
equipment are accessible and visible to and under the sole control of
the employee in charge of the clearance. The provisions of paragraph
(c) that would not apply are those relating to (1) requesting the
system operator to deenergize the lines, (2) automatic and remote
control of the lines, (3) the wording on tags, (4) two crews working on
the same line, and (5) tag removal. It is not necessary to request the
system operator to deenergize the lines because he or she would not be
in control of the disconnecting means for the lines. Only one person
would be in charge of the clearance for the crew, and the means of
disconnection for the lines would be accessible and visible to and
under the control of that person.\50\ Thus, tags would not be needed
for the protection of the crew. Further, remote and automatic switching
of lines and work performed by two crews working on lines or equipment
controlled by the same disconnecting means would not be recognized under
paragraph (b)(3)(i). (A group of employees made up of several ``crews''
of employees who are under the direction of a single employee and who are
working in a coordinated manner to accomplish a task on the same lines or
equipment are considered to be a single crew, rather than as multiple
independent crews, for the purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(i). In such cases,
all operations that could energize or deenergize a circuit would have to be
coordinated through the single employee in charge.) If the crews are
independent, each crew would need an employee-in-charge of its clearance
(see the discussion of proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii), later in this section
of the preamble). Therefore, no one could be considered as having sole control
over the disconnecting means protecting the crews, and the exceptions listed in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) would not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ An employee working alone is considered to be a ``crew'' of
one.
\50\ The means of disconnection is under the sole control of the
employee in charge of the clearance, and it need only be assessible
and visible to that employee. Other employees in the crew have no
control whatsoever over the disconnecting means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d) of existing Sec. 1926.950 also recognizes separate
procedures for lines that are ``visibly open.'' However, only two
requirements apply. First, paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires guards or
barriers to be installed to protect against contact with adjacent
lines. Second, upon completion of work, the designated employee in
charge must determine that all employees in his crew are clear and that
protective grounds installed by his crew have been removed, and he or
she must report to the designated authority that all tags protecting
the crew may be removed (paragraph (d)(2)(ii)).
The existing Subpart V provisions relating to working on lines or
equipment that have their disconnecting means ``visibly open'' are
insufficient to protect employees. Other requirements relating to
deenergizing, testing, grounding, and reenergizing procedures are
necessary for the protection of employees. While existing Subpart V
does cover reenergizing procedures, it includes no provisions for
deenergizing, testing, or grounding. OSHA believes that this proposal
corrects these deficiencies.
If more than one independent crew is working on a line, paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) would require each crew to follow the steps outlined in
Sec. 1926.961(c) separately, to ensure that a group of workers does
not make faulty assumptions about what steps have been or will be taken
by another group to deenergize lines or equipment. Paragraph (c) of
proposed Sec. 1926.961 would not require a separate tag for each crew;
it does require, however, separate clearances for each crew. There
would have to be one employee in charge of the clearance for each crew,
and the clearance for a crew would be held by this employee. In
complying with paragraph (b)(3)(ii), the employer would have to ensure
that no tag is removed unless its associated clearances are released
(paragraph (c)(11)) \51\ and that no action is taken at a given point
of disconnection until all protective grounds have been removed, until
all crews have released their clearances, until all employees are clear
of the lines or equipment, and until all tags have been removed at that
point of disconnection (paragraph (c)(12)). OSHA requests comments on
whether the standard should require each crew to have a separate tag
and, if so, on ways to incorporate such a requirement in the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Unless the employer has only one crew, a tracking mechanism
may be necessary so that the employer can determine what crew is
protected by a tag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where there is a system operator, who is in charge of energizing
and deenergizing lines and equipment, that person keeps track of
clearances for different crews working on the same lines or equipment.
When there is no system operator, the crews will need to coordinate
their activities to ensure that the lines or equipment are not
reenergized while an employee is still working on them. Proposed
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) would require such coordination when there is no
system operator.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(viii). Existing Subpart V contains a comparable
requirement in Sec. 1926.950(d)(1)(vi). However, the existing
requirement would simply require a tag for each independent crew. As
noted earlier, the proposal would not require separate tags for each
crew. However, each crew would hold a separate clearance that could not
be released without authorization from the employee in charge of the
clearance. Additionally, the proposal would require that each crew
independently perform all the steps outlined in proposed paragraph (c)
and that the crews coordinate deenergizing and reenergizing the lines
or equipment if no system operator is in charge. The existing standard
contains no such requirement. OSHA believes that the proposed approach
better protects employees than the existing standard.
Disconnecting means that are accessible to people not under the
employer's control would have to be rendered inoperable. For example, a
switch handle mounted at the bottom of a utility pole that is not on
the employer's premises must be locked in the open position while the
overhead line is deenergized. This requirement, which is contained in
paragraph (b)(4) would prevent a member of the general public or an
employee (of a contractor, for example) who is not under the employer's
control from closing the switch and energizing the line. This
requirement, which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, has been
taken from Sec. 1910.269(m)(2)(iv).
Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.961 sets forth the exact
procedure for deenergizing transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. The procedure must be followed in the order presented in the
rule. Except as noted, the rules are consistent with existing Sec.
1926.950(d)(1), although the language has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(m)(3). The Agency has attempted to propose simplified language
and has written the requirements in performance-oriented terms whenever
possible.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require an employee to request the system
operator to deenergize a particular section of line or equipment. So
that control is vested in one authority, a single designated employee
would be assigned this task. This designated employee thus becomes the
employee in charge of and responsible for the clearance for work. This
provision, which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, has been
taken from Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(i). The designated employee who
requests the clearance need not be in charge of other aspects of the
work; the proposal intends for this designated employee to be in charge
of the clearance. He or she is responsible for requesting the
clearance, for informing the system operator of changes in the
clearance (such as transfer of responsibility), and for insuring that
it is safe for the circuit to be reenergized before the clearance is
released. If someone other than an employee at the worksite requests
the clearance and if that clearance is in place before the employee
arrives at the site, then clearance must be transferred under Sec.
1926.961(c)(8). The Agency believes that the person requesting the
clearance, once the lines are indeed deenergized, must be the one to
contact in case alterations in the clearance are necessary. The
employees who will be performing the actual work at some time in the
future would not necessarily be aware that a clearance has been
requested and would not be in position to answer questions about the
clearance.
The second step (proposed Sec. 1926.961(c)(2)) is to open all
switches through which electrical energy could flow to the section of
line or equipment. The disconnecting means would then be made
inoperable if the design of the device permits. For example, the
removable handle of a switch could be detached. Also, the switches
would have to be tagged to indicate that employees are at work. This
paragraph would ensure that the lines are disconnected from their
sources of supply and protects against the accidental reclosing of the
switches. This rule is intended to require the disconnection of known
sources of electric energy only. Hazards related to the presence of
unexpected energy sources would be controlled by testing for voltage
and by grounding the circuit, as proposed under paragraphs (c)(5) and
(c)(6), respectively.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(ii). Existing Subpart V contains comparable requirements
in Sec. 1926.950(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii)(a), and (d)(1)(ii)(b). The
existing provisions require: (1) the line or equipment to be identified
and isolated from sources of energy (paragraph (d)(1)(i)), and (2)
notification and assurance of the designated employee that all
disconnecting means have been opened and tagged (paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(a) and (d)(1)(ii)(b)). OSHA believes that the proposed
language more accurately reflects the actual steps taken to deenergize
lines and equipment.
Proposed Sec. 1926.961(c)(3) would require the tagging of
automatically and remotely controlled switches. An automatically or
remotely controlled switch would also have to be rendered inoperable if
the design of the switch allows for it to be made inoperable. This
provision which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(iii), would
also protect employees from being injured as a result of the automatic
operation of such switches. Existing Subpart V contains an equivalent
requirement in Sec. Sec. 1926.950(d)(1)(ii)(b) and (d)(1)(ii)(c).
Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.961 would require tags to
prohibit operation of the switches to which they are attached. They
would also be required to state that employees are at work. This
requirement has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(iv). Existing
Sec. 1926.950(d)(1)(ii)(b) contains a requirement for tags to indicate
that employees are working; however, it does not require the tags to
prohibit operation of the disconnecting means. The Agency believes that
it is essential for the tags to contain this prohibition so that the
meaning of the tag is clear.
After the previous four requirements have been met and after the
employee in charge of the work has been given a clearance by the system
operator, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require the lines or
equipment to be tested. This test would ensure that the lines have in
fact been deenergized and is intended to prevent accidents resulting
from someone's opening the wrong disconnect. It also protects employees
from hazards associated with unknown sources of electric energy. This
paragraph is based on Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(v). Existing Sec.
1926.950(d)(1)(iii) requires a test or a visual inspection to be
performed to ensure that the lines or equipment are deenergized. Visual
inspection alone cannot determine whether a line or equipment is
deenergized. Voltage backfeed, induced current, and leakage current can
all energize electric lines and equipment without the employee being
able to ``see'' it. Additionally, the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking showed
the lack of testing to be a cause of accidents (269-Ex. 9-2, 12-12).
Therefore, the proposal would require an actual test to determine
whether the lines or equipment was energized. OSHA has not specified
the type of test but expects employers to use testing procedures that
will reliably indicate whether or not the part in question is
energized. For example, using a voltage detector on the part would be
one way to do this. OSHA requests comments on when and if other
methods, such as fuzzing a line,\52\ are acceptable testing methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Fuzzing, or buzzing, a line involves using a live-line tool
to hold a wrench or similar tool near a line and listening for the
buzzing sound given off as the tool approaches a circuit part
energized at a high voltage. This method has obvious disadvantages
when ambient noise levels are excessive, and it is only reliable
above certain voltage levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would require the installation of any
protective grounds required by Sec. 1926.962 at this point in the
sequence of events. Since the lines or equipment have been deenergized
and tested in accordance with the previous provisions, it would now be
safe to install a protective ground. This requirement is based on Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(vi). An equivalent requirement is contained in existing
Sec. 1926.950(d)(1)(iv).
After the six previous rules have been followed, paragraph (c)(7)
would permit the lines or equipment to be treated as deenergized. This
provision, which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, is based on
Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(vii).
In some cases, as when an employee in charge has to leave the job
because of illness, it may be necessary to transfer a clearance. Under
such conditions, proposed paragraph (c)(8) would require that the
employee in charge inform the system operator and that the employees in
the crew be informed of the transfer. If the employee holding the
clearance is forced to leave the worksite due to illness or other
emergency, the employee's supervisor could inform the system operator
of the transfer in clearance. This requirement, which is based on Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(ix), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
After the clearance is transferred, the new employee in charge
would then be responsible for the clearance. It is important that only
one employee at a time be responsible for any clearance; otherwise,
independent action by any worker could endanger the entire crew.
Once work is completed, the clearance will have to be released so
that the lines or equipment can be reenergized. Paragraph (c)(9) of
proposed Sec. 1926.961 covers this procedure. To ensure that it is
safe to release the clearance, the employee in charge would have to:
(1) Notify workers in the crew of the release, (2) determine that they
are clear of the lines and equipment, (3) determine that grounds have
been removed, and (4) notify the system operator that the clearance is
to be released. This provision is based on Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(x). An
equivalent requirement is contained in existing Sec.
1926.950(d)(1)(viii).
Proposed paragraph (c)(10) would require the person who is
releasing the clearance to be the one who requested it, unless
responsibility has been transferred. This provision would ensure that
no clearance is released without the authorization of the employee who
is in charge of the clearance. This proposed paragraph, which has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V, is based on Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(xi).
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) would prohibit the removal of a tag
unless its associated clearance has been released. Because the persons
who place and remove the tags may not be the same, it is important for
the regulation to prohibit removing a tag without the release of the
clearance by the employee who is responsible for it. This provision,
which has no counterpart in existing Subpart V, is based on Sec.
1910.269(m)(3)(xii).
According to proposed paragraph (c)(12), action would be permitted
to be taken to reenergize the lines or equipment only after grounds and
tags have been removed, after all clearances have been released, and
after all employees are in the clear. This protects employees from the
possibility that the line or equipment could be reenergized while
employees are still at work. The Agency does not intend for this
provision to require the removal of all tags from all disconnecting
means before any of them could be reclosed. It is intended to require
that all tags for any particular switch be removed before that switch is
closed. It is very important in a tagging system that no energy isolating
device be returned to a position allowing energy flow if there are any
tags on it that are protecting employees. For example, in the case of a
5-mile section of line that is deenergized by opening switches at both
ends of the line, after all the tags are removed from any one switch that
one switch could then be closed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12), which has no counterpart in Subpart V,
has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(xiii).
Section 1926.962, Grounding for the Protection of Employees
Sometimes, normally energized lines and equipment that have been
deenergized to permit employees to work become accidentally energized.
This can happen in several ways, for example, by contact with another
energized circuit, by voltage backfeed from a customer's cogeneration
installation, by lightning contact, or by failure of the clearance
system outlined in Sec. 1926.961.
Transmission and distribution lines and equipment are normally
installed outdoors where they are exposed to damage from the weather
and from actions taken by members of the general public. Many utility
poles are installed alongside roadways where they may be struck by
motor vehicles. Distribution lines have been damaged by falling trees,
and transmission line insulators have been used for target practice.
Additionally, customers fed by a utility company's distribution line
may have cogeneration or backup generation capability, sometimes
without the utility company's knowledge. All these factors can
reenergize a deenergized transmission or distribution line or
equipment. Energized lines can be knocked down onto deenergized lines.
A backup generator or a cogenerator can cause voltage backfeed on the
deenergized power line. Lastly, lightning, even miles from the
worksite, can reenergize a line. All of these problems pose hazards to
employees working on deenergized transmission and distribution lines
and equipment. In fact, these problems were a factor in 14 of the
accidents in 269-Exhibit 9-2.
Grounding the lines and equipment is used to protect employees from
injury should such reenergizing occur. Grounding also provides
protection against induced voltages and static charges on a line.
(These induced and static voltages can be high enough to endanger
employees, either directly from electric shock or indirectly from
involuntary reaction.)
Grounding, as a temporary protective measure, involves connecting
the deenergized lines and equipment to earth through conductors. As
long as the conductors remain deenergized, this maintains the lines and
equipment at the same potential as the earth. However, if voltage is
impressed on a line, the voltage on the grounded line rises to a value
dependent upon the impressed voltage, the impedance between its source
and the grounding point, and the impedance of the grounding conductor.
Various techniques are used to limit the voltage to which an
employee working on a grounded line would be exposed. Bonding is one of
these techniques. Conductive objects within the reach of the employee
are bonded together to create an equipotential work area for the
employee. Within this area of equal potentials, voltage differences are
limited to a safe value.
The requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.962 have been taken
directly from Sec. 1910.269(n). Existing Sec. 1926.954 contains
current provisions related to grounding for the protection of
employees. OSHA has reviewed existing Sec. 1926.954 and has found that
it is not as protective as Sec. 1910.269(n) and contains redundant and
unnecessary requirements. For example, as noted under the summary and
explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.960(b)(2), existing Sec.
1926.950(b)(2) requires electric lines and equipment to be considered
as energized until determined to be deenergized by tests or other
appropriate methods or means. Existing Sec. 1926.954(a) similarly
requires all conductors and equipment to be treated as energized until
tested or otherwise determined to be deenergized or until grounded.
These two provisions do not adequately protect employees from
accidentally reenergized lines and equipment. As noted in the earlier
discussion, electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment can become reenergized even after they have been deenergized.
Therefore, OSHA concluded in the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking that
grounding deenergized lines and equipment is essential except under
limited circumstances. The Agency is proposing to continue that
approach here. In developing proposed Sec. 1926.962, OSHA eliminated
redundant requirements from existing Sec. 1926.954, consolidated
related requirements from the existing standard, and strengthened the
current requirements to protect employees better.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ As previously noted, existing Sec. 1926.954(a) requires
conductors and equipment to be considered as energized until
determined to be deenergized or until grounded. Paragraph (c) of
existing Sec. 1926.954 requires bare communications conductors on
poles or structures to be treated as energized unless they are
protected by insulating materials. The hazard addressed by these
requirements is covered by proposed Sec. 1926.960(b)(2), discussed
earlier in this preamble.
When equipment is being installed, it poses the same hazard to
an employee that any other conductive object being manipulated near
exposed energized parts does. Requirements contained in proposed
Sec. 1926.960(c) and (d) adequately address this hazard. The
installation of lines however does pose additional hazards. First,
the lines may be subject to hazardous induced voltage. Second,
because of their length, new overhead lines are much more likely to
contact existing energized lines than new equipment is. This can
happen, for example, through failure of the stringing and tensioning
equipment being used to install the new lines or through failure of
the existing lines or support structures. These hazards are
addressed in proposed Sec. 1926.964(b), which specifically covers
the installation and removal of overhead lines. Lastly, new
underground lines, which are run as insulated cable, do not pose
electrical hazards.
For these reasons, OSHA is not proposing to carry existing Sec.
1926.954(b) forward. However, comments are requested on whether or
not the proposal adequately protects employees from hazards
associated with the installation of new lines and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1926.962 addresses protective grounding and
bonding.\54\ As noted in paragraph (a), entire Sec. 1926.962 applies
to the grounding of deenergized transmission and distribution lines and
equipment for the purpose of protecting employees. Additionally,
paragraph (a) indicates that paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.962
would apply to the protective grounding of other equipment, such as
aerial lift trucks, as well. Under normal conditions, such equipment
would not be connected to a source of electric energy. However, to
protect employees in case of accidental contact of the equipment with
live parts, protective grounding is required elsewhere in the standard
(in Sec. 1926.964(c)(11), for example); to ensure the adequacy of this
grounding, the provisions of paragraph (d) must be followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ As used throughout the rest of this discussion and within
proposed Sec. 1926.962, the term ``grounding'' includes bonding.
Technically, grounding refers to the connection of a conductive part
to ground, whereas bonding refers to connecting conductive parts to
each other. However, for convenience, OSHA is using the term
``grounding'' to refer to both techniques of minimizing voltages to
which an employee will be exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general requirement contained in paragraph (b) of proposed
Sec. 1926.962 states the conditions under which lines and equipment
must be grounded. Basically, in order for lines or equipment to be
treated as deenergized, they must be deenergized under proposed Sec. 1926.961
and grounded. Grounding could be omitted only if the installation of a ground
is impracticable (such as during the initial stages of work on underground
cables, when the conductor is not exposed for grounding) or if the conditions
resulting from the installation of a ground would introduce more serious hazards
than work without grounds. It is expected that conditions warranting the absence
of protective grounds would be rare.
If grounds are not installed and the lines and equipment are to be
treated as deenergized, however, precautions have to be observed, and
certain conditions must be met. Obviously, the lines and equipment
would still have to be deenergized by the procedures of Sec. 1926.961.
Also, there would have to be no possibility of contact with another
source of voltage and no hazard of induced voltage present. Since these
precautions and conditions do not protect against the possible
reenergizing of the lines or equipment under all conditions, the
omission of grounding is permitted only in very limited circumstances.
Paragraph (f) of existing Sec. 1926.954 allows grounds to be
omitted without the additional restrictions proposed in Sec.
1926.962(b)(1) through (b)(3). However, the existing standard requires
the lines or equipment to be treated as energized in such cases. While
the proposal does not specifically permit omitting grounds for
conductors that are treated as energized, it does not require grounding
unless the equipment is to be considered as deenergized. (See the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.960(b)(2), earlier in this section of
the preamble.)
Paragraph (f) of existing Sec. 1926.954 also addresses where
grounds must be placed. The existing standard requires grounds to be
placed between the work location and all sources of energy and as close
as practicable to the work location. Alternatively, grounds could be
placed at the work location. If work is to be performed at more than
one location, the existing standard would require the line section to
be grounded and short circuited at one location and would require the
conductor on which work is being performed to be grounded at the work
location. Although these requirements are intended to protect employees
in case the line on which they are working is accidentally reenergized,
the existing provisions do not ensure that the grounding practices and
equipment are adequate to provide this protection.
OSHA proposed requirements similar to those in existing Sec.
1926.954(f) when it proposed Sec. 1910.269(n). In developing final
Sec. 1910.269(n), OSHA reviewed the accidents in 269-Ex. 9-2 and 269-
Ex. 9-2A for those involving improper protective grounding. There were
nine accidents in these two exhibits related to protective grounding.
In three cases, inadequate grounds were present. Based on the fact that
grounding is a backup measure, intended to provide protection only when
all other safety-related work practices fail, OSHA concluded that this
was a significant incidence of faulty grounding.
Grounding practices that do not provide an equipotential zone in
which an employee is safeguarded from voltage differences do not
provide complete protection. In case the line is accidentally
reenergized, voltages to which an employee would be exposed due to
inadequate grounding would be lethal, as can be seen by some of the
exhibits in the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking record (269-Ex. 6-27, 57).
The employee would be protected only if he or she is not in contact
with the line until the energy source is cleared by circuit protective
devices.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing to require grounds that will
protect employees in the event that the line or equipment on which they
are working is reenergized. Proposed Sec. 1926.962(c) would require
protective grounds to be so located and arranged that employees are not
exposed to hazardous differences in potential. The proposal would allow
employers and employees to use whatever grounding method they prefer as
long as employees are protected. For employees working at elevated
positions on poles and towers, single point grounding may be necessary,
together with grounding straps to provide an equipotential zone for the
worker. Employees in insulated aerial lifts working at midspan between
two conductor supporting structures may be protected by grounding at
convenient points on both sides of the work area. Bonding the aerial
lift to the grounded conductor would ensure that the employee remains
at the potential of the conductor in case of a fault. Other methods may
be necessary to protect workers on the ground, including grounding mats
and insulating platforms. The Agency believes that this performance-
oriented approach would provide the flexibility needed by employers,
but would also afford the best protection to employees.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.962 contains requirements that
grounding equipment would have to meet. So that the protective
grounding equipment does not fail, it would be required to have an
ampacity high enough so that the fault current could be carried for the
amount of time necessary to allow protective devices to interrupt the
circuit. This provision, which has been taken from the first sentence
of Sec. 1910.269(n)(4)(i), is contained in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of
proposed Sec. 1926.962.
The design of electric power distribution lines operating at 600
volts or less frequently provides a maximum fault current and fault
interrupting time that exceeds the current carrying capability of the
circuit conductors. In other words, the maximum fault current on
distribution secondaries of 600 volts or less is typically high enough
to melt the phase conductors carrying the fault current. If protective
grounding equipment were required to carry the maximum amount of fault
current without regard to whether the phase conductors would fail, the
size of the grounding equipment would be impractical. However, OSHA
does not interpret Sec. 1910.269(n)(4)(i) to require protective
grounding equipment to be capable of carrying more current than
necessary to allow the phase conductors to fail. A protective grounding
jumper sized slightly larger than a phase conductor would be sufficient
to meet the general industry standard, although the language of the
first sentence of Sec. 1910.269(n)(4)(i) does not make this clear.
To clarify this requirement, OSHA is proposing, in Sec.
1926.962(d)(1)(ii), to permit, specifically, the use of protective
grounding equipment that would not be large enough to carry the maximum
fault current indefinitely but that would be large enough to carry this
current until the phase conductor fails.\55\ This would be permitted
only under certain conditions. First, the grounding equipment must be
able to carry the maximum fault current until the conductor being
protected fails. Second, the conductor must only be considered as
grounded where it is protected by the grounding equipment. In other
words, the portion of the phase conductor between the grounding
equipment and the employee being protected must remain intact under
fault conditions. Third, since the phase conductor will likely fall
once it fails, no employee must be in a position where they would be
endangered by any failed conductor. OSHA has not restricted this
provision to lines and equipment operating at 600 volts or less because
the Agency believes that employees would be protected with these
provisions regardless of voltage. However, OSHA requests comments on
the issue of whether or not proposed
Sec. 1926.962(d)(1)(ii) should be restricted to lines and equipment
operating at 600 volts or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ OSHA is also proposing to make a similar change in Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1926.962 would require protective
grounding equipment to have an ampacity of at least No. 2 AWG copper.
This provision would ensure that protective grounding equipment has a
suitable minimum ampacity and mechanical strength.
Under paragraph (d)(2), the impedance of the grounding equipment
would be required to be low enough to ensure the quick operation of the
protective devices.
Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) help ensure the prompt clearing of the
circuit supplying voltage to the point where the employee is working.
Thus, the grounding equipment limits the duration and reduces the
severity of any electric shock, though it does not itself prevent shock
from occurring. (As discussed earlier, proposed Sec. 1926.962(c)
requires employees to be protected from hazardous differences in
electrical potential.) OSHA has included a note referencing the ASTM
standard on protective grounding equipment (ASTM F855-03) so that
employers will be able to find additional information that may be
helpful in their efforts to comply with the standard.
Existing Sec. 1926.954(h), (i), and (j) contain requirements
relating to the impedance and ampacity of personal protective grounds.
Paragraph (i) requires tower clamps to have adequate ampacity, and
paragraph (j) contains the same requirement for ground leads with an
additional restriction that they be no smaller than No. 2 AWG copper.
Paragraph (i) requires the impedance of a grounding electrode (if one
is used) to be low enough to remove the danger of harm to employees or
to permit prompt operation of protective devices.
OSHA believes that the entire grounding system should be capable of
carrying the maximum fault current and should have an impedance low
enough to protect employees. The existing standard contains no
requirements for the impedance of grounding conductors or clamps, nor
does it contain requirements relating to the ampacity of grounding
clamps other than tower clamps. By addressing specific portions of the
grounding systems but not addressing others, the existing standard does
not require complete protection for employees. Because the proposal's
grounding requirements apply to the entire grounding system, OSHA
believes that the proposal will provide better protection for employees
than the existing rule.
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1926.962 would require lines and equipment
that are to be grounded to be tested for voltage before a ground is
installed. If a previously installed ground is evident, no test would
need to be conducted. This requirement would prevent energized
equipment from being grounded, which could result in injury to the
employee installing the ground. This requirement is the same as
existing Sec. 1926.954(d).
Paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) propose procedures for installing and
removing grounds. To protect employees in the event that the
``deenergized'' equipment to be grounded is or becomes energized, the
proposal would require the ``equipment end'' of the grounding device to
be applied last and removed first and that a live-line tool be used for
both procedures in order to protect workers.
These provisions are similar to existing Sec. 1926.954(e)(1) and
(e)(2), except that the existing standard recognizes the use of a
``suitable device'' in addition to a live-line tool. OSHA is concerned
that this language implies that rubber insulating gloves could be used
to install and remove grounds under any circumstance. It should be
noted that it is unsafe for an employee to be too close when connecting
or disconnecting a ground. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to eliminate
the phrase ``or other insulated device'' from the rule. OSHA will,
however, consider any device that is insulated for the voltage and that
allows an employee to apply or remove the ground from a safe position
to be a live-line tool for the purposes of Sec. 1926.962(f)(1) and
(f)(2).
These two paragraphs in the proposal are based on existing Sec.
1910.269(n)(6) and (n)(7). The proposal, however, would permit the use
of insulated equipment other than live-line tools to attach protective
grounds to, and to remove them from, lines and equipment operating at
600 volts or less, if the employer ensures that the line or equipment
is not energized at the time or if the employer can demonstrate that
the employee would be protected from any hazard that could develop if
the line or equipment is energized. For example, test equipment could
be connected to a line that is to be grounded, and the protective
ground could be applied by an employee wearing rubber gloves while the
test equipment indicated that the line was deenergized. After the
ground was in place the test equipment could be removed.
Some electric utilities have complained that lines and equipment
operating at 600 volts or less cannot always accommodate the placement
and removal of a protective ground by a line-line tool. OSHA is
proposing these alternatives to enable protective grounds to be placed
on this equipment in a manner that will still protect employees.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ OSHA is also proposing to make similar changes in Sec.
1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that, during the periods before the ground is
installed and after it is removed, the line or equipment involved must
be considered as energized (under proposed Sec. 1926.960(b)(2)). As a
result, the minimum approach distances specified in proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1) would apply when grounds are installed or removed.
With certain underground cable installations, a fault at one
location along the cable can create a substantial potential difference
between the earth at that location and the earth at other locations.
Under normal conditions, this is not a hazard. However, if an employee
is in contact with a remote ground (by being in contact with a
conductor that is grounded at a remote station), he or she can be
exposed to the difference in potential (because he or she is also in
contact with the local ground). To protect employees in such
situations, proposed Sec. 1926.962(g) would prohibit grounding cables
at remote locations if a hazardous potential transfer could occur under
fault conditions. This proposed provision has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
Proposed Sec. 1926.962(h) addresses the removal of grounds for
test purposes. Under the proposal, grounds would be permitted to be
removed for test purposes. Existing Subpart V contains a comparable
requirement in Sec. 1926.954(g). However, the existing standard simply
requires employees to take extreme caution when grounds are removed for
testing. OSHA does not believe that the existing language contains
sufficient safeguards for employees. Therefore, the Agency is proposing
performance criteria that testing procedures would be required to meet.
During the test procedure, the employer would be required to ensure
that each employee uses insulating equipment and is isolated from any
hazards involved, and the employer would be required to institute any
additional measures as may be necessary to protect each exposed
employee in case the previously grounded lines and equipment become
energized. OSHA believes that the proposal would protect employees
better than the existing rule.
Section 1926.963, Testing and Test Facilities
Proposed Sec. 1926.963 contains safety work practices covering
electrical hazards arising out of the special testing of lines and
equipment (namely, in-service and out-of-service, as well as new, lines
and equipment) to determine maintenance needs and fitness for service.
Generally, the need to conduct tests on new and idle lines and
equipment as part of normal checkout procedures, in addition to
maintenance evaluation, is specified in the National Electrical Safety
Code (ANSI C2). Basically, as stated in paragraph (a), the rules would
apply only to testing involving interim measurements utilizing high
voltage, high power, or combinations of both, as opposed to testing
involving continuous measurements as in routine metering, relaying and
normal line work.
Proposed Sec. 1926.963 has been taken directly from Sec.
1910.269(o). Existing Subpart V has no counterpart to these proposed
requirements. The Agency believes that these high-voltage and high-
current tests are performed during construction work and that employers
would benefit by the inclusion of these provisions within the
construction standard in place of a reference to Sec. 1910.269.
However, it may be that this type of work is performed too infrequently
to warrant repeating the requirements in Subpart V. OSHA requests
comments on the need to include proposed Sec. 1926.963 in Subpart V.
For the purposes of these proposed requirements, high-voltage
testing is assumed to involve voltage sources having sufficient energy
to cause injury and having magnitudes generally in excess of 1,000
volts, nominal. High-power testing involves sources where fault
currents, load currents, magnetizing currents, or line dropping
currents are used for testing, either at the rated voltage of the
equipment under test or at lower voltages. Proposed Sec. 1926.963
covers such testing in laboratories, in shops and substations, and in
the field and on transmission and distribution lines.
Examples of typical special tests in which either high-voltage
sources or high-power sources are used as part of operation and
maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution systems
include cable-fault locating, large capacitive load tests, high current
fault-closure tests, insulation resistance and leakage tests, direct-
current proof tests, and other tests requiring direct connection to
power lines.
Excluded from the scope of proposed Sec. 1926.963 are routine
inspection and maintenance measurements made by qualified employees in
accordance with established work practice rules where the hazards
associated with the use of intrinsic high-voltage or high-power sources
require only those normal precautions peculiar to such periodic work.
Obviously, the work practices for these routine tests would have to
comply with the rest of proposed Subpart V. Because this type of
testing poses hazards that are identical to other types of routine
electric power transmission and distribution work, OSHA believes that
the requirements of proposed Subpart V excluding Sec. 1926.963
adequately protect employees performing these tests. Two typical
examples of such excluded test work procedures would be ``phasing-out''
testing and testing for a ``no voltage'' condition. To clarify the
scope of this section, a note to this effect is included after
paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.963 would require employers
to establish work practices governing employees engaged in certain
testing activities. These work practices are intended to delineate
precautions that employees must observe for protection from the hazards
of high-voltage or high-power testing. For example, if high-voltage
sources are used in the testing, employees would be required to follow
the safety practices established under paragraph (b)(1) to protect
against such typical hazards as inadvertent arcing or voltage
overstress destruction, as well as accidental contact with objects that
have become residually charged by induced voltage from electric field
exposure. If high-power sources are used in the testing, employees
would be required to follow established safety practices to protect
against such typical hazards as ground voltage rise as well as exposure
to excessive electromagnetically-caused physical forces associated with
the passage of heavy current.
These practices would apply to work performed at both permanent and
temporary test areas (that is, areas permanently located in the
controlled environment of a laboratory or shop and in areas temporarily
located in a non-controlled field environment). At a minimum, the
safety work practices include:
(1) Guarding the test area to prevent inadvertent contact with
energized parts,
(2) Safe grounding practices to be observed,
(3) Precautions to be taken in the use of control and measuring
circuits, and
(4) Periodic checks of field test areas.
Paragraph (b)(2) complements the general rule on the use of safe
work practices in test areas with a proposed requirement that all
employees involved in this type of work be trained in these safety test
practices. This paragraph, which makes explicit the types of training
required by the general training provisions in proposed Sec.
1926.950(b), would further require a periodic review of these practices
to be conducted from time to time as a means of providing reemphasis
and updating.
Although specific work practices used in test areas are generally
unique to the particular test being conducted, three basic elements
affecting safety are commonly found to some degree at all test sites:
guarding, grounding, and the safe utilization of control and measuring
circuits. By considering safe work practices in these three categories,
OSHA has attempted to achieve a performance-oriented standard
applicable to high-voltage and high-power testing and test facilities.
OSHA believes that guarding can best be achieved when it is
provided both around and within test areas. By controlling access to
all parts that are likely to become energized by either direct or
inductive coupling, the standard will prevent accidental contact by
employees. Within test areas, whether temporary or permanent, a degree
of safety can be achieved by observing guarding practices that control
access to test areas. Paragraph (c)(1) would therefore require that
such guarding be provided if the test equipment or apparatus under test
may become energized as part of the testing by either direct or
inductive coupling. A combination of guards and barriers is intended to
provide protection to all employees in the vicinity.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require permanent test areas to be guarded
by having them completely enclosed by walls or some other type of
physical barrier. In the case of field testing, paragraph (c)(3)
attempts to achieve a level of safety for temporary test sites
comparable to that achieved in laboratory test areas. For these areas,
a barricade of tapes and cones or observation by an attendant would be
acceptable methods of guarding. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would accept
any barrier or barricade that provides a means of limiting access to
the test area physically and visually equivalent to safety tape with
signs or would accept guarding by means of a test observer stationed
where the entire test area could be monitored.
Since the effectiveness of the temporary guarding means can be
severely compromised by failing to remove it when it is not required,
frequent safety checks must be made to monitor its use. For example,
leaving barriers in place for a week at a time when testing is
performed only an hour or two per day is likely to result in disregard
for the barriers. For this reason, paragraph (c)(4) would require the
temporary barriers to be removed when they are no longer needed.
Suitable grounding is another important work practice that can be
employed for the protection of personnel from the hazards of high-
voltage or high-power testing. If high currents are intentionally
employed in the testing, an isolated ground-return conductor, adequate
for the service, is required so that no intentional passage of heavy
current, with its attendant voltage rise, will occur in the ground grid
or in the earth. Another safety consideration involving grounding is
that all conductive parts accessible to the test operator during the
time that the equipment is operating at high voltage be maintained at
ground potential, except portions of the equipment that are isolated
from the test operator by suitable guarding. Paragraph (d) proposes
requirements for proper grounding at test sites.
Paragraph (d)(1) would require that grounding practices be
established and implemented for test facilities to ensure that
unguarded conductive parts accessible to the operator are grounded and
that all ungrounded terminals of test equipment or apparatus under test
are treated as energized until reliably determined otherwise. Paragraph
(d)(2) would require visible grounds to be properly applied before work
is performed on the circuit or item or apparatus under test.
Paragraph (d)(3) addresses hazards resulting from the use of
inadequate ground-returns in which a voltage rise in the ground grid or
in the earth can result whenever high currents are employed in the
testing. Test personnel who may be exposed to such potentials would be
required to be protected from the hazards involved. This paragraph
would require the use of an isolated ground return so that no
intentional passage of current, with its attendant voltage rise, could
occur in the ground grid or in the earth. However, under some
conditions (such as system fault testing), it may be necessary to
perform the test under actual operating conditions, or it may otherwise
be impractical to provide an isolated ground return. In such cases, it
would not be reasonable to require an isolated ground-return conductor
system. Therefore, paragraph (d)(3) would provide an exception to the
requirement for such an isolated ground return. The exception would
apply if the isolated ground-return cannot be provided because of the
distance involved and if employees are protected from hazardous step
and touch potentials that may develop. Consideration must always be
given to the possibility of voltage gradients developing in the earth
during impulse, short-circuit, inrush, or oscillatory conditions. Such
voltages may appear between the feet of an observer, or between his or
her body and a grounded object, and are usually referred to as ``step''
and ``touch'' potentials. Examples of acceptable protection from step
and touch potentials include suitable electrical protective equipment
and the removal of employees from areas that may expose them to
hazardous potentials.
Another grounding situation is recognized by paragraph (d)(4) in
which grounding through the power cord of test equipment may be
inadequate and actually increase the hazard to test operators.
Normally, an equipment grounding conductor is required in the power
cord of test equipment to connect it to a grounding connection in the
power receptacle. However, in some circumstances, this practice can
prevent satisfactory measurements, or current induced in the grounding
conductor can cause a hazard to personnel. If these conditions exist,
the use of the equipment grounding conductor within the cord would not
be mandatory, and paragraph (d)(4) would require that an equivalent
safety ground be provided.
Paragraph (d)(5) would further require that a ground be placed on
the high-voltage terminal and any other exposed terminals when the test
area is entered after equipment is deenergized. In the case of high
capacitance equipment or apparatus, before a direct ground can be
applied, the initial grounding discharge would have to be accomplished
through a resistor having an adequate energy rating.
Paragraph (d)(6) recognizes the hazards associated with field
testing in which test trailers or test vehicles are used. In addition
to proposing that the chassis of such vehicles be grounded, paragraph
(d)(6) provides for a performance-oriented approach by proposing that
protection be provided against hazardous touch potentials by bonding,
by insulation, or by isolation. The protection provided by each of
these methods is described in the following examples:
(1) Protection by bonding can be effected by providing, around the
vehicle, an area covered by a metallic mat or mesh of substantial
cross-section and low impedance which is bonded to the vehicle at
several points and is also bonded to an adequate number of driven
ground rods or, where available, to an adequate number of accessible
points on the station ground grid. All bonding conductors must be of
sufficient electrical size to keep the voltage developed during maximum
anticipated current tests at a safe value. The mat must be of a size
that precludes simultaneous contact with the vehicle and with the earth
or with metallic structures not adequately bonded to the mat.
(2) Protection by insulation can be accomplished, for example, by
providing around the vehicle an area of dry wooden planks covered with
rubber insulating blankets. The physical extent of the insulated area
must be sufficient to prevent simultaneous contact with the vehicle, or
the ground lead of the vehicle, and with the earth or with metallic
structures in the vicinity.
(3) Protection by isolation can be implemented by providing an
effective means to exclude personnel from any area where simultaneous
contact could be made with the vehicle (or conductive parts
electrically connected to the vehicle) and with other conductive
materials. A combination of barriers together with effective,
interlocked gates may be employed to ensure that the system is
deenergized when an employee is entering or leaving the test area.
Finally, a third category of safe work practices applicable to
employees performing testing work, which complements the first two
safety work practices of guarding and grounding, involves work
practices associated with the installation of control and measurement
circuits utilized at test facilities. Practices necessary for the
protection of personnel and equipment from the hazards of high-voltage
or high-power testing must be observed for every test where special
signal-gathering equipment is used (that is, meters, oscilloscopes, and
other special instruments). In addition, special settings of protective
relays and the reexamination of backup schemes may be necessary to
ensure an adequate level of safety during the tests or to minimize the
effects of the testing on other parts of the system under test. As a
consequence, paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) address the principal
safe work practices involving control and measuring circuit utilization
within the test area.
Generally, control and measuring circuit wiring should remain
within the test area. If this is not possible, however, paragraph
(e)(1) proposes requirements to minimize hazards should it become necessary
to have the test wiring routed outside the test area. Cables and other wiring
would have to be contained within a grounded metallic sheath and terminated in a
grounded metal enclosure, or other precautions would have to be taken
to provide equivalent safety, such as guarding the area so that
employees do not have access to parts that might rise to hazardous
potentials.
Paragraph (e)(2) covers the avoidance of possible hazards arising
from inadvertent contact with energized accessible terminals or parts
of meters and other test instruments. Meters with such terminals or
parts would have to be isolated from test personnel.
Work practices involving the proper routing and connection of
temporary wiring to protect against damage are covered in paragraph
(e)(3). This paragraph would also require the various functional wiring
used for the test set-up to be kept separate, to the maximum extent
possible, in order to minimize the coupling of hazardous voltages into
the control and measuring circuits.
A final safety work practice requirement related to control
circuits is addressed by paragraph (e)(4). This paragraph would require
the presence of a test observer who can, in cases of emergency,
immediately deenergize all test circuits for safety purposes.
Since the environment in which field tests are conducted differs in
important respects from that of laboratory tests, extra care must be
taken to ensure appropriate levels of safety. Permanent fences and
gates for isolating the field test area are not usually provided, nor
is there a permanent conduit for the instrumentation and control
wiring. As a further hazard, there may be other sources of high-voltage
electric energy in the vicinity in addition to the source of test
voltage.
It is not always possible in the field to prevent ingress of
persons into a test area physically, as is accomplished by the fences
and interlocked gates of the laboratory environment. Consequently,
readily recognizable means are required to discourage such ingress;
and, before test potential or current is applied to a test area, the
test operator in charge must ensure that all necessary barriers are in
place.
As a consequence of these safety considerations, paragraph (f)(1)
would call for a safety check to be made at temporary or field test
areas at the beginning of each group of continuous tests (that is, a
series of tests conducted one immediately after another). Paragraph
(f)(2) would require that, as a minimum for the safety check, the
person responsible for the testing verify, before the initiation of a
continuous period of testing, the status of a general group of safety
conditions. These conditions include the state of guards and status
signals, the marking and availability of disconnects, the provision of
ground connections and personal protective equipment, and the
separation of circuits.
Section 1926.964, Overhead Lines
Proposed Sec. 1926.964 would apply to work involving overhead
lines or equipment. The types of work performed on overhead lines and
addressed by this paragraph include the installation and removal of
overhead lines, live-line bare-hand work, and work on towers and
structures. While performing this type of work, employees are typically
exposed to the hazards of falls and electric shock.
Section 1926.955 of existing Subpart V covers overhead lines.
Several requirements in the existing standard are redundant, and OSHA
believes that the existing section is poorly organized. For example,
paragraphs (c) and (d) both apply to the installation of lines parallel
to existing lines. Existing paragraph (c)(3) requires lines being
installed where there is a danger of hazardous induced voltage to be
grounded unless provisions are made to isolate or insulate employees.
Paragraph (d)(1) of existing Sec. 1926.955 contains a similar
requirement, and the rest of paragraph (d) specifies exactly how the
grounding is to be installed.
Paragraph (q) of Sec. 1910.269 also addresses work on overhead
lines. OSHA believes that the newer standard is much better organized,
contains no redundancies, and better protects employees than the older
construction standard. Therefore, the Agency has used Sec.
1910.269(q), rather than Sec. 1926.955, as the base document in
developing proposed Sec. 1926.964. OSHA has, however, taken
requirements that pertain specifically to construction work from
existing Sec. 1926.955 and incorporated them into the proposal.
Paragraph (q) of Sec. 1910.269 does not contain these requirements,
because it does not apply to construction. For example, existing Sec.
1926.955(b) applies to metal tower construction, and no comparable
provisions are contained in Sec. 1910.269. OSHA is therefore proposing
requirements from Sec. 1926.955(b).
Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require the
employer to determine that elevated structures such as poles and towers
are of adequate strength to withstand the stresses that will be imposed
by the work to be performed. For example, if the work involves removing
and reinstalling an existing line on a utility pole, the pole will be
subjected to the weight of the employee (a vertical force) and to the
release and replacement of the force imposed by the overhead line (a
vertical and possibly a horizontal force). The additional stress
involved may cause the pole to break, particularly if the pole has
rotted at its base. If the pole or structure cannot withstand the loads
to be imposed, it would have to be reinforced so that failure does not
occur. This rule would protect employees from hazards posed by the
failure of the pole or other elevated structure. This requirement,
which is equivalent to existing Sec. 1926.955(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(4), has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(1)(i).
As the last step in ascertaining whether a wood pole is safe to
climb, as would be required under paragraph (a)(2), checking the actual
condition of the pole is important because of the possibility of decay
and other conditions adversely affecting the strength of the pole.
Appendix D of final Sec. 1910.269 contains methods of inspecting and
testing the condition of wood structures before they are climbed. These
methods, which can be used in ascertaining whether a wood pole is
capable of sustaining the forces imposed by an employee climbing it,
have been taken from Appendix D to Sec. 1910.269. It should be noted
that the employer would also be required to ascertain whether the pole
is capable of sustaining any additional forces that will be imposed
during the work.
OSHA realizes that the employee at the worksite will be the one to
inspect the structure for deterioration and will also determine whether
it is safe to climb. However, it is the employer's responsibility to
ensure that this is accomplished, regardless of who performs the work.
Additionally, some work might involve changing the loading on the
structure. For example, replacement transformers might be heavier, and
the equipment needed to perform the work will impose extra stress on
the pole. The employee in the field is not necessarily skilled in
structural engineering, and a determination as to whether or not the
pole could withstand the stresses involved would almost always need to
be performed by the employer's engineering staff. (Typically, this task
is performed in the initial design of the system or when changes are
made.) For this reason, OSHA believes it is necessary to specify in the
standard the employer's responsibility in this regard. However, the
Agency expects the determination of the condition of the pole or structure
to be made at the worksite by an employee who is capable of making this
determination. The employer fulfills the obligation imposed by the standard
by ensuring that the design of support structures is sound, by training his
or her employees in proper inspection and evaluation techniques, and by
enforcing company rules
that adhere to the standard.
When poles are handled near overhead lines, it is necessary to
protect the pole from contact with the lines. Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
proposed Sec. 1926.964 would prohibit letting the pole come into
direct contact with the overhead lines. Measures commonly used to
prevent such contact include installation of insulating guards on the
pole and pulling conductors away from the area where the pole will go.
This provision, which is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.955(a)(5)(i), has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(1)(ii).
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require
employees handling the poles to be insulated from the pole. This
provision has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(1)(iii). The comparable
provision in Sec. 1926.955(a)(6)(i) prohibits employees from
contacting mechanized equipment used to set, move, or remove poles,
unless the employees are using electrical protective equipment. OSHA
has proposed to cover hazards of using mechanical equipment near
energized parts in Sec. 1926.958, discussed earlier in this section of
the preamble. The Agency believes that the proposal will eliminate the
redundant and conflicting requirements contained in existing Subpart V.
Similarly, existing Sec. 1926.955(a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), and (a)(8)
are not being carried forward into this proposal, because the hazards
they address (those related to operation of mechanical equipment near
energized parts) are already adequately covered under proposed Sec.
1926.958.
Paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) would protect employees from
hazards caused by falling power lines and by contact of the pole with
the line. They would be in addition to the requirements in proposed
Sec. 1926.958(d) for operations involving mechanical equipment.
To protect employees from falling into holes into which poles are
to be placed, paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would require the holes to be
guarded by barriers or attended by employees. This provision, which is
equivalent to existing Sec. 1926.955(a)(7), has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(1)(iv).
Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 addresses the installation
and removal of overhead lines. The provisions contained in this
paragraph have been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(2), which was based in
large part on existing Sec. 1926.955(c) (stringing and removing lines)
and Sec. 1926.955(d) (stringing adjacent to energized lines). However,
the proposed rule, like Sec. 1910.269(q)(2), combines these provisions
into a single paragraph (b). OSHA believes that the proposed
provisions, which combine and simplify the construction requirements
for stringing overhead lines, will be easier for employers and
employees to understand.
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(b)(1) would require precautions to be taken
to prevent the line being installed or removed from contacting existing
energized power lines. Common methods of accomplishing this include the
use of the following techniques: stringing conductors by means of the
tension stringing method (which keeps the conductors off the ground and
clear of energized circuits) and the use of rope nets and guards (which
physically prevent one line from contacting another). These
precautions, or equivalent measures, are necessary to protect employees
against electric shock and against the effects of equipment damage
resulting from accidental contact of the line being installed with
energized parts.
Even though the precautions taken under paragraph (b)(1) minimize
the possibility of accidental contact, there is still a significant
risk that the line being installed or removed could contact energized
lines. OSHA believes that the hazards posed during line installation or
removal are equivalent to those posed during the operations of
mechanical equipment near energized parts. Employees are exposed to
hazardous differences in potential if the conductor being installed or
equipment being used makes contact with an energized line. The methods
of protection that can be applied are also the same in both cases.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the approach used for the hazard of
contact between mechanical equipment and overhead lines should also be
used for the hazard of contact between a line being installed or
removed and an existing energized conductor. To accomplish this,
paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 simply adopts the
requirements of Sec. 1926.958(d)(3) by reference when conductors are
installed or removed close enough to energized conductors that certain
failures could energize the pulling or tensioning equipment in use or
the cable being installed or removed. Basically, the employer would be
required to institute measures to protect employees from hazardous
differences in potential at the work location. (See the discussion of
proposed Sec. 1926.958(d)(3) and Appendix C to Subpart V for
acceptable methods of compliance.)
Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require the
disabling of the automatic-reclosing feature of the devices protecting
any circuit that operates at more than 600 volts and that passes under
conductors being installed. If it is not made inoperative, this feature
would cause the circuit protective devices to reenergize the circuit
after they had tripped, exposing the employees to additional or more
severe injury.
Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require the use
of techniques that minimize the possibility of contact between the
existing and new conductors. Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.
1926.964 would require the use of measures that protect employees from
hazardous differences in potential. These two paragraphs provide the
primary protection to employees installing conductors. Paragraph (b)(3)
is a redundant form of protection; it provides an additional measure of
safety in case the first two provisions are violated.\57\ Therefore,
this paragraph would apply only to circuit reclosing devices that are
designed to permit the disabling of the automatic reclosing feature.
The Agency believes that the combination of these three paragraphs in
proposed Sec. 1926.964 will provide effective protection against the
electrical hazards associated with installing or removing lines near
energized parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Disabling the reclosing feature of circuit protective
devices does not provide any protection against the initial contact
with the energized circuit involved. It only prevents the devices
from reenergizing the circuit after they open it on a fault
condition as would occur, for example, when a line being strung by
employee drops onto an energized conductor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b)(4) proposes rules protecting workers from the hazard
of voltage induced on lines being installed near (and usually parallel
to) other energized lines. These rules, which provide supplemental
provisions on grounding, would be in addition to those elsewhere in the
standard. In general, when employees may be exposed to the hazard of
induced voltage on overhead lines, the lines being installed must be
grounded to minimize the voltage and to protect employees handling the
lines from electric shock.
Paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require a
determination of the ``approximate'' voltage, unless the line being
installed is assumed to carry a hazardous induced voltage.
Additionally, workers would be able to treat the line as energized rather
than comply with the additional grounding requirements contained in this
paragraph.
The proposal does not provide specific guidance for determining
whether or not a hazard exists due to induced voltage. The hazard
depends not only on the voltage of the existing line, but also on the
length of the line being installed and the distance between the
existing line and the new one. Electric shock, whether caused by
induced or other voltage, poses two different hazards. First, the
electric shock could cause an involuntary reaction, which could cause a
fall or other injury. Second, the electric shock itself could cause
respiratory or cardiac arrest. If no precautions are taken to protect
employees from hazards associated with involuntary reactions from
electric shock, a hazard is presumed to exist if the induced voltage is
sufficient to pass a current of 1 milliampere through a 500-ohm
resistor. (The 500-ohm resistor represents the resistance of an
employee. The 1 milliampere current is the threshold of perception.) If
employees are protected from injury due to involuntary reactions from
electric shock, a hazard is presumed to exist if the resultant current
would be more than 6 milliamperes (the let-go threshold for women). It
would be up to the employer to ensure that employees are protected
against serious injury from any voltages induced on lines being
installed and to determine whether the voltages are high enough to
warrant the adoption of the additional provisions on grounding spelled
out in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of proposed Sec.
1926.964. These rules propose the following requirements:
(1) Grounds must be installed in increments of no more than 2 miles
(paragraph (b)(4)(i));
(2) Grounds must remain in place until the installation is
completed between dead ends (paragraph (b)(4)(ii));
(3) Grounds must be removed as the last phase of aerial cleanup
(paragraph (b)(4)(iii));
(4) Grounds must be installed at each work location and at all open
dead-end or catch-off points or the next adjacent structure (paragraph
(b)(4)(iv)) if employees are working on bare conductors; and
(5) Bare conductors being spliced must be bonded and grounded
(paragraph (b)(4)(v)).
Paragraph (b)(5) would require reel handling equipment to be in
safe operating condition and to be leveled and aligned. Proper
alignment of the stringing machines will help prevent failure of the
equipment, conductors, and supporting structures, which could result in
injury to workers.
Prevention of the failure of the line pulling equipment and
accessories is also the purpose of paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), and
(b)(8). These provisions, respectively, would require the operation to
be performed within the load limits of the equipment, would require the
repair or replacement of defective apparatus, and would prohibit the
use of conductor grips not specifically designed for use in pulling
operations. Equipment that has been damaged beyond manufacturing
specifications or that has been damaged to the extent that its load
ratings would be reduced are considered to be defective. Load limits
and design specifications are normally provided by the manufacturer,
but they can also be found in engineering and materials handbooks (see,
for example, The Lineman's and Cableman's Handbook, 269-Ex. 8-5).
When the tension stringing method is used, the pulling rig (which
takes up the pulling rope and thereby pulls the conductors into place)
is separated from the reel stands and tensioner (which pay out the
conductors and apply tension to them) by one or more spans (the
distance between the structures supporting the conductors). In an
emergency, the pulling equipment operator may have to shut down the
operation. Paragraph (b)(9) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require
communication to be maintained between the reel tender and the pulling
rig operator, so that in case of emergency at the conductor supply end,
the pulling rig operator can shut the equipment down before injury-
causing damage occurs.
Paragraph (b)(10) would prohibit the operation of the pulling rig
under unsafe conditions. OSHA has included an explanatory note
following paragraph (b)(10) providing examples of unsafe conditions.
Paragraph (b)(11) would prohibit employees from unnecessarily
working directly beneath overhead operations or on the cross arm. This
provision would minimize exposure of employees to injury resulting from
the failure of equipment, conductors, or supporting structures during
pulling operations.
Under certain conditions, work must be performed on transmission
and distribution lines while they remain energized. Sometimes, this
work is accomplished using rubber insulating equipment or live-line
tools. However, this equipment has voltage and other limitations which
make it impossible to insulate the employee performing work on live
lines under all conditions. In such cases, usually on medium- and high-
voltage transmission lines, the work is performed using the live-line
bare-hand technique. If work is to be performed ``bare handed,'' the
employee works from an insulated aerial platform and is electrically
bonded to the energized line. Since there is essentially no potential
difference across the worker's body, he or she is protected from
electric shock. Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 addresses the
live-line bare-hand technique.
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c) has been taken directly from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3). Existing Sec. 1926.955(e) contains similar
requirements for live-line bare hand work. Substantive differences
between the proposal and the existing rule are outlined in the
following summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.964(c).
Because live-line bare-hand work is performed on overhead lines, OSHA
has proposed to place requirements for this type of work in the section
relating to work on overhead lines. This is consistent with existing
Subpart V. However, it is technically possible to perform live-line
bare-hand work on other types of installations as well (in substations,
for example). OSHA requests comments on whether or not the live-line
bare-hand requirements should be consolidated with the other
regulations relating to work on energized lines contained in proposed
Sec. 1926.960.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require employees using or supervising the
use of the live-line bare-hand method on energized lines to be trained
in the use of the technique. Periodic retraining would have to be
provided as required under paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.950.
Without this training, employees would not be able to perform the
highly specialized work safely.
Before work can be started, the voltage of the lines on which work
is to be performed must be known. This voltage determines the minimum
approach distances and the types of equipment which can be used. If the
voltage is higher than expected, the minimum approach distance will be
too small and the equipment may not be safe for use. Therefore,
paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require a
determination to be made of the voltage of the circuit, of the minimum
approach distances to ground of lines and other energized parts on
which work is to be performed, and of the voltage limitations of
equipment to be used.
Because an employee performing live-line bare-hand work is at the
same potential as the line on which he or she is working, the employee
has exposure to two different voltages. First, the employee is exposed
to the phase-to-ground voltage with respect to any grounded object, such
as a pole or tower. Second, the employee is exposed to the full phase-to-phase
voltage with respect to the other phases on the circuit. Thus, there
are two sets of minimum approach distances applicable to live-line
bare-hand work-one for the phase-to-ground exposure (the distance from
the employee to a grounded object) and one for the phase-to-phase
exposure (the distance from the employee to another phase). The phase-
to-phase voltage is higher than the phase-to-ground voltage.
Consequently, the phase-to-phase-based minimum approach distance is
greater than the phase-to-ground-based minimum approach distance.
Paragraph (c)(3) would require insulated tools and equipment to be
designed, tested, and intended for live-line bare-hand work and that
they be kept clean and dry. This requirement is important to ensure
that equipment does not fail under constant contact with high voltage
sources. The proposed rule would apply to insulated tools (such as
live-line tools), insulated equipment (such as insulated ladders), and
aerial devices and platforms used in live-line work. The Agency
considers insulated equipment that is designed for long-duration
contact with energized parts at the voltage on which it is used (such
as a live-line tool) to meet this requirement. Insulating equipment
designed for brush contact only is not suitable for live-line bare-hand
work.
Paragraph (c)(4) would require the automatic-reclosing feature of
circuit protective devices to be made inoperative if the design of
those devices permits. In case of a fault at the worksite, it is
important for the circuit to be deenergized as quickly as possible and
for it to remain deenergized once the protective devices have opened
the circuit.\58\ This prevents any possible injuries from becoming more
severe. Additionally, this measure helps limit the possible switching
surge voltage, which provides an extra measure of safety. This
provision is comparable to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(5), which
requires this feature to be rendered inoperable ``where practical.''
The proposal eliminates this phrase because OSHA believes that it is
essential that a line which becomes deenergized on a fault not be
reenergized if it is possible to do so. During live-line bare-hand
work, employees have no other back-up system providing for their safety
as they would for work on deenergized lines.\59\ Thus, if the employee
causes a fault on the line, the line must not become reenergized
automatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ If the circuit protective devices do not provide an
autoreclosing feature, the circuit will remain deenergized by
design. In addition, voltage surges caused by circuit reclosing
would not occur.
\59\ Personal protective grounding provides supplementary
protection in case the deenergized line is reenergized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the weather makes live-line bare-hand work unsafe. For
example, lightning strikes on lines being worked can create severe
transient voltages, against which the minimum approach distances
required by proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1) may not provide complete
protection. Additionally, the wind can reduce the minimum approach
distance below acceptable values. To provide protection against
environmental conditions that can increase the hazards by an
unacceptable degree, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would prohibit live-line
bare-hand work under conditions that make the work hazardous in spite
of the precautions taken under the proposed rule. Also, work would not
be allowed under any conditions that reduce the minimum approach
distances below required values. If insulating guards are provided to
prevent hazardous approach to other energized parts and to ground, then
work could be performed under conditions reducing the minimum approach
distances.
Existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(6) prohibits live-line bare-hand work
only during thunderstorms. OSHA believes that expanding the prohibition
to include any weather condition making it unsafe to perform this type
of work will better protect employees. The language for the proposed
rule has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(v).
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(6) would require the use of a conductive
device, usually in the form of a conductive bucket liner, which creates
an area of equipotential in which the employee can work safely. The
employee must be bonded to this device by means of conductive shoes or
leg clips or by another effective method. Additionally, if necessary to
protect employees further (that is, if differences in electrical
potential at the worksite pose a hazard to employees), electrostatic
shielding would be required. Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(6), which has
been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(vi), is essentially identical to
existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(7).
To avoid receiving a shock caused by charging current, the employee
must bond the conductive bucket liner (or other conductive device) to
the energized conductor before he or she touches the conductor.
Typically, a hot stick is used to bring a bonding jumper (already
connected to the conductive bucket liner) into contact with the live
line. This connection brings the equipotential area surrounding the
employee to the same voltage as that of the line. Proposed Sec.
1926.964(c)(7) would require the conductive device to be bonded to the
energized conductor before any employee contacts the energized
conductor and would require this connection to be maintained until work
is completed. Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(7), which has been taken from
Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(vii), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(14).
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(8) would require aerial lifts used for
live-line bare-hand work to be equipped with upper controls that are
within reach of any employee in the bucket and with lower controls that
permit override operation at the base of the boom. Upper controls are
necessary so that employees in the bucket can precisely control the
lift's direction and speed of approach to the live line. Control by
workers on the ground responding to directions from those in the bucket
could lead to contact by an employee in the lift with the energized
conductor before the bonding jumper is in place. Controls are needed at
ground level, however, so that employees in the lift who might be
disabled as a result of an accident or illness could be promptly
lowered and assisted. For this reason, paragraph (c)(9) would prohibit
operation of the ground level controls except in case of emergency.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9), which have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(viii) and (q)(3)(ix), are essentially identical to
existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(12) and (e)(13).
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(10) would require all aerial lift
controls to be checked to ensure that they are in proper working order
before any employee is lifted into the working position. This
paragraph, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(x), is
essentially identical to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(10).
To protect employees on the ground from the electric shock that
would be received upon touching the truck supporting the aerial lift,
proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(11) would require the truck to be grounded
or barricaded and treated as energized. If the truck is grounded, the
insulation of the lift limits the voltage on the body of the truck to a
safe level. The proposed rule, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xi), is similar to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(9). The
existing requirement in Subpart V, however, also includes a provision
for using the outriggers on the aerial lift to stabilize the equipment.
The hazard addressed by this provision is covered in proposed Sec. 1926.959(b)(1),
discussed earlier in this section of the preamble.
Aerial lifts that are used in live-line bare-hand work are exposed
to the full line-to-ground voltage of the circuit for the duration of
the job. To ensure that the insulating value of the lift being used is
high enough to protect employees, proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(12) would
require a boom-current test to be made before work is started each day.
The test would also be required when a higher voltage is encountered
and when conditions change to a degree that warrants retesting the
equipment.
Under the standard, the test consists of placing the bucket in
contact with a source of voltage equal to that being encountered during
the job and keeping it there for at least 3 minutes. This is normally
accomplished at the worksite by placing the bucket in contact with the
energized line on which work is to be performed (without anyone in it,
of course).
Paragraph (c)(12), which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xii), is similar to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(11). To
provide employees with a level of protection equivalent to that
provided by American National Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating
and Rotating Aerial Devices (ANSI A92.2-2001), Sec. 1926.964(c)(12)
proposes to permit a leakage current of up to 1 microampere per
kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground voltage. In contrast, the
corresponding provision in existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(11) allows up to
1 microampere of current for every kilovolt of phase-to-phase voltage.
(For a three-phase, Y-connected system, the phase-to-phase voltage
equals 1.73 times the phase-to-ground voltage.) Because the national
consensus standard and Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(xii) contain the more
protective language, OSHA is proposing the maximum leakage current of 1
microampere per kilovolt of phase-to-ground voltage from the general
industry standard.
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(12) would also require the suspension of
related work activity any time (not only during tests) a malfunction of
the equipment is evident. This proposed requirement is intended to
prevent the failure of insulated aerial devices during use. Only work
from an aerial lift is affected. Work not involving an aerial lift
could be continued. Halting work from the lift will protect employees
in the lift, as well as those on the ground, from the electrical
hazards involved.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(13), (c)(14), and (c)(15) of proposed Sec.
1926.964 would require the minimum approach distances specified in
Table V-2 through Table V-6 to be maintained from grounded objects and
from objects at a potential different from that at which the bucket is
energized. These provisions, which are based on Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xiii), (q)(3)(iv), and (q)(3)(v), are essentially
identical to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(15), (e)(16), and (e)(17),
except for the change in the minimum approach distances. (See the
summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1) for a
discussion of the derivation of minimum approach distances.) Paragraph
(c)(13) would apply to minimum approach distances in general; paragraph
(c)(14) would cover minimum approach distances to be used as the
employee approaches or leaves the energized conductor; and paragraph
(c)(15) relates to the distance between the bucket and the end of a
bushing or insulator string. The latter two paragraphs clarify that the
employee and the bucket are considered to be at phase potential as the
employee is approaching the energized part and that the phase-to-ground
minimum approach distance must be maintained from grounded objects.
Similarly, the employee must maintain the phase-to-phase minimum
approach distance from the other phases on the system. OSHA requests
comments on whether proposed paragraphs (c)(14) and (c)(15) should
address objects at different phase potential in addition to objects at
ground potential.
Proposed paragraph (c)(16) would prohibit the use of hand lines
between the bucket and boom and between the bucket and ground. Such use
of lines could set up a potential difference between the employee in
the bucket and the power line when the employee contacts the hand line.
If the hand line is a nonconductive type and if it is not supported
from the bucket, it may be used from the conductor to ground. Unless
the rope is insulated for the voltage, employees on the ground must
treat it as energized. Lastly, ropes used for live-line bare-hand work
may not be used for other purposes.
This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xvi), is similar to existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(18).
However, the existing standard, in Sec. 1926.955(e)(18)(ii), prohibits
conductive materials over 36 inches long from being placed in the
aerial lift bucket. Exceptions are made for ``appropriate length
jumpers, armor rods, and tools.'' OSHA is proposing to revoke this
requirement. The proposal would require the minimum approach distance
to be maintained regardless of the length of any conductive object.
Thus, existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(18)(ii) is unnecessary.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.964(c)(17) would prohibit passing
uninsulated equipment or materials to an employee bonded to an
energized part. Passing uninsulated objects to an employee who is
bonded to an energized conductor would bridge the insulation to ground
and endanger the employee. This proposed provision, which is based on
Sec. 1910.269(q)(3)(xvii), has no counterpart in existing Sec.
1926.955(e).
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(18) would require a durable
nonconductive chart reflecting the minimum approach distances
prescribed by Table V-2 through Table V-6 to be mounted so that it is
visible to the operator of the boom. Of course, a table prescribing
minimum approach distances greater than those required would also be
acceptable. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xviii), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(20)(i).
Proposed Sec. 1926.964(c)(19) would require a non-conductive
measuring device to be available and readily accessible to the employee
in the lift. This provision has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xix). Existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(20)(ii) recommends, but
does not require, an insulating measuring device. OSHA believes that
this should be a requirement, rather than a recommendation, so that
employees can accurately determine whether the required minimum
approach distances are being maintained. Under the existing standard,
an employee might be required by the employer to estimate the distance.
Compliance with paragraphs (c)(18) and (c)(19) in proposed Sec.
1926.964 would assist the employee in accurately determining the
minimum approach distances required by the standard.
Existing Sec. 1926.955(e)(19) prohibits an aerial lift used in
live-line bare-hand work from being overstressed while lifting or
supporting weights. OSHA has not proposed to include this requirement
under Sec. 1926.964. The hazard addressed by the existing requirement
is a general hazard, which is present any time the aerial lift is used,
not just during live-line bare-hand work. OSHA believes that this
hazard is better treated in proposed Sec. 1926.959(c), which would
require mechanical equipment to be operated within its design
limitations.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 addresses hazards
associated with towers and other structures supporting overhead lines.
This paragraph has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(4).
Paragraph (b) of existing Sec. 1926.955 addresses metal tower
construction.
Many of the requirements in the existing rules cover the same hazards
as other provisions in the construction standards. For example, Sec.
1926.955(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) address hazards associated with
footing excavations. Power transmission and distribution workers are
fully protected from these hazards by Subpart P of Part 1926.\60\
Therefore, the proposed revision of Subpart V contains no counterparts
to these existing requirements. Existing paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and
(b)(7) contain simple references to other Part 1926 requirements.
Existing paragraphs (b)(5)(iii), (b)(6)(i), (b)(6)(v), and (b)(8),
which address a few of the hazards associated with mechanical
equipment, contain requirements that are equivalent to provisions in
existing Subpart N of Part 1926 or proposed Sec. 1926.959. The
proposed revision of Subpart V contains counterparts to none of these
six paragraphs. OSHA believes that eliminating these provisions will
reduce redundancy and will eliminate the potential for conflicts
between different standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Two of the requirements in the existing paragraphs are
covered in other places. Under the last sentence of existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(1), ladders must be used to provide access for pad- or
pile-type footing excavations more than 4 feet deep. This hazard is
already addressed in Sec. 1926.1051(a), which requires a stairway
or a ladder to be provided for access to breaks in elevation of more
than 48 cm, unless a ramp, runway, sloped embankment, or personnel
hoist is available. Existing Sec. 1926.955(b)(3)(iii) addresses the
stability of equipment used near excavations. Proposed Sec.
1926.959(b) and (c) cover hazards associated with instability of
mechanical equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To protect employees on the ground from hazards presented by
falling objects, proposed Sec. 1926.964(d)(1) would prohibit workers
from standing under a tower or other structure, unless their presence
is necessary to assist employees working above. This provision, which
has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(4)(i), is equivalent to existing
Sec. 1926.955(b)(4)(i) and (b)(5)(ii). The proposal eliminates the
redundancy presented by these two existing requirements.
Paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 relates to operations
that involve lifting and positioning tower sections. This provision
requires tag lines or other similar devices to be used to control tower
sections being positioned, unless the employer can demonstrate that the
use of such devices would create a greater hazard. The use of tag lines
protects employees from being struck by tower sections that are in
motion. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(ii), is the same as Sec. 1926.955(b)(4)(ii) and
(b)(6)(ii). The proposal eliminates the redundancy presented by these
two existing requirements.
Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.964 would require loadlines
to remain in place until the load is secured so that it cannot topple
and injure an employee. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(iii), is essentially identical to Sec.
1926.955(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii). The proposal eliminates the
redundancy presented by these two existing requirements.
Some weather conditions can make work from towers and other
overhead structures more hazardous than usual. For example, icy
conditions may make slips and falls much more likely, in fact even
unavoidable. Under such conditions, work from towers and other
structures would generally be prohibited by proposed Sec.
1926.964(d)(4). However, when emergency restoration work \61\ is
involved, the additional risk may be necessary for public safety, and
the standard permits such work to be performed even in bad weather.
This provision, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(q)(4)(iv), is
essentially identical to existing Sec. 1926.955(b)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Emergency restoration work is considered to be that work
needed to restore an electric power transmission or distribution
installation to an operating condition to the extent necessary to
safeguard the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1926.965, Underground Electrical Installations
In many electric distribution systems, electric equipment is
installed in enclosures, such as manholes and vaults, set beneath the
earth. Proposed Sec. 1926.965 addresses safety for these underground
electrical installations. As noted in Sec. 1926.965(a), the
requirements proposed in this section are in addition to requirements
contained elsewhere in the standard (and elsewhere in Part 1926)
because Sec. 1926.965 only contains considerations unique to
underground facilities. For example, proposed Sec. 1926.953, relating
to enclosed spaces, also applies to underground operations involving
entry into an enclosed space.
Proposed Sec. 1926.965 has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t).
Existing Subpart V contains requirements for work on underground lines
in Sec. 1926.956. Differences between the existing rules and the
proposed rules are explained in the following summary and explanation
of proposed Sec. 1926.965.
Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require the use of
ladders or other climbing devices for entrance into and exit from
manholes and subsurface vaults that are more than 1.22 meters (4 feet)
deep. Because employees can easily be injured in the course of jumping
into subsurface enclosures or in climbing on the cables and hangers
which have been installed in these enclosures, the standard requires
the use of appropriate devices for employees entering and exiting
manholes and vaults. The practice of climbing on equipment such as
cables and cable hangers is specifically prohibited by paragraph (b).
This proposed provision has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(1).
Subpart V contains no counterpart to this requirement.
Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require equipment
used to lower materials and tools into manholes or vaults to be capable
of supporting the weight and requires this equipment to be checked for
defects before use. Paragraph (c) would also require employees to be in
the clear when tools or materials are lowered into the enclosure. This
provision protects employees against being injured by falling tools and
material. It should be noted that, because work addressed by this
paragraph exposes employees to the danger of head injury, Sec.
1926.95(a) requires employees to wear head protection when they are
working in underground electrical installations. Proposed paragraph (c)
has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(2). Subpart V contains no
counterpart to this requirement.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require attendants
for manholes. During the time work is being performed in a manhole that
contains energized electric equipment, an employee would be required to
be available in the immediate vicinity (but not normally in the
manhole) to render emergency assistance. However, the attendant would
be allowed to enter the manhole, for brief periods, to provide other
than emergency assistance to those inside.
The provisions in paragraph (d) are being proposed so that
emergency assistance can be provided to employees working in manholes,
where the employees work unobserved and where undetected injury could
occur. Taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(3) and from existing Sec.
1926.956(b)(1), these proposed requirements are intended to protect
employees within the manhole without exposing the attendants outside to
a risk of injury greater than that faced by those inside.
Because the hazards addressed by paragraph (t)(3) are primarily
related to electric shock, allowing the attendant to enter the manhole
briefly \62\ has no significant effect on the safety of the employee he
or she is protecting. In case of electric shock, the attendant would still
be able to provide assistance. The proposed rule would require the attendant
to be trained in first aid and in CPR to ensure that emergency treatment will
be available if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The attendant would be permitted to remain within the
manhole only for the short period of time necessary to assist the
employee inside the manhole with a task that one employee cannot
perform alone. For example, if a second employee is needed to help
lift a piece of equipment into place, the attendant could enter only
for the amount of time that is needed to accomplish this task.
However, if significant portions of the job require the assistance
of a second worker in the manhole, the attendant would not be
permitted to remain in the manhole for the length of time that would
be necessary, and a third employee would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If other hazards are believed to endanger the employee in the
manhole, paragraph (h) of proposed Sec. 1926.953 would also apply.\63\
This provision would require attendants for work in an enclosed space
(for example, a manhole) if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns
in the area of the opening to the enclosed space. Thus, an attendant
would be required when traffic patterns in the area around the manhole
opening endanger an entrant exiting the manhole. In such situations,
the employee on the surface would be exposed to the same hazards
against which he or she is trying to protect the original entrant if
the attendant were to enter the manhole or vault. Therefore, the
proposal would not permit attendants required under Sec. 1926.953(h)
to enter the manhole. To clarify the application of the two different
attendant requirements, a note has been included following Sec.
1926.965(d)(2). The note indicates that if an attendant is also
required under Sec. 1926.953(h), one person may serve to satisfy both
requirements, but is not permitted to enter the manhole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Additionally, as noted in the discussion of proposed Sec.
1926.953, earlier in this preamble, the entry would have to be
conducted in accordance with Sec. 1910.146, the generic permit-
required confined spaces standard, if proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.953
and 1926.965 would not adequately protect the entrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA has included a second note following Sec. 1926.965(d)(2).
This note serves as a reminder that Sec. 1926.960(b) would prohibit
unqualified employees from working in areas containing unguarded,
uninsulated energized lines or parts of equipment operating at 50 volts
or more.
Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would permit an
employee working alone to enter a manhole or vault for the purpose of
inspection, housekeeping, taking readings, or similar work. As noted
earlier, the purpose of requiring an attendant under proposed Sec.
1926.965(d) is to provide assistance in case an electric shock occurs.
When an employee is performing the types of work listed in this
provision, there is very little chance that he or she would suffer an
electric shock. Thus, the Agency believes it is safe for an employee to
perform duties such as housekeeping and inspection without the presence
of an attendant.
Under paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.965, reliable
communications would be required to be maintained among all employees
involved in the job, including any attendants, the employees in the
manhole, and employees in separate manholes working on the same job.
This requirement, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(3)(iv),
has no counterpart in Sec. 1926.956(b)(1).
To install cables into the underground ducts, or conduits, that
will contain them, employees use a series of short jointed rods or a
long flexible rod inserted into the ducts. The insertion of these rods
into the ducts is known as ``rodding.'' The rods are used to thread the
cable-pulling rope through the conduit. After the rods have been
withdrawn and the cable-pulling ropes have been inserted, the cables
can then be pulled through by mechanical means.
Paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require duct rods to
be inserted in the direction presenting the least hazard to employees.
To make sure that a rod does not contact live parts at the far end of
the duct line being rodded, which would be in a different manhole or
vault, the proposal would also require an employee to be stationed at
the remote end of the rodding operation to ensure that the required
minimum approach distances are maintained. This provision, which has
been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(4), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
To prevent accidents resulting from working on the wrong cable, one
that may be energized, proposed Sec. 1926.965(f) would require the
identification of the proper cable when multiple cables are present in
a work area. The identification must be made by electrical means (for
example, a meter), unless the proper cable is obvious because of
appearance, location, or other means of readily identifying the proper
cable. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(t)(5), is similar to existing Sec. 1926.956(c)(4), (c)(5),
and (c)(6); however, existing Sec. 1926.956(c)(4) and (c)(5) apply
only to excavations. The proposal would apply the requirements to all
underground installations.
If any energized cables are to be moved during underground
operations, paragraph (g) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require them
to be inspected for possible defects that could lead to a fault. (If a
defect is found, paragraph (h) would apply.) These provisions protect
employees against possibly defective cables, which could fault upon
being moved, leading to serious injury. This paragraph in the proposal,
which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(6), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
Since defective energized cables may fail with an enormous release
of energy, precautions must be taken to minimize the possibility of
such an occurrence while an employee is working in a manhole.
Therefore, paragraph (h) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would, in general,
prohibit employees from working in a manhole which contains an
energized cable with a defect that could lead to a fault. The proposal
lists typical abnormalities that could expose employees to injury as:
oil or compound leaking from a cable or joint (splice), a broken cable
sheath or joint sleeve, hot localized surface temperatures on a cable
or joint, or a joint that is swollen beyond normal tolerances. Examples
of abnormalities are listed in a note following Sec. 1926.965(h). The
note states that the listed conditions are presumed to lead to or be an
indication of a possible impending fault. An employer could demonstrate
that any one of these conditions, in a particular case, is not
indicative of an impending fault, in which case proposed Sec.
1926.965(h) would not require protective measures to be taken. This
provision, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(7), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
In the Sec. 1910.269 rulemaking, OSHA concluded that employees may
work in a manhole that contains an energized cable with abnormalities
only when service load conditions and feasible alternatives prevent
deenergizing the cable and only when the employees are protected from a
failure (January 31, 1994, 59 FR 4416).
Under some service load conditions, it may not be feasible for the
electric utility to deenergize the cable with the defect at the same
time that another line is deenergized for maintenance work. In such
cases, paragraph (h)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would allow the
defective cable or splice to remain energized as long as the employees
in the manhole are protected against the possible effects of a failure
by shields or other devices capable of containing the adverse effects
of a failure. For example, a ballistic blanket wrapped around a
defective splice can protect against injury from the effects of a fault in the
splice. The energy that could be released in case of a fault is known,
and the energy absorbing capability of a shield or other device can be
obtained from the manufacturer or can be calculated. As long as the
energy absorbing capability of the shield or other device exceeds the
available fault energy, employees will be protected. The proposal would
require employees to be protected, regardless of the type of device
used and of how it is applied. Additionally, the proposal would permit
this option to be used only ``when service load conditions and a lack
of feasible alternatives require that the cable remain energized.''
Employers are required to use alternatives, such as the use of shunts
or other means of supplying areas with power, whenever feasible before
allowing access.
Paragraph (h)(2) addresses work that could itself cause a fault in
a cable, such as removing asbestos covering on a cable or using a power
tool to break concrete encasing a cable. This type of work can damage
the cable and create an internal fault. The energy released by the
fault could injure not only the employee performing the work but any
other employees nearby. Paragraph (h)(2) would require the same
protective measures in those situations as paragraph (h)(1), that is,
deenergizing the cable or, under certain conditions, using shields or
other protective devices capable of containing the effects of the
fault.
Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec. 1926.965 would require metallic
sheath continuity to be maintained while work is performed on
underground cables. Bonding across an opening in a cable's sheath
protects employees against shock from a difference in potential between
the two sides of the opening. As an alternative to bonding, the cable
sheath could be treated as energized. (The voltage to which the sheath
is to be considered energized is equal to the maximum voltage that
could be seen across the sheath under fault conditions.) This
requirement, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(t)(8), is
essentially identical to existing Sec. 1926.956(c)(7), except that the
proposal would allow the cable sheath to be treated as energized in
lieu of bonding. This is consistent with other parts of the proposal,
such as proposed Sec. 1926.960(j), which recognize treating objects as
energized as an alternative to grounding.
Section 1926.966, Substations
Proposed Sec. 1926.966 addresses work performed in substations. As
is the case elsewhere in the standard, the provisions of this paragraph
are intended to supplement (rather than modify) the more general
requirements contained in other portions of Subpart V, such as Sec.
1926.960 on working on or near live parts.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(b) would require enough space to be
provided around electric equipment to allow ready and safe access to
and operation and maintenance of the equipment. This rule would prevent
employees from contacting exposed live parts as a result of
insufficient maneuvering room. A note has been included to recognize,
as constituting compliance, the provisions of ANSI C2-2002 for the
design of workspace for electric equipment. This provision, which has
been taken from Sec. 1910.269(u)(1), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
OSHA realizes that older installations may not meet the dimensions
set forth in the latest version of the national consensus standard. The
Agency believes that the language of proposed Sec. 1926.966(b) is
sufficiently performance oriented that older installations built to
specifications in the standards that were in effect at the time they
were constructed would meet the requirement for sufficient workspace
provided that the installation and work practices used enable employees
to perform work safely within the space and to maintain the minimum
approach distances specified in proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1). In fact,
the note for this provision states that the NESC specifications are
guidelines. The ANSI standard is specifically not being incorporated by
reference here. However, OSHA has included the following language in
the note to proposed Sec. 1926.966(b):
Note to paragraph (b) of this section: Guidelines for the
dimensions of access and workspace about electric equipment in
substations are contained in American National Standard National
Electrical Safety Code, ANSI C2-2002. Installations meeting the ANSI
provisions comply with paragraph (b) of this section. An
installation that does not conform to this ANSI standard will,
nonetheless, be considered as complying with paragraph (b) of this
section if the employer can demonstrate that the installation
provides ready and safe access based on the following evidence:
(1) That the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI C2
that was in effect at the time the installation was made,
(2) That the configuration of the installation enables employees
to maintain the minimum approach distances required by Sec.
1926.960(c)(1) of this Part while they working on exposed, energized
parts, and
(3) That the precautions taken when work is performed on the
installation provide protection equivalent to the protection that
would be provide by access and working space meeting ANSI C2-2002.
This language accomplishes three goals. First, it explains that an
installation need not be in conformance with ANSI C2-2002 in order to
be considered as complying with proposed Sec. 1926.966(b). Second, it
informs employers whose installations do not conform to the latest ANSI
standard of how they can demonstrate compliance with the OSHA standard.
Third, it ensures that, however old an installation is, it provides
sufficient space to enable employees to work within the space without
significant risk of injury.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(c) would require draw-out-type circuit
breakers to be inserted and removed while the breaker is in the open
position. (A draw-out-type circuit breaker is one in which the
removable portion may be withdrawn from the stationary portion without
the necessity of unbolting connections or mounting supports.)
Additionally, if the design of the control devices permits, the control
circuit for the circuit breaker would have to be rendered inoperative.
(Some circuit breaker and control device designs do not incorporate a
feature allowing the control circuit for the breaker to be rendered
inoperative.) These provisions are intended to prevent arcing which
could injure employees. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken
from Sec. 1910.269(u)(2), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Because voltages can be impressed or induced on large metal objects
near substation equipment, proposed Sec. 1926.966(d) would require
conductive fences around substations to be grounded. Continuity across
openings is also required in order to eliminate voltage differences
between adjacent parts of the fence.
This provision has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(u)(3). Existing
Sec. 1926.957(g)(1) requires ``[a]dequate interconnection with
ground'' to be maintained between temporary and permanent fences.
Existing Subpart V does not require permanent substation fences to be
grounded. However, OSHA believes that grounding metal fences, whether
they are temporary or permanent, is essential to the safety of
employees working near the fences.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(e) addresses the guarding of rooms
containing electric supply equipment. This paragraph has been taken
from Sec. 1910.269(u)(4). The only provisions in existing Subpart V
addressing guarding of live parts in substations are contained in
Sec. 1926.957(c) and (g). These two provisions require barricades or
barriers to be installed (paragraph (c)) and for temporary fences to be
installed if sections of permanent fencing are removed (paragraph (g)).
Existing Sec. 1926.957(g)(2) also requires gates to unattended
substations to be locked.
The existing requirements only address temporary guarding measures.
Permanent guarding of live parts, which is generally more substantial
than the tape and cone barricades permitted under the existing rule, is
never mentioned in existing Sec. 1926.957. OSHA's proposed revision of
the substation rules addresses guarding of live parts in substations in
a more comprehensive manner and should provide better protection for
employees.
OSHA believes that it is important to prohibit unqualified persons
from areas containing energized electric supply equipment regardless of
the work they would be performing. Employees working in these areas
must be trained in the hazards involved and in the appropriate work
practices, as would be required by proposed Sec. 1926.950(b)(2).
Otherwise, they would not be able to distinguish hazardous circuit
parts from non-hazardous equipment and would not be familiar with the
appropriate work practices, regardless of the jobs they are performing.
There have been accidents that involve contact of unqualified persons
with energized parts in such areas.
Subpart V is intended to apply to electrical installations for
which OSHA has few design requirements. The Subpart K electrical
installation standards typically do not apply to electric power
transmission and distribution installations, and such installations may
pose hazards in addition to those of exposed live parts. For example,
equipment enclosures may be ungrounded. If the requirements of Subpart
K are not being met, then it is important to prevent unqualified
persons from gaining access to areas containing electric power
transmission and distribution equipment.
If, on the other hand, the installation conforms to Subpart K, at
least with respect to the guarding of live parts and to the grounding
of enclosures for these parts, unqualified employees may safely access
substation areas. In Subpart K, suitable protection is provided by
Sec. Sec. 1926.403(j)(2), 1926.403(i)(2), and 1926.404(f)(7) for
employees working in substations. These provisions prohibit unqualified
persons from accessing areas containing exposed live parts operating at
50 volts through 600 volts and located less than 8 feet above the floor
or other working surface. Unqualified persons are also prohibited from
areas containing live parts operating at more than 600 volts, unless
the live parts are completely enclosed in metal enclosures or are
installed at an elevation of at least 8 feet, 6 inches. The metal
enclosures must be grounded, and the minimum height increases with
increasing voltage.
OSHA is proposing to adopt requirements here that follow the
Subpart K approach. Proposed Sec. 1926.966(e) sets forth criteria for
access by unqualified persons to spaces containing electric supply
lines or equipment. Paragraph (e)(1) divides areas containing electric
supply equipment into three categories as follows:
(1) Areas where exposed live parts operating at 50 to 150 volts to
ground are located within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or other
working surface,
(2) Areas where live parts operating at between 150 and 601 volts
and located within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or other working
surface are guarded only by location, as permitted under paragraph
(f)(1), and
(3) Areas where live parts operating at more than 600 volts are
located, unless:
(a) The live parts are enclosed within grounded, metal-enclosed
equipment whose only openings are designed so that foreign objects
inserted in these openings will be deflected from energized parts, or
(b) The live parts are installed at a height above ground and any
other working surface that provides protection at least equivalent to
an 2.4-meter (8-foot) height at 50 volts.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(e)(2) through (e)(5) propose requirements
that would apply to these areas. The areas would have to be so enclosed
as to minimize the possibility that unqualified persons will enter;
warning signs would have to be displayed; and entrances not under the
observation of an attendant would have to be kept locked. Additionally,
unqualified persons would not be permitted to enter these areas while
the electric supply lines or equipment are energized.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(f) also addresses guarding of live parts.
This paragraph, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(u)(5), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(f)(1) would require live parts operating at
more than 150 volts to be guarded (by physical guards or by location)
or insulated. This provision protects qualified employees from
accidentally contacting energized parts. Guidance for clearance
distances appropriate for guarding by location can be found in ANSI C2.
Installations meeting ANSI C2-2002 are considered to meet paragraph
(f)(1), which is based on Section 124A.1 of that standard.
OSHA will consider installations that do not meet ANSI C2-2002 as
meeting proposed paragraph (f)(1) provided the employer can demonstrate
that the installation provides sufficient clearance based on the
following evidence:
(1) That the installation meets the requirements of the edition of
ANSI C2 that was in effect at the time the installation was made,
(2) That each employee is isolated from live parts at the point of
closest approach, and
(3) That the precautions taken protect employees to the same degree
as the clearances specified in ANSI C2-2002.
This approach would afford employers flexibility in complying with
the standard and would afford employees protection from injury due to
sparkover from live circuit parts.
Proposed Sec. 1926.966(f)(2) would require the guarding of live
parts within a compartment to be maintained during operation and
maintenance functions. This guarding is intended to prevent accidental
contact with energized parts and to prevent objects from being dropped
on energized parts. However, since access must be gained to energized
equipment by qualified employees, an exception to this proposed
requirement allows the removal of guards for fuse replacement and other
necessary access by qualified persons. In such cases, proposed
paragraph (f)(3) would protect other employees working nearby by
requiring the installation of protective barriers around the work area.
So that employees can receive pertinent information on conditions
that affect safety at the substation, paragraph (g)(1) would require
employees who do not regularly work at the station to report their
presence to the employee in charge. Typical conditions affecting safety
in substations include the location of energized equipment in the area
and the limits of any deenergized work area. Proposed paragraph (g)(2)
would require this specific information to be communicated to employees
during the job briefing required by proposed Sec. 1926.952. These two
requirements have been taken from Sec. 1910.269(u)(6).
Existing Sec. 1926.957(a)(1) requires authorization to be obtained
from the person in charge of the substation before work is performed.
The proposal would not require authorization. OSHA does not believe
that such a requirement is necessary. As noted, proposed Sec.
1926.966(g)(1) would require employees who do not regularly work in
the substation to report their presence to the employee in charge. The
main purpose of this rule is for the flow of important safety-related
information from the employee in charge to employees about to work in
the substation. As long as this information is imparted to the
employees performing the work and as long as the requirements proposed
in the revision of Subpart V are followed, the work can be performed
safely. The Agency does not believe that the requirement that the work
be authorized is necessary for employee safety; however, OSHA requests
comments on whether or not the lack of authorization to perform work
can lead to accidents.
Existing Sec. 1926.957(a)(2) is essentially identical to proposed
Sec. 1926.966(g)(2), except that the existing rule, in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), also requires the determination of what protective
equipment and precautions are necessary. Since the job briefing is
already required to cover these areas under proposed Sec. 1926.952(b),
existing Sec. 1926.957(a)(2)(ii), which applies only to work in
energized substations, would no longer be necessary.
Section 1926.967, Special Conditions
Proposed Sec. 1926.967 proposes requirements for special
conditions that are encountered during electric power transmission and
distribution work.
Since capacitors store electric charge and can release electrical
energy even when disconnected from their sources of supply, some
precautions may be necessary--in addition to those proposed in Sec.
1926.961 (deenergizing lines and equipment) and Sec. 1926.962
(grounding)--when work is performed on capacitors or on lines that are
connected to capacitors. Proposed Sec. 1926.967(a), which has been
taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(1), contains precautions which will enable
this equipment to be considered as deenergized. This proposed paragraph
has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Under proposed Sec. 1926.967(a)(1), capacitors on which work is to
be performed would have to be disconnected from their sources of supply
and, after a 5-minute wait, short-circuited. This not only removes the
sources of electric current but relieves the capacitors of their charge
as well. It should be noted that ANSI/IEEE Standard No. 18-2002
requires all capacitors to have an internal resistor across its
terminals to reduce the voltage to 50 volts or less within 5 minutes
after the capacitor is disconnected from an energized source.
For work on individual capacitors in a series-parallel capacitor
bank, each unit must be short-circuited between its terminals and the
capacitor tank or rack, and the rack must be grounded; otherwise,
individual capacitors could retain a charge. These considerations are
proposed in paragraph (a)(2). Lastly, paragraph (a)(3) also requires
lines to which capacitors are connected to be short-circuited before
the lines can be considered deenergized.
A note referring to the requirements for deenergizing electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment (proposed Sec.
1926.961) and for grounding (proposed Sec. 1926.962) has been included
following Sec. 1926.967(a) to alert readers to the appropriate
requirements for deenergizing and grounding.
Although the magnetic flux density in the core of a current
transformer is usually very low, resulting in a low secondary voltage,
it will rise to saturation if the secondary circuit is opened while the
transformer primary is energized. If this occurs, the magnetic flux
will induce a voltage in the secondary winding high enough to be
hazardous to the insulation in the secondary circuit and to personnel.
Because of this hazard to workers, proposed Sec. 1926.967(b) would
prohibit the opening of the secondary circuit of a current transformer
while the primary is energized. If the primary cannot be deenergized
for work to be performed on the secondary, then the secondary circuit
would have to be bridged so that an open-circuit condition does not
result. This provision, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(2),
has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
In a series streetlighting circuit, the lamps are connected in
series, and the same current flows in each lamp. This current is
supplied by a constant-current transformer, which provides a constant
current at a variable voltage from a source of constant voltage and
variable current. Like the current transformer, the constant current
source attempts to supply current even when the secondary circuit is
open. The resultant open-circuit voltage can be very high and hazardous
to employees. For this reason, Sec. 1926.967(c)(2) proposes a
requirement, similar to that in proposed paragraph (b), that either the
streetlighting transformer be deenergized or the circuit be bridged to
avoid an open-circuit condition. In addition, proposed Sec.
1926.967(c)(1) would require streetlighting circuits with an open
circuit voltage of more than 600 volts to be worked in accordance with
the requirements on overhead lines in proposed Sec. 1926.964 or on
underground electrical installations in proposed Sec. 1926.965, as
appropriate. These provisions, which have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(w)(3), have no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Frequently, electric power transmission and distribution employees
must work at night or in enclosed places, such as manholes, that are
not illuminated by the sun. Since inadvertent contact with live parts
can be fatal, good lighting is important to the safety of these
workers. Therefore, proposed Sec. 1926.967(d) would require sufficient
illumination to be provided so that work can be performed safely. This
provision, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(4), is
comparable to existing Sec. 1926.950(f). The existing requirement,
however, applies only at night. OSHA believes that it is important for
employees to have sufficient lighting to perform the work safely no
matter what the time of day is. The note following proposed Sec.
1926.967(d) refers to Sec. 1926.56 for specific levels of illumination
that are required under various conditions.
To protect employees working in areas that expose them to the
hazards of drowning, proposed Sec. 1926.967(e) would require the
provision and use of personal flotation devices. Additionally, to
ensure that these devices would provide the necessary protection upon
demand, they would have to be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard, be
maintained in safe condition, and be inspected frequently enough to
ensure that they do not have defects or other conditions that would
render them unsuitable for use. Lastly, employees would not be
permitted to cross streams unless a safe means of passage is provided.
This provision, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(5), would
replace existing Sec. 1926.950(g). The existing rule simply references
other construction standards on body belts, safety straps, and
lanyards, on safety nets, and on protection for working near water,
namely Sec. Sec. 1926.104, 1926.105, and 1926.106. OSHA is proposing
language identical to that contained in Sec. 1910.269 for consistency
with that standard, which the Agency believes affords better protection
for electric power transmission and distribution employees. However,
comments are invited on whether or not existing Sec. 1926.950(g) would
better protect employees.
Proposed Sec. 1926.967(f) references Subpart P of Part 1926 for
requirements on excavations. This provision is equivalent to existing
Sec. 1926.956(c)(2), which references Sec. Sec. 1926.651 and 1926.652
of that subpart. The proposed rule clearly indicates that all of the
requirements of Subpart P apply.
Employees working in areas with pedestrian or vehicular traffic are
exposed to additional hazards compared to employees working on an
employer's premises, where public access is restricted. One serious
additional hazard faced by workers exposed to the public is that of
being struck by a vehicle (or even by a person). To protect employees
against being injured as a result of traffic mishaps, proposed Sec.
1926.967(g) would require the placement of warning signs or flags or
other warning devices to channel approaching traffic away from the work
area if the conditions in the area pose a hazard to employees. If
warning signs are not sufficient protection or if employees are working
in an area in which there are excavations, barricades must be erected.
Additionally, warning lights are required for night work. This proposed
paragraph also references Sec. 1926.200(g)(2), which covers traffic
control devices. This provision in OSHA's construction standards
incorporates Part VI of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993, FHWA-SA-94-027, or Part VI
of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition,
December 2000, Federal Highway Administration, by reference. Proposed
Sec. 1926.967, which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(6), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Proposed Sec. 1926.967(h) addresses the hazards of voltage
backfeed due to sources of cogeneration or due to the configuration of
the circuit involved. Under conditions of voltage backfeed, the lines
upon which work is to be performed remain energized after the main
source of power has been disconnected. According to this proposed
provision, the lines would have to be worked as energized, under
proposed Sec. 1926.960, or could be worked as deenergized, following
proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.961 and 1926.962. The referenced requirements
contain the appropriate controls and work practices to be taken in case
of voltage backfeed. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken from
Sec. 1910.269(w)(7), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Sometimes, electric power transmission and distribution work
involves the use of lasers. Appropriate requirements for the
installation, operation, and adjustment of lasers are contained in
existing Sec. 1926.54 of the construction standards. Rather than
develop different requirements for electric power transmission and
distribution work, OSHA has decided to reference Sec. 1926.54 in
paragraph (i) of proposed Sec. 1926.967. This proposed paragraph,
which has been taken from Sec. 1910.269(w)(8), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
To ensure that hydraulic equipment retains its insulating value,
paragraph (j) of proposed Sec. 1926.967 would require the hydraulic
fluid used in insulated sections of such equipment to be of the
insulating type. Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.302 requires hydraulic
fluid used in hydraulic powered tools to be fire-resistant. Because
available insulating fluids are not fire-resistant, proposed Sec.
1926.967(j) would exempt insulating hydraulic fluid from Sec.
1926.302(d)(1). Proposed Sec. 1926.967(j) is essentially identical to
existing Sec. 1926.950(i).
Proposed Sec. 1926.967(k) addresses communication facilities
associated with electric power transmission and distribution systems.
Typical communications installations include those for microwave
signaling and power line carriers. This proposed paragraph, which has
been taken from Sec. 1910.269(s), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
Microwave signaling systems are addressed by paragraph (k)(1) of
proposed Sec. 1926.967. To protect employees' eyes from being injured
by microwave radiation, paragraph (k)(1)(i) would require employers to
ensure that employees do not look into an open waveguide or antenna
that is connected to an energized source of microwave radiation.
Existing Sec. 1910.97, which covers non-ionizing radiation,
prescribes a warning sign with a special symbol indicating non-ionizing
radiation hazards. Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of proposed Sec. 1926.967
would require areas that contain radiation in excess of the radiation
protection guide set forth in Sec. 1910.97 to be posted with the
warning sign. Also, the proposal would require the lower half of that
sign to be labeled as follows:
Radiation in this area may exceed hazard limitations and special
precautions are required. Obtain specific instruction before
entering.
The sign is intended to warn employees about the hazards present in
the area and to inform them that special instructions are necessary to
enter the area.
In Sec. 1910.97, the radiation protection guide is advisory only.
Paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of proposed Sec. 1926.967 would make the guide
mandatory for electric power transmission and distribution work by
requiring the employer to institute measures that prevent any
employee's exposure from being greater than that set forth in the
guide. These measures may be of an administrative nature (such as
limitations on the duration of exposure) or of an engineering nature
(such as a design of the system that limits the emitted radiation to
that permitted by the guide) or may involve the use of personal
protective equipment. This proposed provision would not require
employers to follow the hierarchy of controls normally required for the
protection of employees from occupational hazards. Employees exposed to
radiation levels beyond that permitted by the radiation protection
guide are typically performing maintenance tasks. OSHA typically
permits the use of personal protective equipment in these situations.
No employees are exposed to these levels on a routine basis. The Agency
requests comments on whether the proposal adequately protects employees
and whether the standard should require employers to follow the
hierarchy of controls.
Power line carrier systems use the power line itself to carry
signals between equipment at different points on the line. Because of
this, the proposal would require, in Sec. 1926.967(k)(2), that work
associated with power line carrier installations be performed according
to the requirements for work on energized lines.
Section 1926.968, Definitions
Proposed Sec. 1926.968 contains definitions of terms used in the
standard. Since these definitions have been taken, in large part, from
consensus standards and existing OSHA rules and since the definitions
included are generally self-explanatory, OSHA expects these terms to be
well understood, and no explanation is given here, except for the
definition of the term ``qualified employee.'' For other terms whose
meaning may not be readily apparent, the Agency has provided an
explanation in the discussion of the provision in which the term first
appears. (For example, the explanation of the definitions of ``host
employer'' is given in the discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.950(c)(1),
earlier in this section of the preamble.)
The definition of ``qualified employee'' is based on the definition
of that term as set forth in Sec. 1910.269(x). This definition reads
as follows:
One knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution equipment
involved, along with the associated hazards.
OSHA does not intend to require employees to be knowledgeable in
all aspects of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
equipment in order to be considered as ``qualified.'' OSHA believes
that the proposed definition will convey the Agency's true intent. It
should be noted that the proposal uses the term ``qualified employee''
to refer only to employees who have the training to work on energized
electric power transmission and distribution installations. Paragraph
(b)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.950 sets out the training an employee
would have to have to be considered a qualified employee. A note to
this effect has been included following the definition of this term.
Appendices. OSHA is including seven appendices to proposed Subpart
V.
Appendix A refers to Appendix A to Sec. 1910.269, which contains
flow charts depicting the interface between Sec. 1910.269 and the
following standards: Sec. 1910.146, Permit-required confined spaces;
Sec. 1910.147, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout); and
Part 1910, Subpart S, Electrical. While these general industry
standards are not applicable to construction work, employers will still
need this information when the construction work performed under
Subpart V interfaces with general industry work. Thus, Appendix A will
assist employers in determining which of these standards applies in
different situations.
Appendix B provides information relating to the determination of
appropriate minimum approach distances as proposed by Sec.
1926.950(c)(1) and Sec. 1926.964(c). This appendix is based on
Appendix B to Sec. 1910.269, with revisions necessary to reflect the
changes to the minimum approach distances proposed for Sec. 1910.269
and Subpart V. OSHA requests information on whether Appendix B requires
additional changes, beyond what the Agency is proposing, to make it
consistent with current technology. (See the summary and explanation of
proposed Sec. 1926.960(c)(1).) OSHA intends to revise the explanatory
material in Appendix B similarly when the Agency issues the final rule.
Appendix C provides information relating to the protection of
employees from hazardous step and touch potentials as addressed in
Sec. 1926.959(d)(3)(iii)(D), Sec. 1926.963(d)(3)(ii), and Sec.
1926.964(b)(2).
Appendix D contains information on the inspection and testing of
wood poles addressed in Sec. 1926.964(a)(2).
Appendix E contains references to additional sources of information
that may be used to supplement the requirements of proposed Subpart V.
The national consensus standards referenced in this appendix contain
detailed specifications to which employers may refer in complying with
the more performance-oriented requirements of OSHA's proposed rule.
Except as specifically noted in Subpart V, however, compliance with the
national consensus standards would not be a substitute for compliance
with the provisions of the OSHA standard.
Appendix F provides guidance on the selection of protective
clothing for employees exposed to electric arcs as addressed in
proposed Sec. 1926.960(g).
Appendix G contains guidelines for the inspection of work
positioning equipment to assist employers in complying with proposed
Sec. 1926.954(b)(3)(i).
C. Part 1910 Revisions
The construction of electric power transmission and distribution
lines and equipment nearly always exposes employees to the same hazards
as the maintenance of electric power lines and equipment. Power line
workers use the same protective equipment and safety techniques in both
types of work. During the course of a workday, these employees can
perform both types of work.
For example, a power line crew could be assigned to replace two
transformers that have failed. In one case, the transformer is replaced
with an equivalent one; in the other case, it is replaced with a
transformer with a different kilovolt-ampere rating. When the employees
perform the first job, they are performing maintenance work covered by
Part 1910. However, the second job is considered to be construction and
is covered by Part 1926. The employees would almost certainly use
identical work practices and protective equipment for both jobs.
Because of this, OSHA believes that it is important to have the
same requirements apply regardless of the type of work being performed.
If the corresponding Part 1910 and Part 1926 standards are the same,
employers can adopt one set of work rules covering all types of work.
Employers and employees would not be faced with having to decide
whether a particular job was construction or maintenance--a factor that
in virtually every instance has no bearing on the safety of employees.
Therefore, in this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing revisions to
Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269 so that the construction and
maintenance standards will be the same.\64\ The following distribution
table presents the major revisions and OSHA's rationale for proposing
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Subpart V does not contain requirements for electric power
generation installations or for line-clearance tree-trimming work.
See the summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.950(a)(3),
earlier in this preamble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed part Rationale and
Proposed part 1910 revision 1926 revision comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.137(A)(1)(ii), Sec. Section 1910.137
(b)(2)(vii), and Tables I-2, 1926.97(a)(1)(ii would be revised to
I-3, I-4, and I-5. ), (c)(2)(vii), include Class 00
and Tables E-1, rubber insulating
E-2, E-3, and E- gloves.
4.
The note following Sec. The note The note would be
1910.137(a)(3)(ii)(B). following Sec. revised to include
1926.97(a)(3)(ii the latest ASTM
)(B). standards.
References to ASTM
definition and to an
ASTM guide for
visual inspection of
rubber insulating
equipment have been
included to provide
additional useful
information for
complying with the
OSHA standard.
A new note following Sec. The note A reference to an
1910.137(b)(2)(ii). following Sec. ASTM guide for
1926.97(b)(2)(ii visual inspection of
). rubber insulating
equipment has been
included to provide
additional useful
information for
complying with the
OSHA standard.
Sec. 1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B) Sec. Existing Sec.
and (C). 1926.97(c)(2)(vi 1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(
i)(B) and (C). B) would be split
into two separate
CFR units.
Sec. 1901.137(c) [New]...... Sec. 1926.97(b) A new paragraph would
be added to cover
electrical
protective equipment
that is not made of
rubber. See the
summary and
explanation of
proposed Sec.
1926.97(b).
Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(i)...... Sec. Existing Sec.
1926.950(b)(1). 1910.269(a)(2)(i)
would be split into
three separate CFR
units. The last of
those units,
paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(c), would
introduce a new
requirement that the
degree of training
be determined by the
risk to the
employee. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.950(b)(1)(iii).
Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(ii)(E) Sec. A new paragraph would
[New]. 1926.950(b)(2)(v be added to require
). qualified employees
to be trained to
recognize and to
control or avoid
electrical hazards.
See the discussion
of proposed Sec.
1926.950(b)(2)(v).
Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii).... Sec. The existing
1926.950(b)(7). requirement for
employers to certify
that employees have
been trained would
be replaced with a
requirement for
employers to
determine that
employees have
demonstrated
proficiency in the
work practices
involved. In
addition, a new note
would be added to
clarify how training
received in a
previous job would
satisfy the training
requirements. See
the discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.950(b)(7).
Sec. 1910.269(a)(4) [New]... Sec. A new paragraph would
1926.950(c). be added to require
host and contract
employers to share
information on
safety-related
matters. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.950(c).
Sec. 1910.269(c)............ Sec. 1926.952.. The existing
provision would be
reorganized and
renumbered. A new
requirement would be
added to ensure that
employers provide
the employee in
charge with
sufficient
information to be
able to complete the
job safely. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.952.
The note following Sec. None............. This note would be
1910.269(e)(6). removed. It
currently references
Sec. 1910.146 for
the definition of
``entry.'' OSHA is
proposing to add a
definition of this
term to Sec.
1910.269, so this
note would be
unnecessary.
Sec. 1910.269(e)(8)......... Sec. OSHA is proposing to
1926.952(h). remove the
requirement to
provide an attendant
if there is reason
to believe a hazard
exists in the
enclosed space.
Paragraph (e)(1) of
Sec. 1910.269
requires the entry
to conform to Sec.
1910.146 if there
are hazards for
which the
requirements of Sec.
1910.269(e) and
(t) do not provide
adequate protection.
Thus, if an employer
has reason to
believe that a
hazard exists
despite the
precautions taken
under Sec.
1910.269(e) and (t),
then Sec. 1910.146
applies, and an
attendant would be
required by that
standard.
Sec. 1910.269(e)(8)......... Sec. The existing
1926.953(i). requirement would be
revised to clarify
that the test
instrument must have
an accuracy of < plus-
minus>10 percent.
Sec. 1910.269(e)(12)........ Sec. The existing
1926.953(m). requirement would be
revised to require
the employer to be
able to demonstrate
that ventilation was
maintained long
enough to ensure
that a safe
atmosphere exists
before employees
enter an enclosed
space.
Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)......... Sec. The existing
1926.954(b). requirements would
be revised to
maintain consistency
with the
construction
provisions. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.954(b).
Sec. 1910.269(l)(2)(i)...... Sec. The existing
1926.960(c)(1)(i requirement would be
). clarified to
indicate that an
energized part must
be under the full
control of the
employee for rubber
insulating gloves or
rubber insulating
gloves and sleeves
to be considered as
sufficient
insulation from that
part. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1).
Sec. 1910.269(l)(3) and (4). Sec. OSHA is proposing to
1926.960(c)(2) revise the existing
and (d). requirements to
ensure that
employees use
electrical
protective equipment
whenever they can
reach within the
minimum approach
distance of an
energized part. See
the discussion of
Sec.
1926.960(c)(2) and
(d).
Sec. 1910.269(l)(6) Sec. OSHA is proposing to
[Revised] and (12) [New]. 1926.960(f) and revise the existing
(g). requirements on
clothing in Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(ii)
and (iii) to require
employees to be
protected from
electric arcs. See
the discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.960(g).
Table R-6..................... Table V-2........ The existing table
would be revised so
that it contains the
same minimum
approach distances
as ANSI C2 (on which
it is based). See
the discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1).
Sec. 1910.269(m)(3)(viii)... Sec. The existing
1926.961(c)(3)(i provision would be
i). revised to require
independent crews to
coordinate
energizing and
deenergizing lines
and equipment if no
system operator is
in charge. The new
provision would
prevent one crew
from energizing a
line or equipment
that another crew
was working on.
Sec. 1910.269(n)(4)......... Sec. The existing
1926.962(d). requirement would be
revised to allow
smaller protective
grounds under
certain conditions.
See the discussion
of proposed Sec.
1926.962(d).
Sec. 1910.269(n)(6) and Sec. The existing
(n)(7). 1926.962(f). requirement would be
revised to allow
insulating equipment
other than a live-
line tool to place
grounds on or remove
them from circuits
of 600 volts or less
under certain
conditions. See the
discussion of Sec.
1926.962(f).
Sec. 1910.269(p)(4)(i)...... Sec. OSHA is proposing to
1926.959(d)(1). clarify the existing
provision to
indicate that, if an
insulated aerial
lift comes closer to
an energized part
than the minimum
approach distance,
the aerial lift must
maintain the minimum
approach distance
from objects at a
different potential.
See the discussion
of Sec.
1926.959(d)(1).
Sec. 1910.269(t)(3), (7), Sec. OSHA is proposing to
and (8). 1926.965(d), apply these
(h), and (i). requirements to
vaults as well as
manholes.
Additionally, OSHA
is proposing to add
a requirement to
address work that
could cause a cable
to fail. See the
discussion of
proposed Sec.
1926.965(d), (h),
and (i).
The notes following Sec. The notes The references in
1910.269(u)(1), (u)(5)(i), following and these notes to ANSI
(v)(3), and (v)(5). Sec. C2-1987 would be
1926.966(b) updated to ANSI C2-
(f)(1). 2002.
Sec. 1910.269(x)............ Sec. 1926.968.. OSHA is proposing to
add definitions of
``contract
employer,'' ``host
employer,'' and
``entry.'' See the
discussion of
proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.950(c) and
1926.953.
Appendix F to Sec. 1910.269 Appendix F to OSHA is proposing to
[New]. Subpart V. add a new appendix
containing
information on
protecting employees
from electric arcs.
Appendix G to Sec. 1910.269 Appendix G to OSHA is proposing to
[New]. Subpart V. add a new appendix
containing
guidelines for the
inspection of work
positioning
equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some differences in language between proposed Subpart V
and existing Sec. 1910.269. Some of these differences are because
Sec. 1910.269 applies to electric power generation installations and
related work practices but Subpart V does not. For example, existing
Sec. 1910.269(b)(1)(ii) addresses CPR training requirements for fixed
work locations ``such as generating stations.'' The corresponding
construction provision in proposed Sec. 1926.951(b)(1)(ii) contains
the exact same requirement, but lists ``substations'' as examples of
fixed work locations. OSHA intends to retain such differences in the
final rule.
Other differences result from the application of construction
standards when construction work is performed instead of general
industry standards when maintenance work is performed. For example,
proposed Sec. 1926.969(a)(1) contains exemptions from Sec. Sec.
1926.550(a)(15) and 1926.600(a)(6) \65\ for the operation of mechanical
equipment by qualified employees near overhead power lines. Existing
Sec. 1910.269 contains no similar requirement because the
corresponding general industry provision, Sec. 1910.333(c)(3), does
not apply to qualified employees performing work covered by Sec.
1910.269. In a similar fashion, proposed Sec. 1926.953(a) does not
contain Sec. 1910.269(e)'s exemption from paragraphs (d) through (k)
of Sec. 1910.146 dealing with permit-space entries, as that general
industry standard does not apply to construction work. OSHA intends to
retain such differences in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ These provisions generally require that a 3.05-meter (10-
foot) minimum clearance be provided between mechanical equipment and
overhead power lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, OSHA has identified several nonsubstantive
differences between the existing language in Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and
1910.269 and the language proposed in Sec. 1926.97 and Subpart V.
Table IV-8 identifies these differences. The Agency intends to carry
those changes into final Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269. OSHA invites
comments and questions on any differences between the proposed
standards and existing Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269 and on how the
respective final rules should be made consistent.
Table IV-8.--Provisions With Nonsubstantive Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1926.97 provisions with Correspondong provisions in
nonsubstantive changes in language existing Sec. 1910.137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1926.97(c)(2)(xii), Note...............
1910.137(b)(2)(xii), Note..............
----------------------------------------
Subpart V Provisions with Corresponding provisions in
Nonsubstantive Changes in Language Existing Sec. 1910.269
----------------------------------------
1926.950(a)(2)......................... 1910.269(a)(1)(iii).
1926.950(b)(2), introductory text...... 1910.269(a)(2)(ii),
introductory text.
1926.950(b)(2), Note................... 1910.269(a)(2)(ii), Note.
1926.950(b)(4)(i)...................... 1910.269(a)(2)(iv)(A).
1926.955(b)(4)......................... 1910.269(h)(2)(iii).
1926.956(d)(3)......................... 1910.269(i)(4)(ii).
1926.957(a)............................ 1910.269(j)(1).
1926.961(c)(9)(i)...................... 1910.269(m)(3)(x)(A).
1926.961(c)(10)........................ 1910.269(m)(3)(xi).
1926.962(b), introductory text......... 1910.269(n)(2), introductory
text.
1926.966(e)(1)(iii), introductory text. 1910.269(u)(4)(i)(C),
introductory text.
1926.968, definition of ``designated 1910.269(x), definition of
employee''.. ``designated employee''.
1926.968, Note to the definition of 1910.269(x), Note to the
``guarded''. definition of ``guarded''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) This table does not list provisions in which the only change was to
break up paragraphs with multiple requirements into separately
numbered paragraphs. See, for example, proposed Sec.
1926.960(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2), which were taken from the
introductory text to existing Sec. 1910.269(1)(1).
(2) This table also does not list provisions in which the only change
was a conversion to international standard (SI) units. See, for
example, proposed Sec. 1926.966 (e)(1)(iii)(B), which was taken from
existing Sec. 1910.269(u)(4)(i)(C)(2).
OSHA expects that final Subpart V will differ from proposed Subpart
V because of changes adopted based on the rulemaking record. When the
final rule is published, the Agency intends to make corresponding
changes to Sec. 1910.269 to keep the two rules the same, except to the
extent that substantial differences between construction work and
general industry work warrant different standards. Similarly, the
Agency intends to adopt changes to Sec. 1910.137 so that it is the
same as Sec. 1926.97. Therefore, OSHA is seeking comment on entire
Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269. Comments received on the general
industry standards will be considered in adopting the final
construction standards and vice versa. In particular, the Agency has
requested comments on several issues in the proposed revision of
Subpart V and in proposed new Sec. 1926.97. Some of these issues are
directed towards requirements in those construction standard that are
taken from general industry provisions that OSHA is not proposing to
revise. For example, earlier in this section of the preamble, the
Agency requests comments on whether AEDs should be required as part of
the medical and first aid requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.951. (See
the summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.951(b)(1).) Although
OSHA has not proposed to revise the corresponding general industry
provision, existing Sec. 1910.269(b)(1), the Agency intends to revise
that general industry provision if the rulemaking record supports a
requirement for AEDs. Therefore, OSHA encourages all rulemaking
participants to respond to these issues regardless of whether the
participants are covered by the construction standards. Table IV-9 is a
cross-reference table to help interested parties to find the section in
Subpart V that corresponds to a particular paragraph in Sec. 1910.269.
Table IV-9.--Provisions in Subpart V Corresponding to Paragraphs in Sec. 1910.269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding section in
Paragraph in Sec. 1910.269 subpart V Topic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a).................................... Sec. 1926.950........... General, scope, and training.
(b).................................... Sec. 1926.951........... Medical services and first aid.
(c).................................... Sec. 1926.952........... Job briefing.
(e).................................... Sec. 1926.953........... Enclosed spaces.
(f).................................... Sec. 1926.967(f)........ Excavations.
(g).................................... Sec. 1926.954........... Personal protective equipment.
(h).................................... Sec. 1926.955........... Ladders and platforms.
(i).................................... Sec. 1926.956........... Hand and portable power tools.
(j).................................... Sec. 1926.957........... Live-line tools.
(k).................................... Sec. 1926.958........... Materials handling and storage.
(l).................................... Sec. 1926.960........... Working on or near exposed energized parts.
(m).................................... Sec. 1926.961........... Deenergizing lines and equipment for
employee protection.
(n).................................... Sec. 1926.962........... Grounding for the protection of employees.
(o).................................... Sec. 1926.963........... Testing and test facilities.
(p).................................... Sec. 1926.959........... Mechanical equipment.
(q).................................... Sec. 1926.964........... Overhead lines.
(s).................................... Sec. 1926.967(k)........ Communication facilities.
(t).................................... Sec. 1926.965........... Underground electrical installations.
(u).................................... Sec. 1926.966........... Substations.
(w).................................... Sec. 1926.967........... Special conditions.
(x).................................... Sec. 1926.968........... Definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Paragraphs (d), (r), and (v) have no counterparts in Subpart V.
Foot protection for electrical hazards. OSHA is also proposing to
revise Sec. 1910.136(a). Existing Sec. 1910.136(a) reads as follows:
(a) General requirements. The employer shall ensure that each
affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is
a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects
piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to
electrical hazards.
The Agency is concerned that this language is being interpreted to
recognize the use of electrical hazard footwear as a primary form of
electrical protection. Electrical hazard footwear is constructed to
provide insulation of the wearer's feet from ground. This can provide a
small degree of protection from electric shock for the wearer. This
protection is limited to voltages of 600 volts or less under dry
conditions and is intended to be a secondary form of electrical
insulation.\66\ Conductive footwear, which is not electrical hazard
footwear, is designed to prevent static electricity buildup. This is
one method of protecting against static electrical discharges that can
damage equipment or, in hazardous locations, could possibly lead to
fires or explosions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Primary insulation normally insulates an employee directly
from an energized part. Rubber insulating gloves and rubber
insulating blankets are examples of primary electrical protection.
Secondary insulation normally insulates an employee's feet from a
grounded surface. Electrical hazard footwear and rubber insulating
matting are examples of secondary electrical protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpreting existing Sec. 1910.136(a) so as to recognize
electrical hazard footwear as a primary form of electrical protection
could expose employees to electric shock hazards if they believe that
the real primary form of electrical protection (for example, rubber
insulating gloves or blankets) is no longer necessary. This is true for
several reasons. First, electrical hazard footwear only insulates an
employee's feet from ground. The employee can still be grounded through
other parts of his or her body. Second, the insulation provided by
electrical hazard footwear is good only under dry conditions. This
footwear provides little if any protection once it becomes wet or damp.
Lastly, the voltage rating on electrical hazard footwear is only 600
volts.
OSHA believes that, because of these limitations, electrical hazard
footwear should not be addressed by Sec. 1910.136, which is designed
to provide protection to employees' feet. The Agency also believes that
the need for conductive footwear, whether or not it provides protection
for the foot, is adequately addressed by the general requirement in
Sec. 1910.132(a) to provide personal protection equipment. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to delete language relating to electrical hazards
from Sec. 1910.136(a).
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1910.132 addresses hazard assessment and
selection of personal protective equipment. Paragraph (f) of Sec.
1910.132 addresses training in the use of personal protective
equipment. As noted in Sec. 1910.132(g), paragraphs (d) and (f) of
existing Sec. 1910.132 do not apply to electrical protective equipment
covered by Sec. 1910.137. While training is covered in other
electrical standards (for example, in Sec. 1910.268,
telecommunications, in Sec. 1910.269, electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution, and in Sec. 1910.332, training in
electrical safety-related work practices), many of the hazard
assessment requirements in Sec. 1910.132(d) are not addressed in any
other OSHA electrical standard. OSHA requests comments on whether
electrical protective equipment should be added to the scope of Sec.
1910.132(d) or Sec. 1910.132(f) or both.
D. Effective Date
When a final rule is promulgated, OSHA typically provides a delay
in effective date to allow employers to become familiar with the rule
and to come into compliance. Some of the provisions in the proposal
would require some employers to purchase new equipment. For example,
the requirements proposed in Sec. Sec. 1910.269(l)(11) and 1926.960(g)
would require some employers to purchase flame-resistant clothing. OSHA
requests comments generally on what an appropriate delay in effective
date should be and specifically on how long employers will need to make
purchases necessary for compliance with the proposed rule.
Some of the proposed provisions would require employers to replace
existing noncomplying equipment with equipment that meets the proposal.
For example, proposed Sec. 1926.954(b)(2)(xi) would require snaphooks
used with work positioning equipment to be of the locking type. Some
employers may still use nonlocking snaphooks with work positioning
equipment. OSHA requests information on the extent to which nonlocking
snaphooks are used. The Agency also requests information on the useful
life of such equipment and on whether OSHA should allow sufficient time
for noncomplying equipment to be replaced as it wears out. Such a delay
would minimize the costs incurred by employers but would expose
employees to hazards for a longer period.
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
A. Executive Summary
Introduction
OSHA is required by the OSH Act to ensure and demonstrate that
standards promulgated under the Act are technologically and
economically feasible. Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also require OSHA
to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of
the rules that the Agency promulgates.
Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA) for OSHA's proposal to update its standards addressing
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work, and the
use of electrical protective equipment. For purposes of this analysis,
the terms ``proposal'' and ``proposed standard'' include all elements
of this proposed rulemaking, including proposed changes to 29 CFR
1910.269, proposed changes to 29 CFR 1926, proposed changes involving
electrical protective equipment requirements, and other associated
revisions and additions. The consolidated set of proposed actions was
analyzed in its entirety; only those parts that were identified as
involving nonnegligible costs are explicitly reflected in the analysis
of compliance costs and impacts.
In some past notices of proposed rulemakings, OSHA has included
only an Executive Summary of the PRIA in the preamble to the proposal.
For this rulemaking, OSHA is including the entire PRIA in this Federal
Register notice for the convenience of the public.
Need for Regulation
Employees in work environments addressed by the proposed standards
are exposed to a variety of significant hazards that can and do cause
serious injury and death. The risks to employees are excessively large
due to the existence of market failures, and existing and alternative
methods of alleviating these negative consequences have been shown to
be insufficient. After carefully weighing the various potential
advantages and disadvantages of using a regulatory approach to improve
upon the current situation, OSHA preliminarily concludes that in this
case the proposed mandatory standards represent the best choice for
reducing the risks to employees. In addition, rulemaking is necessary
in this case in order to replace older existing standards with updated,
clear, and consistent safety standards.
Affected Establishments
The proposal affects establishments in a variety of different
industries involving electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution. The proposed standards primarily affect firms that
construct, operate, maintain, or repair electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution systems. These firms include electric
utilities as well as contractors who are hired by utilities and who are
primarily classified in the construction industry. In addition,
potentially affected firms are found in a variety of manufacturing and
other industries which own or operate their own electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution systems as a secondary part
of their business operations. The proposal also potentially affects
establishments performing line-clearance tree-trimming operations.
Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work, as comprised by
the proposed rulemaking, are expected to result in an increased degree
of safety for the affected employees. These changes are expected to
reduce the numbers of accidents, fatalities, and injuries associated
with the relevant tasks, as well as reducing the severity of certain
injuries, such as burns or injuries that could be sustained as a result
of an arrested fall, that may still occur while performing some of the
affected procedures.
An estimated 74 fatalities and 444 injuries occur annually among
employees involved in electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work addressed by the provisions of this rulemaking. Based
on a review and analysis of the incident reports associated with the
reported injuries and fatalities, full compliance with the proposed
standards would prevent 79.0 percent of the relevant injuries and
fatalities, compared with 52.9 percent prevented with full compliance
with the existing standards. Thus, the increase in safety that would be
provided by the proposed standards is represented by the prevention of
an additional 19 fatalities and 116 injuries annually. Applying an
average monetary value of $50,000 per prevented injury, and a value of
$6.8 million per prevented fatality, results in an estimated monetized
benefit of about $135 million annually.
The net monetized benefits of the proposed standard are estimated
to be about $101.1 million annually ($135 million in benefits and $33.9
million in costs). Note that these net benefits exclude any
unquantified benefits associated with revising the standards to provide
updated, clear, and consistent regulatory requirements to the public.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work to the
relevant employers, employees, and interested members of the public.
OSHA believes that the updated standards enhance worker safety and are
easier to understand and to apply. They will benefit employers and
employees by facilitating compliance while improving safety. The
benefits associated with providing updated, clear, and consistent
safety standards have not been monetized or quantified.
Table V-1 summarizes the costs, benefits, net benefits, and cost
effectiveness of the proposed standard.
Table V-1.--Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs:
Determination of Appropriate Protective Clothing....... $11.0 million.
Provision of Appropriate Protective Clothing........... $8.4 million.
Host/Contractor Communications......................... $7.8 million.
Expanded Job Briefings................................. $5.1 million.
Additional Training.................................... $1.2 million.
Other Costs............................................ $0.4 million.
Total Annual Costs................................. $33.9 million.
Annual Benefits:
Number of Injuries Prevented........................... 116.
Number of Fatalities Prevented......................... 19.
Monetized Benefits (Assuming $50,000 per Injury and 135 million.
$6.8 million per Fatality Prevented).
OSHA standards that are updated and consistent......... Unquantified.
Total Annual Benefits.............................. 116 injuries and 19 fatalities prevented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs): $101 million annually.
Cost Effectiveness
Compliance with the proposed standards would result in the
prevention of 1 fatality and 6 injuries per $1.8 million in costs, or,
alternatively, $4.00 of benefits per dollar of cost.
Compliance Costs
The estimated costs of compliance for this rulemaking represent the
additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full compliance.
They do not include costs associated with current compliance with the
new requirements imposed by the rulemaking; nor do they include costs
associated with achieving full compliance with existing applicable
requirements. The total annualized cost of compliance with the proposed
rulemaking is estimated to be about $33.9 million.
The largest component of the compliance costs, at $11.0 million
annually, is comprised of the costs necessary to comply with the
requirement for the employer to make a determination regarding the type
and extent of flame-resistant apparel necessary to protect employees in
the event that employees may be exposed to an electric arc.
Other provisions of the proposed standards involving compliance
costs include requirements for more protective clothing ($8.4 million),
requirements for various communications between host employers and
contractors ($7.8 million), expanded requirements for conducting job
briefings ($5.1 million), and revised training requirements ($1.2
million).
Economic Impacts
To assess the nature and magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the proposed rulemaking, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the requirements on
entities in each of the affected industry sectors. The estimated costs
of compliance were compared with industry revenues and profits to
provide an assessment of potential economic impacts.
The costs of compliance with the proposed rulemaking are not large
in relation to the corresponding annual financial flows associated with
the regulated activities. The estimated costs of compliance represent
about 0.01 percent of revenues and 0.14 percent of profits on average
across all entities; compliance costs do not represent more than 0.24
percent of revenues or more than 4.03 percent of profits in any
affected industry.
The economic impact of the proposed rulemaking is most likely to
consist of a small increase in prices for electricity, of about 0.01
percent on average. It is unlikely that a price increase on the
magnitude of 0.01 percent will significantly alter the services
demanded by the public or any other affected customers or
intermediaries. If the compliance costs of the proposed rulemaking can
be substantially recouped with such a minimal increase in prices, there
may be little effect on profits.
In general, for most establishments, it would be very unlikely that
none of the compliance costs could be passed along in the form of
increased prices. In the event that unusual circumstances may inhibit
even a price increase of 0.01 percent to be realized, profits in any of
the affected industries would be reduced by a maximum of about 4
percent.
OSHA concludes that compliance with the requirements of the
proposed rulemaking is economically feasible in every affected industry
sector.
In addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
effects of the proposed standards on international trade, employment,
wages, and economic growth for the United States would be negligible.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996 by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires the preparation
of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for certain proposed
rules promulgated by agencies (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under the provisions
of the law, each such analysis shall contain: (1) A description of the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities; (2) a description of the
reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (3) a succinct
statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
(4) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (5) a description
of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule; (6) an identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap
or conflict with the proposed rule; and (7) a description and
discussion of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
OSHA has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed rule on
small entities. As a result of this analysis, OSHA preliminarily
concludes that the compliance costs are equivalent to over 5 percent of
profits for some groups of affected small entities (as identified later
in this analysis). Therefore, OSHA has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in conjunction with this rulemaking to describe
the potential effects on small entities and to enable the Agency and
the public to fully consider alternatives to the proposal.
B. Need for Rule
Employees performing work involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards, such as fall, electric shock, and burn hazards, that can and
do cause serious injury and death. As detailed below, OSHA estimates
that, on average, 444 serious injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with
better compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Relative to full compliance with the
existing standards, an estimated additional 116 injuries and 19
fatalities would be prevented through full compliance with the proposed
standards.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. The
existing OSHA standards for the construction of electric power
transmission and distribution systems are over 30 years old and
inconsistent with the more recently promulgated OSHA standards
addressing repair and maintenance work.
OSHA has different standards covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution systems and general industry work
on the same systems. In most instances, the work practices used by
employees to perform construction or general industry work on these
systems are the same. The application of OSHA's construction or general
industry standards to a particular job depends upon whether the
employer is altering the system (construction work) or maintaining the
system (general industry work). For example, employers changing a
cutout (disconnect switch) on a transmission and distribution system
would be performing construction work if they were upgrading the
cutout, but general industry work if they were simply replacing the
cutout with the same model.
Since the work practices used by the employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA standards should be identical. OSHA's
existing requirements are not, however. Conceivably, for work involving
two or more cutouts, different and conflicting OSHA standards might
apply. The inconsistencies between the two standards create
difficulties for employers attempting to develop appropriate work
practices for their employees. For this reason, employers and employees
have told OSHA that it should make the two standards identical. This
proposal does so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposal is needed to
reduce the number of fatalities and injuries occurring among workers
involved in electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
and to make the relevant standards clear and consistent. Before
reaching this preliminary conclusion, many alternatives were
considered, including regulatory alternatives and alternative
approaches that would not involve the promulgation of revised
standards.
C. Examination of Alternative Approaches
Alternative Regulatory Approaches
To determine the appropriate regulatory requirements to address
occupational risks for employees working on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems, OSHA considered many different
factors and potential alternatives. The Agency examined the incidence
of injuries and fatalities and their direct and underlying causes to
ascertain where existing standards needed to be strengthened. These
standards were reviewed, current practices in the industry were assessed,
information and comments from experts were collected, and the available data
and research were scrutinized.
OSHA faces several constraints in determining which regulatory
requirements should apply. As required under Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, the requirements of an OSHA standard must be ``reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment.'' Also, as required under Section 6(b)(8) of the
OSH Act, the requirements of an OSHA standard may only differ
substantially from existing national consensus standards to the extent
that the OSHA standard will better effectuate the purposes of the OSH
Act than the corresponding national consensus standards. OSHA standards
must also be technologically and economically feasible, as noted
earlier, and be cost-effective.
A full discussion of the basis for the particular regulatory
requirements chosen is provided in Section IV, Summary and Explanation
of Proposed Rule, earlier in this preamble. The regulatory alternatives
considered by OSHA are discussed in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis later in this section of the preamble.
Alternative Nonregulatory Approaches
Introduction. The stated purpose of the OSH Act is to ``assure so
far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.''
This congressional mandate provides the basis for OSHA's proposed
rulemaking on electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution, which is designed to mitigate the occupational hazards
associated with work on electric power systems.
Before issuing a standard, OSHA must assess whether there are
other, nonregulatory approaches available that may provide an equal or
higher level of benefits. Executive Order 12866 directs regulatory
agencies to assess whether an unregulated private market can achieve
the same level of social benefits as that expected to result from
Federal regulation:
Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal Agencies should
promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are
necessary to interpret the law, or made necessary by compelling
public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect
or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or
the well-being of the American people. In deciding whether and how
to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating.
The discussion below considers several nonregulatory alternatives
to OSHA's proposed rulemaking: Private market incentives, information
dissemination programs, tort liability options, and workers'
compensation programs.
Private Market Incentives. Economic theory suggests that the need
for government regulations would be greatly reduced if private markets
worked efficiently and effectively to provide health and safety
protections for employees. At issue is whether the private market will
be able to produce a level of safety and health for employees that will
be equal to or greater than that potentially afforded by the proposed
OSHA standards. In particular, OSHA examined whether the level of risk
of experiencing an injury caused by workplace hazards that would be
provided by an unregulated market would be at least as protective of
employee safety as the proposed electric power rulemaking.
Theoretically, unregulated markets are capable of achieving an
efficient allocation of resources if certain assumptions are satisfied.
Necessary assumptions include elements such as perfect and free
information, perfect and costless mobility of labor and other factors
of production, and an absence of any externalities.
A major conclusion of the ``perfect competition model'' of economic
theory is that, in the presence of full information about market
choices and outcomes and with complete mobility of the factors of
production, the private market would produce an efficient allocation of
resources.
In the presence of perfect and complete information regarding
occupational risks, labor markets would reflect the presence of
different degrees of risk across different industries, firms, and
occupations. In such a market, wage premiums would be paid to
compensate workers engaged in hazardous occupations for the added risk
they confront on the job.
In this theoretical framework, wages would vary directly with the
riskiness of a job (other things being equal), and employers would have
an incentive to make investments to reduce occupational health and
safety risks to the extent workers would demand compensation for being
exposed to such risks. In other words, because employers would have to
pay their workers a premium to induce them to work in a risky
environment, employers would be willing to pay to make that environment
less risky by introducing technologies and practices that lower risks
to workers.
In addition, a perfectly competitive market will theoretically lead
to the efficient allocation of resources only if all of the costs and
benefits (pecuniary and nonpecuniary) associated with the behavior of
market participants and with market transactions are fully borne by
those directly involved. In economic terms, this implies that there
will not be any negative externalities associated with economic
activities.
If all of the costs associated with occupational safety and health
risks would in fact be internalized, then market decisions about
occupational safety and health conditions made by employers and workers
would be based on a consideration of the full social costs of their
economic actions. However, if some of the effects of these actions are
externalized (that is, some costs are not borne by employers and
employees but by other parties who are external to the transaction),
then those costs will not be adequately incorporated into the decisions
of managers and workers. The resultant market allocation of resources
can then be expected to be less efficient.
Costs and other impacts that are imposed on society and are not
borne directly by the economic participants involved in an activity or
transaction are referred to as externalities. The existence of such
externalities is one reason why an unregulated private market often
fails to produce an efficient allocation of resources. The presence of
these externalities also implies that economic efficiency can
potentially be improved with regulatory interventions.
In a theoretically perfect market without externalities, firms
would decide how much to spend on reducing safety and health risks
based on the full costs associated with the presence of such risks. The
costs include pain and suffering, impacts on the quality of the lives
of families, and effects on society as a whole. Workers would decide
whether they were willing to work in a particular job based on the
relative riskiness of the job and the extent to which they believe the
wages offered to them provide adequate compensation for these risks.
Research conducted by OSHA and information from several other
sources show that many firms have responded to the risks posed to
workers by electric power systems. Employers have increasingly
recognized the costs associated with these risks and have implemented
measures to reduce the occupational risks faced by their employees.
In fact, many risk control programs already implemented by
employers go beyond the provisions required by the existing OSHA
standards or by the proposed OSHA standards. The fact that employers
are implementing these programs demonstrates that economic incentives
do exist at least to some degree to motivate employers in the direction
of reducing the risks associated with occupational exposures to the
hazards of electric power work.
However, OSHA notes that many other employers continue to fall
short of their obligations to provide even minimum safety protections
for their employees. Such circumstances persist despite ongoing
attempts by OSHA and other groups to provide information and assistance
to employers to increase awareness and reduce the risks involved with
work involving electric power systems.
The benefits section of this preliminary analysis shows that
preventable injuries and fatalities continue to occur every year. The
evidence indicates that market forces cannot alone curb occupational
risks adequately.
Among employees engaged in work involving electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution systems, there does not
appear to be any risk premium reflected in wage rates that would
differentiate between employers based on the extent of risks faced by
employees. In fact, as presented in Section IV, Summary and Explanation
of Proposed Rule, earlier in this preamble, there is some evidence that
in these industries, wages for workers in similar jobs performing
similar types of work are negatively correlated with the degree of risk
involved: Employees of utilities tend to earn more than their
counterparts working for contractors, and yet the fatality and injury
rate is higher among employees of the contractors.
There are a variety of reasons why workers may not be paid the risk
premiums that would theoretically be necessary to ensure that markets
provide efficient levels of expenditures on safety and health. Workers
have imperfect knowledge about the nature and magnitude of occupational
risk factors. Many workers are not likely to be fully aware of the
extent and nature of occupational risks associated with various
different jobs and different employers at different points in time.
Even if workers have adequate information regarding the risks of
occupational injuries, they may be unable to adequately incorporate
this information into their decisions about choosing a job or staying
on the job. Other factors and circumstances may affect employment
choices, and decisions cannot be changed easily. There are also
significant costs associated with job searches and changing jobs.
Assessing occupational risks for the purpose of determining the
acceptability of wages offered is made even more difficult when
differences in risk between two firms are significant but cannot be
readily observed or predicted over the pertinent time periods. If
differences in occupational risk between various establishments are not
fully incorporated into the employment decisions of workers, the wage
premiums paid for risky jobs will not accurately reflect the relative
occupational risks associated with specific jobs in different firms.
Thus, firms will have little incentive to individually reduce risk
beyond levels present in other firms.
In addition, many employers may simply be unaware of the direct and
indirect costs associated with occupational risks. Some employers may
regard these costs as beyond their control or as part of general
overhead costs. Employers may also not be fully aware of the
availability of cost-effective ways of ameliorating or eliminating
these risks and reducing the corresponding costs.
A significant problem that prevents risk premiums in an unregulated
market from achieving the theoretical results that may potentially
reduce occupational risks involves imperfections in the operation of
labor markets. Changing jobs can be costly, and in some circumstances
the costs may preclude a decision to change jobs solely on the basis of
the occupational health risks involved. Factors that may make job
changes particularly costly include nontransferability of occupational
skills or seniority within a company, the difficulty of acquiring
sufficient human capital to seek alternative employment opportunities,
the costs and uncertainty associated with relocating to take advantage
of better employment opportunities, the existence of institutional
factors such as the nontransferability of pension plans and seniority
rights, and the risk of prolonged periods of unemployment.
Often, differences in occupational risk between two firms must be
very marked before a worker will change jobs on that basis. Therefore,
wage rates determined by a market in which the protection of
occupational safety and health is unregulated are unlikely to fully
compensate workers for occupational health and safety risks, including
those related to the risks of concern here.
Information Dissemination Programs. OSHA and other organizations
currently produce and disseminate a considerable amount of information
regarding the risks associated with work involving electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution and the methods that can be
used to reduce these risks. The dissemination of such information would
continue in conjunction with the promulgation of the proposed
standards; alternatively, in lieu of issuing mandatory standards, OSHA
could rely on current or expanded information dissemination programs to
generate the incentives necessary to produce further reductions in
injuries and fatalities. Better informed workers can more accurately
assess the occupational risks associated with different jobs, thereby
facilitating those market interactions that result in wage premiums for
relatively risky occupations.
There are several reasons, however, why reliance on information
dissemination programs will not yield the level of social benefits
achievable through compliance with the proposed electric power rules.
First, there are no reliable incentives or mechanisms that would ensure
that appropriate and sufficiently detailed information could be
produced, or that such information would actually be distributed among
and relied upon by workers. Furthermore, hazards associated with work
on electric power systems are highly specific to individual tasks and
work environments. The development of accurate knowledge about these
occupational risks would require each employer to make available
specific information about the risks present in his or her projects
expected to be undertaken in the future. The lack of adequate
incentives or mechanisms and the potentially large costs associated
with the collection and reporting of the necessary information makes
effective information dissemination difficult to implement in practice.
In addition, even if workers are better informed about workplace
risks and hazards, other factors, such as barriers to labor mobility,
that contribute to market failure would still remain. Finally, as
argued above, workers may not be able to evaluate information about long-term
risks accurately when making employment decisions. Better information, therefore,
will not ensure that the market will produce wage risk premiums in a manner
that is consistent with an efficient allocation of resources.
Currently, in addition to the applicable OSHA standards, there are
consensus standards, voluntary guidelines, and other information
sources for preventing injuries and fatalities while working on
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution systems.
Although many employers have adopted many of the practices and
procedures recommended by these sources, many other employers have been
less successful in the widespread implementation of all of the
recommendations of these voluntary guidelines. The Costs of Compliance
section of this preliminary analysis provides further information
regarding current compliance with specific elements in sectors covered
by the proposal.
Thus, the experience and observations regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work show that, while
improved access to information about occupational risks can provide for
more rational decision-making in the private market, voluntary
information programs will not produce an adequately low level of
occupational risk.
Tort Liability Options. Employees currently are generally
restricted from using tort law to force employers to pay for costs and
damages associated with fatalities and injuries that occur on the job.
Greater worker use of tort law in seeking redress from injuries
associated with occupational risks involving work on electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution is another example of a
possible nonregulatory alternative to the proposed rule. If employees
were able to effectively sue their employers for damages caused by
work-related hazards, and if other conditions regarding the cost and
availability of information, knowledge and mobility of workers, and
externalities are satisfied, then the need for an OSHA standard would
potentially be reduced or eliminated.
A tort may be described, in part, as a civil wrong (other than
breach of contract) for which the courts provide a remedy in the form
of an action for damages. The application of the tort system to
occupationally related injuries and illnesses would mean that a worker
whose disability resulted from exposure to a work place risk would sue
the employer to recover damages. The tort system could thus shift the
liability for the direct costs of occupational injury from the worker
to the employer, at least under certain specific circumstances.
With limited exceptions, however, the tort system has not been a
viable alternative to regulation in dealings between employees and
employers, for a number of reasons. All States have legislation making
workers' compensation either the exclusive or principal legal remedy
available to employees. Generally, tort law can be applied only to
third-party producers or suppliers of hazardous products or equipment,
for example, asbestos products. It is often difficult, however, to
demonstrate that workplace injuries have been caused by defective or
negligently designed products or equipment.
Moreover, legal proceedings generally fail to fully internalize
costs because of the substantial legal fees and uncertainties
associated with bringing court actions. In deciding whether or not to
sue, the victim must be sure that the potential award will exceed both
the expense and hardship of bringing the lawsuit. Legal expenses
commonly include a contingency fee for the plaintiff's lawyer, plus
court fees and the costs of accumulating evidence and witnesses. The
accused firm must also pay for its defense.
In sum, the use of legal action as an alternative to regulation is
limited because of the expense, delays, and uncertainties involved, and
because under current State laws, workers' compensation will normally
be an exclusive remedy that will prevent a worker from filing a suit at
all. The tort system, therefore, does not serve adequately to protect
workers from exposure to risks in the workplace.
Workers' Compensation Programs. The existing workers' compensation
programs serve to partially address the market failures that result in
insufficient reductions in occupational risks. An alternative to a
mandatory standard would be a continued reliance on these and other
existing programs (including possible modifications or enhancements to
these programs) to address occupational risk. The workers' compensation
system was implemented in part as a result of the perceived failure of
the unregulated market to compel employers to sufficiently reduce
occupational health and safety risks and to compensate employees for
bearing those risks. The system seeks to shift some of the burden of
the costs associated with occupational injuries and illnesses from
workers to employers. By so doing, workers' compensation requirements
can ensure that more of the costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses are incorporated into decisions of employers even if
employees do not have full information regarding their risks or are
unable to receive full wage compensation for such risks. Originally
designed to force more of the social costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses to be internalized, the workers' compensation program has in
practice fallen short of fully achieving this goal and does not fully
compensate workers for occupationally related injuries and illnesses.
Compensation tends to be especially inadequate in permanent
disability cases, in part because of time limits on benefit
entitlements and in part because of the failure of the system to adjust
benefits for changes in a worker's expected earnings over time. Several
States restrict permanent, partial, and total disability benefits
either by specifying a maximum number of weeks for which benefits can
be paid, or by imposing a ceiling on dollar benefits. Both temporary
and permanent disability payments are commonly limited by imposing a
ceiling on the income per week that can be paid. In addition, under
workers' compensation, no award is made for pain and suffering.
The extent to which income is replaced by each type of indemnity
payment (that is, temporary or permanent partial) differs. First,
although rules vary by State, temporary disability income is designed
in most states to replace two-thirds of the worker's before-tax income.
However, most States place a maximum and a minimum on the amount of
money paid out to the worker, regardless of his or her actual former
income.
The Worker Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) has studied the
extent to which workers' compensation replaces after-tax income in 19
states. These studies show that temporary total disability payments
replace between 80 and 100 percent of the after-tax income of the
majority of workers in all of the States examined [5].\67\ From 3 to 44
percent of workers receive less than 80 percent of their after-tax
income, and from 0 to 16 percent receive more than 100 percent of their
previous after-tax income (as a result of the ``floor'' on payments).
In 15 of the 19 States examined, more workers receive less than 80
percent of their former after-tax income than receive more than 100
percent of their former income. WCRI does not provide estimates of the
average replacement rates for all workers in a State. However, based on
these data, it seems reasonable to assume that, on average, workers
receive no more than 90 percent of their after-tax income while on
temporary disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ References appear at the end of this section of the
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to not fully replacing after tax income, workers'
compensation payments, which are not taxable, provide no replacement
for tax losses to the Federal, State or local government as a result of
an illness. This loss is properly considered part of the social losses
associated with an illness or injury. Typically taxes, including State
and Federal income taxes and employee and employer contribution to
social security taxes will be approximately 30 percent of income. The
taxes not paid when an individual is unable to work thus add an
additional 30 percent of worker income as losses associated with
injuries and illnesses not covered by workers' compensation.
In summary, workers' compensation often covers less than 65 percent
of the financial losses associated with the costs of injuries, and does
not cover any portion of losses due to pain and suffering. Thus, even
if the financial costs were fully internalized by employers, workers'
compensation would be insufficient to assure adequate economic
incentives to address work-related injuries and illnesses.
For workers' compensation to be able to internalize costs of work-
related injuries and illnesses, it would be necessary for the costs an
employer pays for workers' compensation to be directly related to the
employer's risk of causing work-related injuries or illnesses.
Most workers' compensation programs nominally include the
employer's injury experience as a factor in determining the level of
the employer's insurance premiums. However, the majority of firms are
not rated individually for their safety and health record; that is,
they are not ``experience rated.'' For example, small firms often are
ineligible for experience rating because of the high year-to-year
variance in their claim rates. Such firms are class rated, and rate
reductions are granted only if the experience of the entire class
improves. Segregation of loss experience into classes is somewhat
arbitrary, and an individual firm may be classified with other firms
that have substantially different accident rates. Even when firms have
an experience rating, the premiums paid may not accurately reflect
their true degree of risk. In addition, a firm's experience rating is
generally based on the benefits paid to ill or injured workers, not on
the firm's safety and health record or on the actual risks faced by
employees. Thus, in some cases employers may have more of an incentive
to reduce premiums by contesting claims than by initiating safety and
health measures.
For employers who rely on workers' compensation insurance, the
payment of premiums represents the employer's major cost for the
occurrence of occupational injuries and illnesses. However, the
mechanism for determining an employer's workers' compensation premium
frequently fails to reflect the real costs associated with a particular
employer's record. As a result, efforts made by an employer to reduce
the incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses are not
necessarily reflected in reduced workers' compensation premiums.
Similarly, firms that devote fewer resources to promoting worker safety
and health often may not incur commensurately higher workers'
compensation costs. Consequently, the program does not provide direct
incentives for most employers to reduce the occupational health and
safety risks in their workplaces.
Finally, workers' compensation is an insurance mechanism through
which participants spread and share the risk of injury and illness
claims, and the costs associated with occupational injuries and
illnesses are often spread throughout the economy through risk sharing
stemming from participation in health insurance programs. For example,
some direct costs may not be incurred or attributed to employers
because many workers go to their private physician rather than the
company's physician for work-related injuries and illnesses, even
though there are systemic mechanisms in place to ensure that work-
related injuries are treated through the workers' compensation system.
The social burden of adverse health effects is also shared by taxpayer-
supported programs such as welfare, social security disability and
death benefits, and Medicare. Employers have, therefore, less incentive
to avoid such losses than they would if they were directly liable for
all such claims. This transfer of risk is another reason why the market
does not fully internalize the social costs of occupationally related
injuries and illnesses.
The workers' compensation system does provide economic incentives
for larger firms, especially those that self-insure for workers'
compensation, because these firms internalize a greater portion of the
true costs of the work-related injuries and illnesses incurred by their
workers. Thus, larger firms can generally be expected to have done more
to reduce the costs associated with occupational risks than smaller
firms.
In summary, the workers' compensation system suffers from several
defects that seriously reduce its effectiveness in providing incentives
for firms to create safe and healthful workplaces. First, because the
scheduled benefits are often significantly less than the actual losses
experienced by injured or ill workers and the social losses experienced
by tax payers, the existence of workers' compensation programs limits
an employer's liability to levels significantly below the actual costs
of the injury or illness. Second, premiums for individual firms are
often unrelated or only loosely related to that firm's risk
environment. The firm, therefore, does not receive the proper economic
incentives and consequently fails to invest sufficient resources in
reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. The economic costs not borne
by the employer are imposed on the employee directly or on society
through social welfare programs.
Summary. OSHA has determined that certain workers are exposed to
occupational risks associated with work on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems. The private market has not been
effective in sufficiently reducing this level of risk due to a lack of
complete information about safety risks in specific work environments,
limits on worker mobility, and other factors that contribute to the
failure of markets to provide an efficient allocation of resources.
Options for improving the operations of markets include information
dissemination programs, tort liability options, and workers'
compensation programs. After considering each of these options, OSHA
has concluded that none of them will provide the level of benefits
achievable by the proposed electric power systems rules.
D. Profile of Affected Industries
The proposal affects establishments in a variety of different
industries involving electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution. The proposal primarily affects firms that construct,
operate, maintain, or repair electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution systems. These firms include electric utilities as well
as contractors who are hired by utilities and who are primarily
classified in the construction industry. In addition, potentially
affected firms are found in a variety of manufacturing and other
industries that own or operate their own electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution systems as a secondary part of their
business operations. The proposal also potentially affects establishments
performing line-clearance tree-trimming operations.
Table V-2 presents data on the numbers of establishments and
numbers of employees for each affected industry. Across all industries,
an estimated 20,765 establishments and 227,683 employees may be
affected by the proposed standards.
Table V-2.--Profile of Potentially Affected Establishments and Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially
Potentially affected full-
Industry code Industry name affected time equivalent
establishments (FTE) employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910........................... Water, sewer, and pipeline 847 951
construction.
NAICS 234920........................... Power and communication 2829 26179
transmission line construction.
NAICS 234930........................... Industrial nonbuilding structure 266 1391
construction.
NAICS 234990........................... All other heavy construction..... 656 5573
NAICS 235310........................... Electrical contractors........... 1613 16342
NAICS 235910........................... Structural steel erection 652 300
contractors.
NAICS 235950........................... Building equipment and other 952 281
machine installation contractors.
NAICS 235990........................... All other special trade 2612 734
contractors.
NAICS 221110........................... Electric power generation........ 1745 43103
NAICS 221120........................... Electric power transmission, 6190 71441
control, and distribution.
NAICS 2211............................. Publicly owned utilities......... 923 9864
Various................................ Industrial power generators...... 933 16504
SIC 0783............................... Ornamental shrub and tree 547 35020
services.
--------------------
Total.............................. ................................. 20765 227683
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 1-2.
As shown in Table V-2, the construction industries with the largest
numbers of affected employees are Power and Communication Transmission
Line Construction and Electrical Contractors, which together account
for over 42,000 employees of the affected work force. Other potentially
affected construction industries include Water, Sewer, and Pipeline
Construction, Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction, All Other
Heavy Construction, Structural Steel Erection Contractors, Building
Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors, and All Other
Special Trade Contractors.
Table V-2 also shows that firms classified as utilities account for
over 8,000 of the potentially affected establishments, and for over
120,000 of the potentially affected employees. Utilities include
establishments classified in the Electric Power Generation industry and
in the Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution industry.
The U.S. Department of Commerce Census data on the numbers of
utilities and the numbers of workers employed by utilities do not
include utilities that are owned by public sector entities. Thus, data
for utilities owned by the public sector are shown separately in Table
V-2.
Potentially affected utilities include publicly-owned utilities
that operate in OSHA State-plan States. (State-plan States,
representing about half of total U.S. employment, are States that
operate their own occupational safety and health programs; these States
are obligated, under formal agreements with OSHA, to impose OSHA-
equivalent State regulatory requirements on public employees within
their jurisdiction.) The number of potentially affected public entities
and the corresponding number of employees are shown separately in Table
V-2. Over 900 establishments and over 9,000 employees are part of
publicly-owned utilities potentially affected by the proposed
standards.
Table V-2 further shows the numbers of potentially affected
establishments and employees that are part of firms in a variety of
manufacturing and other industries who own or operate their own
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution systems as a
secondary part of their business operations. Over 900 establishments
and 16,000 employees potentially affected by the proposed standards are
accounted for by these firms. Based on their primary business activity,
these establishments are classified as part of the following industry
sectors: Oil and Gas Extraction; Mining; Water, Sewer, and Other
Systems; Food Manufacturing; Wood Product Manufacturing; Paper
Manufacturing; Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; Chemical
Manufacturing; Primary Metal Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade, Durable
Goods; Educational Services; and Hospitals.
Finally, Table V-2 presents figures for the numbers of potentially
affected establishments and employees in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry. OSHA estimates that over 500 establishments and over
35,000 employees in this industry are potentially affected by the
provisions in the proposal involving requirements associated with
providing fall protection while working in aerial lifts.
E. Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work are expected to
result in an increased degree of safety for the affected employees.
These changes are expected to reduce the numbers of accidents,
fatalities, and injuries associated with the relevant tasks, as well as
reducing the severity of certain injuries, such as burns or injuries
that could be sustained as a result of an arrested fall, that may still
occur while performing some of the affected procedures.
To develop estimates of the potential benefits associated with this
proposal, CONSAD Corp., under contract to OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data. CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS), and
the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries developed by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS).
From these sources, CONSAD identified and analyzed injuries and
fatalities that would be addressed by this proposal. This analysis was
based on over 9 years of data contained in these databases. CONSAD
identified relevant cases in the databases by determining the criteria
provided in the databases that would apply to such cases, such as the
nature of the injury, the occupation of the employee, the source of the
injury, and the industry classification of the employer. CONSAD then
reviewed individual accident abstracts to make a final determination
whether to include the accident as one addressed by the proposed
standards. A description of the methodological approach used for
analyzing these data is included in the final report submitted to OSHA
by CONSAD Corporation [1].
CONSAD's analysis found that an average of 74 fatalities and 25
injuries involving circumstances directly addressed by the existing or
proposed standards are recorded annually in the relevant databases.
These figures represent minimums since they are associated with
documented cases.
The actual number of fatalities addressed by this rulemaking may be
somewhat higher, but OSHA does not currently have a basis for
estimating how many pertinent fatalities may have occurred that would
not be represented by the relevant data sources. OSHA requests
information and comments from the public regarding this issue.
The actual number of injuries addressed by this rulemaking is
almost certainly much greater than the number included in the data
sources. OSHA requires data to be included in its IMIS database only if
an incident involves at least one fatality or three or more
hospitalized injuries. However, some individual States have more
stringent reporting requirements and thus include some additional
injuries among the cases submitted to the IMIS database.
CONSAD performed an analysis of the IMIS fatality and injury data
by State that were relevant to this rulemaking. This analysis found
that the ratio of injuries to fatalities in California, which requires
all hospitalized injuries to be reported, was over six.
Applying this ratio to the number of known fatalities addressed by
this rulemaking results in an estimated 444 injuries occurring
annually. It should be noted that even this figure excludes injuries
that for various reasons may not be reported to or included in the IMIS
database, such as single injuries that result in no hospitalizations.
OSHA requests any information and comments from the public that may
help improve the accuracy of this estimate.
Thus, OSHA estimates that 74 fatalities and 444 injuries occur
annually among employees involved in electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work addressed by the provisions of this
rulemaking.
Based on a review and analysis of the incident reports associated
with the reported injuries and fatalities, OSHA estimates that full
compliance with the existing standards would have prevented about 53
percent of the injuries and fatalities. In comparison, full compliance
with the proposed standards would have prevented 79.0 percent of the
relevant injuries and fatalities. Thus, the increase in safety that
would be provided by the proposed standards is represented by the
prevention of an additional 19 fatalities and 116 injuries annually.
Applying an average monetary value of $50,000 per prevented injury
and a value of $6.8 million per prevented fatality results in an
estimated monetized benefit of $135 million. In estimating the value of
preventing a fatality, OSHA has followed the approach established by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA's approach is
detailed in Chapter 7 of EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, which provides a detailed review of the methods for
estimating mortality risk values and summarizes the values obtained in
the literature [6]. Synthesizing the results from 26 relevant studies,
EPA arrived at a mean value of a statistical life (VSL) of $4.8 million
(in 1990 dollars). EPA recommends this central estimate, updated for
inflation (the value is $6.8 million in 2003 dollars) for application
in regulatory analyses. This VSL estimate is also within the range of
the substantial majority of such estimates in the literature of $1
million to $10 million per statistical life, as discussed in OMB
Circular A-4.
In estimating the value of preventing an injury, OSHA reviewed the
available research literature. A critical review of 39 different
studies estimating the value of a statistical injury is provided by Kip
Viscusi and Joseph Aldy in their 2003 study [7]. Viscusi and Aldy found
that most studies have estimates in the range of $20,000 to $70,000 per
injury, and several studies have even higher values. The range of
values is partly explained by the measure of nonfatal job risks used:
some studies use an overall injury rate, and other studies use only
injuries resulting in lost workdays. The injuries that would be
prevented by this proposed electric power standard are hospitalized
injuries, which are likely to be more severe, on average, than lost
workday injuries. In addition, the proposed standard is expected to
reduce the incidence of burn injuries, which tend to be more severe
injuries, involving more pain and suffering, more expensive treatments,
and generally longer recovery periods than lost workday injuries. Thus,
for this rulemaking, an estimated value of a statistical injury in the
upper part of the reported range of estimates would be supported. In
their paper, Viscusi and Aldy reviewed the available willingness to pay
(WTP) literature to identify their range of estimates; using WTP to
value non-fatal injury and illness is the recommended approach, as
discussed in OMB Circular A-4.
The net monetized benefits of the proposed standard are estimated
to be about $101.1 million annually ($135 million in benefits and $33.9
million in costs). Note that these net benefits exclude any
unquantified benefits associated with revising the standards to provide
updated, clear, and consistent regulatory requirements to the public.
Table V-4 provides an overview of the estimated benefits associated
with this proposed rulemaking. OSHA requests comments from the public
regarding these figures and any other aspects of the estimation of the
benefits associated with this rulemaking. Table V-3 summarizes the
costs, benefits, net benefits, and cost effectiveness of the proposed
standard.
Table V-3.--Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs
Determination of Appropriate Protective $11.0 million.
Clothing.
Provision of Appropriate Protective Clothing $8.4 million.
Host/Contractor Communications.............. $7.8 million.
Expanded Job Briefings...................... $5.1 million.
Additional Training......................... $1.2 million.
Other Costs................................. $0.4 million.
Total Annual Costs...................... $33.9 million.
Annual Benefits
Number of Injuries Prevented................ 116
Number of Fatalities Prevented.............. 19
Monetized Benefits (Assuming $50,000 per $135 million.
Injury and $6.8 million per Fatality
Prevented).
OSHA standards that are updated and unquantified.
consistent.
Total Annual Benefits................... 116 injuries and 19
fatalities prevented.
Net Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs): $101 million annually Cost
Effectiveness
Compliance with the proposed standards would result in the
prevention of 1 fatality and 6 injuries per $1.8 million in costs,
or, alternatively, $4.00 of benefits per dollar of costs..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional benefits associated with this proposal involve providing
updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested members of the public. The
existing OSHA standards for the construction of electric power
transmission and distribution systems are over 30 years old and
inconsistent with the more recently promulgated standards addressing
repair and maintenance work. OSHA believes that the updated standards
are easier to understand and to apply and will benefit employers by
facilitating compliance while improving safety.
As explained earlier, the inconsistencies between OSHA's existing
standards related to electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution for construction and general industry work create numerous
difficulties for employers and employees. The benefits associated with
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards are great,
but they have not been monetized or quantified. OSHA requests comments
regarding how these benefits can or should be estimated.
With particular regard to the benefits associated with requirements
for protective clothing, OSHA estimates that an average of at least 8
electric utility burn accidents occur each year, leading to 12 nonfatal
injuries and 2 fatalities per year. Of the reports indicating the
extent of the burn injury, 75 percent reported third degree burns.
Proper protective clothing is expected to reduce the number of
fatalities and the severity of these injuries.
Requiring the use of body harnesses instead of body belts is also
expected to reduce fatalities and injuries among affected workers.
There are several problems with body belts. First, they are more likely
to result in serious injury during a fall because they place greater
stress on the workers' body. Second, body belts virtually eliminate the
possibility of self rescue after the fall, and increase the probability
of serious internal injuries as the worker hangs suspended. Studies
performed in Europe and by the U.S. Air Force indicate high risks
associated with the body belt both in fall arrest and suspension modes.
Third, it is harder for supervisors to determine visually if the worker
is using appropriate fall protection when belts are used. By contrast,
it can easily be seen from a distance whether a harness is being worn.
Finally, there is a greater risk that a worker could slip out of a body
belt than out of a harness. As a result of these considerations, many
employers have already switched to requiring harnesses rather than
belts. French and German worker safety standards prohibit the use of
body belts, and British standards impose major restrictions on their
use. Studies documenting the inappropriateness of and the safety risks
associated with the use of body belts as part of a fall arrest system
include Exhibits 2-36, 3-7, 3-9, 3-10, and 3-13 in OSHA docket S-206
(Fall Protection), and Exhibits 9-33, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, and 11-6 in
OSHA docket S-700 (Powered Platforms).
An average of about fifteen fatalities annually involve falls from
aerial lifts; in these cases, the employees were generally not wearing
a belt or a harness. Since most employees do, in fact, wear a belt or a
harness (according to the CONSAD report, current compliance is over 80
percent), there are likely to be at least 60 falls annually in which a
belt or harness was relied upon to arrest a fall.
Employees who rely only on a belt for fall protection have been
determined to be at significant risk of serious injury, and the use of
body belts as part of a fall arrest system has been determined to be
generally inappropriate, as OSHA has already established with an
extensive record on the subject as part of the final rule for fall
protection in construction. For a complete discussion of this issue,
see the Summary and Explanation section of the preamble to the final
OSHA rule on fall protection in construction (59 FR 40672, August 9,
1994).
Table V-4.--Overview of Annual Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injuries Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Addressed by the Proposed Rulemaking......... 444.......................... 74
Preventable Through Full Compliance with Existing 235.......................... 39
Standards (52.9 percent).
Additional Preventable with Full Compliance with 116.......................... 19
Proposed Standards (26.1 percent).
Monetized Benefits, Assuming Value of $50,000 per $5.8 million................. $129.2 million
injury, $6.8 million per fatality.
--------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits....................... $135 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve providing OSHA standards that are updated,
clear, and consistent.
Sources: CONSAD [1]; OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
F. Technological Feasibility
In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA is required to demonstrate
that occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the Agency
are technologically feasible. In fulfillment of this requirement, OSHA
has reviewed the requirements that would be imposed by the proposal,
and has assessed their technological feasibility. As a result of this
review, OSHA has determined that compliance with the requirements of the
proposal is technologically feasible for all affected industries.
The proposal would require employers to provide protective
equipment and clothing, to provide training, and to implement work
practices to reduce the hazards associated with work involving electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution. Compliance with all
of the proposed requirements can be achieved with readily and widely
available technologies. OSHA believes that there are no technological
constraints associated with compliance with any of the proposed
requirements, and requests comments regarding this conclusion.
G. Costs of Compliance
Introduction
This section of the preliminary analysis presents the estimated
costs of compliance for the proposed electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution rulemaking. The estimated costs of
compliance represent the additional costs necessary for employers to
achieve full compliance. They do not include costs associated with
current compliance with the new requirements; nor do they include costs
associated with achieving full compliance with existing applicable
requirements.
For purposes of this analysis, the terms ``proposal'' and
``proposed standard'' include all elements of this proposed rulemaking,
including proposed changes to 29 CFR 1910.269, proposed changes to 29
CFR 1926, proposed changes involving electrical protective equipment
requirements, and other associated revisions and additions. The
consolidated set of proposed actions was analyzed in its entirety; only
those parts that were identified as involving nonnegligible costs are
explicitly reflected in the analysis of compliance costs and impacts.
Table V-5 presents the total annualized estimated costs by
provision and by industry sector. As shown in Table V-5, the total
annualized cost of compliance with the proposed rulemaking is estimated
to be about $33.9 million.
The largest component of the compliance costs, at $11.0 million
annually, is comprised of the costs necessary to comply with the
requirement for the employer to make a determination regarding the type
and extent of flame-resistant apparel necessary to protect employees in
the event that employees may be exposed to an electric arc. For
purposes of estimating costs of compliance with this provision, OSHA
expects generally that utilities will conduct system-wide analyses of
the extent of potential hazards in various parts of the system and will
communicate the relevant information to contractors. The contractors,
in turn, will use the information provided by the utilities to
determine the appropriate type and extent of flame-resistant apparel
that employees on a particular project must wear.
Table V-5.--Summary of Compliance Cost by Industry and by Provision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Determination
Revised 1910.269 for Host- Expanded job of Provision of Use of Total annual
Industry code Industry name training construction contractor briefing appropriate appropriate harnesses in compliance
requirements (except communication requirements protective clothing aerial lifts costs
training) requirements clothing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910......... Water, Sewer, $25,850 $3,043 $84,325 $37,642 $23,055 $79,174 $0 $253,089
and Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920......... Power and 614,829 83,773 1,062,275 945,140 581,517 2,071,169 0 5,358,702
Communication
Transmission
Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930......... Industrial 2,358 0 114,887 42,827 47,048 94,957 0 302,077
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990......... All Other Heavy 138,029 17,834 508,846 270,538 228,773 499,701 0 1,663,721
Construction.
NAICS 235310......... Electrical 334,494 52,294 1,629,823 829,851 611,134 1,517,936 0 4,975,533
Contractors.
NAICS 235910......... Structural 3,856 0 29,071 16,637 16,448 25,664 0 91,676
Steel Erection
Contractors.
NAICS 235950......... Building 5,481 0 27,230 15,584 15,407 24,039 0 87,741
Equipment and
Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990......... All Other 16,094 0 77,081 55,111 54,532 76,318 0 279,136
Special Trade
Contractors.
NAICS 221110......... Electric Power 11,645 0 1,021,719 662,584 2,106,375 1,224,001 0 5,026,324
Generation.
NAICS 221120......... Electric Power 25,205 0 2,725,314 1,102,340 5,900,695 2,033,643 0 11,787,197
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211........... Publicly Owned 3,559 0 280,791 145,737 676,998 273,101 0 1,380,186
Utilities.
Various.............. Industrial 3,986 0 232,289 235,334 778,076 444,284 67,422 1,761,391
Power
Generators.
SIC 0783............. Ornamental 59,968 0 0 700,013 0 0 216,578 976,559
Shrub and Tree
Services.
---------------
Total............ ............... $1,245,355 $156,944 $7,793,651 $5,059,338 $11,040,058 $8,363,987 $284,000 $33,943,333
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix C; OSHA estimates.
As shown in Table V-5, other provisions of the proposed standards
involving compliance costs include requirements for protective clothing
($8.4 million), requirements for various communications between host
employers and contractors ($7.8 million), expanded requirements for
conducting job briefings ($5.1 million), and revised training
requirements ($1.2 million).
The remainder of this section provides and explains the details
underlying the calculations of the compliance costs associated with the
proposal. OSHA estimated compliance costs for each provision of the
proposal that involves nonnegligible costs and for each affected
industry sector. Total annualized costs were calculated by annualizing
nonrecurring first-year costs (at 7 percent over 10 years) and then
adding these to recurring annual costs.
The calculations of the estimated costs associated with compliance
are intended to be representative of the average resources necessary to
achieve compliance with the proposed standards. Affected establishments
may achieve compliance through other means with an equivalent amount of
resources.
Labor costs are based on industry-specific wage rates published by
BLS, adjusted upwards by 37 percent to account for benefits and other
employee-related costs and are presented in Table V-6. Supervisory wage
rates, including benefits, are estimated to be $22.45 per hour in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, and are estimated to range
from $31.56 to $41.00 in all other affected industries. Employee wage
rates (except those for engineers), including benefits, are estimated
to be $16.66 per hour in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry, and are estimated to range from $24.00 to $34.84 in all other
affected industries. Wage rates for engineers, including benefits, are
estimated to be $41.00 per hour. Clerical wage rates, including
benefits, are estimated to be $16.78 per hour in the Ornamental Shrub
and Tree Services industry, and are estimated to range from $17.91 to
$23.70 in all other affected industries. [1, Table 5.3]
Table V-6.--Summary of Wag Rates for Calculating Compliance Costs, by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries (including Fringe Benefits \1\) Based on Jobs
Description
-----------------------------------------------------------
Power
generation- Utility/ Utility/
Industry code Industry description power line other other
Supervisor Clerical construction/ power power
maintenance/ plant plant
repair worker supervisor engineer
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 0783................... Ornamental Shrub and $22.45 $16.78 $16.66 .......... .........
Tree Services.
NAICS 2211-10.............. Electric Power 41.00 23.70 32.66 $41.00 $44.37
Generation.
NAICS 2211-20.............. Electric Power 41.00 23.70 32.66 41.00 44.37
Transmission, Control,
and Distribution.
NAICS 2349-10.............. Water, Sewer, and 31.56 19.11 24.00 .......... .........
Pipeline Construction.
NAICS 2349-20.............. Power and Communication 31.56 19.11 24.00 .......... .........
Transmission Line
Const.
NAICS 2349-30.............. Industrial Nonbuilding 31.56 19.11 28.28 .......... .........
Structure Construction.
NAICS 2349-90.............. All Other Heavy 31.56 19.11 26.85 .......... .........
Construction.
NAICS 2353-10.............. Electrical Contractors. 33.99 17.91 25.46 .......... ;
NAICS 2359-10.............. Structural Steel 34.13 18.08 34.84 .......... .........
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 2359-50.............. Building Equipment and 34.13 18.08 34.84 .......... .........
Other Machine
Installation Contr.
NAICS 2359-90.............. All Other Special Trade 34.13 18.08 34.84 .......... .........
Contractors.
Major Publicly Owned 41.00 23.70 32.66 41.00 44.37
Utilities.
Industrial Generators.. 41.00 23.70 33.02 41.00 44.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes an additional 37 percent of base salary for fringe benefit costs.
\2\ Depending upon the industry and the type of work performed (that is, power generation, power line, or both),
these workers include line workers, tree-trimming crew members, power plant workers, and substation workers.
Source: CONSAD Research Corporation, ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis
for Proposed Standards for Work on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and
Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis under Contract No. J9-F9-0013,
Task Order Number 31, Pittsburgh, PA.
First-Year Costs for Revising Training Programs
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work would require
establishments covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 to revise existing training
programs.
The costs associated with such a revision were estimated as
involving 8 hours of supervisory time plus an hour of clerical time for
all industries except Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services. Due to the
more limited and less complex nature of the training for employees in
the Ornamental Shrub and Tree industry, the costs associated with
revising a training program in this industry were estimated to involve
4 hours of supervisory time plus half an hour of clerical time. [2,
Appendix C, pages 3-4]
Thus, OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance per
affected establishment covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 for revising existing
training programs would be $196 for establishments in the Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services industry, and would range from $272 to $351 in
all other affected industries.
Most establishments in all affected industries either already have
training programs that meet the requirements of the proposed standards,
or regularly revise their training programs to account for new
information or work practices. For these establishments, no additional
costs would be necessary to achieve compliance with the proposed
standards.
Rates of current compliance were estimated for each affected
industry. Within each industry, rates of current compliance were estimated
separately for establishments based on their size and based on whether their
work force was unionized or not. In the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry, estimated rates of current compliance ranged from 50 to 75 percent.
In all other affected industries, rates of current compliance were estimated
to range from 75 to 98 percent. [2, Appendix C, pages 3-4]
The total estimated first-year cost of compliance for revising
training programs was thus estimated to be $516,000, as shown in Table
V-7. Table V-7 also shows the costs of compliance for each affected
industry. In calculating the total annual cost associated with all of
the revised training requirements, this nonrecurring first-year cost
was annualized at a rate of 7 percent over 10 years and was then added
to the other annual costs.
Table V-7.--First-Year Costs for Revising Training Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost First-year
Industry code Industry name Establishments per affected Compliance rate compliance
affected (%) establishment (%) low/high costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910............. Water, Sewer, and 95 $272 75/95 $28,036
Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920............. Power and 95 272 75/95 95,269
Communication
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930............. Industrial 100 272 75/95 7,859
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990............. All Other Heavy 95 272 75/95 23,120
Construction.
NAICS 235310............. Electrical 95 290 75/95 61,211
Contractors.
NAICS 235910............. Structural Steel 100 291 75/95 24,714
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 235950............. Building Equipment 100 291 75/95 36,315
and Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990............. All Other Special 100 291 75/95 106,576
Trade Contractors.
NAICS 221110............. Electric Power 100 351 95/98 21,793
Generation.
NAICS 221120............. Electric Power 100 351 95/98 77,343
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211............... Publicly Owned 100 351 95/98 11,790
Utilities.
Various.................. Industrial Power 100 351 98/98 6,563
Generators.
SIC 0783................. Ornamental Shrub and 100 196 50/75 15,885
Tree Services.
-----------------
Total................ ..................... .............. .............. ................. 516,474
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 3-4.
First-Year Costs for Provision of Additional Training for Employees
Already Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work may involve costs
for providing additional training.
The costs associated with the provision of additional training were
estimated as involving resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 1.5 hours of employee time, plus 12 minutes
of supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of clerical time per employee for
all affected industries except Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services. For
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, the
provision of additional training was estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other expenditures) equivalent to 0.75 hours
of employee time, plus 6 minutes of supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee. [2, Appendix C, pages 5-6]
Half of the incremental cost of this additional training is
attributable to the need to train current employees on the changes in
requirements that would be associated with the adoption of the proposed
standards and that would substitute for previous training. This part of
the cost would only need to be incurred in the first year; in
subsequent years, the corresponding part of the training would be
substituted for the previous training. The other half of the additional
training in the first year represents additional training that may be
necessary to fully comply with the revised training requirements of the
proposal.
OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance for providing
the additional training would be $40 per employee for establishments in
the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, and would range from
$50 to $67 per employee in all other affected industries.
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, most establishments in all
affected industries are estimated to already provide training that
fully complies with the requirements of the proposed standards [2,
Appendix C, pages 5-6]. For these establishments, no additional costs
would be necessary to achieve compliance.
Rates of current compliance with the proposed requirements were
estimated for each affected industry. Within each industry, rates of
current compliance were estimated separately for establishments based
on their size and based on whether their work force was unionized or
not. In the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, estimated
rates of current compliance ranged from 50 to 75 percent. In all other
affected industries, rates of current compliance were estimated to
range from 75 to 98 percent [2, Appendix C, pages 5-6].
The total estimated first-year cost of compliance for providing
training meeting the requirements of the proposed standards was thus
estimated to be $572,000, as shown in Table V-8. Table V-8 also shows
the costs of compliance for each affected industry. In calculating the
total annual cost associated with all of the revised training
requirements, this nonrecurring first-year cost (less the corresponding
annual cost shown in Table V-10) was annualized at a rate of 7 percent
over 10 years and was then added to the recurring annual costs.
Table V-8.--First-Year Costs for Providing Additional Training to Employees Already Covered by Sec. 1910.269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost Compliance First-year
Industry code Industry name Employees per affected rate (%) low/ compliance
affected (%) employee high costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910............. Water, Sewer, and 95 $50 75/95 $4,028
Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920............. Power and 95 50 75/95 106,246
Communication
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930............. Industrial 100 58 75/95 6,041
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990............. All Other Heavy 95 55 75/95 27,622
Construction.
NAICS 235310............. Electrical 95 51 75/95 78,696
Contractors.
NAICS 235910............. Structural Steel 100 67 75/95 1,854
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 235950............. Building Equipment 100 67 75/95 1,736
and Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990............. All Other Special 100 67 75/95 5,071
Trade Contractors.
NAICS 221110............. Electric Power 100 60 95/98 55,278
Generation.
NAICS 221120............. Electric Power 100 60 95/98 91,945
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211............... Publicly Owned 100 60 95/98 12,187
Utilities.
Various.................. Industrial Power 100 61 98/98 19,744
Generators.
SIC 0783................. Ornamental Shrub and 100 40 50/75 162,035
Tree Services.
-----------------
Total................ ..................... .............. .............. .............. 572,483
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 5-6.
First-Year Costs for Additional Training for Employees Not Already
Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work include revisions
to the existing training requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269 and more
substantial revisions to the training requirements applicable to
construction work.
Companies that perform construction work associated with electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution systems would also be
able and willing to perform (and, in fact, do perform) similar work
involving the repair and maintenance of such systems. The distinction
between construction work and repair or maintenance work can be
difficult to make in some situations. For example, the distinction may
hinge on whether a particular piece of equipment is regarded as an
upgrade or a ``replacement-in-kind.''
Since the nature of the work is often almost identical, companies
are not likely to restrict themselves to only repair or maintenance
work or to only construction work with regard to potential jobs
involving electric power generation, transmission, and distribution.
Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that any company involved in
such work would have their employees trained in accordance with
accepted industry safety practices, as required by the existing OSHA
standard addressing this type of work in general industry in 29 CFR
1910.269.
Small business representatives from the affected industries
providing comments to OSHA on a draft of the proposal generally
indicated that construction contractors follow and comply with the
standards applicable to general industry work (29 CFR 1910.269) for all
of their work, including construction work. But some small business
representatives indicated that there are some companies who follow the
standards for construction work in 29 CFR 1926, rather than the
standards for general industry work in 29 CFR 1910.269. [3, p. 14]
For certain aspects of a particular construction job, it may be
possible to avoid some expenses associated with compliance with some of
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 not dealing with training. However,
if the employees of the company ever do any work considered repair or
maintenance, or any other work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269, then they
must have been trained in accordance with that standard. Thus,
compliance with the training requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 in
particular is likely, even if a specific job involves only construction
work and the employer follows the relevant provisions of the
Construction Standard, Subpart V.
The number of firms, if any, who actually limit themselves to
construction work as defined by OSHA, and therefore avoid providing a
basic training regimen for employees under 29 CFR 1910.269, is
difficult to estimate. One small entity representative estimated that
about 10 to 30 percent of contractors involved in electric power
transmission and distribution work may exclusively do construction;
another representative stated that they do not know of any contractor
firms that do exclusively construction work [3, p. 15].
It is not clear to what extent it is understood by potentially
affected firms that much work that is commonly regarded as construction
or that is commonly performed by construction companies does in fact
fall under OSHA's definition of general industry work, which includes
repair and maintenance. Thus, it would be easy for firms or people to
mistakenly believe that they (or others) are only involved in
construction work when in fact some of their work falls under the scope
of OSHA's general industry standards.
It is very unlikely that contractors performing electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution work meet both of the
following criteria: (1) They know and expect that for all projects
performed, only construction work will be done such that the training
required by 29 CFR 1910.269 would not be required to be provided, and
(2) they have employees perform such work without providing them with
what many consider to be a minimum amount of basic safety training
applicable to this type of work, as reflected in the training
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269. Only contractors meeting both of these
criteria would experience additional training costs due to the formal
extension of the training requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269 to the
construction industry.
Nevertheless, for purposes of estimating the potential costs of
compliance that may be associated with this proposal, OSHA estimates
that 5 percent of the work force in several construction industries would need
to be provided with the training currently required by 29 CFR 1910.269
in order to achieve full compliance with the proposed standards.
In the development of the proposal, OSHA was not able to identify
any employers that performed work covered by Subpart V of Part 1926,
but no work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269. However, OSHA has calculated
costs based on an estimate that 5 percent of the affected construction
work force performs no work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269, primarily in
response to the recommendations of the SBREFA Panel, as discussed in
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Specifically, OSHA estimates that 5 percent of the relevant work
force would be affected in the following industries: Water, Sewer, and
Pipeline Construction; Power and Communication Transmission Line
Construction; All Other Heavy Construction; and Electrical Contractors.
OSHA requests comments and information from the public regarding this
issue and the associated estimates.
The costs associated with the additional training that may be
necessary to achieve full compliance with the new training provisions
for employees not already covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 were estimated as
involving resources (including labor costs or other expenditures)
equivalent to 24.75 hours of employee time, plus 3 minutes of clerical
time per employee in the affected industries.
Thus, OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance per
affected employee for the required training would range from $690 to
$772 in the affected industries.
For the establishments and employees considered to be affected by
the expansion of the scope of applicability of this training
requirement, current compliance was estimated to be zero. [2, Appendix
C, pages 5-6]
The total estimated first-year cost of compliance for providing
additional training for employees not already covered by 29 CFR
1910.269 (and not already provided with such training) was thus
estimated to be $4.1 million, as shown in Table V-9. Table V-9 also
shows the costs of compliance for each affected industry. In
calculating the total annual cost associated with all the revised
training requirements, this nonrecurring first-year cost (less the
corresponding annual cost shown in Table V-11) was annualized at a rate
of 7 percent over 10 years and was then added to the recurring annual
costs.
Table V-9.--First-Year Costs for Additional Training for Employees Not Already Covered by Sec. 1910.269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost Compliance First-year
Industry code Industry name Employees per affected rate (%) low compliance
affected (%) employee high costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910............. Water, Sewer, and 5 $690 0 $78,184
Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920............. Power and 5 690 0 2,153,238
Communication
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930............. Industrial 0 .............. .............. 0
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990............. All Other Heavy 5 772 0 479,611
Construction.
NAICS 235310............. Electrical 5 700 0 1,344,110
Contractors.
NAICS 235910............. Structural Steel 0 .............. .............. 0
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 235950............. Building Equipment 0 .............. .............. 0
and Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990............. All Other Special 0 .............. .............. 0
Trade Contractors.
NAICS 221110............. Electric Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Generation.
NAICS 221120............. Electric Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211............... Publicly Owned 0 .............. .............. 0
Utilities.
Various.................. Industrial Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Generators.
SIC 0783................. Ornamental Shrub and 0 .............. .............. 0
Tree Services.
-----------------
Total................ ..................... .............. .............. .............. 4,055,143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 5-6; OSHA estimates.
Annual Costs for Provision of Additional Training for Employees Already
Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work may involve
annual costs for providing additional training due to workforce
turnover.
The costs associated with the provision of additional training were
estimated as involving resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 0.75 hours of employee time, plus 6 minutes
of supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of clerical time per employee for
all affected industries except Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services. For
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, the
provision of additional training was estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other expenditures) equivalent to 0.375 hours
of employee time, plus 3 minutes of supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee.
OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance for providing
the additional training would be $20 per affected employee for
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry and
would range from $25 to $34 per affected employee in all other affected
industries.
The number of affected employees in each establishment was
estimated by determining the corresponding work force turnover rate.
The work force turnover rate associated with the relevant occupational
category was estimated for each potentially affected industry. The
turnover rates among employees performing electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work were estimated to range from 11 to
16 percent in the construction industries, were estimated to be 3
percent in generation and utility industries, and were estimated to be
31 percent for establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry [2, Appendix C, p. 7-8].
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA estimates that most
establishments in all affected industries already provide training that
fully complies with the requirements of the proposed standards [2, Appendix C,
pages 7-8]. For these establishments, no additional costs would be necessary
to achieve compliance.
Rates of current compliance with the proposed requirements were
estimated for each affected industry. Within each industry, rates of
current compliance were estimated separately for establishments based
on their size and based on whether their work force was unionized or
not. In the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, estimated
rates of current compliance ranged from 50 to 75 percent. In all other
affected industries, rates of current compliance were estimated to
range from 75 to 98 percent [2, Appendix C, pages 7-8].
The total estimated annual cost of compliance for providing
training meeting the requirements of the proposed standards was thus
estimated to be about $58,000, as shown in Table V-10. Table V-10 also
shows the costs of compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-10.--Annual Costs for Providing Additional Training for Employees Already Covered by Sec. 1910.269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name Employees per affected rate (%) low/ compliance
affected (%) employee high costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910............. Water, Sewer, and 15 $25 75/95 $299
Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920............. Power and 15 25 75/95 7,870
Communication
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930............. Industrial 16 29 75/95 448
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990............. All Other Heavy 15 28 75/95 2,046
Construction.
NAICS 235310............. Electrical 10 26 75/95 4,103
Contractors.
NAICS 235910............. Structural Steel 11 34 75/95 97
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 235950............. Building Equipment 11 34 75/95 91
and Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990............. All Other Special 11 34 75/95 280
Trade Contractors.
NAICS 221110............. Electric Power 3 30 95/98 817
Generation.
NAICS 221120............. Electric Power 3 30 95/98 1,359
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211............... Publicly Owned 3 30 95/98 180
Utilities.
Various.................. Industrial Power 3 31 98/98 292
Generators.
SIC 0783................. Ornamental Shrub and 31 20 50/75 40,447
Tree Services.
-----------------
Total................ ..................... .............. .............. .............. 58,329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 7-8; OSHA estimates.
Annual Costs for Additional Training for Employees Not Already Covered
by 29 CFR 1910.269
As noted earlier, OSHA has included training costs based on an
estimate that 5 percent of the affected construction work force
performs no work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269. Specifically, OSHA
estimates that 5 percent of the relevant work force would be affected
in the following industries: Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction;
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction; All Other Heavy
Construction; and Electrical Contractors.
The annual costs associated with this additional training were
estimated for new affected employees as involving resources (including
labor costs or other expenditures) equivalent to 24.75 hours of
employee time, plus 3 minutes of clerical time per employee. OSHA
estimates that the average cost of compliance per affected employee for
the required training would range from $690 to $772 in the affected
industries.
The number of affected employees in each establishment was
estimated by determining the corresponding work force turnover rate.
The work force turnover rate associated with the relevant occupational
category was estimated for each potentially affected industry. The
turnover rates among employees performing electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work were estimated to range from 11 to
16 percent in the affected construction industries [2, Appendix C, p.
9-10].
For the establishments and employees considered to be affected by
the expansion of the scope of applicability of this training
requirement, current compliance was estimated to be zero [2, Appendix
C, pages 9-10].
The total estimated annual cost of compliance for providing
additional training for employees not already covered by 29 CFR
1910.269 (and not already provided with such training) was thus
estimated to be about $542,000, as shown in Table V-11. Table V-11 also
shows the costs of compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-11.--Annual Costs for Provision of Additional Training for Employees Not Already Covered by Sec.
1910.269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name Employees per affected rate (%) low/ compliance
affected (%) employee high costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910............. Water, Sewer, and 1 $690 0 $11,583
Pipeline
Construction.
NAICS 234920............. Power and 1 690 0 318,999
Communication
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930............. Industrial 0 .............. .............. 0
Nonbuilding
Structure
Construction.
NAICS 234990............. All Other Heavy 1 772 0 71,053
Construction.
NAICS 235310............. Electrical 1 700 0 140,144
Contractors.
NAICS 235910............. Structural Steel 0 .............. .............. 0
Erection Contractors.
NAICS 235950............. Building Equipment 0 .............. .............. 0
and Other Machine
Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990............. All Other Special 0 .............. .............. 0
Trade Contractors.
NAICS 221110............. Electric Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Generation.
NAICS 221120............. Electric Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Transmission,
Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211............... Publicly Owned 0 .............. .............. 0
Utilities.
Various.................. Industrial Power 0 .............. .............. 0
Generators.
SIC 0783................. Ornamental Shrub and 0 .............. .............. 0
Tree Services.
-----------------
Total................ ..................... .............. .............. .............. 541,779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 9-10; OSHA estimates.
Costs To Comply With Existing 29 CFR 1910.269 (Other Than Training) for
Employees Not Already Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
As described earlier, OSHA believes that construction contractors
who perform work involving electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution generally comply with the requirements of the OSHA general
industry standard 29 CFR 1910.269. Nevertheless, for purposes of
estimating the potential costs of compliance associated with this
rulemaking, costs associated with complying with existing requirements
in 29 CFR 1910.269 were estimated for some construction establishments.
For purposes of calculating a cost estimate, OSHA estimates that the
equivalent of 5 percent of the work force in several construction
industries currently are not provided with any of the additional safety
protections that were newly provided by the existing 29 CFR 1910.269
when that standard was updated by OSHA in 1994.
Specifically, OSHA estimates that the compliance costs associated
with achieving full compliance with the requirements of the existing 29
CFR 1910.269 for the construction industry would be equivalent to that
represented by 5 percent of the relevant work force being out of
compliance with the requirements of the existing 29 CFR 1910.269 that
were newly introduced in general industry in 1994. The relevant work
force would be the affected employees in the following industries:
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction; Power and Communication
Transmission Line Construction; All Other Heavy Construction; and
Electrical Contractors.
The costs necessary to achieve full compliance with the relevant
nontraining requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 were estimated based on
those associated with the final rule promulgated by OSHA in 1994. Many
of these requirements have become standard industry practice and thus
would no longer involve additional costs. Thus, the estimate of
compliance costs would allow for more widespread noncompliance among
other requirements, or for the incorporation of other aspects of
achieving compliance.
The resources necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant
requirements were estimated to be represented by an average of $64 per
employee. This cost is equivalent to that associated with compliance
with the revised 29 CFR 1910.269, as supported by the public record
corresponding to the promulgation of that standard.
The total estimated annual costs associated with achieving
compliance with the nontraining requirements of the existing 29 CFR
1910.269 for the construction industry was thus estimated to be
$157,000, as shown in Table V-12. Table V-12 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-12.--Costs To Comply With Existing 1910.269 (Other Than Training) for Employees Not Already Covered by Sec. 1910.269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name Employees Employees per affected rate (%) low/ compliance
affected (%) affected (%) employee high costs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
NAICS 234910............................ Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 5 $64 0 $3,043
Construction.
NAICS 234920............................ Power and Communication Transmission 5 64 0 83,773
Line Construction.
NAICS 234930............................ Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 0 .............. .............. 0
Construction.
NAICS 234990............................ All Other Heavy Construction........ 5 64 0 17,834
NAICS 235310............................ Electrical Contractors.............. 5 64 0 52,294
NAICS 235910............................ Structural Steel Erection 0 .............. .............. 0
Contractors.
NAICS 235950............................ Building Equipment and Other Machine 0 .............. .............. 0
Installation Contractors.
NAICS 235990............................ All Other Special Trade Contractors. 0 .............. .............. 0
NAICS 221110............................ Electric Power Generation........... 0 .............. .............. 0
NAICS 221120............................ Electric Power Transmission, 0 .............. .............. 0
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211.............................. Publicly Owned Utilities............ 0 .............. .............. 0
Various................................. Industrial Power Generators......... 0 .............. .............. 0
SIC 0783................................ Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.. 0 .............. .............. 0
-----------------
Total............................... .................................... .............. .............. .............. 156,944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Annual Costs for Required Communications Between Host Employers and
Contractors
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work would require
certain communications to take place between host employers and
contractors. These requirements would apply for each project that is
performed by a contractor for a host employer.
Under the proposed standards, the host employer would be required
to provide to the contractor information on hazards that the contract
employer might not be able to recognize. However, the proposed
standards would not require the host employer to survey the work area
for hazards, and would not require the host employer to acquire
additional unknown information.
The proposed standards would also require the host employer to
report to the contractor any violations of the applicable OSHA
standards that may happen to be observed by the host employer. This
requirement would not impose any additional costs on host employers or
on contractors to the extent that contractors are in compliance with
the applicable standards.
Contractors are also required under the proposed standards to
inform the host employer about any unique hazards posed by the work of
the contractor, about any unexpected hazards found in the course of
performing the contracted work, and about the measures taken by the
contractor to correct violations reported by the host employer and the
measures taken to prevent such violations from recurring. These
communications are generally considered to be consistent with current
industry practices for projects involving contracted work on electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution systems.
An estimated 2.7 million projects are performed by contractors for
host employers annually. Of these, about 1.3 million are performed by
contractors classified in the Power and Communication Transmission Line
Construction industry, and another 0.9 million are performed by
establishments classified in the Electrical Contractors industry. [2,
Appendix C, p. 1]
Projects performed by the host employers themselves would not be
affected by the proposed new requirements. Also, projects for which
there is no host employer would not be affected by these requirements.
Host employer is defined in the proposal as ``[a]n employer who
operates and maintains'' an electric power system and who hires a
contract employer to perform work on the system. Furthermore, the
requirements do not apply to line-clearance tree trimmers. OSHA
requests comments regarding the scope and application of these
requirements, and regarding additional costs, if any, that would need
to be incurred by tree trimmers if they were to be covered by this
requirement.
Some projects would be sufficiently small and straightforward to
preclude the need for any required communication. An estimated 50
percent of the projects performed by establishments with fewer than 20
employees would be unaffected by the proposed new communication
requirements. All projects performed by establishments with 20 or more
employees are considered affected by these requirements. [2, Appendix
C, p. 11-12]
The costs associated with these provisions were estimated as
involving resources (including labor costs or other expenditures)
equivalent to 10 minutes of supervisory time each for the host employer
and for the contractor on affected projects involving establishments
with fewer than 20 employees, and resources equivalent to 15 minutes of
supervisory time each for the host employer and for the contractor on
affected projects involving establishments with 20 or more employees.
[2, Appendix C, pages 11-12]
Thus, OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance to
contractors associated with the requirements for communications between
host employers and contractors would be $5 to $6 per affected project
performed by a smaller establishment, and $8 to $9 per affected project
performed by a larger establishment. The corresponding cost of
compliance to utilities associated with these requirements would range
from $7 to $10 per affected project.
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA believes that the
communications that would be required by the proposed standards already
occur for most affected projects. Employers involved in an estimated 50
percent of the affected projects performed by smaller establishments
are already in compliance with the proposed requirements. Depending on
the construction contractor involved, an estimated 75 to 90 percent of
the affected projects performed by larger contractors are also already
in compliance. For these projects, no additional costs would be
necessary to achieve compliance with the proposed standards. [2,
Appendix C, p. 11-12]
The total estimated annual cost of compliance associated with the
proposed requirements involving communications between host employers
and contractors was thus estimated to be $7.8 million, as shown in
Table V-13. Table V-13 also shows the costs of compliance for each
affected industry.
Table V-13.--Costs for Required Communications Between Host Employers and Contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Projects Cost per Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name performed affected (%) project small/ rate (%) low/ compliance
annually small/large large high costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910......................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 49,019 50/100 $5/$8 50/75 $84,325
Construction.
NAICS 234920......................... Power and Communication 1,282,310 50/100 5/8 65/90 1,062,275
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930......................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 58,790 50/100 5/8 50/75 114,887
Construction.
NAICS 234990......................... All Other Heavy Construction..... 309,377 50/100 5/8 50/75 508,846
NAICS 235310......................... Electrical Contractors........... 939,790 50/100 6/9 50/75 1,629,823
NAICS 235910......................... Structural Steel Erection 15,889 50/100 6/9 50/75 29,071
Contractors.
NAICS 235950......................... Building Equipment and Other 14,883 50/100 6/9 50/75 27,230
Machine Installation Contractors.
NAICS 235990......................... All Other Special Trade 47,250 50/100 6/9 50/75 77,081
Contractors.
NAICS 221110......................... Electric Power Generation........ 1,894,521 \1\ 0 7/10 .............. 1,021,719
NAICS 221120......................... Electric Power Transmission, 3,147,692 \1\ 0 7/10 .............. 2,725,314
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211........................... Publicly Owned Utilities......... 422,708 \1\ 0 7/10 .............. 280,791
Various.............................. Industrial Power Generators...... 687,667 \1\ 0 7/10 .............. 232,289
SIC 0783............................. Ornamental Shrub and Tree 2,251,278 0 .............. .............. 0
Services.
-----------------
Total............................ ................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 7,793,651
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Projects performed directly by utilities are excluded; costs to utilities reflect costs of communication on projects contracted out.
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], appendix C, pages 11-12.
Annual Costs Associated With Expanded Requirements for Job Briefings
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards would expand the
requirements for employers to conduct job briefings prior to beginning
work on affected electric power projects. Specifically, in addition to
existing requirements to provide a job briefing for employees, affected
employers would be required to provide the employee in charge of the
job with available information to perform the job safely.
An estimated 11.1 million projects are performed by construction
contractors, utilities, other power generators, and line-clearance tree
trimmers annually. Of these, about 6.2 million projects are performed
by utilities and power generators, 2.7 million projects are performed
by contractors classified in the construction industry, and another 2.3
million projects are performed by establishments classified in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry. All of these projects
would be potentially affected by the proposed new requirements [2,
Appendix C, p. 1 and p. 13-14].
Compliance with the proposed standards would be expected to be
achieved through a small addition to routine communications that
already take place regularly between and among employers and employees
involved in the affected projects. The costs of compliance associated
with the revised job briefing provisions were estimated as involving
resources (including labor costs or other expenditures) equivalent to 5
minutes of supervisory time and 5 minutes of employee time for each
affected project [2, Appendix C, pages 11-12].
Thus, OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance associated
with the revised requirements for job briefings would be $5 to $6 per
affected project performed by utilities, other power generators, and
construction contractors. The estimated average cost of compliance for
projects performed by establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry would be about $3 per project.
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA estimates that the job
briefings that would be required by the proposed standards are already
provided for most affected projects. Employers involved in an estimated
85 percent of the affected projects performed by establishments with
fewer than 20 employees are already in compliance with the proposed
requirements. Employers involved in an estimated 95 percent of the
affected projects performed by establishments with 20 or more employees
are also already in compliance with the proposed requirements. Among
utilities and other power generators, an estimated 95 percent to 98
percent of the potentially affected projects involve employers already
fully in compliance with the proposed job briefing provisions. For
these projects, no additional costs would be necessary to achieve
compliance with the proposed standards. [2, Appendix C, pages 13-14]
The total estimated annual cost of compliance associated with the
proposed requirements regarding job briefings was thus estimated to be
$5.1 million, as shown in Table V-14. Table V-14 also shows the costs
of compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-14.--Costs Associated With Expanded Requirements for Job Briefings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name performed Projects Cost per rate (%) low compliance
annually affected (%) project high costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910......................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 49,019 100 5 85/95 $37,642
Construction.
NAICS 234920......................... Power and Communication 1,282,310 100 5 85/95 945,140
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930......................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 58,790 100 5 85/95 42,827
Construction.
NAICS 234990......................... All Other Heavy Construction..... 309,377 100 5 85/95 270,538
NAICS 235310......................... Electrical Constructors.......... 939,790 100 5 85/95 829,851
NAICS 235910......................... Structural Steel Erection 15,889 100 6 85/95 16,637
Constructors.
NAICS 235950......................... Building Equipment and Other 14,883 100 6 85/95 15,584
Machine Installation
Constructors.
NAICS 235990......................... All Other Special Trade 47,250 100 6 85/95 55,111
Constructors.
NAICS 221110......................... Electric Power Generation........ 1,894,521 100 6 95/98 662,584
NAICS 221120......................... Electric Power Transmission, 3,147,692 100 6 95/98 1,102,340
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211........................... Publicly Owned Utilities......... 422,708 100 6 95/98 145,737
Various.............................. Industrial Power Generators...... 687,667 100 6 98/98 235,334
SIC 0783............................. Ornamental Shrub and Tree 2,251,278 100 3 85/95 700,013
Services.
-----------------
Total............................ ................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 5,059,338
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 13-14.
Annual Costs Associated With Determinations Regarding Electric Arc
Hazards and Appropriate Employee Protection
Under OSHA's proposed revisions, employers are required to
determine whether employees may be exposed to hazards from flames or
from electric arcs. For employees exposed to hazards from electric
arcs, the employer must estimate the available heat energy to which the
employee would be exposed. Where the covered hazards exist, the
employer must determine the corresponding appropriate clothing or other
protection for employees.
As noted in the proposal, the calculations of potential heat energy
exposures do not need to be made separately or repeated for each
individual project performed. Estimates that cover multiple system
areas can be developed initially, and then information from the
resulting system-wide analysis can be used repeatedly as needed. The
relevant information applicable for a specific project can be
identified and communicated to contractors by referring to the results
of the system-wide assessment or by providing the relevant system area
parameters (such as maximum fault current and clearing times) so that
the contractor can perform the calculations.
An estimated 11.1 million projects are performed by construction
contractors, utilities, other power generators, and line-clearance tree
trimmers annually. Of these, about 6.2 million projects are performed
by utilities and power generators, 2.7 million projects are performed
by contractors classified in the construction industry, and another 2.3
million projects are performed by establishments classified in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry. [2, Appendix C, p. 1].
The requirements involving determinations associated with electric
arc hazards do not apply to projects performed by establishments
classified in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry. In
addition, the requirements do not apply to projects involving only
deenergized lines and equipment, even if these could involve potential
electric arc hazards.
An estimated 50 percent of the projects involving electric power
transmission and distribution involve work on deenergized lines and
equipment; all projects involving electric power generation were
assumed to involve energized lines or equipment. Thus, the percent of
projects potentially affected by the requirements involving
determinations associated with electric arc hazards ranges from 50
percent to 100 percent across affected industries depending on the
proportion of the work in each industry that involves energized lines
or equipment. [2, Appendix C, p. 13-14]
Compliance with the proposed standards would be expected to be
achieved through the completion of a single system-wide assessment for
each of the affected electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution systems, in conjunction with the communication of the
relevant results of that assessment to the appropriate persons in
charge of specific projects. Contractors would use the necessary
information from the system-wide analysis relevant to each particular
project to make a determination regarding the appropriate protection to
provide employees for each project.
The costs of compliance associated with the proposed requirements
to make determinations associated with electric arc hazards were
estimated as involving resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) for two activities. First, costs were estimated for
conducting and updating a system-wide assessment of potential energy
for each utility and other power generator. Second, costs were
estimated for making a determination regarding appropriate employee
protection, using information from a system-wide assessment, for each
affected project.
The cost associated with conducting a system-wide assessment would
depend on the size and complexity of the system, which tends to
correspond closely to the number of employees working for the company
that operates the system. Thus, the costs were estimated on a per-
employee basis for each affected utility. The annual cost for each
system was estimated as involving resources (including labor costs or
other expenditures) equivalent to the cost of 2 hours of an electric
power system engineer's time plus 6 minutes of clerical time, per
employee of the utility. In their report, CONSAD had estimated that on
a per-employee basis the cost of conducting a system-wide assessment would
be equivalent to the cost of 3 hours of an engineer's time plus 9 minutes of
clerical time [2, Appendix C, pages 13-14]. OSHA revised these estimates
downwards by one third to reflect subsequent changes to the proposal that
reduced the associated costs.\68\ For example, for a utility with 1,000
employees, the estimated annual cost would be equivalent to the cost of 2,000
hours of an engineer's time plus 6,000 minutes of clerical time. OSHA requests
comments on the use and accuracy of this approach for purposes of estimating
these costs. In particular, the Agency requests comments on whether employers will
incur these costs on an annual basis or on a one-time basis, with
smaller periodic updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ After CONSAD completed its report, OSHA added tables to the
appendices explaining the proposed protective clothing requirements.
Employers may use the heat exposure levels in these tables rather
than perform an engineering assessment for portions of their systems
that fall within the ranges covered by the tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the estimated average cost associated with conducting a
system-wide assessment would be about $91 per system employee. For
example, the estimated average annual cost for a utility with 100
employees would be $9,100, and the average annual cost for a utility
with 1,000 employees would be $91,000.
The cost associated with making a determination regarding the
appropriate employee protection, using information from a system-wide
assessment, was estimated as involving resources (including labor costs
or other expenditures) equivalent to 3 minutes of supervisor time for
affected contractors and for each affected project [2, Appendix C,
pages 13-14].
Thus, the estimated average cost associated with making a
determination regarding the appropriate employee protection, using
information from a system-wide assessment, was estimated to $2 per
project.
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA estimates that the
determinations that would be required by the proposed standards are
already made for most affected projects. An estimated 75 percent of the
establishments of utilities and other generators with fewer than 20
employees already perform system-wide assessments regarding the
available heat energy to which employees may be exposed. An estimated
85 percent of the establishments of utilities and other generators with
20 or more employees already perform system-wide assessments regarding
the available heat energy to which employees may be exposed. For these
utilities, no additional costs would be necessary to achieve compliance
with the proposed standard's requirement for determining heat energy
estimates. [2, Appendix C, p. 13-14]
Among construction contractors, determinations regarding
appropriate employee protection are made for an estimated 25 percent of
the projects performed by smaller establishments and for an estimated
50 percent of the projects performed by larger contractors. For these
projects, no additional costs would be necessary to achieve compliance
with the proposed standards. [2, Appendix C, p. 13-14]
The total estimated annual cost of compliance associated with the
proposed requirements regarding the determinations associated with
electric arc hazards and the corresponding appropriate employee
protection was thus estimated to be $11.0 million, as shown in Table V-
15. Table V-15 also shows the costs of compliance for each affected
industry.
Table V-15.--Costs Associated With Determining Maximum Potential Heat Energy and Corresponding Appropriate Employee Protection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name performed Projects Cost per rate (%) low/ compliance
annually affected (%) project high costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910......................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 49,019 50 $2 25/50 23,055
Construction.
NAICS 234920......................... Power and Communication 1,282,310 50 2 25/50 581,517
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930......................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 58,790 100 2 25/50 47,048
Construction.
NAICS 234990......................... All Other Heavy Construction..... 309,377 75 2 25/50 228,773
NAICS 235310......................... Electrical Contractors........... 939,790 60 2 25/50 611,134
NAICS 235910......................... Structural Steel Erection 15,889 100 2 25/50 16,448
Contractors.
NAICS 235950......................... Building Equipment and Other 14,883 100 2 25/50 15,407
Machine Installation Contractors.
NAICS 235990......................... All Other Special Trade 47,250 100 2 25/50 54,532
Contractors.
NAICS 221110......................... Electric Power Generation........ 1,894,521 75 (\1\) 75/85 2,106,375
NAICS 221120......................... Electric Power Transmission, 3,147,692 55 (\1\) 75/85 5,900,695
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211........................... Publicly Owned Utilities......... 422,708 75 (\1\) 75/85 676,998
Various.............................. Industrial Power Generators...... 687,667 100 (\1\) 85/85 778,076
SIC 0783............................. Ornamental Shrub and Tree 2,251,278 0 .............. .............. 0
Services.
-----------------
Total............................ ................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 11,040,058
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Costs for utilities include labor costs for performing system-wide assessments regarding potential arc hazards, estimated as $91 per utility
employee annually. Costs for contractors reflect labor costs for determining appropriate clothing based on information provided by utilities.
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 13-14, and OSHA estimates.
Annual Costs for Providing Flame-Resistant Apparel (FRA) and Other
Protective Clothing
The proposed revisions to the OSHA standards addressing electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work include revisions
to the requirements addressing the extent of protective clothing that
employees must wear. Under the proposed standards, affected employers
must provide appropriate protective clothing to employees based on the
determination of the hazards that the employees may face.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ OSHA has not proposed to require employers to purchase the
FRA needed to meet the clothing-related provisions of the proposal.
However, for costs purposes, the Agency is assuming that all costs
of purchasing FRA will be borne by employers. See the discussion of
the issue of whether employers should purchase this clothing in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.960(g)(4) in Section IV, Summary
and Explanation of Proposed Rule, earlier in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average costs associated with providing the clothing that would
be necessary to achieve full compliance with the proposed standards
were estimated as involving resources equivalent to those associated
with the following illustrative case example. An employer could
generally be expected to achieve compliance with the proposed
standard's clothing provisions by purchasing eight sets of flame-
resistant apparel per employee and one switching coat or flash jacket
for every three employees.
A single set of flame-resistant apparel is estimated to cost about
$110, and with 8 sets provided for each employee, the useful life of
this apparel is expected to be 4 years. A switching coat or flash
jacket is estimated to cost about $200 and to have an expected life of
10 years. [2, Appendix C, p. 15-16]
The flame-resistant apparel will generally be substituted for
clothing that the employee or the employer would already be providing.
The savings associated with no longer needing to purchase and launder
the clothing that would otherwise be worn by employees were not
included in this analysis.
The flame-resistant apparel provided to employees is generally worn
in lieu of clothing that would otherwise be provided by and cared for
by the employees themselves, and typically does not require special
laundering. Thus, the proposed requirement to provide flame-resistant
apparel would not create additional burdens associated with laundering.
Employers would not be required under the proposal to launder clothes
for employees. To the extent that employers choose to begin laundering
clothes or providing laundering services for employees in conjunction
with providing flame-resistant apparel for them, the cost would not be
attributable to the proposed regulatory requirements, and any such
costs would be regarded as transfers from employers to employees rather
than additional costs to society.
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA estimates that most
establishments in all affected industries already provide employees
with flame-resistant apparel and other required protective clothing
that fully complies with the requirements of the proposed standards.
[2, Appendix C, pages 15-16] For these establishments, no additional
costs would be necessary to achieve compliance.
Rates of current compliance with the proposed requirements were
estimated for each affected industry. Within each industry, rates of
current compliance were estimated separately for establishments based
on their size. Among construction contractors, the estimated average
rate of current compliance for establishments with fewer than 20
employees was 50 percent. The average rate of current compliance among
construction contractor establishments with 20 or more employees was
estimated to be 75 percent. Among electric utilities and other electric
power generators, current compliance was estimated to be 80 percent for
establishments with fewer than 20 employees and 90 percent for
establishments with 20 or more employees. [2, Appendix C, p. 15-16]
The total estimated annual cost of compliance for providing flame-
resistant apparel and other protective clothing was thus estimated to
be $8.4 million, as shown in Table V-16. Table V-16 also shows the
costs of compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-16.--Costs Associated With Providing Flame-Resistant Apparel (FRA), Switching Coats, and Flash Jackets
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful life
Sets of FRA Useful life Switching Cost per of
Employees provided Cost per of FRA with coat/flash switching switching Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name affected per set of FRA 8 sets/ jacket per coat/flash coat/flash rate (%) compliance
(%) employee employee employee jacket jacket low/high costs
(years) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910........................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 100 8 $110 4 0.33 $200 10 50/75 $79,174
Construction.
NAICS 234920........................... Power and Communication 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 2,071,169
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930........................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 94,957
Construction.
NAICS 234990........................... All Other Heavy Construction...... 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 499,701
NAICS 235310........................... Electrical Contractors............ 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 1,517,936
NAICS 235910........................... Structural Steel Erection 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 25,664
Contractors.
NAICS 235950........................... Building Equipment and Other 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 24,039
Machine Installation Contractors.
NAICS 235990........................... All Other Special Trade 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 50/75 76,318
Contractors.
NAICS 221110........................... Electric Power Generation......... 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 80/90 1,224,001
NAICS 221120........................... Electric Power Transmission, 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 80/90 2,033,643
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211............................. Publicly Owned Utilities.......... 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 80/90 273,101
Various................................ Industrial Power Generators....... 100 8 110 4 0.33 200 10 90/90 444,284
SIC 0783............................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services 0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0
--------------
Total.............................. .................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 8,363,987
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix 1P. 15-16
Annual Costs for Providing Harnesses for Fall Protection in Aerial
Lifts
The proposal includes provisions addressing the equipment that must
be used as part of fall arrest systems, fall restraint systems, and
work positioning systems. Under the proposal, employees in aerial lifts
performing work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 would no longer be able to
use body belts as part of fall arrest systems and would be required to
use harnesses; belts would still be allowed to be used under certain
circumstances, as part of work positioning systems and fall restraint
systems.
The average costs associated with providing harnesses in lieu of
belts were estimated to be about $100 per affected employee [2,
Appendix C, pages 17-18].
The percentage of the work force that would potentially be affected
by the proposed regulatory changes was estimated for each industry. For
construction contractors, utilities, and other electric power
generators, an estimated 67 percent of the employees who perform
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work are
potentially affected. Among employees in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry who perform line-clearance tree-trimming operations,
an estimated 50 percent of the work force would be potentially
affected. [2, Appendix C, pages 17-18]
Based on research conducted by CONSAD, OSHA estimates that many
establishments in all affectd industries already provide employees with
harnesses as required by the applicable provisions in the proposal [2,
Appendix C, pages 17-18]. For these establishments, no additional costs
would be necessary to achieve compliance with the proposal.
Rates of current compliance with the proposed requirements were
estimated for each affected industry. Among construction contractors
and utilities, current compliance with the requirement to provide
harnesses was estimated to be 100 percent. OSHA already requires the
use of harnesses for fall arrest for construction work. The average
rate of current compliance among industrial power generators was
estimated to be 75 percent. Among employees performing line-clearance
tree-trimming operations, current compliance was estimated to be 25
percent for establishments with fewer than 20 employees and 50 percent
for establishments with 20 or more employees. [2, Appendix C, p. 17-18]
The total estimated annual cost of compliance for providing
harnesses for fall protection in aerial lifts was thus estimated to be
$284,000, as shown in Table V-17. Table V-17 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
Table V-17.--Costs for Providing Harnesses for Fall Protection in Aerial Lifts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Employees cost of Compliance Annual
Industry code Industry name affected harness in rate (%) compliance
(%) lieu of low/high costs
belt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline 67 $100 100/100 $0
Construction.
NAICS 234920................... Power and Communication 67 100 100/100 0
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930................... Industrial Nonbuilding 67 100 100/100 0
Structure Construction.
NAICS 234990................... All Other Heavy 67 100 100/100 0
Construction.
NAICS 235310................... Electrical Contractors..... 67 100 100/100 0
NAICS 235910................... Structural Steel Erection 67 100 100/100 0
Contractors.
NAICS 235950................... Building Equipment and 67 100 100/100 0
Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990................... All Other Special Trade 67 100 100/100 0
Contractors.
NAICS 221110................... Electric Power Generation.. 67 100 100/100 0
NAICS 221120................... Electric Power 67 100 100/100 0
Transmission, Control, and
Distribution.
NAICS 2211..................... Publicly Owned Utilities... 67 100 100/100 0
Various........................ Industrial Power Generators 67 100 75/75 67,422
SIC 0783....................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree 50 100 25/50 216,578
Services.
--------------
Total...................... ........................... ........... ........... ........... 284,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix C, p. 17-18.
H. Economic Feasibility and Impacts
This section of the preliminary analysis presents OSHA's analysis
of the economic impacts of the proposal, and an assessment of the
economic feasibility of compliance with the requirements imposed by the
rulemaking.
A separate analysis of the potential economic impacts on small
entities (as defined in accordance with the criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA)) and on very small establishments
(defined as those with fewer than 20 employees) is presented in the
following section as part of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In order to assess the nature and magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the proposal, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the
requirements on entities in each of the affected industry sectors. The
estimated costs of compliance presented previously in this economic
analysis were compared with industry revenues and profits to provide an
assessment of potential economic impacts.
Table V-18 presents data on the revenues associated with electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work for each affected
industry sector, along with the corresponding industry profits and the
estimated costs of compliance in each sector.
Table V-18.--Potential Economic Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs as a Costs as a
Industry code Industry name Compliance costs Comparable Comparable percent of percent of
industry revenues industry profits revenues profits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910.................. Water, Sewer, and $253,089 $157,458,000 $8,817,648 0.16 2.87
Pipeline Construction.
NAICS 234920.................. Power and Communication 5,358,702 3,118,256,000 174,622,336 0.17 3.07
Transmission Line
Construction.
NAICS 234930.................. Industrial Nonbuilding 302,077 1,732,944,000 84,914,256 0.02 0.36
Structure Construction.
NAICS 234990.................. All Other Heavy 1,663,721 1,033,946,000 50,663,354 0.16 3.28
Construction.
NAICS 235310.................. Electrical Contractors... 4,975,533 2,055,435,000 123,326,100 0.24 4.03
NAICS 235910.................. Structural Steel Erection 91,676 119,735,000 6,226,000 0.08 1.47
Contractors.
NAICS 235950.................. Building Equipment and 87,741 113,999,000 3,647,968 0.08 2.41
Other Machine
Installation Contractors.
NAICS 235990.................. All Other Special Trade 279,136 160,909,000 7,401,814 0.17 3.77
Contractors.
NAICS 221110.................. Electric Power Generation 5,026,324 69,385,043,000 6,730,349,171 0.01 0.07
NAICS 221120.................. Electric Power 11,787,197 176,509,052,000 17,121,378,044 0.01 0.07
Transmission, Control,
and Distribution.
NAICS 2211.................... Publicly Owned Utilities. 1,380,186 25,075,725,000 ................. 0.01 .................
Various....................... Industrial Power 1,761,391 2,630,428,000 ................. 0.07 .................
Generators.
SIC 0783...................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree 976,559 2,100,129,000 149,109,159 0.05 0.65
Services.
--------------------
Total..................... ......................... 33,943,333 284,193,059,000 24,460,456,070 0.01 0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.3 and Appendix C, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
As evident from the data presented in Table V-18, the costs of
compliance with the proposed rulemaking are not large in relation to
the corresponding annual financial flows associated with the regulated
activities. The estimated costs of compliance represent about 0.01
percent of revenues and 0.14 percent of profits on average across all
entities; compliance costs do not represent more than 0.24 percent of
revenues or more than 4.03 percent of profits in any affected industry.
The economic impact of the proposal is most likely to consist of a
small increase in prices for electricity, of about 0.01 percent on
average. It is unlikely that a price increase on the magnitude of 0.01
percent will significantly alter the services demanded by the public or
any other affected customers or intermediaries. If the compliance costs
of the proposal can be substantially recouped with such a minimal
increase in prices, there may be little effect on profits.
In general, for most establishments, it would be very unlikely that
none of the compliance costs could be passed along in the form of
increased prices. In the event that unusual circumstances may inhibit
even a price increase of 0.01 percent to be realized, profits in any of
the affected industries would be reduced by a maximum of about 4
percent.
In profit-earning entities, compliance costs can generally be
expected to be absorbed through a combination of increases in prices or
reduction in profits. The extent to which the impacts of cost increases
affect prices or profits depends on the price elasticity of demand for
the products or services produced and sold by the entity.
Price elasticity of demand refers to the relationship between
changes in the price charged for a product and the resulting changes in
the demand for that product. A greater degree of elasticity of demand
implies that an entity or industry is less able to pass increases in
costs through to its customers in the form of a price increase and must
absorb more of the cost increase through a reduction in profits.
In the case of cost increases that may be incurred due to the
requirements of the proposal, all businesses within each of the covered
industry sectors would be subject to the same requirements. Thus, to
the extent potential price increases correspond to costs associated
with achieving compliance with the standards, the elasticity of demand
for each entity will approach that faced by the industry as a whole.
Given the small incremental increases in prices potentially
resulting from compliance with the proposed standards and the lack of
readily available substitutes for the products and services provided by
the covered industry sectors, demand is expected to be sufficiently
inelastic in each affected industry to enable entities to substantially
offset compliance costs through minor price increases without
experiencing any significant reduction in total revenues or in net
profits.
For the economy as a whole, OSHA expects the economic impact of the
proposed rulemaking to be both an increase in the efficiency of
production of goods and services and an improvement in the welfare of
society.
First, as demonstrated by the analysis of costs and benefits
associated with compliance with the requirements of the rule, OSHA
expects that societal welfare will increase as a result of these
standards, as the benefits achieved clearly and strongly justify the
relatively small costs necessary. The impacts of the proposal involve
net benefits of over $100 million that are achieved in a relatively
cost-effective manner.
Second, many of the costs associated with the injuries and
fatalities resulting from the risks addressed by the proposal have
until now been externalized. That is, the costs incurred by society to
supply certain products and services associated with electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work have not been fully
reflected in the prices of those products and services. The costs of
production have been partly borne by workers who suffer the
consequences associated with the activities causing the risks. To the
extent that fewer of these costs are externalized, the price mechanism
will enable the market to result in a more efficient allocation of
resources. It should be noted that reductions in externalities by
themselves do not necessarily increase efficiency or social welfare
unless the costs of achieving the reductions are outweighed by the
associated benefits.
OSHA concludes that compliance with the requirements of the
proposal is economically feasible in every affected industry sector.
This conclusion is based on the criteria established by the OSH Act, as
interpreted in relevant case law.
In general, the courts have held that a standard is economically
feasible if there is a reasonable likelihood that the estimated costs
of compliance ``will not threaten the existence or competitive structure
of an industry, even if it does portend disaster for some marginal firms''
[United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980)].
As demonstrated by this preliminary regulatory impact analysis and the
supporting evidence, the potential impacts associated with achieving
compliance with the proposal fall far within the bounds of economic
feasibility in each industry sector. OSHA does not expect compliance
with the requirements of the proposal to threaten the viability of
entities or the existence or competitive structure of any of the
affected industry sectors.
In addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
effects of the proposal on international trade, employment, wages, and
economic growth for the United States would be negligible.
Statement of Energy Effects
As required by Executive Order 13211, and in accordance with the
guidance for implementing Executive Order 13211 and with the
definitions provided therein as prescribed by the Office of Management
and Budget, OSHA has analyzed the proposed standard with regard to its
potential to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
As a result of this analysis, OSHA has determined that this action
is not a significant energy action as defined by the relevant OMB
guidance.
I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires the
preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for
certain proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under the provisions of the
law, each such analysis shall contain:
1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities;
2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, including
(a) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
(b) The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities;
(c) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
(d) An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that the required
elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with or as part of
any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such other
analysis satisfies the relevant provisions.
1. Impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
OSHA has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed standards on
small entities, as described below.
The total annual cost of compliance with the proposal for small
entities is estimated to be $15.2 million [2, Table 5.7]. These costs
were calculated by provision, by industry, and by size of
establishment, as described in the cost of compliance section of this
economic analysis.
To assess the potential economic impact of the proposal on small
entities, OSHA calculated the ratios of compliance costs to profits and
to revenues. These ratios are presented for each affected industry in
Table V-19. OSHA expects that among small entities potentially affected
by the proposal, the average increase in prices necessary to completely
offset the compliance costs would be less than 0.3 percent in each
affected industry.
Table V-19.--Potential Economic Impacts on Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance
Compliance costs as a costs as a
Industry code Industry name costs per percent of percent of
firm sales profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910........................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline $179 0.15 4.27
Construction.
NAICS 234920........................... Power and Communication 1,142 0.16 4.58
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930........................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 590 0.02 0.30
Construction.
NAICS 234990........................... All Other Heavy Construction.... 1,377 0.15 2.34
NAICS 235310........................... Electrical Contractors.......... 2,085 0.24 5.31
NAICS 235910........................... Structural Steel Erection 89 0.07 1.45
Contractors.
NAICS 235950........................... Building Equipment and Other 51 0.08 ...........
Machine Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990........................... All Other Special Trade 79 0.16 3.35
Contractors.
NAICS 221110........................... Electric Power Generation....... 1,917 0.01 0.09
NAICS 221120........................... Electric Power Transmission, 1,917 0.01 0.09
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211............................. Publicly Owned Utilities........ 2,444 0.00 ...........
Various................................ Industrial Power Generators..... 2,655 0.07 ...........
SIC 0783............................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree 545 0.04 0.62
Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.4, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
Only to the extent that such price increases are not possible would
there be any effect on the average profits of small entities. Even in
the unlikely event that no costs could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of less than 3 percent in most affected
industries, and through an average reduction in profits of less than 6
percent in all affected industries.
In order to further ensure that potential impacts on small entities
were fully analyzed and considered, OSHA also separately examined the
potential impacts of the proposed standards on very small entities,
defined as those with fewer than 20 employees.
To assess the potential economic impact of the proposed standards
on very small entities, OSHA calculated the ratios of compliance costs
to profits and to revenues. These ratios are presented for each
affected industry in Table V-20. OSHA expects that among very small
entities potentially affected by the proposed standards, the average
increase in prices necessary to completely offset the compliance costs
would be 0.4 percent or less in each affected industry.
Table V-20.--Potential Economic Impacts on Very Small Entities
[Those with fewer than 20 employees]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance
Compliance costs as a costs as a
Industry code Industry name costs per percent of percent of
firm sales profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910........................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline $131 0.24 4.49
Construction.
NAICS 234920........................... Power and Communication 679 0.28 5.63
Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930........................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure 70 0.03 3.43
Construction.
NAICS 234990........................... All Other Heavy Construction.... 1,236 0.26 31.67
NAICS 235310........................... Electrical Contractors.......... 1,623 0.35 4.84
NAICS 235910........................... Structural Steel Erection 72 0.12 11.00
Contractors.
NAICS 235950........................... Building Equipment and Other 48 0.13 7.39
Machine Installation
Contractors.
NAICS 235990........................... All Other Special Trade 74 0.20 6.25
Contractors.
NAICS 221110........................... Electric Power Generation....... 546 0.01 0.09
NAICS 221120........................... Electric Power Transmission, 392 0.01 0.09
Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211............................. Publicly Owned Utilities........ 160 0.00 ...........
Various................................ Industrial Power Generators..... ........... ........... ...........
SIC 0783............................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree 664 0.11 1.41
Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.3, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
Only to the extent that such price increases are not possible would
there be any effect on the average profits of small entities. Even in
the unlikely event that no costs could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of 11 percent or less in all affected industries
except NAICS 2349-90, All Other Heavy Construction.
In the All Other Heavy Construction industry, the reported profit
rate for very small entities is extraordinarily low, which causes the
compliance costs to appear relatively large in relation to profits. The
average costs of compliance for very small entities in this industry
represent less than 0.3 percent of corresponding revenues. OSHA
anticipates that the compliance costs will be recouped through price
increases of less than 0.3 percent, leaving profits unaffected. OSHA
requests comments regarding the estimated economic impacts of the
proposed standard on this industry.
2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered.
Employees performing work involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards, such as electric shock, fall, and burn hazards, that can and
do cause serious injury and death. OSHA estimates that 444 serious
injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with
better compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities would
be prevented annually through full compliance with the proposed
standards.
As explained above, additional benefits associated with this
rulemaking involve providing updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work to the relevant employers, employees, and interested
members of the public. The existing OSHA standards for the construction
of electric power transmission and distribution systems are over 30
years old and inconsistent with the more recently promulgated standards
addressing repair and maintenance work. OSHA believes that the proposed
updated standards are easier to understand and to apply and will
benefit employers and employees by facilitating compliance while
improving safety.
3. Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
The primary objective of the proposed standards is to provide an
increased degree of occupational safety for employees performing
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. As
stated above, an estimated 116 injuries and 19 fatalities would be
prevented annually through compliance with the proposed standards in
addition to those that may be prevented through compliance with
existing standards.
Another objective of the proposed rulemaking is to provide updated,
clear, and consistent safety standards regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested members of the public. The
proposed updated standards are easier to understand and to apply, and
they will benefit employers by facilitating compliance while improving
safety.
The legal basis for the rule is the responsibility given the
Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
Act of 1970. The OSH Act authorizes and obligates the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate mandatory occupational safety and health standards
as necessary ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman
in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our
human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). The legal authority can also be
cited as 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 40 U.S.C. 333.
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [ wais.access.gpo.gov]]
[[pp. 34921-34970]] Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment
4. Description of and estimate of the number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply.
OSHA has completed a preliminary analysis of the impacts associated
with this proposal, including an analysis of the type and number of
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. In order to
determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this
rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small entities developed by
the SBA for each industry.
For the construction industry, SBA defines small businesses using
revenue-based criteria. Specifically, for the four heavy construction
industries (NAICS 2349-10, 2349-20, 2349-30, and 2349-90), firms with
annual revenues of less than $28.5 million are classified as small
businesses. For specialty contractors (NAICS 2353-10, 2359-10, 2359-50,
and 2359-90), firms with annual revenues of less than $12 million are
considered to be small businesses. For SIC 0783, Ornamental Shrub and
Tree Services, firms with annual revenues of less than $5 million are
considered to be small businesses. For electric utilities (NAICS 2211),
the SBA defines small businesses using power production or
transmission-based criteria. Specifically, firms that produce or
transmit less than 4 million megawatt hours annually are considered to
be small businesses.
The proposed standards would primarily impact firms performing
construction, maintenance, and repair work on power generation,
transmission, and distribution facilities, lines, and equipment. Based
on the definitions of small entities developed by SBA for each
industry, the proposal is estimated to potentially affect a total of
12,619 small entities.
The estimated number of potentially affected small entities in each
industry is presented in Table V-21. As shown in this table, of the
12,619 small entities potentially affected, an estimated 2,661 entities
are in the Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction
industry, an estimated 2,552 entities are in the All Other Special
Trade Contractors industry, an estimated 1,577 entities are in the
Electrical Contractors industry, and an estimated 1,336 entities are in
the Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution industry.
Table V-21.--Profile of Potentially Affected Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially affected
Potentially affected establishments with
Industry code Industry name small entities (SBA fewer than 20
definitions) employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910................................... Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction.................... 797 629
NAICS 234920................................... Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction..... 2,661 2,198
NAICS 234930................................... Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction.............. 253 118
NAICS 234990................................... All Other Heavy Construction............................... 624 571
NAICS 235310................................... Electrical Contractors..................................... 1,577 1,435
NAICS 235910................................... Structural Steel Erection Contractors...................... 621 504
NAICS 235950................................... Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation 714 748
Contractors.
NAICS 235990................................... All Other Special Trade Contractors........................ 2,552 2,418
NAICS 221110................................... Electric Power Generation.................................. 376 902
NAICS 221120................................... Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution..... 1,336 3,203
NAICS 2211..................................... Publicly Owned Utilities................................... 262 33
Various........................................ Industrial Power Generators................................ 594 0
SIC 0783....................................... Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services......................... 252 100
-----------------------
Total...................................... ........................................................... 12,619 12,859
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD [1]. Table 6.2 and Appendix C, pages 1-2.
5. Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule.
OSHA is proposing to revise the standards addressing the work
practices to be used, and other requirements to be followed, for the
operation and maintenance of, and for construction work involving,
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
installations. The existing rules for this type of work were issued in
1972 for construction work and in 1994 for work covered by general
industry standards. The construction standards, in particular, are out
of date and are not consistent with the more recent, corresponding
general industry rules for the operation and maintenance of electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution systems. As described
in detail earlier, this proposal will make the construction and general
industry standards for this type of work the same.
Existing Sec. 1910.269 contains requirements for the maintenance
and operation of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. Section 29 CFR 1910.269 is primarily a
work-practices standard. Its requirements are based on recognized safe
industry practices as reflected in current national consensus standards
covering this type of work, such as the National Electrical Safety Code
(ANSI/IEEE C2). OSHA promulgated this standard in 1994.
Section 29 CFR 1910.269 contains provisions intended to protect
employees from the most serious hazards they face in performing this
type of work, primarily, those causing falls, burns, and electric
shocks. The requirements in this standard cover training and job
briefings, working near energized parts, deenergizing lines and
equipment and grounding them for employee protection, work on
underground and overhead installations, work in power generating
stations and substations, work in enclosed spaces, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electric energy.
OSHA is also proposing to extend its general industry standard on
electrical protective equipment to the construction industry. The
current construction standards for the design of electrical protective
equipment, which apply only to electric power transmission and
distribution work, adopt several national consensus standards by
reference. The proposed new standard would replace the incorporation of
these out-of-date consensus standards with a set of performance-oriented
requirements that are consistent with the latest revisions of these consensus
standards and with the corresponding standard for general industry.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing new requirements for the safe use and
care of electrical protective equipment to complement the equipment
design provisions. The new standard, which will apply to all
construction work, will update the existing OSHA industry-specific
standards and will prevent accidents caused by inadequate electrical
protective equipment.
As discussed in detail earlier, this transfer to the construction
standards of the existing general industry standards (electrical
protective equipment and 29 CFR 1910.269) is not expected to impose a
significant burden on employers. Generally, many employers doing
construction work also do general industry work, and thus OSHA believes
that they would already be following the updated general industry
standards in all of their work. The proposed standards for construction
are also consistent with the latest national consensus standards.
OSHA is also proposing miscellaneous changes to the two
corresponding general industry standards. These changes address: Class
00 rubber insulating gloves; electrical protective equipment made from
materials other than rubber; training for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers; host-contractor
responsibilities; job briefings; fall protection; insulation and
working position of employees working on or near live parts; protective
clothing; minimum approach distances; deenergizing transmission and
distribution lines and equipment; protective grounding; operating
mechanical equipment near overhead power lines; and working in manholes
and vaults.
These changes to the general industry standards, because they apply
also to construction, would ensure that employers, where appropriate,
face consistent requirements for work performed under the construction
and general industry standards and would further protect employees
performing electrical work covered under the general industry
standards. The proposal would also update references to consensus
standards in 29 CFR 1910.137 and 29 CFR 1910.269 and would add a new
appendix to help employers comply with the new clothing provisions.
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, earlier in
this preamble, provides further detail regarding the new and revised
provisions of the proposed rulemaking in. A description of the classes
of small entities which would be subject to the new and revised
requirements, and the type of professional skills necessary for
compliance with the requirements, is presented in the preceding
sections of this economic analysis.
6. Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule.
OSHA has not identified any Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposal, and requests comments from the
public regarding this issue.
OSHA does not believe that the proposed provisions on host-
contractor responsibilities duplicate or overlap OSHA's multi-employer
citation policy (CPL 02-00-124). Section IV, Summary and Explanation of
Proposed Rule, earlier in this preamble, provides clarification of the
intent and application of the host-contractor requirements and their
relationship to OSHA's multi-employer citation policy.
It is not OSHA's intent that the provisions on host-contractor
responsibilities would affect in any way the employer-employee
relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act or under the Internal
Revenue Service regulations. The OSHA requirements are not intended to
establish an employer-employee relationship with contractors or
employees of contractors, as defined by the relevant statutes and
regulations.
7. Alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
OSHA evaluated many alternatives to the proposed standards to
ensure that the proposed requirements would accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposal on small entities.
In developing the proposal, and especially in establishing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that affect small
entities, the resources available to small entities were taken into
account. Compliance and reporting requirements under the proposal
applicable to small entities were clarified, consolidated, and
simplified to the extent practicable. Wherever possible, OSHA has
proposed the use of performance rather than design standards. An
exemption from coverage of the rule for small entities was not
considered to be a viable option because the safety and health of the
affected employees would be unduly jeopardized.
Many other specific alternatives to the proposed requirements were
considered. Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule,
earlier in this preamble, provides discussion and explanation of the
particular requirements of the proposal.
Other regulatory alternatives considered were those raised by the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, which was convened for purposes
of soliciting comments on the proposal from affected small entities. A
discussion of these alternatives is provided later in this economic
analysis.
Nonregulatory alternatives were also considered in determining the
appropriate approach to reducing occupational hazards associated with
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. These
alternatives were discussed in the section of this economic analysis
entitled ``Examination of Alternative Approaches,'' earlier in this
preamble.
Alternatives Considered and Changes Made in Response to Comments From
Small Entity Representatives and Recommendations From the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel
On May 1, 2003, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) for this rulemaking in accordance with the
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The SBAR Panel consisted of representatives of OSHA, of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget, and of the Office of Advocacy within the U.S.
Small Business Administration. The Panel received oral and written
comments on a draft proposal and a draft economic analysis from small
entities that would potentially be affected by this rulemaking. The
Panel, in turn, prepared a written report, which was delivered to the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health [3]. The report
summarized the comments received from the small entities, and included
recommendations from the Panel to OSHA regarding the proposal and the
associated analysis of compliance costs.
Table V-22 lists each of the recommendations made by the Panel and
describes the corresponding answers or changes made by OSHA in response
to the issues raised.
Table V-22.--Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel recommendations OSHA responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Small Entity Representatives OSHA revised its economic and
(SERs) generally felt that OSHA had regulatory flexibility
underestimated the costs and may have analysis as appropriate in
overestimated the benefits in its light of the additional
preliminary economic analysis. The information received from the
Panel recommends that OSHA revise its SERs. Many of the comments
economic and regulatory flexibility from the SERs asserting
analysis as appropriate, and that OSHA deficiencies in the estimates
specifically discuss the alternative of the compliance costs were
estimates and assumptions provided by the result of differing
SERs and compare them to OSHA's interpretations of what would
revised estimates. have to be done in order to
achieve compliance with
particular requirements.
Some SERs felt that OSHA had
underestimated the time and
resources that would be
necessary to develop and
maintain written records
associated with requirements
for making determinations
regarding training and
protective clothing, for
documenting employee training,
and for communicating with
host employers or contractors
about hazards and appropriate
safety practices. OSHA has
clarified that written records
are not in fact required to
achieve compliance with these
provisions of the proposed
standards.
In some cases, the SERs also
interpreted the draft
requirements associated with
job briefings, host/contractor
responsibilities, and electric
arc hazard calculations in
ways that would involve higher
compliance costs than those
estimated by OSHA, but that
were not consistent with the
way in which OSHA intended for
compliance to be achieved. In
these cases, OSHA clarified
what would be necessary to
comply with the standards such
that the corresponding
potential cost and impact
concerns raised by the SERs
would be alleviated.
With regard to the cost of
training that would be
necessary for employees who
currently are not covered by
the existing training
requirements in 29 CFR
1910.269, OSHA revised its
compliance cost calculations
to reflect that an additional
24.75 hours of training per
employee newly covered by the
training currently required by
29 CFR 1910.269 would be
necessary to comply with the
proposed standard for
construction.
The SERs generally indicated
that the job briefing
requirements of the proposed
standards are generally
consistent with current
practices, and that 5 minutes
for the additional job
briefing requirements per
project would be a reasonable
estimate for the amount of
time that would be involved.
For purposes of estimating
compliance costs with the
proposal in this preliminary
analysis, OSHA used estimates
of current compliance of 85
percent to 95 percent, and
estimated that 5 minutes of
supervisor time and 5 minutes
of employee time would be
involved per affected project.
With regard to the cost
associated with providing
flame resistant apparel to
employees, in general the SERs
suggested that OSHA's estimate
of two sets per employee per
year for small establishments,
and five sets per employees
every five years for large
establishments, was an
underestimate. The SERs also
gave OSHA broad estimates of
FRA, ranging from $50 per
shirt to $150 for switching
flash jackets. Several SERs
agreed that many companies
contract out clothing supplies
and laundering with uniform
companies. In this preliminary
analysis of compliance costs
associated with the
requirements to provide FRA,
OSHA estimates that, on
average, 8 sets of FRA
clothing would be provided per
employee, and that with 8 sets
per employee the useful life
of the FRA would average 4
years. The cost per set of FRA
was estimated to be $110.
Laundering costs were excluded
since the FRA is worn in lieu
of street clothes, and
laundering would be needed
whether the clothing was FRA,
street clothing, or any other
type of clothing.
Additionally, the proposal
does not require employers to
launder the FRA.
For employees who are currently
provided the training required
by the existing 29 CFR
1910.269 standard, OSHA notes
and has clarified that
training that was deemed
sufficient for compliance with
29 CFR 1910.269 will be
considered sufficient for
compliance with the proposal
to allow employers to tailor
their training to the risk
faced by employees. OSHA has
included, however, the cost of
providing 1.5 hours of
additional training per
employee in the first year for
current employees and 0.75
hours of additional training
for new employees in the
estimation of the compliance
costs associated with the
proposed standards.
2. In its economic and RFA analyses, OSHA has revised its economic
OSHA assumed that all affected firms and regulatory flexibility
apply existing 29 CFR 1910.269 to analyses to reflect the costs
construction related activities, even associated with some firms
though not required to do so. The coming into compliance with 29
reason OSHA made this assumption is CFR 1910.269.
OSHA though that all affected firms Specifically, OSHA estimated
are either covered solely by 29 CFR that these firms would incur
1910, or engage in both 29 CFR 1910 compliance costs equivalent to
and 29 CFR 1926 activities, and find those incurred by firms who
it easiest to adopt the general were affected by the new
industry standard for all activities. requirements of 29 CFR
SERs confirmed that most firms do in 1910.269 when it was
fact follow 29 CFR 1910.269. However, originally promulgated in
they also pointed out that there are 1994.
some firms that are engaged solely in In addition, OSHA considered
construction activities and thus may the SER comments on training
not be following the 29 CFR 1910 and revised its estimate of
standards. The Panel recommends that training costs accordingly.
OSHA revise its economic and OSHA added a separate training
regulatory flexibility analyses to cost for firms who are not
reflect the costs associated with some currently covered by the
firms coming into compliance with 29 existing training requirements
CFR 1910.269. The SERs also reported in 29 CFR 1910.269, as
that compliance training under 29 CFR presented in the compliance
1910.269 is extensive. One SER cost chapter of this economic
estimated that in excess of 30 hours analysis.
per employee is necessary in the first
year. The Panel recommends that OSHA
consider the SER comments on training
and revise its estimate of training
costs as necessary.
3. Most SERs were concerned that a The proposal would not require
``performance standard'' such as this employers to maintain records
means that even in cases where OSHA of training. Employees
does not require recordkeeping, such themselves can attest to the
as for training, many small entities training they have received,
will find recordkeeping (1) useful for and OSHA will determine
internal purposes and (2) virtually compliance with the training
the only way they will be able to requirements primarily through
demonstrate compliance with the rule. employee interviews.
The Panel recommends that OSHA
consider whether recordkeeping is
necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the standard, and, if not, that
OSHA explicitly discuss ways in which
employers can demonstrate compliance
without using recordkeeping.
4. SERs pointed out that the The proposal would not require
requirements for observation and host employers to observe
follow-up would result in paperwork contract employees. Rather, it
and reporting requirements not would require host employers
presented in the cost analysis. The to report to the contract
Panel recommends that OSHA include employer violations of the
such costs and paperwork burdens in standard's work practice
its economic analysis as appropriate. requirements by contract
employees that the host
employer observes in the
normal course of conducting
their own operations. For
example, a host employer may
observe contract employees
during a quality control check
of the contractor's work or
while employees of the host
employer are working on a
project alongside employees of
the contract employer.
Consequently, OSHA has not
included a cost for conducting
observations.
OSHA has eliminated the draft
requirement for the host
employer ``to note any
failures of the contract
employer to correct such
violations, take appropriate
measures to correct the
violations, and consider the
contract employer's failure to
correct violations in
evaluating the contract
employer.'' The proposal would
require the contract employer
to report to the host
contractor any measures taken
to correct reported
violations. Thus, OSHA has not
included costs for the host
employer to follow up to
ensure that the contract
employer has corrected any
violations.
OSHA has included estimates of
the costs of information
collection requirements and of
the associated paperwork
burdens in the paperwork
analysis for the proposal.
5. Several SERs argued that requiring OSHA has eliminated the draft
consideration of safety records would requirement for the host
restrict the number of eligible employer to obtain and
contractors, resulting in both evaluate information on
increased costs and potential impacts contractors' safety
on small firms. Several SERs also were performance and programs.
concerned that the draft requirement Consequently, the preliminary
would result in the increased use of regulatory flexibility
methods such as pre-qualification in analysis does not include
the hiring of contractors or would costs associated with this
increase reliance on favored draft provision. However, the
contractors; the SERs said that both Agency requests comments on
of these effects could result in the need for such a
increased costs and restricted requirement and on the
business opportunities, especially for associated costs and
small businesses. The Panel recommends restricted business
that OSHA study the extent of such opportunities, particularly
costs and impacts and solicit comment with respect to small
on them. businesses.
6. Several SERs questioned OSHA's OSHA has reexamined its
estimates of the number of sets of assumptions and cost estimates
flame resistant clothing an employee with regard to the
would need, and its assumptions and requirements to provide flame-
cost estimates. The panel recommends resistant clothing. The
that OSHA reexamine its assumptions comments from the SERs and
and cost estimates in light of these OSHA's revised estimates are
comments. described in response to Panel
recommendation 1 above.
7. Many SERs questioned whether the new OSHA has collected and compiled
revisions to 29 CFR 1910.269 would in information from a variety of
fact save any lives or prevent any sources to document and
accidents. Some commented that they support the need for the
had never seen an accident that would provisions of the proposed
have been prevented by any of the new standards. Data on the
provisions. Some SERs suggested that fatalities and injuries that
OSHA's analysis might have included have occurred among the
fatalities in municipal facilities affected work force over the
that may not be covered by the past decade has been analyzed
standard. Others suggested OSHA should specifically with regard to
discuss the extent to which the the effectiveness of both the
existing general industry standard had existing and proposed
resulted in reduced fatalities and requirements in preventing
injuries, and how this compares with such incidents. This
OSHA estimates of how many fatalities evaluation is summarized in
and injuries would be prevented by the the benefits chapter of this
proposal. The Panel recommends that preliminary analysis; a
OSHA provide more documentation detailed explanation of this
regarding the sources and nature of evaluation is provided in the
the anticipated benefits attributed to corresponding research report
the draft proposal. The estimated [1].
benefits should also be reexamined in In order to quantitatively
light of the SER comments and determine the effectiveness of
experiences regarding the perceived the existing and proposed
effectiveness of the new provisions. standards in preventing
In particular, OSHA should focus injuries and fatalities, a
attention on the benefits associated detailed review of the
with the provisions on flame retardant descriptions of accidents was
apparel, training, host/contractor performed. For each accident
responsibilities, and fall protection. reviewed, the detailed
description of the accident,
along with the citations
issued, the nature of the
injuries incurred, and the
causes associated with the
accident, were analyzed to
estimate the likelihood that
the accident would have been
preventable under, first, the
existing applicable standards,
and second, under the proposed
standard. Based on these
analyses, CONSAD found that
full compliance with the
existing standards would have
prevented 52.9 percent of the
injuries and fatalities;
compliance with the proposed
standards, however, would
prevent 79.0 percent of the
relevant injuries and
fatalities. The increase in
safety that would be provided
by the proposed standards is
represented by the prevention
of an additional 19 fatalities
and 116 injuries annually.
In addition, the proposed
revisions improve safety by
clarifying and updating the
existing standards to reflect
modern technologies, work
practices, and terminology,
and by making the standards
consistent with current
consensus standards and other
related standards and
documents. By facilitating the
understanding of and
compliance with these
important safety standards,
the proposal also achieves
better protection of employee
safety while reducing
uncertainty, confusion, and
compliance burdens on
employers.
Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of Proposed Rule,
earlier in this preamble,
includes explanations of the
need for, and the expected
benefit associated with
particular with, particular
provisions of the proposed
standard. In particular, see
the summary and explanation of
Sec. Sec. 1926.950(c) (host-
contractor responsibilities),
1926.954(b) (fall protection),
and 1926.960(g) (flame-
resistant apparel) for a
discussion of the need for and
a qualitative explanation of
the benefits of these
provisions.
8. There were no comments from the SERs As presented in the chapter on
on OSHA's estimates of the number and compliance costs in this
type of small entities affected by the preliminary analysis, OSHA has
proposal. However, some SERs pointed revised its analysis,
out that there may be some small including its estimates of
entities that engage in only baseline activities and its
construction related activities. The cost estimates, to reflect the
Panel recommends that OSHA's estimates possible existence of some
of current baseline activities and firms that are not currently
OHSA's cost estimates reflect such covered by the existing 29 CFR
firms. 1910.269 and that do not
comply with these provisions
when performing construction
work on electric power
generation, transmission, or
distribution installations.
9. Most SERs were uncertain about how OSHA has added appendices
to comply with performance oriented containing guidelines on the
provisions of the proposal, and inspection of work positioning
further, some felt that additional equipment to assist employers
expenses might be required to be in complying with the
confident that they were in compliance requirement to conduct such
with such provisions. The Panel inspections proposed in 29 CFR
recommends that OSHA study and address 1910.269(g)(2)(iii)(a) and 29
these issues and consider the use of CFR 1926.954(b)(3)(i). The
guidance material (e.g. non-mandatory proposal also includes
appendices) to describe specific ways appendices on clothing in 29
of meeting the standard, which will CFR 1910.269 and Subpart V of
help small employers comply, without 29 CFR Part 1926. These
making the standard more prescriptive. appendices should help
employers comply with the
clothing provisions proposed
in 29 CFR 1910.269(1)(11) and
29 CFR 1926.960(g).
The proposal also includes many
references to consensus
standards that contain
information helping employers
comply with various provisions
of the proposed standards. For
example, the note to proposed
29 CFR 1926.957(b) directs
empl9yers to the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics
Engineers' IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines, IEEE
Std. 516-2003 for guidance on
the examination, cleaning,
repairing, and in-service
testing of live-line tools to
help employers comply with
that provision in the OSHA
standards. Lastly, Appendix E
to 29 CFR 1910.269 and
Appendix E to Subpart V of 29
CFR Part 1926 contain lists of
reference documents to which
employers can turn for help in
complying with OSHA's
proposal.
The preamble to the proposed
standards and this preliminary
analysis both contain
additional descriptions of
what would be considered
necessary and sufficient for
purposes of achieving
compliance with the
requirements of the proposed
standards. OSHA requests
comments regarding which
provisions, if any, require
further clarification on what
specific measures would or
would not constitute
compliance with the standards.
The Agency also requests
comments on what additional
guidance material is needed to
assist employers in complying
with the standards. OSHA also
encourages interested parties
to submit such guidance
material for possible
inclusion in the final rule.
10. Most SERs were highly critical of OSHA has modified the
the host contractor provisions and had provisions on host-contractor
trouble understanding what OSHA responsibilities substantially
required. If these provisions are to from the draft requirements
be retained, the Panel recommends that reviewed by the SERs. The
they be revised. The Panel recommends Agency believes that the
that OSHA clarify what constitutes changes address the concerns
adequate consideration of contractor expressed by the SERs.
safety performance, clarify what is The summary and explanation of
meant by ``observation,'' clarify how proposed 29 CFR 1926.950(c),
the multi-employer citation policy is earlier in the preamble,
related to the proposal, and clarify provides clarification of the
whether the requirement to communicate intent and application of the
hazards does or does not represent a host-contractor requirements
requirement for the host employer to and their relationship to
conduct their own risk assessment. The OSHA's multiemployer citation
Panel also recommends that OSHA policy.
examine the extent to which state The proposal includes a
contractor licensing could make the requirement in 29 CFR
host contractor provisions in the 1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A)(1) and 29
proposal unnecessary. in CFR 1926.950(c)(1)(i)(A)
that host employers inform
contract employers of known
hazards that are covered by
the standards, that are
related to the contract
employer's work, and that
might not be recognized by the
contract employer or its
employees. This provision does
not require host employers to
conduct a risk assessment of
the work to be performed by
the contract employer.
However, proposed 29 CFR
1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A)(2) and 29
CFR 1926.950(c)(1)(i)(B) would
require the host employer to
provide information about the
employer's installation to the
contract employer to enable
the contract employer to make
the assessments required by
the standards. This change
should clarify that OSHA
intends for the contract
employer to conduct
appropriate hazard
identification and assessment
for his or her own employees.
OSHA does not believe that
State contractor licensing
makes the proposed host-
contractor provisions
unnecessary. Not all States
require electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution contractors to be
licensed. For example,
Illinois and New York do not
require licensing at the State
level. (See http://www.electric-find.com/)
Additionally, the States with such licensing
requirements judge primarily
the contractors' ability to
install electric equipment in
accordance with State or
national installation codes
and not their ability to
perform electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work safely.
11. Some SERs questioned the need for OSHA has considered these
flame resistant clothing beyond the issues in the development of
existing clothing provisions in 29 CFR the clothing requirements
1910.269. Some argued that there was a proposed in 29 CFR
trade-off between possible decreased 1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR
injuries from burns and heat stress 1926.960(g), as explained in
injuries as a result of using flame the summary and explanation of
resistant clothing. The Panel proposed 29 CFR 1926.960(g)
recommends that OSHA consider and earlier in the preamble. In
solicit comments on these issues. that section of the preamble,
the Agency has solicited
comments on a wide range of
issues related to protection
of employees from the hazards
posed by electric arcs.
12. Many SERs were uncertain whether OSHA has revised the clothing
OSHA's requirements for determining requirements in proposed 29
the need for flame resistant clothing CFR 1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR
would allow the use of such methods as 1926.960(g) to provide
(1) ``worst case'' analysis or (2) additional guidance explaining
specifying minimum levels of ways an employer can comply.
protection for use when a system does For example, the Agency has
not exceed certain limits. The Panel included two notes and
recommends that OSHA clarify what additional appendix material
methods are acceptable to meet these explaining how an employer can
requirements, and specify these calculate estimates of
methods in such a way that small available heat energy. For
entities can be confident that they additional information, see
have met the requirements of the the summary and explanation of
standards. proposed 29 CFR 1926.960(g),
earlier in the preamble.
13. OSHA made some changes to the OSHA believes that the proposed
training provisions in 29 CFR changes to the training
1910.269, including dropping requirements contained in 29
certification requirements and CFR 1910.269 clarify the
allowing training to vary with risk. standard and reduce burdens on
OSHA stated that both of these changes employers. If employees are
were designed to give the rules a trained as required under the
greater performance orientation and to existing general industry
ease compliance. Some SERs felt that standard, then no additional
these changes might make compliance training would be required by
more complicated by making it less the proposed requirement to
clear what needs to be done. The panel provide a level of training
recommends that OSHA clarify the based on the risk to the
performance orientation of these employer or by the proposal to
changes and consider explaining that remove the requirement that
existing compliance methods would training be certified.
still be considered adequate under the Moreover, no additional costs
new rules. The Panel further would be incurred.
recommends that OSHA examine the Existing 29 CFR
requirement that employees demonstrate 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) already
proficiency and provide examples of requires employees to
how that can be accomplished. The demonstrate proficiency in the
Panel also recommends that OSHA work practices involved. OSHA
consider the possibility that the believes that most employers
proposed draft may introduce costs to are already complying with
small businesses that are uncertain of this requirement in various
how to comply with the new performance ways. For example, some
oriented training provisions. employers have employees
demonstrate proficiency in
climbing after completing a
pole climbing class that
includes climbing on practice
poles as part of the
curriculum. In addition, many
employers use an
apprenticeship program, in
which journeyman line workers
acting as crew leaders observe
trainees over the course of
the program. The trainees pass
through the apprenticeship
program by successfully
completing each step,
demonstrating proficiency in
various tasks along the way,
until the trainees reach the
journeyman level.
14. Several SERS argued that the OSHA has clarified the intent
proposal placed restrictions on the of the proposed changes to the
length of the lanyard and that these fall protection requirements
restrictions were unworkable. The proposed in 29 CFR
Panel recommends that OSHA clarify the 1910.269(g)(2)(i) and (ii) in
intent of the fall protection the summary and explanation of
provisions. Other SERs argued that those provisions earlier in
fall fatalities from aerial lifts were the preamble.
either the result of catastrophic It is easy for an employer to
failures in which case fall protection enforce the use of fall arrest
would not have prevented the death, or equipment, which incorporates
the result of failure to use any form a harness, by employees
of fall arrest or fall restraint. Some working from aerial lifts. It
SERs argued that some workers might is relatively easy for an
find harnesses more awkward than belts employer to observe that an
and be less likely to wear them. The employee is wearing a harness,
Panel recommends that OSHA consider which extends over the
and solicit comment on these issues. employee's shoulders, and that
a lanyard is attached to the
connector between the
employee's shoulders and to
the anchorage on the boom of
the aerial lift. Body belts,
which were the predominant
form of protection used in the
time period represented by the
accidents, are worn near an
employee's hips. It is not
usually possible to determine
whether an employee in an
aerial lift bucket is wearing
a body belt or, if he or she
is, whether the lanyard is
attached to the D-ring on the
body belt. It would be much
easier for an employer to
enforce the use of personal
fall arrest equipment than to
enforce the use of body belts
even if employees do not want
to wear them. Thus, to the
extent that fall injuries are
the result of the failure of
an employee to use any form of
fall protection equipment, the
proposal would help prevent
many of those injuries.
Neither personal fall arrest
systems nor work positioning
equipment will protect against
catastrophic failure of the
boom of an aerial lift; the
employee would fall with the
bucket or platform. However, a
personal fall arrest system,
and in some cases work
positioning equipment, can
protect an employee if the
bucket or platform detaches
from the boom as long as the
fall protection equipment is
attached to the boom and not
to the bucket or platform.
In the hopes of further
clarifying the standard, OSHA
requests comments on the fall
protection issues raised by
the SERs.
15. This rule was designed by OSHA to OSHA does not believe that the
eliminate confusing differences proposed provisions on host-
between the applicable construction contractor responsibilities
and general industry standards, by duplicate or overlap the
making the standards consistent. Agency's multiemployer policy.
Several SERs felt this was a See the summary and
worthwhile goal. Some SERs felt that explanation of proposed Sec.
the host contractor provisions of the 1926.950(c) earlier in this
rule could result in causing preamble for clarification of
contractor employees to be considered the intent and application of
employees of the host employer under the host-contractor
the Fair Labor Standards Act and under requirements and their
the Internal Revenue Service relationship to OSHA's
regulations. In addition, the SERs multiemployer citation policy.
identified OSHA's multi-employer It is not OSHA's intent that
citation policy as duplicative and the provisions on host-
overlapping of the host contractor contractor responsibilities
provisions in the proposal. The Panel would affect in any way of the
recommends that, if this provision is employer-employee relationship
retained, OSHA investigate this issue under the Fair Labor Standards
and clarify these provisions to assure Act or under the Internal
that contractor employees do not Revenue Service regulations.
become direct employees of the host The OSHA requirements are not
employer as a result of complying with intended to establish an
possible OSHA requirements. employer-employee relationship
with contractors or employees
of contractors, as defined by
the relevant statutes and
regulations.
16. Some SERs were unconvinced about OSHA requests comments on the
the need for revisions to the existing regulatory alternative of
29 CFR 1910.269 standard in light of extending the requirements of
their potential to improve safety 29 CFR 1910.269 to
beyond what compliance with the construction, without further
requirements in existing 29 CFR modification. Commenters
1910.269 would achieve. The Panel should explain how, if the
recommends that OSHA consider and Agency adopted this option, it
solicit comment on the regulatory could comply with section
alternative of extending the 6(b)(8) of the OSHA Act, which
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 to requires OSHA to explain why a
construction, without further promulgated rule that differs
modification. substantially from a national
consensus standard will better
effectuate the purposes of the
Act than the national
consensus standard.
Furthermore, as explained
fully above, OSHA's analysis
preliminarily finds that the
additional changes to both 29
CFR 1910.269 and Subpart V
will prevent a significant
number of fatalities and
injuries each year.
17. The Panel notes that the host/ OSHA has considered these
contractor provisions were options and has adopted
particularly troublesome for almost several of them. The Agency
all SERs, and that as a result, OSHA has dropped the draft
should provide either some change or requirement for host employers
provide extensive clarification to to obtain and evaluate
these provisions. The Panel recommends information on contractor
that OSHA consider, analyze, and safety performance and
solicit comment on a variety of programs. OSHA has also
alternatives to these provisions, eliminated draft provisions
including: that would have required the
1. Dropping all or some of these host employer to follow up on
provisions observed violations. Instead,
2. Specifying in detail methods that the proposal, in 29 CFR
would be considered adequate for 1910.269(a)(4)(ii)(C)(3) and
purposes of compliance for those in 29 CFR
provisions retained 1926.950(c)(2)(iii)(C), would
3. Changing the provision for require the contract employer
consideration of safety performance to to report what measures the
indicate how employers can be sure contractor took to correct any
they have complied with the provision violations and to prevent
4. Changing the provisions concerning their recurrence.
observed violations by: OSHA requests comments on
Dropping the provision whether the changes, along
concerning observed violations with the accompanying summary
entirely; and explanation of the
Changing the provision proposal, adequately clarify
concerning observed violations to the host-contractor
clearly indicate that ``inspections'' requirements, whether there
are not required; are other options that the
Minimizing the amount of Agency should consider, and
follow-up and responsibility placed on whether the proposed
the host employer when a violation is provisions will adequately
observed; protect employees.
Requiring only that the
contractor be notified of observed
violations (no requirement for
subsequent monitoring of evaluation);
Changing the provision to
require observation for the purpose of
determining if the contractor is
performing safe work practices,
requiring observed violations to be
reported to the contractor (no
requirement for subsequent monitoring
or evaluation);
Providing explicit language
that line clearance tree trimmers are
not covered by this provision;
Specifying that only
observations made by a ``safety
professional'' or other individual
qualified to identify hazards must be
reported to the contractor
5. Changing the provision for hazard
communication to make clear that the
host employer is not required to
conduct his or her own hazard
analysis, but only to communicate such
hazards of which the host employer may
be aware
18. The Panel recommends that OSHA OSHA has considered the options
consider and solicit comment on two recommended by the panel. The
kinds of options with respect flame Agency has adopted the second
resistant clothing. First, OSHA should option suggested by the Panel.
consider the alternative of no further Appendix F to 29 CFR 1910.269
requirements beyond existing 29 CFR and Appendix F to 29 CFR Part
1910.269 for the use of flame 1926, Subpart V propose tables
resistant clothing. Second, should the that employers may use to
draft requirement be retained in some estimate available heat
manner, OSHA should consider and energy. Although these tables
solicit comment on one or a do not cover every
combination of alternative means of circumstance, they do address
determining how much protection is many exposure conditions found
needed or required. These alternatives in overhead electric power
should include: transmission and distribution
1. Allowing the employer to estimate work. Other assessment aids
the exposure assuming that the are available, and also are
distance from the employee to the listed in Appendix F, for
electric arc is equal to the minimum other exposure conditions,
approach distance including typical electric
2. Providing tables showing heat energy power generation exposures.
for different exposure conditions as There is less need for an
an alternative assessment method underground assessment aid
3. Specifying a minimum level of since most underground work is
protection for overhead line work (for performed on deenergized
example, 10 cal/cm\2\) for use when lines.
the system does not exceed certain OSHA has not incorporated any
limits as an alternative to hazard of the other Panel-recommended
assessment options into the proposal
4. Allowing the employer to reduce because the Agency either
protection when other factors currently believes that they
interfere with the safe performance of are not sufficiently
the work (for example, severe heat protective or has insufficient
stress) after the employer has information to incorporate
considered alternative methods of them.
performing the work, including the use However, the Agency does wish
live-line tools and deenergizing the to facilitate compliance with
lines and equipment, and has found the provisions proposed in 29
them to be unacceptable CFR 1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR
5. Allowing employers to base their 1926.960(g) requiring
assessments on a ``worst case employees to be protected from
analysis.'' electric arcs. OSHA also
6. Requiring employers to use wishes to promulgate a rule
appropriate flame retardant clothing that will protect employees
without specifying any assessment from electric arcs in the most
method. cost-effective manner
possible. The Agency
encourages interested parties
to provide information that
can help simplify the rule or
make it more cost effective or
that can assist in the
development of compliance
assistance materials.
19. Some SERs were concerned that the See the response to Panel
revised training requirements recommendation 13 above.
complicated the question of
demonstrating that training had been
provided, and that the requirement
that training be related to the risk
would require additional training,
additional documentation, or both. The
Panel recommends that OSHA consider
making it clear that employers that
follow the existing training
provisions in 29 CFR 1910.269 will be
in compliance with the new rules, and
that OSHA clarify alternative methods
that would be considered acceptable
for demonstrating adequacy of training
and the relation of the training to
risk.
20. In response to comment by some OSHA is proposing only one new
SERs, the Panel recommends that OSHA requirement on job briefings,
consider and solicit comment on the the requirement in 29 CFR
issues of whether the additional job 1910.269(c)(1)(i) and in 29
briefing requirements are needed and CFR 1926.952(a)(1). This
how they can be met in situations in provision requires that, in
which the employee is working at a assigning an employee or a
distant location. group of employees to perform
a job, the employer provide
the employee in charge of the
job with available information
necessary to perform the job
safely. The remainder of the
changes to the job briefing
requirements in 29 CFR
1910.269(c) simply reorganize
the existing provisions into
individual paragraphs. (For
additional discussion of this
provision, see the summary and
explanation of proposed 29 CFR
1926.952(a)(1) earlier in this
preamble.)
The Agency believes that many
employers are already
providing relevant information
about a job when they assign
that job to a crew of
employees or to an employee
working alone. (For additional
discussion of this provision,
see the summary and
explanation of proposed 29 CFR
1926.952(a)(1) earlier in this
preamble.) However, to make
sure that all employers do so,
OSHA believes that the
standard should require that
the employer provide relevant
hazard-related information to
the employees performing the
work to the extent the
employer knows, or can
reasonably be expected to
know, that information. It
should be noted that this is a
requirement to communicate
information, not to gather
information. OSHA anticipates
that employers will pass along
this information when they
assign jobs to employees.
Where the employees are
working has no effect on the
employer's ability to
communicate the information.
The Agency requests comments on
whether the additional job
briefing requirement is
necessary and on how this
provision can be met for an
employee working at distant
locations.
21. All of the affected SERs felt that Over the course of the
the provisions of the rule with rulemaking, OSHA will examine
respect to fall restraint systems the issue of whether using
would make it difficult for a person fall restraint systems to
using a fall restraint system to protect employees working from
perform the necessary work. The SERs aerial lifts is workable. In
also raised the possibility of safety this regard, the Agency
problems associated with wearing a requests comments on
safety harness as opposed to a safety alternatives to the fall
belt, such as an increased likelihood protection requirements
of the harness being snagged and as a proposed in 29 CFR
result the employee being either 1910.269(g)(2) and 29 CFR
pulled into a wood chipper while on 1926.954(b) as they relate to
the ground or pulled out of the bucket aerial lifts, including the
when it is lowered. The Panel alternative of making no
recommends that OSHA consider and changes to the rule.
solicit comment on the alternative of OSHA will also explore with
making no changes to its existing fall manufacturers the
protection requirements. If the nonregulatory option of
provision is retained, OSHA should improving fall protection
carefully examine the issue of whether systems for use in aerial
the fall restraint system requirements lifts.
in the draft make use of fall
restraint systems unworkable in aerial
lifts. OSHA should also consider the
nonregulatory alternative of working
with aerial device manufacturers and
aerial device users (for example,
electric and telecommunications
utilities, painting and electrical
contractors, tree-trimming firms) in
the development of improved fall
restraint systems that are more
comfortable than existing systems and
maintain the appropriate degree of
protection for employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. References
1. CONSAD Research Corporation, ``Analytical Support and Data
Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards
for Work on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926--
Subpart V),'' 2005, prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory
Analysis under Contract No. J9-F9-0013, Task Order Number 31,
Pittsburgh, PA.
2. CONSAD Research Corporation, ``Compliance Cost and Economic
Impact Estimates Including All Publicly-owned Utilities in OSHA
State-plan States and Excluding Laundering Costs for Flame Resistant
Apparel (FRA),'' Memorandum to the Office of Regulatory Analysis
(ORA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
February 25, 2004.
3. OSHA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, ``Report of the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Draft OSHA Standard for
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution,''
submitted to Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, June 27, 2003.
4. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ``Informing Regulatory
Decisions: 2004 Draft Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits
of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and
Tribal Entities.''
5. Workers' Compensation Research Institute, ``WCRI Research
Brief, Special Edition,'' Volume 9, Number 4S, Cambridge, MA,
December 1993. Also available in OSHA Docket S-777, Exhibit 26-1608,
and discussed in Exhibit 900, p. IV-56.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. September 2000.
Internet address: http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html;
also available in OSHA Docket No. H-0054a, Exhibit 35-334.
7. Viscusi, Kip and Aldy, Joseph, ``The Value of a Statistical
Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World'',
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27:1; 5-76, 2003.
8. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, ``Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities' December,
2004.
VI. State Plan Standards
The 26 States or territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety
and health plans must adopt an equivalent amendment or one that is at
least as protective to employees within 6 months of the publication
date of the final standard. These are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut (for State and local government employees only), Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey (for State and local government employees only), New
York (for State and local government employees only), North Carolina,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
The provisions of this proposal have been reviewed in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality
NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Department of
Labor's NEPA Procedures (29 CFR Part 11). As a result of this review,
OSHA has determined that the proposed standards will have no
significant adverse effect on air, water, or soil quality, plant or
animal life, use of land, or other aspects of the environment.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
Section 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act makes clear
that OSHA cannot enforce compliance with its regulations or standards
on the U.S. government ``or any State or political subdivision of a
State.'' Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States enforce
compliance with their State standards on public sector entities, and
these agreements specify that these State standards must be equivalent
to OSHA standards. Thus, although OSHA has included compliance costs
for the affected public sector entities in its analysis of the expected
impacts associated with the proposal, the proposal would not involve
any unfunded mandates being imposed on any State or local government
entity. OSHA also concludes that the proposal would not impose an
unfunded mandate on the private sector in excess of $100 million in
expenditures in any one year.
IX. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the
Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), which requires that agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and
take such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and
the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for
the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act expresses Congress's intent to preempt
State laws where OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health
standards. A State can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal
standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 29 U.S.C.
667, Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88
(1992). Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Subject to the statutory limitations of the OSH Act, State-
Plan States are free to develop and enforce their own requirements for
occupational safety and health protections related to the maintenance
and construction of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. Therefore, OSHA concludes that this action
does not significantly limit State policy options.
X. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed revisions of the general industry and construction
standards for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
and for electrical protective equipment contain collection-of-
information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR
part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines ``collection of
information'' as ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting,
or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or
opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format * * * (44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OMB is currently reviewing OSHA's request for
approval of the proposed collections.
The pending Information Collection Request (ICR) discusses the new
paperwork requirements found in the proposed rule, as well as the
removal of the existing collection of information for training
certification in the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution Standard (Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)) under OMB Control
Number 1218-0190. Since this package contains a full discussion of
removing the training certification, reviewers do not need to obtain
ICR 1218-0190. Commenters may submit comments on the new collections,
as well as the removal of the Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) training
certification requirement, under ICR number 1218-0NEW.
The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, summary of the collections of information, description of
respondents, and frequency of response of the information collection
are described below with an estimate of the annual cost and reporting
burden as required by Sec. 1320.5(a)(1)(iv). The reporting burden
includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.
OSHA invites comments on the collection-of-information requirements
and the estimated burden hours associated with these collections,
including comments on the following:
Whether the proposed information-collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information-collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.
Title: Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Standard for
construction (Sec. Sec. 1926.950 through 1926.968); and Electrical
Protective Equipment Standard (Sec. 1926.97).
Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standards would impose new information collection requirements
for purposes of the PRA and would remove one existing information
collection requirement. These collection of information requirements
(Sec. Sec. 1926.97(c)(2)(xii), 1926.950(c)(1)(i), 1926.950(c)(1)(ii),
1926.950(c)(2)(iii), 1926.953(a), 1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A),
1910.269(a)(4)(i)(B), and 1910.269(a)(4)(ii)(C)) are being reviewed by
OMB. OSHA is proposing to remove the training certification requirement
contained in Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) under control number 1218-0190.
These provisions are needed to protect employees against the
electric shock hazards that might be present in the workplace and
against other hazards that might be present during electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. The new information
collection requirements, including those related to certification of
rubber insulated gloves and rubber blankets, the host employer
informing the contract employer of any known job related hazards that
might be present on the job, the contract employer communicating all
the hazards to his or her employees, and the use of a permit that will
control access to an enclosed space after it has been determined that
the space may endanger the life of employees, are important tools for
controlling or eliminating hazards faced by employees. The employer's
failure to generate and disclose the information required in these
standards would significantly affect OSHA's effort to reduce the number
of injuries and fatalities related to hazards posed by electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work.
Summary of the Collections of Information: The following are new
collections of information contained in the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution Standard for general industry (Sec.
1910.269); the Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Standard
for construction (Sec. Sec. 1926.950 through 1926.968); and the
Electrical Protective Equipment Standard for construction (Sec.
1926.97).
Section 1926.97--Electrical Protective Equipment--Special Requirements.
Paragraph (c)(2)(xii) of Sec. 1926.97 requires the employer to
certify that equipment has been tested in accordance with the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vii)(C), (c)(2)(viii),
(c)(2)(ix), and(c)(2)(xi) of that section. The certification must
identify the equipment that passed the test and the date it was tested.
Marking of equipment and entering the results of the tests and the
dates of testing onto logs are two acceptable means of meeting this
requirement.
Section 1926.950, Sec. 1910.269--Host Employer-Contract Employer
Responsibilities.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of Sec. 1926.950 and paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of
Sec. 1910.269 require the host employer to inform the contractor of
any known hazards that might be related to his work and that might not
be recognized by the contractor. The host employer must also inform the
contractor of any information needed to do assessments required by the
standard.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1926.950 and paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)
of Sec. 1910.269 require the host employer to report any observed
contract-employer related violations of the standards to the contract employer.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1926.950 and paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C)
of Sec. 1910.269 require the contract employer to advise the host
employer of unique hazards presented by the contract employer's work,
unanticipated hazards found during the contract employer's work that
the host employer did not mention, and measures the contractor took to
correct and prevent recurrences of violations reported by the host
employer.
Section 1926.953--Enclosed Spaces--General
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.953 covers enclosed spaces that may be
entered by employees. This paragraph applies to routine entry into
enclosed spaces. If, after the precautions given in Sec. Sec. 1926.953
and 1926.965 are taken, the hazards remaining in the enclosed space
endanger the life of an entrant or could interfere with escape from the
space, then entry into the enclosed space must meet the permit-space
entry requirements of paragraphs (d) through (k) of Sec. 1910.146,
some of which involve collections of information aimed at protecting
employees from the hazards of entry into confined spaces. These
provisions contain practices and procedures to protect employees from
the hazards of entry into permit-required confined spaces. Section
1910.146 already has a control number.
Section 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)--Training--Certification. [Amendment]
Paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of existing Sec. 1910.269 requires the
employer to certify that each employee has received the training
required by paragraph (a)(2). This certification must be made when the
employee demonstrates proficiency in the work practices involved and
must be maintained for the duration of the employee's employment. OSHA
is proposing to remove the certification requirement contained in Sec.
1910.269(a)(2)(vii).
Respondents: Employers who construct, install, or repair electric
power lines and equipment outside of or on buildings, structures, and
other premises. See section V, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, earlier in this preamble,
for the number of employers (respondents) covered by the proposed
collection of information requirements.
Frequency of Response: On occasion. The collections of information
involved include the host employer communicating the potentially known
hazards to the contract employer and certifying tests performed on
electrical protective equipment. This information will provide
protection for employees against the electric shock hazards that might
be present in the workplace.
Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from 5 minutes
for the host employer to inform a contract employer of the hazards to
10 minutes for the contract employer to instruct his or her employees
of the potential hazards known on the jobsite.
Total Burden Hours: 122,276. The estimated total cost of these
burden hours is approximately $4,800,000.
Estimated Costs (Operating and Maintenance): 0.
In summary, the new collections of information (1218-0NEW) will add
122,276 hours, while the removal of the training certification will
result in a reduction of 11,520 hours (1218-0190). The proposal will
yield a net increase of 110,756 hours.
Interested parties who wish to comment on the paperwork
requirements in this proposal must send their written comments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-215, Occupational Safety and Health,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office
Building, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AB67). The
Agency also encourages commenters to include their comments on
paperwork requirements with their other comments on the proposed rule
submitted to OSHA.
Copies of the referenced information collection request are
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will
be provided to persons who request copies by telephoning Todd Owen at
(202) 693-1941. For electronic copies of the information collection
request, contact the OSHA Web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/.
XI. Public Participation--Comments and Hearings
OSHA encourages members of the public to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting comments on the proposal, and by providing
oral testimony and documentary evidence at the informal public hearing
that the Agency will convene after the comment period ends. In this
regard, the Agency invites interested parties having knowledge of, or
experience with, safety related to working on electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution installations to participate
in this process, and welcomes any pertinent data and cost information
that will provide it with the best available evidence on which to
develop the final standard.
This section describes the procedures the public must use to submit
their comments to the docket in a timely manner, and to schedule an
opportunity to deliver oral testimony and provide documentary evidence
at the informal public hearings. Comments, notices of intention to
appear, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence will be available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also should
read the earlier sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES for additional
information on submitting comments, documents, and requests to the
Agency for consideration in this rulemaking.
Written Comments. OSHA invites interested parties to submit written
data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. In particular,
OSHA encourages interested parties to comment on the various issues
raised in the summary and explanation of the proposed rule (see Section
IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, earlier in this
preamble). When submitting comments, parties must follow the procedures
specified earlier in the sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The
comments must clearly identify the provision of the proposal you are
addressing, the position taken with respect to each issue, and the
basis for that position. Comments, along with supporting data and
references, received by the end of the specified comment period will
become part of the proceedings record, and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Informal Public Hearing. Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Act,
members of the public will have an opportunity at an informal public
hearing to provide oral testimony concerning the issues raised in this
proposal. The hearings will commence at 10 A.M. on December 6, 2005. At
that time, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) will resolve
any procedural matters relating to the proceeding. The hearings will
reconvene on subsequent days at 9 A.M.
The legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act, as well as
OSHA's regulation governing public hearings (29 CFR 1911.15), establish
the purpose and procedures of informal public hearings. Although the
presiding officer of such hearings is an ALJ, and questioning by
interested parties is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is
informal and legislative in purpose. Therefore, the hearing provides
interested parties with an opportunity to make effective and
expeditious oral presentations in the absence of procedural restraints
or rigid procedures that could impede or protract the rulemaking
process. In addition, the hearing is an informal administrative
proceeding, rather than adjudicative one in which the technical rules
of evidence would apply, because its primary purpose is to gather and
clarify information. The regulations that govern public hearings, and
the prehearing guidelines issued for this hearing, will ensure
participants fairness and due process, and also will facilitate the
development of a clear, accurate, and complete record. Accordingly,
application of these rules and guidelines will be such that questions
of relevance, procedure, and participation generally will favor
development of the record.
Conduct of the hearing will conform to the provisions of 29 CFR
part 1911, ``Rules of Procedure for Promulgating, Modifying, or
Revoking Occupational Safety and Health Standards.'' The regulation at
29 CFR 1911.4, ``Additional or Alternative Procedural Requirements,''
specifies that the Assistant Secretary may, on reasonable notice, issue
alternative procedures to expedite proceedings or for other good cause.
Although the ALJs who preside over these hearings make no decision or
recommendation on the merits of OSHA's proposal, they do have the
responsibility and authority to ensure that the hearing progresses at a
reasonable pace and in an orderly manner.
To ensure that interested parties receive a full and fair informal
hearing as specified by 29 CFR part 1911, the ALJ has the authority and
power to: Regulate the course of the proceedings; dispose of procedural
requests, objections, and comparable matters; confine the presentations
to matters pertinent to the issues raised; use appropriate means to
regulate the conduct of the parties who are present at the hearing;
question witnesses, and permit others to question witnesses; and limit
the time for such questioning. At the close of the hearing, the ALJ
will establish a post-hearing comment period for parties who
participated in the hearing. During the first part of this period, the
participants may submit additional data and information to OSHA; during
the second part of this period, they may submit briefs, arguments, and
summations.
Notice of Intention to Appear to Provide Testimony at the Informal
Public Hearing. Interested parties who intend to provide oral testimony
at the informal public hearings must file a notice of intention to
appear by using the procedures specified earlier in the sections titled
DATES and ADDRESSES. This notice must provide the: Name, address, and
telephone number of each individual who will provide testimony, and
their preferred hearing location; capacity (for example, the name of
the establishment or organization the individual is representing and
the individual's occupational title and position) in which each
individual will testify; approximate amount of time required for each
individual's testimony; specific issues each individual will address,
including a brief statement of the position that the individual will
take with respect to each of these issues; and a brief summary of any
documentary evidence the individual intends to present.
OSHA emphasizes that the hearings are open to the public, and that
interested parties are welcome to attend. However, only a party who
files a complete notice of intention to appear may ask questions and
participate fully in the proceedings. While a party who did not file a
notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify at the hearing
if time permits, this determination is at the discretion of the
presiding ALJ.
Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence. Any party requesting
more than 10 minutes to testify at the informal public hearing, or who
intends to submit documentary evidence at the hearing, must provide the
complete text of the testimony and the documentary evidence as
specified earlier in the sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The
Agency will review each submission and determine if the information it
contains warrants the amount of time requested. If OSHA believes the
requested time is excessive, it will allocate an appropriate amount of
time to the presentation, and will notify the participant of this
action, and the reasons for the action, before the hearing. The Agency
may limit to 10 minutes the presentation of any participant who fails
to comply substantially with these procedural requirements; in such
instances, OSHA may request the participant to return for questioning
at a later time.
Certification of the Record and Final Determination after the
Informal Public Hearing. Following the close of the hearing and post-
hearing comment period, the presiding ALJ will certify the record to
the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health;
the record will consist of all of the written comments, oral testimony,
and documentary evidence received during the proceeding. However, the
ALJ does not make or recommend any decisions as to the content of the
final standard. Following certification of the record, OSHA will review
the proposed provisions in light of all the evidence received as part
of the record, and then will issue the final rule based on the entire
record.
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Electric power, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Occupational
safety and health, Safety.
XIII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Jonathan L.
Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
This action is taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part
1911.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of June, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
proposes that parts 1910 and 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended as follows:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment
1. The authority citation for Subpart I of Part 1910 would be
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) as applicable,
and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Sections 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, and 1910.136 also issued
under 5 U.S.C. 553.
2. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.136 would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.136 Foot protection.
(a) General requirements. The employer shall ensure that each
affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where
there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects or
due to objects piercing the sole.
* * * * *
3. Section 1910.137 would be amended as follows:
a. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and the note following paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(B) would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.137 Electrical protective equipment.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Each item shall be clearly marked as follows:
(A) Class 00 equipment shall be marked Class 00.
(B) Class 0 equipment shall be marked Class 0.
(C) Class 1 equipment shall be marked Class 1.
(D) Class 2 equipment shall be marked Class 2.
(E) Class 3 equipment shall be marked Class 3.
(F) Class 4 equipment shall be marked Class 4.
(G) Non-ozone-resistant equipment other than matting shall be
marked Type I.
(H) Ozone-resistant equipment other than matting shall be marked
Type II.
(I) Other relevant markings, such as the manufacturer's
identification and the size of the equipment, may also be provided.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: Rubber insulating
equipment meeting the following national consensus standards is
deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 120-02a,
Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 178-01el, Standard Specification for Rubber
Insulating Matting.
ASTM D 1048-99, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM D 1049-98el, Standard Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
ASTM D 1050-90, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051-02, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Sleeves.
These standards contain specifications for conducting the
various tests required in paragraph (a) of this section. For
example, the a-c and d-c proof tests, the breakdown test, the water
soak procedure, and the ozone test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM standards.
ASTM F 1236-96, Standard Guide for Visual Inspection of
Electrical Protective Rubber Products, presents methods and
techniques for the visual inspection of electrical protective
equipment made of rubber. This guide also contains descriptions and
photographs of irregularities that can be found in this equipment.
ASTM F 819-00el, Standard Terminology Relating to
Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers, sets definitions of
terms relating to the electrical protective equipment covered under
this section.
* * * * *
b. A new note would be added following paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section: ASTM F 1236-96,
Standard Guide for Visual Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber
Products, presents methods and techniques for the visual inspection
of electrical protective equipment made of rubber. This guide also
contains descriptions and photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
* * * * *
c. Paragraph (b)(2)(vii) would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Protector gloves shall be worn over insulating gloves, except
as follows:
(A) Protector gloves need not be used with Class 0 or Class 00
gloves, under limited-use conditions, where small equipment and parts
manipulation necessitate unusually high finger dexterity.
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(A) of this section: Extra care is
needed in the visual examination of the glove and in the avoidance
of handling sharp objects.
(B) Any other class of glove may be used for similar work without
protector gloves if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility
of physical damage to the gloves is small and if the class of glove is
one class higher than that required for the voltage involved.
(C) Insulating gloves that have been used without protector gloves
may not be reused until they have been tested under the provisions of
paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix) of this section.
* * * * *
d. Tables I-2, I-3, I-4, and I-5 would be revised to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Table I-2.--A-C Proof-Test Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum proof-test current, mA (gloves only)
Proof-test ---------------------------------------------------------------
Class of equipment voltage rms V 267-mm (10.5- 356-mm (14-in) 406-mm (16-in) 457-mm (18-in)
in) glove glove glove glove
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00.............................. 2,500 8 12 .............. ..............
0............................... 5,000 8 12 14 16
1............................... 10,000 .............. 14 16 18
2............................... 20,000 .............. 16 18 20
3............................... 30,000 .............. 18 20 22
4............................... 40,000 .............. .............. 22 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I-3.--D-C Proof-Test Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof-test
Class of equipment voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00......................................................... 10,000
0.......................................................... 20,000
1.......................................................... 40,000
2.......................................................... 50,000
3.......................................................... 60,000
4.......................................................... 70,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The d-c voltages listed in this table are not appropriate for
proof testing rubber insulating line hose or covers. For this
equipment, d-c proof tests shall use a voltage high enough to indicate
that the equipment can be safely used at the voltages listed in Table
I-5. See ASTM D 1050-90 and ASTM D 1049-98el for further information
on proof tests for rubber insulating line hose and covers,
respectively.
Table I-4.--Glove Tests--Water Level 1, 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-C proof test D-C proof test
Class of glove ---------------------------------------------------
mm in mm in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00.......................................................... 38 1.5 38 1.5
0........................................................... 38 1.5 38 1.5
1........................................................... 38 1.5 51 2.0
2........................................................... 64 2.5 76 3.0
3........................................................... 89 3.5 102 4.0
4........................................................... 127 5.0 153 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The water level is given as the clearance from the cuff of the glove to the water line, with a tolerance of
13 mm. (0.5 in.).
\2\ If atmospheric conditions make the specified clearances impractical, the clearances may be increased by a
maximum of 25 mm. (1 in.).
Table I-5.--Rubber Insulating Equipment Voltage Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum use
Class of equipment voltage \1\ A- Retest voltage Retest voltage
C rms \2\ A-C rms \2\ D-C avg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00.............................................................. 500 2,500 10,000
0............................................................... 1,000 5,000 20,000
1............................................................... 7,500 10,000 40,000
2............................................................... 17,000 20,000 50,000
3............................................................... 26,000 30,000 60,000
4............................................................... 36,000 40,000 70,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum use voltage is the A-C voltage (rms) classification of the protective equipment that designates
the maximum nominal design voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked. The nominal design
voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on multiphase circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential
is considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-
ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on
a grounded wye circuit is removed.
\2\ The proof-test voltage shall be applied continuously for at least 1 minute, but no more than 3 minutes.
* * * * *
e. A new paragraph (c) would be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
(c) Requirements for other types of electrical protective
equipment. The following requirements apply to the design and
manufacture of electrical protective equipment that is not covered by
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Voltage withstand. Insulating equipment used for the protection
of employees shall be capable of withstanding, without failure, the
voltages that may be imposed upon it.
Note to paragraph (c)(1) of this section: Such voltages include
transient overvoltages, such as switching surges, as well as nominal
line voltage. See Appendix B to Sec. 1910.269 for a discussion of
transient overvoltages on electric power transmission and
distribution systems.
(2) Equipment current. (i) Protective equipment used for the
primary insulation of employees from energized circuit parts shall be
capable of passing a current test when subjected to the highest nominal
voltage on which the equipment is to be used.
(ii) When insulating equipment is tested in accordance with
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the equipment current may not
exceed 1 microampere per kilovolt of phase-to-phase applied voltage.
Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section: This paragraph
applies to equipment that provides primary insulation of employees
from energized parts. It is not intended to apply to equipment used
for secondary insulation or equipment used for brush contact only.
Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section: For a-c excitation,
this current consists of three components:
(1) Capacitive current because of the dielectric properties of
the insulating material itself,
(2) Conduction current through the volume of the insulating
equipment, and
(3) Leakage current along the surface of the tool or equipment.
The conduction current is normally negligible. For clean, dry
insulating equipment, the leakage current is small, and the
capacitive current predominates.
Subpart R--Special Industries
4. The authority citation for Subpart R would be revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-2002 (67 F.R. 65008)
as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.272 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
5. Section 1910.269 would be amended as follows:
a. Paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(vii) would be revised and new
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(E) and (a)(4) would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.269 Electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Training. (i) All employees shall be trained as follows:
(A) Employees shall be trained in and familiar with the safety-
related work practices, safety procedures, and other safety
requirements in this subpart that pertain to their respective job
assignments.
(B) Employees shall also be trained in and familiar with any other
safety practices, including applicable emergency procedures (such as
pole top and manhole rescue), that are not specifically addressed by
this subpart but that are related to their work and are necessary for
their safety.
(C) The degree of training shall be determined by the risk to the
employee for the task involved.
(ii) * * *
(E) The recognition of electrical hazards to which the employee may
be exposed and the skills and techniques necessary to control or avoid
those hazards.
* * * * *
(vii) Demonstration of proficiency. The employer shall determine
that each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices
involved before that employee is considered as having completed the
training required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this section: Though they are
not required by this paragraph, employment records that indicate
that an employee has successfully completed the required training
are one way of keeping track of when an employee has demonstrated
proficiency.
Note 2 to paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this section: Employers may
rely on an employee's previous training as long as the employer: (1)
Confirms that the employee has the job experience appropriate to the
work to be performed, (2) through an examination or interview, makes
an initial determination that the employee is proficient in the
relevant safety-related work practices before he or she performs any
work covered by this subpart, and (3) supervises the employee
closely until that employee has demonstrated proficiency in all the
work practices he or she will employ.
* * * * *
(4) Contractors. (i) Host employer responsibilities. (A) The host
employer shall inform contract employers of:
(1) Known hazards that are covered by this section, that are
related to the contract employer's work, and that might not be
recognized by the contract employer or its employees; and
(2) Information about the employer's installation that the contract
employer needs to make the assessments required by this section.
(B) The host employer shall report observed contract-employer-
related violations of this section to the contract employer.
(ii) Contract employer responsibilities. (A) The contract employer
shall ensure that each of his or her employees is instructed in the
hazards communicated to the contract employer by the host employer.
Note to paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this section: This
instruction is in addition to the training required by paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(B) The contract employer shall ensure that each of his or her
employees follows the work practices required by this section and
safety-related work rules required by the host employer.
(C) The contract employer shall advise the host employer of:
(1) Any unique hazards presented by the contract employer's work,
(2) Any unanticipated hazards found during the contract employer's
work that the host employer did not mention, and
(3) The measures the contractor took to correct any violations
reported by the host employer under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this
section and to prevent such violations from recurring in the future.
* * * * *
b. Paragraph (c) would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(c) Job briefing. (1) Before each job. (i) In assigning an employee
or a group of employees to perform a job, the employer shall provide
the employee in charge of the job with available information necessary
to perform the job safely.
Note to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section: The information
provided by the employer to the employee in charge is intended to
supplement the training required under Sec. 1910.269(a)(2). It may
be provided at the beginning of the day for all jobs to be performed
that day rather than at the start of each job. The information is
also intended to be general in nature, with work-site specific
information to be provided by the employee in charge after the crew
arrives at the work site.
(ii) The employer shall ensure that the employee in charge conducts
a job briefing meeting paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this
section with the employees involved before they start each job.
(2) Subjects to be covered. The briefing shall cover at least the
following subjects: hazards associated with the job, work procedures
involved, special precautions, energy source controls, and personal
protective equipment requirements.
(3) Number of briefings. (i) If the work or operations to be
performed during the work day or shift are repetitive and similar, at
least one job briefing shall be conducted before the start of the first
job of each day or shift.
(ii) Additional job briefings shall be held if significant changes,
which might affect the safety of the employees, occur during the course
of the work.
(4) Extent of briefing. (i) A brief discussion is satisfactory if
the work involved is routine and if the employees, by virtue of
training and experience, can reasonably be expected to recognize and
avoid the hazards involved in the job.
(ii) A more extensive discussion shall be conducted:
(A) If the work is complicated or particularly hazardous, or
(B) If the employee cannot be expected to recognize and avoid the
hazards involved in the job.
Note to paragraph (c)(4) of this section: The briefing must
always touch on all the subjects listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(5) Working alone. An employee working alone need not conduct a job
briefing. However, the employer shall ensure that the tasks to be
performed are planned as if a briefing were required.
* * * * *
c. The note following paragraph (e)(6) would be removed and
paragraphs (e)(7), (e)(8), and (e)(12) would be revised to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(7) Attendants. While work is being performed in the enclosed
space, a person with first aid training meeting paragraph (b) of this
section shall be immediately available outside the enclosed space to
provide assistance if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns in
the area of the opening used for entry. That person is not precluded
from performing other duties outside the enclosed space if these duties
do not distract the attendant from monitoring employees within the
space.
Note to paragraph(e)(7) of this section: See paragraph (t)(3) of
this section for additional requirements on attendants for work in
manholes.
(8) Calibration of test instruments. Test instruments used to
monitor atmospheres in enclosed spaces shall be kept in calibration and
shall have a minimum accuracy of 10 percent.
* * * * *
(12) Specific ventilation requirements. If continuous forced air
ventilation is used, it shall begin before entry is made and shall be
maintained long enough for the employer to be able to demonstrate that
a safe atmosphere exists before employees are allowed to enter the work
area. The forced air ventilation shall be so directed as to ventilate
the immediate area where employees are present within the enclosed
space and shall continue until all employees leave the enclosed space.
* * * * *
d. Paragraph (g)(2) would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Fall protection. (i) Personal fall arrest systems shall meet
the requirements of Subpart M of Part 1926 of this Chapter.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section: This paragraph
applies to all personal fall arrest systems used in work covered by
this section.
(ii) Body belts and positioning straps for work positioning shall
meet the requirements of Sec. 1926.954(b)(2) of this Chapter.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section: This paragraph
applies to all work positioning equipment used in work covered by
this section.
(iii) The following requirements apply to the care and use of
personal fall protection equipment:
(A) Work positioning equipment shall be inspected before use each
day to determine that the equipment is in safe working condition.
Defective equipment may not be used.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A) of this section: Appendix G to
this section contains guidelines for the inspection of work
positioning equipment.
(B) Personal fall arrest systems shall be used in accordance with
Sec. 1926.502(d) of this chapter. However, the attachment point need
not be located as required by Sec. 1926.502(d)(17) of this chapter if
the body harness is being used as work positioning equipment and if the
maximum free fall distance is limited to 0.6 m (2 ft).
(C) A personal fall arrest system or work positioning equipment
shall be used by employees working at elevated locations more than 1.2
m (4 ft) above the ground on poles, towers, or similar structures if
other fall protection has not been provided. Fall protection equipment
is not required to be used by a qualified employee climbing or changing
location on poles, towers, or similar structures, unless conditions,
such as, but not limited to, ice, high winds, the design of the
structure (for example, no provision for holding on with hands), or the
presence of contaminants on the structure, could cause the employee to
lose his or her grip or footing.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) of this section: This
paragraph applies to structures that support overhead electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment. It
does not apply to portions of buildings, such as loading docks, to
electric equipment, such as transformers and capacitors, nor to
aerial lifts. The duty to provide fall protection associated with
walking and working surfaces is contained in Subpart M of Part 1926
of this chapter; the duty to provide fall protection associated with
aerial lifts is contained in Sec. 1910.67.
Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) of this section: Employees
who have not completed training in climbing and the use of fall
protection are not considered ``qualified employees'' for the
purposes of this provision. Unqualified employees (including
trainees) are required to use fall protection any time they are more
than 1.2 m (4 ft) above the ground.
(D) Work positioning systems shall be rigged so that an employee
can free fall no more than 0.6 m (2 ft) unless no anchorage is
available.
(E) Anchorages for work positioning equipment shall be capable of
supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall or 13.3 kN (3,000 lbf), whichever is greater.
(F) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed specifically
for the following connections, snaphooks on work positioning equipment
may not be engaged:
(1) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
(2) To each other;
(3) To a D ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
(4) To a horizontal lifeline; or
(5) To any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
* * * * *
e. The heading to paragraph (h) would be revised to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(h) Ladders and platforms. * * *
* * * * *
f. Paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(6) would be
revised and a new paragraph (l)(11) would be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The employee is insulated from the energized part (insulating
gloves or insulating gloves and sleeves worn in accordance with
paragraph (l)(3) of this section are considered insulation of the
employee from the energized part upon which the employee is working
provided that the employee has control of the part in a manner
sufficient to prevent exposure to uninsulated portions of the body), or
* * * * *
(3) Type of insulation. (i) If the employee is to be insulated from
energized parts by the use of insulating gloves (under paragraph
(l)(2)(i) of this section), insulating sleeves shall also be used.
However, insulating sleeves need not be used under the following
conditions:
(A) If exposed energized parts on which work is not being performed
are insulated from the employee and
(B) If such insulation is placed from a position not exposing the
employee's upper arm to contact with other energized parts.
(ii) If the employee is to be insulated from energized parts by the
use of insulating gloves or insulating gloves with sleeves:
(A) The insulating equipment shall be put on in a position where
the employee cannot reach into the minimum approach distance given in
paragraph (l)(2) of this section; and
(B) The insulating equipment may not be removed until the employee
is in a position where he or she cannot reach into the minimum approach
distance given in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(4) Working position. (i) The employer shall ensure that each
employee, to the extent that other safety-related conditions at the
worksite permit, works in a position from which a slip or shock will
not bring the employee's body into contact with exposed, uninsulated
parts energized at a potential different from the employee.
(ii) If work is performed near exposed parts energized at more than
600 volts but not more than 72.5 kilovolts and if the employee is not
insulated from the energized parts or performing live-line bare-hand
work, the employee shall work from a position where the employee cannot
reach into the minimum approach distance given in paragraph (l)(2) of
this section.
* * * * *
(6) Conductive articles. When work is performed within reaching
distance of exposed energized parts of equipment, the employer shall
ensure that each employee removes or renders nonconductive all exposed
conductive articles, such as key or watch chains, rings, or wrist watches or
bands, unless such articles do not increase the hazards associated with
contact with the energized parts.
* * * * *
(11) Clothing. (i) The employer shall assess the workplace to
determine if each employee is exposed to hazards from flames or from
electric arcs.
(ii) For each employee exposed to hazards from electric arcs, the
employer shall make a reasonable estimate of the maximum available heat
energy to which the employee would be exposed.
Note 1 to paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of this section: Appendix F to
this section provides guidance on the estimation of available heat
energy.
Note 2 to paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of this section: This paragraph
does not require the employer to estimate the heat energy exposure
for every job task performed by each employee. The employer may make
broad estimates that cover multiple system areas provided the
employer uses reasonable assumptions about the energy exposure
distribution throughout the system and provided the estimates
represent the maximum exposure for those areas. For example, the
employer could estimate the heat energy just outside a substation
feeding a radial distribution system and use that estimate for all
jobs performed on that radial system.
(iii) The employer shall ensure that each employee who is exposed
to hazards from electric arcs does not wear clothing that could melt
onto his or her skin or that could ignite and continue to burn when
exposed to the heat energy estimated under paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of
this section.
Note to paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of this section: Clothing made
from the following types of fabrics, either alone or in blends, is
prohibited by this paragraph, unless the employer can demonstrate
that the fabric has been treated to withstand the conditions that
may be encountered or that the clothing is worn in such a manner as
to eliminate the hazard involved: acetate, nylon, polyester, rayon.
(iv) The employer shall ensure that an employee wears clothing that
is flame resistant under any of the following conditions:
(A) The employee is subject to contact with energized circuit parts
operating at more than 600 volts,
(B) The employee's clothing could be ignited by flammable material
in the work area that could be ignited by an electric arc, or
(C) The employee's clothing could be ignited by molten metal or
electric arcs from faulted conductors in the work area.
Note to paragraph (l)(11)(iv)(C) of this section: This paragraph
does not apply to conductors that are capable of carrying, without
failure, the maximum available fault current for the time the
circuit protective devices take to interrupt the fault.
(v) The employer shall ensure that each employee who is exposed to
hazards from electric arcs wears clothing with an arc rating greater
than or equal to the heat energy estimated under paragraph (l)(11)(ii)
of this section.
Note to paragraph (l)(11) of this section: See Appendix F to
this section for further information on the selection of appropriate
clothing.
* * * * *
g. Table R-6 would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
Table R-6--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal voltage in kilovolts phase to phase Phase-to-ground exposure Phase-to-phase exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
m ft-in m ft-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.051 to 0.300 \1\.............................. Avoid Contact
Avoid Contact
0.301 to 0.750 \1\.............................. 0.31 1-0 0.31 1-0
0.751 to 15.0................................... 0.65 2-2 0.67 2-3
15.1 to 36.0.................................... 0.77 2-7 0.86 2-10
36.1 to 46.0.................................... 0.84 2-9 0.96 3-2
46.1 to 72.5.................................... 1.00 3-3 1.20 3-11
72.6 to 121..................................... 0.95 3-2 1.29 4-3
138 to 145...................................... 1.09 3-7 1.50 4-11
161 to 169...................................... 1.22 4-0 1.71 5-8
230 to 242...................................... 1.59 5-3 2.27 7-6
345 to 362...................................... 2.59 8-6 3.80 12-6
500 to 550...................................... 3.42 11-3 5.50 18-1
765 to 800...................................... 4.53 14-11 7.91 26-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For single-phase systems, use the voltage to ground.
Note 1: These distances take into consideration the highest surge an employee will be exposed to on any system
with air as the insulating medium and the maximum voltages shown.
Note 2: The clear live-line tool distance shall equal or exceed the values for the indicated voltage ranges.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this section for information on how the mimimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived.
* * * * *
h. Paragraph (m)(3)(viii) would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(3) * * *
(viii) If two or more independent crews will be working on the same
lines or equipment, each crew shall independently comply with the
requirements in this paragraph (m)(3). The independent crews shall
coordinate deenergizing and reenergizing the lines or equipment if
there is no system operator in charge of the lines or equipment.
* * * * *
i. Paragraphs (n)(4), (n)(6), and (n)(7) would be revised to read
as follows:
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(4) Protective grounding equipment. (i) Protective grounding
equipment shall be capable of conducting the maximum fault current that
could flow at the point of grounding for the time necessary to clear
the fault.
(ii) If the protective grounding equipment required under paragraph
(n)(4)(i) of this section would be larger than the conductor to which
it is attached, this equipment may be reduced in size provided that it
is sized and placed so that:
(A) The conductor being grounded will fail before the protective
grounding equipment,
(B) The conductor is only considered as grounded where it is
protected against failure by the protective grounding equipment, and
(C) No employees would be endangered by the failed conductor.
(iii) This equipment shall have an ampacity greater than or equal
to that of No. 2 AWG copper.
(iv) Protective grounds shall have an impedance low enough so that
they do not delay the operation of protective devices in case of
accidental energizing of the lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (n)(4) of this section: Guidelines for
protective grounding equipment are contained in American Society for
Testing and Materials Standard Specifications for Temporary
Protective Grounds to Be Used on De-Energized Electric Power Lines
and Equipment, ASTM F 855-03.
* * * * *
(6) Order of connection. When a ground is to be attached to a line
or to equipment, the ground-end connection shall be attached first, and
then the other end shall be attached by means of a live-line tool. For
lines or equipment operating at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment
other than a live-line tool may be used if the employer ensures that
the line or equipment is not energized at the time the ground is
connected or if the employer can demonstrate that each employee would
be protected from hazards that may develop if the line or equipment is
energized.
(7) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding
device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line
tool before the ground-end connection is removed. For lines or
equipment operating at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the employer ensures that the line
or equipment is not energized at the time the ground is disconnected or
if the employer can demonstrate that each employee would be protected
from hazards that may develop if the line or equipment is energized.
* * * * *
j. Paragraph (p)(4)(i) would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(4) Operations near energized lines or equipment. (i) Mechanical
equipment shall be operated so that the minimum approach distances of
Table R-6 through Table R-10 are maintained from exposed energized
lines and equipment. However, the insulated portion of an aerial lift
operated by a qualified employee in the lift is exempt from this
requirement if the applicable minimum approach distance is maintained
between the uninsulated portions of the aerial lift and exposed objects
at a different potential.
* * * * *
k. Paragraphs (t)(3), (t)(7), and (t)(8) would be revised to read
as follows:
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(3) Attendants for manholes and vaults. (i) While work is being
performed in a manhole or vault containing energized electric
equipment, an employee with first aid and CPR training meeting
paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be available on the surface in
the immediate vicinity of the manhole or vault entrance to render
emergency assistance.
(ii) Occasionally, the employee on the surface may briefly enter a
manhole or vault to provide assistance, other than emergency.
Note 1 to paragraph (t)(3)(ii) of this section: An attendant may
also be required under paragraph (e)(7) of this section. One person
may serve to fulfill both requirements. However, attendants required
under paragraph (e)(7) of this section are not permitted to enter
the manhole or vault.
Note 2 to paragraph (t)(3)(ii) of this section: Employees
entering manholes or vaults containing unguarded, uninsulated
energized lines or parts of electric equipment operating at 50 volts
or more are required to be qualified under paragraph (l)(1) of this
section.
(iii) For the purpose of inspection, housekeeping, taking readings,
or similar work, an employee working alone may enter, for brief periods
of time, a manhole or vault where energized cables or equipment are in
service, if the employer can demonstrate that the employee will be
protected from all electrical hazards.
(iv) Reliable communications, through two-way radios or other
equivalent means, shall be maintained among all employees involved in
the job.
* * * * *
(7) Protection against faults. (i) Where a cable in a manhole or
vault has one or more abnormalities that could lead to or be an
indication of an impending fault, the defective cable shall be
deenergized before any employee may work in the manhole or vault,
except when service load conditions and a lack of feasible alternatives
require that the cable remain energized. In that case, employees may
enter the manhole or vault provided they are protected from the
possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices that are
capable of containing the adverse effects of a fault.
Note to paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section: Abnormalities such
as oil or compound leaking from cable or joints, broken cable
sheaths or joint sleeves, hot localized surface temperatures of
cables or joints, or joints that are swollen beyond normal tolerance
are presumed to lead to or be an indication of an impending fault.
(ii) If the work being performed in a manhole or vault could cause
a fault in a cable, that cable shall be deenergized before any employee
may work in the manhole or vault, except when service load conditions
and a lack of feasible alternatives require that the cable remain
energized. In that case, employees may enter the manhole or vault
provided they are protected from the possible effects of a failure by
shields or other devices that are capable of containing the adverse
effects of a fault.
(8) Sheath continuity. When work is performed on buried cable or on
cable in a manhole or vault, metallic sheath continuity shall be
maintained or the cable sheath shall be treated as energized.
* * * * *
l. In the Notes following paragraphs (u)(1), (u)(5)(i), (v)(3), and
(v)(5)(i), ``ANSI C2-1987'' would be revised to read ``ANSI C2-2002''
wherever it appears.
m. Definitions of ``Contract employer,'' ``Entry,'' and ``Host
employer'' would be added, in alphabetical order, to Sec. 1910.269(x),
to read as follows:
* * * * *
(x) * * *
Contract employer. An employer who performs work covered by this
section for a host employer.
* * * * *
Entry (as used in paragraph (e) of this section). The action by
which a person passes through an opening into an enclosed space. Entry
includes ensuing work activities in that space and is considered to
have occurred as soon as any part of the entrant's body breaks the
plane of an opening into the space.
* * * * *
Host employer. An employer who operates and maintains an electric
power generation, transmission, or distribution installation covered by
this section and who hires a contract employer to perform work on that
installation.
* * * * *
n. A new Appendix F would be added to Sec. 1910.269 to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Appendix F to Section 1910.269--Clothing
I. Introduction
Paragraph (1)(11) of Sec. 1910.269 addresses clothing worn by
an employee. This paragraph requires employers to: (1) Assess the
workplace for flame and arc hazards (paragraph (1)(11)(i)); (2)
estimate the available heat energy from electric arcs to which
employees could be exposed (paragraph (1)(11)(ii)), (3) ensure that
employees wear clothing that has an arc rating greater than or equal
to the available heat energy (paragraph (1)(11)(v)), (4) ensure that
employees wear clothing that could not melt or ignite and continue
to burn in the presence of electric arcs to which an employee could
be exposed (paragraph (1)(11)(iii)), and (5) ensure that employees
wear flame-resistant clothing \1\ under certain conditions
(paragraph (1)(11)(iv)). This appendix contains information to help
employers estimate available heat energy as required by Sec.
1910.269(1)(11)(ii), select clothing with an arc rating suitable for
the available heat energy as required by Sec. 1910.269(1)(11)(v),
and ensure that employees do not wear flammable clothing that could
lead to burn injury as addressed by Sec. Sec. 1910.269(1)(11)(iii)
and (1)(11)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Flame-resistant clothing includes clothing that is
inherently flame resistant and clothing that has been chemically
treated with a flame retardant. (See ASTM F1506-02a, Standard
Performance Specification for Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel
for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and
Related Thermal Hazards.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Protection Against Burn Injury
A. Estimating Available Heat Energy
The first step in protecting employees from burn injury
resulting from an electric arc is to estimate the potential heat
energy if an arc does occur. There are various methods of
calculating values of available heat energy from an electric
circuit. These methods are listed in Table 7. Each method requires
the input of various parameters, such as fault current, the expected
length of the electric arc, the distance from the arc to the
employee, and the clearing time for the fault (that is, the time the
circuit protective devices take to open the circuit and clear the
fault). Some of these parameters, such as the fault current and the
clearing time, are known quantities for a given system. Other
parameters, such as the length of the arc and the distance between
the arc and the employee, vary widely and can only be estimated.
Table 7.--Methods of Calculating Incident Heat Energy From an Electric
Arc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces,
NFPA 70E-2004, Annex D, ``Sample Calculation of Flash Protection
Boundary.''
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, T.E., and Floyd II, H.L., ``Predicting Incident
Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V Power
Distribution Systems,'' Record of Conference Papers IEEE IAS 45th
Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, September 28-30,
1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan
Privette (widely available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by
Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of heat energy calculated by any of the methods is
approximately directly proportional to the square of the distance
between the employee and the arc. In other words, if the employee is
very close to the arc, the heat energy is very high; but if he or
she is just a few more centimeters away, the heat energy drops
substantially. Thus, estimating the distance from the arc to the
employee is key to protecting employees.
In estimating available heat energy, the employer must make some
reasonable assumptions about how far the employee will be from the
electric arc. In some instances, such as during some work performed
using live-line tools, the employee will be at least the minimum
approach distance from an energized part. However, in this
situation, the arc could still extend towards the employee. Thus, in
this case, a reasonable estimate of the distance between the
employee and the arc would be the minimum approach distance minus
twice the sparkover distance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The sparkover distance equals the shortest possible arc
length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other cases, as during rubber glove work, parts of the
employee's body will be closer to an energized part than the minimum
approach distance. An employee's chest will be about 380 millimeters
(15 in.) from an energized conductor during rubber glove work on
that conductor. Because there should not be any surfaces at a
potential other than the conductor between the employee and the
conductor, it is reasonable to assume that the arc will not extend
towards the employee. Thus, in this situation, it would be
reasonable to use 380 millimeters (15 in.) as the distance between
the employee and the arc.
The standard permits an employer to make broad estimates of
available heat energy covering multiple system areas using
reasonable assumptions about the energy exposure distribution. For
example, the employer can use the maximum fault current and clearing
time to cover several system areas at once. Table 8 presents
estimates of available energy for different parts of an electrical
system operating at 4 to 46 kV. The table is for open-air, phase-to-
ground electric arc exposures typical for overhead systems operating
at these voltages. The table assumes that the employee will be 380
millimeters (15 in.) from the electric arc, which is a reasonable
estimate for rubber glove work. To use the table, an employer would
use the voltage, maximum fault current, and maximum clearing time
for a system area and select the appropriate heat energy (5, 8, or
12 calories) from the table. For example, an employer might have a
12,470-volt power line supplying a system area. The power line can
supply a maximum fault current of 8 kiloamperes with a maximum
clearing time of 10 cycles. This system falls in the 4.0-to-15.0-kV
range; the fault current is less than 10 kA (the second row in that
voltage range); and the clearing time is under 14.5 cycles (the
first column to the right of the fault current column). Thus, the
available heat energy for this part of the system will be 5 calories
or less (from the column heading), and the employer could select
clothing with a 5-calorie rating to meet Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(v).
Table 9 presents similar estimates for systems operating at
voltages of 46.1 to 800 kV. This table is also for open-air, phase-
to-ground electric arc exposures typical for overhead systems
operating at these voltages. The table assumes that the arc length
will be equal to the sparkover distance \3\ and that the employee
will be a distance from the arc equal to the minimum approach
distance minus twice the arc length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The dielectric strength of air is about 10 kV for every 25.4
mm (1 in.). Thus, the arc length can be estimated to be the phase-
to-ground voltage divided by 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employer will need to use other methods for estimating
available heat energy in situations not addressed by Table 8 or
Table 9. The calculation methods listed in Table 7 will help
employers do this. In addition, employers can use Table
130.7(C)(9)(a), Table 130.7(C)(10), and Table 130.7(C)(11) of NFPA
70E-2004 to estimate the available heat energy (and to select
appropriate protective clothing) for many situations not addressed
in the tables in this appendix, including lower-voltage, phase-to-
phase arc, and enclosed arc exposures.
Table 8.--Available Heat Energy for Various Fault Currents, Clearing Times, and Voltages of 4.0 to 46.0 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-cal maximum 8-cal maximum 12-cal maximum
Voltage range (kV) Fault current clearing time clearing time clearing time
(kV) (cycles) (cycles) (cycles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 to 15.0..................................... 5 37.3 59.6 89.4
10 14.5 23.2 34.8
15 8.0 12.9 19.3
20 5.2 8.3 12.5
15.1 to 25.0.................................... 5 34.5 55.2 82.8
10 14.2 22.7 34.1
15 8.2 13.2 19.8
20 5.5 8.8 13.2
25.1 to 36.0.................................... 5 16.9 27.0 40.4
10 7.1 11.4 17.1
15 4.2 6.8 10.1
20 2.9 4.6 6.9
36.1 to 46.0.................................... 5 13.3 21.2 31.9
10 5.7 9.1 13.7
15 3.5 5.6 8.4
20 2.5 4.0 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase
arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the employee will be 380 mm (15 in.) from the electric arc. The table also assumes
the arc length to be the sparkover distance for the maximum voltage of each voltage range, as follows:
4.0 to 15.0 kV 51 mm (2 in.).
15.1 to 25.0 kV 102 mm (4 in.).
25.1 to 36.0 kV 152 mm (6 in.).
36.1 to 46.0 kV 229 mm (9 in.).
Table 9.--Available Heat Energy for Various Fault Currents, Clearing Times, and Voltages of 46.1 to 800 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-cal maximum 8-cal maximum 12-cal maximum
Voltage range (kV) Fault current clearing time clearing time clearing time
(kV) (cycles) (cycles) (cycles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.1 to 72.5.................................... 20 10.6 17.0 25.5
30 6.6 10.5 15.8
40 4.6 7.3 11.0
50 3.4 5.5 8.3
72.6 to 121..................................... 20 10.3 16.5 24.7
30 5.9 9.4 14.1
40 3.9 6.2 9.3
50 2.7 4.4 6.6
138 to 145...................................... 20 12.2 19.5 29.3
30 7.0 11.2 16.8
40 4.6 7.4 11.1
50 3.3 5.3 7.9
161 to 169...................................... 20 11.6 18.6 27.9
30 7.2 11.5 17.2
40 5.0 8.0 12.0
50 3.8 6.0 9.0
230 to 242...................................... 20 13.0 20.9 31.3
30 8.0 12.9 19.3
40 5.6 9.0 13.5
50 4.2 6.8 10.1
345 to 362...................................... 20 28.3 45.3 67.9
30 17.5 28.1 42.1
40 12.2 19.6 29.4
50 9.2 14.7 22.1
500 to 550...................................... 20 23.6 37.8 56.7
30 14.6 23.3 35.0
40 10.2 16.3 24.4
50 7.6 12.2 18.3
765 to 800...................................... 20 54.5 87.3 130.9
30 33.7 53.9 80.9
40 23.6 37.8 56.7
50 17.8 28.4 42.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric are exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase
arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box)
(2) The table assumes that the arc length will be the phase-to-ground voltage divided by 10 and that the
distance from the arc to the employee is the minumum approach distance minus twice the arc length.
B. Selecting protective clothing
Table 10 presents protective clothing guidelines for exposure to
electric arcs. Protective clothing meeting the guidelines in this
table are expected, based on extensive laboratory testing, to be
capable of preventing second-degree burn injury to an employee
exposed to the corresponding range of calculated incident heat
energy from an electric arc. It should be noted that actual electric
arc exposures may be more or less severe than the laboratory
exposures because of factors such as arc movement, arc length,
arcing from reclosing of the system, secondary fires or explosions,
and weather conditions. Therefore, it is possible that an employee
will sustain a second-degree or worse burn wearing clothing
conforming to the guidelines in Table 10 under certain
circumstances. Such clothing will, however, provide an appropriate
degree of protection for an employee who is exposed to electric arc
hazards.
Table 10.--Protective Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothing
Range of calculated description Clothing Arc thermal
incident energy cal/ (number of weight oz/yd performance
cm \2\ layers) \2\ value (ATPV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2................... Untreated Cotton 4.5-7 N/A
(1).
2-5................... FR Shirt (1).... 4.5-8 5-7
5-10.................. T-Shirt plus FR 9-12 10-17
Shirt and FR
Pants (2).
10-20................. T-Shirt plus FR 16-20 22-25
Shirt plus FR
Coverall (3).
20-40................. T-Shirt plus FR 24-30 55
Shirt plus
Double Layer
Switching Coat
(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR--Flame resistant.
ATPV--Arc Thermal Performance Value based on ASTM F1959 test method.
(The method was modified as necessary to test the performance of the
three- and four-layer systems.)
Source: ``Protective Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Exposure,''
Neal, T. E. Bingham, A. H., Doughty, R. L., IEEE Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Conference Record, September 1996, p. 294.
It should be noted that Table 10 permits untreated cotton
clothing for exposures of 2-cal/cm\2\ or less. Cotton clothing will
reduce a 2-cal/cm\2\ exposure below the 1.6-cal/cm\2\ level
necessary to cause burn injury and is not expected to ignite at such
low heat energy levels. Although untreated cotton clothing is deemed
to meet the requirement for suitable arc ratings in Sec.
1910.269(l)(11)(v) and the prohibition against clothing that could
ignite and continue to burn in Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(iii) when the
available heat energy is 2 cal/cm\2\ or less, this type of clothing
is still prohibited under certain conditions by Sec.
1910.269(l)(11)(iv), as discussed further below.
Protective performance of any particular fabric type generally
increases with fabric weight, as long as the fabric does not ignite
and continue to burn. Multiple layers of clothing usually block more
heat and are normally more protective than a single layer of the
equivalent weight.
Exposed skin is expected to sustain a second-degree burn for
incident energy levels of 1.6 cal/cm\2\ or more. Though it is not
required by the standard, if the heat energy estimated under Sec.
1910.269(l)(11)(ii) is greater than or equal to 1.6 cal/cm\2\, the
employer should require each exposed employee to have no more than
10 percent of his or her body unprotected. Due to the unpredictable
nature of electric arcs, the employer should also consider requiring
the protection of bare skin from any exposure exceeding 0.8 cal/
cm\2\ so as to minimize the risk of burn injury.
III. Protection Against Ignition
Paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of Sec. 1910.269 prohibits clothing that
could melt onto an employee's skin or that could ignite and continue
to burn when exposed to the available heat energy estimated by the
employer. Meltable fabrics, such as acetate, nylon, and polyester,
even in blends, must be avoided. When these fibers melt, they can
adhere to the skin, transferring heat more rapidly, exacerbating any
burns, and complicating treatment. This can be true even if the
meltable fabric is not directly next to the skin. The remainder of
this section focuses on the prevention of ignition.
Paragraph (l)(11)(v) of Sec. 1910.269 requires clothing with an
arc rating greater than or equal to the employer's estimate of
available heat energy. As explained earlier, untreated cotton is
acceptable for exposures of 2 cal/cm\2\ or less. If the exposure is
greater than that, the employee must wear flame-resistant clothing
with a suitable arc rating. However, even though an employee is
wearing a layer of flame-resistant clothing, there are circumstances
under which flammable layers of clothing would be exposed and
subject to ignition. For example, if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing (for example, winter coveralls) over the layer of
flame-resistant clothing, the outer flammable layer can ignite.
Similarly, clothing ignition is possible if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing under the flame-resistant clothing and the
underlayer is exposed by an opening in the flame-resistant clothing.
Thus, it is important for the employer to consider the possibility
of clothing ignition even when an employee is wearing clothing with
a suitable arc rating.
Table 11 lists the minimum heat energy under electric arc
conditions that can reasonably be expected to ignite different
weights and colors of cotton fabrics. The values listed, expressed
in calories per square centimeter, represent a 10 percent
probability of ignition with a 95 percent confidence level. If the
heat energy estimated under Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(ii) does not
exceed the values listed in Table 11 for a particular weight and
color of cotton fabric, then an outer layer of that material would
not be expected to ignite and would be considered as being permitted
under Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(iii).\4\ Conversely, if the heat energy
estimated under Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(ii) exceeds the values listed
in Table 11 for a particular weight and color of cotton fabric, that
material may not be worn as an outer layer of garment and may not be
otherwise exposed due to an opening in the flame-resistant clothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An underlayer of clothing with an arc rating greater than or
equal to the estimate of available heat energy would still be
required under Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For white cotton fabrics of a different weight from those
listed, choose the next lower weight of white cotton fabric listed
in Table 11. For cotton fabrics of a different color and weight
combination than those listed, select a value from the table
corresponding to an equal or lesser weight of blue cotton fabric.
For example, for a 6.0-oz/yd\2\ brown twill fabric, select 4.6 cal/
cm\2\ for the ignition threshold, which corresponds to 5.2-oz/
yd2 blue twill. If a white garment has a silkscreen logo,
insignia, or other similar design included on it, then the entire
garment will be considered as being of a color other than white.
(The darker portion of the garment can ignite earlier than the rest
of the garment, which would cause the entire garment to burn.)
Employers may choose to test samples of genuine garments rather
than rely on the values given in Table 11. The appropriate electric
arc ignition test method is given in ASTM F 1958/F 1958M-99,
Standard Test Method for Determining the Ignitability of Non-flame-
Resistant Materials for Clothing by Electric Arc Exposure Method
Using Mannequins. Using this test method, employers may substitute
actual test data analysis results representing an energy level that
is reasonably certain not to be capable of igniting the fabric. For
example, based on test data, the employer may select a level representing
a 10 percent probability of ignition with a 95 percent confidence level,
representing a 1 percent probability of ignition according to actual test
results, or representing an energy level that is two standard deviations below
the mean ignition threshold. The employer may also select some other
comparable level.
Table 11.--Ignition Threshold for Cotton Fabrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric description
--------------------------------------------------------- Ignition
Weight (oz/yd threshold
\2\ Color Weave (cal/cm \2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.6............. White............. Jersey knit....... 4.3
5.2............. Blue.............. Twill............. 4.6
6.2............. White............. Fleece............ 6.4
6.9............. Blue.............. Twill............. 5.3
8.0............. Black............. Twill............. 6.1
8.3............. White............. Sateen............ 11.6
11.9............ Tan............... Duck.............. 11.3
12.8............ Blue.............. Denim............. 15.5
13.3............ Blue.............. Denim............. 15.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Testing Update on Protective Clothing & Equipment for Electric
Arc Exposure,'' IEEE Paper No. PCIC-97-35.
Clothing loses weight as it wears. This can lower the ignition
threshold, especially if the garment has threadbare areas or is
torn.
Adding layers of clothing beneath an outer layer of flammable
fabric has no significant effect on the heat energy needed to ignite
the outer fabric layer. Therefore, the outer layer of clothing must
be treated as if it were a single layer to determine the proper
ignition threshold.
Flammable clothing worn in conjunction with flame-resistant
clothing is not permitted to pose an ignition hazard.\5\ Flammable
clothing may not be worn as an outer layer if it could be exposed to
heat energy above the ignition threshold. Outer flame-resistant
layers may not have openings that expose flammable inner layers that
could be ignited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of Sec. 1910.269 prohibits clothing
that could ignite and continue to burn when exposed to the heat
energy estimated under paragraph (l)(11)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an outer flame-resistant layer would be unable to resist
breakopen,\6\ the next (inner) layer should be flame-resistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Breakopen is the creation of holes, tears, or cracks in the
exposed fabric such that incident energy is not longer effectively
blocked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding conductors can become a source of electric arcing if
they cannot carry fault current without failure. These possible
sources of electric arcs \7\ must be considered in determining
whether the employee's clothing could ignite under Sec.
1910.269(l)(11)(iv)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Static wires and pole ground are examples of grounding
conductors that might not be capable of carrying fault current
without failure. Grounds that can carry the maximum available fault
current are not a concern and need not be considered a possible
electric arc souce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flammable clothing can also be ignited by arcing that occurs
when a conductor contacts an employee or by nearby material that
ignites upon exposure to an electric arc. These sources of ignition
must be considered in determining whether the employee's clothing
could ignite under Sec. 1910.269(l)(11)(iv)(A) and (l)(11)(iv)(C).
o. A new Appendix G would be added to Sec. 1910.269 to read as
follows:
Appendix G to Section 1910.269--Work Positioning Equipment
Inspection Guidelines
I. Body Belts
Inspect body belts to ensure that:
A. Hardware has no cracks, nicks, distortion, or corrosion;
B. No loose or worn rivets are present;
C. The waist strap has no loose grommets;
D. The fastening straps are not made of 100 percent leather;
E. No worn materials that could affect the safety of the user
are present; and
F. D-rings are compatible with the snaphooks with which they
will be used.
Note: An incompatibility between a snaphook and a D-ring may
cause snaphook rollout, or unintentional disengagement of the
snaphook from the D-ring. Employers should take extra precaution
when determining compatibility between snaphooks and D-rings of
different manufacturers.
II. Positioning Straps
Inspect positioning straps to ensure that:
A. The warning center of the strap material is not exposed;
B. No cuts, burns, extra holes, or fraying of strap material is
present;
C. Rivets are properly secured;
D. Straps are not made from 100 percent leather; and
E. Snaphooks do not have cracks, burns, or corrosion.
III. Climbers
Inspect pole and tree climbers to ensure that:
A. Gaffs on pole climbers are no less than 32 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
B. Gaffs on tree climbers are no less than 51 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
C. Gaffs and leg irons are not fractured or cracked;
D. Stirrups and leg irons are free of excessive wear;
E. Gaffs are not loose;
F. Gaffs are free of deformation that could adversely affect
use;
G. Gaffs are properly sharpened; and
H. There are no broken straps or buckles.
PART 1926--[Amended]
Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
6. The authority citation for Subpart E of Part 1926 would be
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or
5-2002 (67 F.R. 65008) as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.
7. Section 1926.97 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.97 Electrical protective equipment.
(a) Design requirements. Insulating blankets, matting, covers, line
hose, gloves, and sleeves made of rubber shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Manufacture and marking of rubber insulating equipment. (i)
Blankets, gloves, and sleeves shall be produced by a seamless process.
(ii) Each item shall be clearly marked as follows:
(A) Class 00 equipment shall be marked Class 00.
(B) Class 0 equipment shall be marked Class 0.
(C) Class 1 equipment shall be marked Class 1.
(D) Class 2 equipment shall be marked Class 2.
(E) Class 3 equipment shall be marked Class 3.
(F) Class 4 equipment shall be marked Class 4.
(G) Nonozone-resistant equipment other than matting shall be marked
Type I.
(H) Ozone-resistant equipment other than matting shall be marked
Type II.
(I) Other relevant markings, such as the manufacturer's
identification and the size of the equipment, may also be provided.
(iii) Markings shall be nonconducting and shall be applied in such
a manner as not to impair the insulating qualities of the equipment.
(iv) Markings on gloves shall be confined to the cuff portion of
the glove.
(2) Electrical requirements. (i) Equipment shall be capable of
withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage specified in Table E-1 or the
d-c proof-test voltage specified in Table E-2.
(A) The proof test shall reliably indicate that the equipment can
withstand the voltage involved.
(B) The test voltage shall be applied continuously for 3 minutes
for equipment other than matting and shall be applied continuously for
1 minute for matting.
(C) Gloves shall also be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test
voltage specified in Table E-1 after a 16-hour water soak. (See the
note following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.)
(ii) When the a-c proof test is used on gloves, the 60-hertz proof-
test current may not exceed the values specified in Table E-1 at any
time during the test period.
(A) If the a-c proof test is made at a frequency other than 60
hertz, the permissible proof-test current shall be computed from the
direct ratio of the frequencies.
(B) For the test, gloves (right side out) shall be filled with tap
water and immersed in water to a depth that is in accordance with Table
E-3. Water shall be added to or removed from the glove, as necessary,
so that the water level is the same inside and outside the glove.
(C) After the 16-hour water soak specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(C) of this section, the 60-hertz proof-test current may
exceed the values given in Table E-1 by not more than 2 milliamperes.
(iii) Equipment that has been subjected to a minimum breakdown
voltage test may not be used for electrical protection. (See the note
following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.)
(iv) Material used for Type II insulating equipment shall be
capable of withstanding an ozone test, with no visible effects. The
ozone test shall reliably indicate that the material will resist ozone
exposure in actual use. Any visible signs of ozone deterioration of the
material, such as checking, cracking, breaks, or pitting, is evidence
of failure to meet the requirements for ozone-resistant material. (See
the note following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.)
(3) Workmanship and finish. (i) Equipment shall be free of harmful
physical irregularities that can be detected by the tests or
inspections required under this section.
(ii) Surface irregularities that may be present on all rubber goods
because of imperfections on forms or molds or because of inherent
difficulties in the manufacturing process and that may appear as
indentations, protuberances, or imbedded foreign material are
acceptable under the following conditions:
(A) The indentation or protuberance blends into a smooth slope when
the material is stretched.
(B) Foreign material remains in place when the insulating material
is folded and stretches with the insulating material surrounding it.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: Rubber insulating
equipment meeting the following national consensus standards is
deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 120-02a,
Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 178-01 \e1\, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Matting.
ASTM D 1048-99, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM D 1049-98e1, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Covers.
ASTM D 1050-90, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Line
Hose.
ASTM D 1051-02, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Sleeves.
These standards contain specifications for conducting the various
tests required in paragraph (a) of this section. For example, the a-c
and d-c proof tests, the breakdown test, the water soak procedure, and
the ozone test mentioned in this paragraph are described in detail in
the ASTM standards.
ASTM F 1236-96, Standard Guide for Visual Inspection of Electrical
Protective Rubber Products, presents methods and techniques for the
visual inspection of electrical protective equipment made of rubber.
This guide also contains descriptions and photographs of irregularities
that can be found in this equipment.
ASTM F 819-00 \e1\, Standard Terminology Relating to Electrical
Protective Equipment for Workers, includes definitions of terms
relating to the electrical protective equipment covered under this
section.
(b) Requirements for other types of electrical protective
equipment. The following requirements apply to the design and
manufacture of electrical protective equipment that is not covered by
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Voltage withstand. Insulating equipment used for the protection
of employees shall be capable of withstanding, without failure, the
voltages that may be imposed upon it.
Note to paragraph (b)(1) of this section: Such voltages include
transient overvoltages, such as switching surges, as well as nominal
line voltage. See Appendix B to Subpart V of this Part for a
discussion of transient overvoltages on electric power transmission
and distribution systems.
(2) Equipment current. (i) Protective equipment used for the
primary insulation of employees from energized circuit parts shall be
capable of passing a current test when subjected to the highest nominal
voltage on which the equipment is to be used.
(ii) When insulating equipment is tested in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the equipment current may not
exceed 1 microampere per kilovolt of phase-to-phase applied voltage.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: This paragraph
applies to equipment that provides primary insulation of employees
from energized parts. It is not intended to apply to equipment used
for secondary insulation or equipment used for brush contact only.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: For a-c excitation,
this current consists of three components:
1. Capacitive current because of the dielectric properties of
the insulating material itself,
2. Conduction current through the volume of the insulating
equipment, and
3. Leakage current along the surface of the tool or equipment.
The conduction current is normally negligible. For clean, dry
insulating equipment, the leakage current is small, and the
capacitive current predominates.
(c) In-service care and use of rubber insulating equipment. (1)
General. Electrical protective equipment shall be maintained in a safe,
reliable condition.
(2) Specific requirements. The following specific requirements
apply to insulating blankets, covers, line hose, gloves, and sleeves
made of rubber:
(i) Maximum use voltages shall conform to those listed in Table E-
4.
(ii) Insulating equipment shall be inspected for damage before each
day's use and immediately following any incident that can reasonably be
suspected of having caused damage. Insulating gloves shall be given an
air test, along with the inspection.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section: ASTM F 1236-96,
Standard Guide for Visual Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber
Products, presents methods and techniques for the visual inspection
of electrical protective equipment made of rubber. This guide also
contains descriptions and photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
(iii) Insulating equipment with any of the following defects may
not be used:
(A) A hole, tear, puncture, or cut;
(B) Ozone cutting or ozone checking (the cutting action produced by
ozone on rubber under mechanical stress into a series of interlacing
cracks);
(C) An embedded foreign object;
(D) Any of the following texture changes: swelling, softening,
hardening, or becoming sticky or inelastic.
(E) Any other defect that damages the insulating properties.
(iv) Insulating equipment found to have other defects that might
affect its insulating properties shall be removed from service and
returned for testing under paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(ix) of
this section.
(v) Insulating equipment shall be cleaned as needed to remove
foreign substances.
(vi) Insulating equipment shall be stored in such a location and in
such a manner as to protect it from light, temperature extremes,
excessive humidity, ozone, and other injurious substances and
conditions.
(vii) Protector gloves shall be worn over insulating gloves, except
as follows:
(A) Protector gloves need not be used with Class 0 or Class 00
gloves, under limited-use conditions, where small equipment and parts
manipulation necessitate unusually high finger dexterity.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(A) of this section: Extra care is
needed in the visual examination of the glove and in the avoidance
of handling sharp objects.
(B) Any other class of glove may be used for similar work without
protector gloves if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility
of physical damage to the gloves is small and if the class of glove is
one class higher than that required for the voltage involved.
(C) Insulating gloves that have been used without protector gloves
may not be reused until they have been tested under the provisions of
paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(ix) of this section. (viii)
Electrical protective equipment shall be subjected to periodic
electrical tests. Test voltages and the maximum intervals between tests
shall be in accordance with Table E-4 and Table E-5.
(ix) The test method used under paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and
(c)(2)(xi) of this section shall reliably indicate whether the
insulating equipment can withstand the voltages involved.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(ix) of this section: Standard
electrical test methods considered as meeting this requirement are
given in the following national consensus standards:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 120-02a,
Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 1048-99, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM D 1049-98\e1\, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Covers.
ASTM D 1050-90, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051-02, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Sleeves.
ASTM F 478-92, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Line Hose and Covers.
ASTM F 479-95, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F 496-02a, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Gloves and Sleeves.
(x) Insulating equipment failing to pass inspections or electrical
tests may not be used by employees, except as follows:
(A) Rubber insulating line hose may be used in shorter lengths with
the defective portion cut off.
(B) Rubber insulating blankets may be salvaged by severing the
defective area from the undamaged portion of the blanket. The resulting
undamaged area may not be smaller than 560 mm by 560 mm (22 inches by
22 inches) for Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 blankets.
(C) Rubber insulating blankets may be repaired using a compatible
patch that results in physical and electrical properties equal to those
of the blanket.
(D) Rubber insulating gloves and sleeves with minor physical
defects, such as small cuts, tears, or punctures, may be repaired by
the application of a compatible patch. Also, rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves with minor surface blemishes may be repaired with a
compatible liquid compound. The repaired area shall have electrical and
physical properties equal to those of the surrounding material. Repairs
to gloves are permitted only in the area between the wrist and the
reinforced edge of the opening.
(xi) Repaired insulating equipment shall be retested before it may
be used by employees.
(xii) The employer shall certify that equipment has been tested in
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(iv),
(c)(2)(vii)(C), (c)(2)(viii), (c)(2)(ix), and (c)(2)(xi) of this
section. The certification shall identify the equipment that passed the
test and the date it was tested.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(xii) of this section: Marking of
equipment and entering onto logs the results of the tests and the
dates of testing are two acceptable means of meeting this
requirement.
Table E-1.--A-C Proof-Test Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum proof-test current, mA (gloves only)
Proof-test ---------------------------------------------------
Class of equipment voltage 267-mm
rms V (10.5-in) 356-mm (14- 406-mm (16- 457-mm (18-
glove in) glove in) glove in) glove
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00............................................. 2,500 8 12 ........... ...........
0.............................................. 5,000 8 12 14 16
1.............................................. 10,000 ........... 14 16 18
2.............................................. 20,000 ........... 16 18 20
3.............................................. 30,000 ........... 18 20 22
4.............................................. 40,000 ........... ........... 22 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table E-2.--D-C Proof-Test Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof-test
Class of equipment voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00......................................................... 10,000
0.......................................................... 20,000
1.......................................................... 40,000
2.......................................................... 50,000
3.......................................................... 60,000
4.......................................................... 70,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The d-c voltages listed in this table are not appropriate for
proof testing rubber insulating line hose or covers. For this
equipment, d-c proof tests shall use a voltage high enough to indicate
that the equipment can be safely used at the voltages listed in Table
E-4. See ASTM D 1050-90 and ASTM D 1049-98e1 for further information
on proof tests for rubber insulating line hose and covers,
respectively.
Table E-3.--Glove Tests--Water Level 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-C proof test D-C proof test
Class of glove ---------------------------------------------------
mm in mm in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00.......................................................... 38 1.5 38 1.5
0........................................................... 38 1.5 38 1.5
1........................................................... 38 1.5 51 2.0
2........................................................... 64 2.5 76 3.0
3........................................................... 89 3.5 102 4.0
4........................................................... 127 5.0 153 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The water level is given as the clearance from the cuff of the glove to the water line, with a tolerance of
13 mm. (0.5 in.).
\2\ If atmospheric conditions make the specified clearances impractical, the clearances may be increased by a
maximum of 25 mm. (1 in.).
Table E-4.--Rubber Insulating Equipment Voltage Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum use
Class of equipment voltage \1\ A-C Retest voltage Retest voltage
rms \2\ A-C rms \2\ D-C avg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00........................................................... 500 2,500 10,000
0............................................................ 1,000 5,000 20,000
1............................................................ 7,500 10,000 40,000
2............................................................ 17,000 20,000 50,000
3............................................................ 26,000 30,000 60,000
4............................................................ 36,000 40,000 70,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum use voltage is the a-c voltage (rms) classification of the protective equipment that designates
the maximum nominal design voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked. The nominal design
voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on multiphase circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential
is considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-
ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on
a grounded wye circuit is removed.
\2\ The proof-test voltage shall be applied continuously for at least 1 minute, but no more than 3 minutes.
Table E-5.--Rubber Insulating Equipment Test Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of equipment When to test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber insulating line hose............ Upon indication that insulating
value is suspect and after
repair.
Rubber insulating covers............... Upon indication that insulating
value is suspect and after
repair.
Rubber insulating blankets............. Before first issue and every 12
months thereafter; \1\ upon
indication that insulating
value is suspect; and after
repair.
Rubber insulating gloves............... Before first issue and every 6
months thereafter; \1\ upon
indication that insulating
value is suspect; after
repair; and after use without
protectors.
Rubber insulating sleeves.............. Before first issue and every 12
months thereafter; \1\ upon
indication that insulating
value is suspect; and after
repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If the insulating equipment has been electrically tested but not
issued for service, it may not be placed into service unless it has
been electrically tested within the previous 12 months.
8. The authority citation for Subpart V of Part 1926 would be
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or
5-2002 (67 F.R. 65008) as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.
9. Subpart V of Part 1926 would be revised to read as follows:
Subpart V--Electric Power Transmission and Distribution
Sec.
1926.950 General.
1926.951 Medical services and first aid.
1926.952 Job briefing.
1926.953 Enclosed spaces.
1926.954 Personal protective equipment.
1926.955 Ladders and platforms.
1926.956 Hand and portable power tools.
1926.957 Live-line tools.
1926.958 Materials handling and storage.
1926.959 Mechanical equipment.
1926.960 Working on or near exposed energized parts.
1926.961 Deenergizing lines and equipment for employee protection.
1926.962 Grounding for the protection of employees.
1926.963 Testing and test facilities.
1926.964 Overhead lines.
1926.965 Underground electrical installations.
1926.966 Substations.
1926.967 Special conditions.
1926.968 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Subpart V--Electric Power Transmission and Distribution
Sec. 1926.950 General.
(a) Application. (1) Scope. This subpart, except for paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, covers the construction of electric power
transmission and distribution lines and equipment. As used in this
subpart the term ``construction'' includes the erection of new electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration,
conversion, and improvement of existing electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment.
(2) Other Part 1926 standards. This subpart applies in addition to
all other applicable standards contained in this Part 1926. Employers
covered under this subpart are not exempt from complying with other
applicable provisions in Part 1926 by the operation of Sec. 1910.5(c)
of this chapter. Specific references in this subpart to other sections
of Part 1926 are provided for emphasis only.
(3) Applicable Part 1910 requirements. Line-clearance tree-trimming
operations and work involving electric power generation installations
shall comply with Sec. 1910.269 of this chapter.
(b) Training. (1) All employees. (i) Employees shall be trained in
and familiar with the safety-related work practices, safety procedures,
and other safety requirements in this subpart that pertain to their
respective job assignments.
(ii) Employees shall also be trained in and familiar with any other
safety practices, including applicable emergency procedures (such as
pole top and manhole rescue), that are not specifically addressed by
this subpart but that are related to their work and are necessary for
their safety.
(iii) The degree of training shall be determined by the risk to the
employee for the task involved.
(2) Qualified employees. Each qualified employee shall also be
trained and competent in:
(i) The skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed live
parts from other parts of electric equipment,
(ii) The skills and techniques necessary to determine the nominal
voltage of exposed live parts,
(iii) The minimum approach distances specified in this subpart
corresponding to the voltages to which the qualified employee will be
exposed,
(iv) The proper use of the special precautionary techniques,
personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, and
insulated tools for working on or near exposed energized parts of
electric equipment, and
(v) The recognition of electrical hazards to which the employee may
be exposed and the skills and techniques necessary to control or avoid
those hazards.
Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: For the purposes of
this subpart, a person must have the training required by paragraph
(b)(2) of this section in order to be considered a qualified person.
(3) Supervision and annual inspection. The employer shall
determine, through regular supervision and through inspections
conducted on at least an annual basis, that each employee is complying
with the safety-related work practices required by this subpart.
(4) Additional training. An employee shall receive additional
training (or retraining) under any of the following conditions:
(i) If the supervision or annual inspections required by paragraph
(b)(3) of this section indicate that the employee is not complying with
the safety-related work practices required by this subpart, or
(ii) If new technology, new types of equipment, or changes in
procedures necessitate the use of safety-related work practices that
are different from those which the employee would normally use, or
(iii) If he or she must employ safety-related work practices that
are not normally used during his or her regular job duties.
Note to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section: OSHA would
consider tasks that are performed less often than once per year to
necessitate retraining before the performance of the work practices
involved.
(5) Type of training. The training required by paragraph (b) of
this section shall be of the classroom or on-the-job type.
(6) Training goals. The training shall establish employee
proficiency in the work practices required by this subpart and shall
introduce the procedures necessary for compliance with this subpart.
(7) Demonstration of proficiency. The employer shall determine that
each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices
involved before that employee is considered as having completed the
training required by paragraph (b) of this section.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(7) of this section: Though they are not
required by this paragraph, employment records that indicate that an
employee has successfully completed the required training are one
way of keeping track of when an employee has demonstrated
proficiency.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) of this section: Employers may rely
on an employee's previous training as long as the employer: (1)
Confirms that the employee has the job experience appropriate to the
work to be performed, (2) through an examination or interview, makes
an initial determination that the employee is proficient in the
relevant safety-related work practices before he or she performs any
work covered by this subpart, and (3) supervises the employee
closely until that employee has demonstrated proficiency in all the
work practices he or she will employ.
(c) Contractors. (1) Host employer responsibilities. (i) The host
employer shall inform contract employers of:
(A) Known hazards that are covered by this section, that are
related to the contract employer's work, and that might not be
recognized by the contract employer or its employees; and
(B) Information about the employer's installation that the contract
employer needs to make the assessments required by this subpart.
(ii) The host employer shall report observed contract-employer-
related violations of this section to the contract employer.
(2) Contract employer responsibilities. (i) The contract employer
shall ensure that each of his or her employees is instructed in the
hazards communicated to the contract employer by the host employer.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section: This instruction is
in addition to the training required by paragraph (b) of this
section.
(ii) The contract employer shall ensure that each of his or her
employees follows the work practices required by this subpart and
safety-related work rules required by the host employer.
(iii) The contract employer shall advise the host employer of:
(A) Any unique hazards presented by the contract employer's work,
(B) Any unanticipated hazards found during the contract employer's
work that the host employer did not mention, and
(C) The measures the contractor took to correct any violations
reported by the host employer under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section and to prevent such violations from recurring in the future.
(d) Existing conditions. Existing conditions related to the safety
of the work to be performed shall be determined before work on or near
electric lines or equipment is started. Such conditions include, but
are not limited to, the nominal voltages of lines and equipment, the
maximum switching transient voltages, the presence of hazardous induced
voltages, the presence and condition of protective grounds and
equipment grounding conductors, the condition of poles, environmental
conditions relative to safety, and the locations of circuits and
equipment, including power and communication lines and fire protective
signaling circuits.
Sec. 1926.951 Medical services and first aid.
(a) General. The employer shall provide medical services and first
aid as required in Sec. 1926.50.
(b) Additional requirements. In addition to the requirements of
Sec. 1926.50, the following requirements also apply:
(1) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid training. When
employees are performing work on or associated with exposed lines or
equipment energized at 50 volts or more, persons trained in first aid
including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) shall be available as
follows:
(i) For field work involving two or more employees at a work
location, at least two trained persons shall be available. However,
only one trained person need be available if all new employees are
trained in first aid, including CPR, within 3 months of their hiring
dates.
(ii) For fixed work locations such as substations, the number of
trained persons available shall be sufficient to ensure that each
employee exposed to electric shock can be reached within 4 minutes by a
trained person. However, where the existing number of employees is
insufficient to meet this requirement (at a remote substation, for
example), all employees at the work location shall be trained.
(2) First aid supplies. First aid supplies required by Sec.
1926.50(d) shall be placed in weatherproof containers if the supplies
could be exposed to the weather.
(3) First aid kits. Each first aid kit shall be maintained, shall
be readily available for use, and shall be inspected frequently enough
to ensure that expended items are replaced, but at least once per year.
Sec. 1926.952 Job briefing.
(a) Before each job. (1) Initial briefing by the employer. In
assigning an employee or a group of employees to perform a job, the
employer shall provide the employee in charge of the job with available
information necessary to perform the job safely.
Note to paragraph (a)(1) of this section: The information
provided by the employer to the employee in charge is intended to
supplement the training required under Sec. 1926.950(b). It may be
provided at the beginning of the day for all jobs to be performed
that day rather than at the start of each job. The information is
also intended to be general in nature, with work-site specific
information to be provided by the employee in charge after the crew
arrives at the work site.
(2) Briefing by the employee in charge. The employer shall ensure
that the employee in charge conducts a job briefing meeting paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section with the employees involved before
they start each job.
(b) Subjects to be covered. The briefing shall cover at least the
following subjects: hazards associated with the job, work procedures
involved, special precautions, energy source controls, and personal
protective equipment requirements.
(c) Number of briefings. (1) One before each shift. If the work or
operations to be performed during the work day or shift are repetitive
and similar, at least one job briefing shall be conducted before the
start of the first job of each day or shift.
(2) Additional briefings. Additional job briefings shall be held if
significant changes, which might affect the safety of the employees,
occur during the course of the work.
(d) Extent of briefing. (1) Short discussion. A brief discussion is
satisfactory if the work involved is routine and if the employees, by
virtue of training and experience, can reasonably be expected to
recognize and avoid the hazards involved in the job.
(2) Detailed discussion. A more extensive discussion shall be
conducted:
(i) If the work is complicated or particularly hazardous, or
(ii) If the employee cannot be expected to recognize and avoid the
hazards involved in the job.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section: The briefing must always
touch on all the subjects listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Working alone. An employee working alone need not conduct a job
briefing. However, the employer shall ensure that the tasks to be
performed are planned as if a briefing were required.
Sec. 1926.953 Enclosed spaces.
(a) General. This paragraph covers enclosed spaces that may be
entered by employees. It does not apply to vented vaults if a
determination is made that the ventilation system is operating to
protect employees before they enter the space. This paragraph applies
to routine entry into enclosed spaces. If, after the precautions given
in this section and in Sec. 1926.965 are taken, the hazards remaining
in the enclosed space endanger the life of an entrant or could
interfere with escape from the space, then entry into the enclosed
space shall meet the permit-space entry requirements of paragraphs (d)
through (k) of Sec. 1910.146 of this chapter.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: Entries into enclosed
spaces conducted in accordance with the permit-space entry
requirements of paragraphs (d) through (k) of Sec. 1910.146 of this
chapter are considered as complying with this section.
(b) Safe work practices. The employer shall ensure the use of safe
work practices for entry into and work in enclosed spaces and for
rescue of employees from such spaces.
(c) Training. Employees who enter enclosed spaces or who serve as
attendants shall be trained in the hazards of enclosed space entry, in
enclosed space entry procedures, and in enclosed space rescue
procedures.
(d) Rescue equipment. Employers shall provide equipment to ensure
the prompt and safe rescue of employees from the enclosed space.
(e) Evaluation of potential hazards. Before any entrance cover to
an enclosed space is removed, the employer shall determine whether it
is safe to do so by checking for the presence of any atmospheric
pressure or temperature differences and by evaluating whether there
might be a hazardous atmosphere in the space. Any conditions making it
unsafe to remove the cover shall be eliminated before the cover is
removed.
Note to paragraph (e) of this section: The evaluation called for
in this paragraph may take the form of a check of the conditions
expected to be in the enclosed space. For example, the cover could
be checked to see if it is hot and, if it is fastened in place,
could be loosened gradually to release any residual pressure. A
determination must also be made of whether conditions at the site
could cause a hazardous atmosphere, such as an oxygen deficient or
flammable atmosphere, to develop within the space.
(f) Removal of covers. When covers are removed from enclosed
spaces, the opening shall be promptly guarded by a railing, temporary
cover, or other barrier intended to prevent an accidental fall through
the opening and to protect employees working in the space from objects
entering the space.
(g) Hazardous atmosphere. Employees may not enter any enclosed
space while it contains a hazardous atmosphere, unless the entry
conforms to the generic permit-required confined spaces standard in
Sec. 1910.146 of this chapter.
(h) Attendants. While work is being performed in the enclosed
space, a person with first aid training meeting Sec. 1926.951(b)(1)
shall be immediately available outside the enclosed space to provide
assistance if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns in the area
of the opening used for entry. That person is not precluded from
performing other duties outside the enclosed space if these duties do
not distract the attendant from monitoring employees within the space.
Note to paragraph (h) of this section: See Sec. 1926.965 for
additional requirements on attendants for work in manholes and
vaults.
(i) Calibration of test instruments. Test instruments used to
monitor atmospheres in enclosed spaces shall be kept in calibration and
shall have a minimum accuracy of 10 percent.
(j) Testing for oxygen deficiency. Before an employee enters an
enclosed space, the internal atmosphere shall be tested for oxygen
deficiency with a direct-reading meter or similar instrument, capable
of collection and immediate analysis of data samples without the need
for off-site evaluation. If continuous forced air ventilation is
provided, testing is not required provided that the procedures used
ensure that employees are not exposed to the hazards posed by oxygen
deficiency.
(k) Testing for flammable gases and vapors. Before an employee
enters an enclosed space, the internal atmosphere shall be tested for
flammable gases and vapors with a direct-reading meter or similar
instrument capable of collection and immediate analysis of data samples
without the need for off-site evaluation. This test shall be performed
after the oxygen testing and ventilation required by paragraph (j) of
this section demonstrate that there is sufficient oxygen to ensure the
accuracy of the test for flammability.
(l) Ventilation and monitoring. If flammable gases or vapors are
detected or if an oxygen deficiency is found, forced air ventilation
shall be used to maintain oxygen at a safe level and to prevent a
hazardous concentration of flammable gases and vapors from
accumulating. A continuous monitoring program to ensure that no
increase in flammable gas or vapor concentration occurs may be followed
in lieu of ventilation, if flammable gases or vapors are detected at
safe levels.
Note to paragraph (l) of this section: See the definition of
``hazardous atmosphere'' for guidance in determining whether or not
a given concentration of a substance is considered to be hazardous.
(m) Specific ventilation requirements. If continuous forced air
ventilation is used, it shall begin before entry is made and shall be
maintained long enough for the employer to be able to demonstrate that
a safe atmosphere exists before employees are allowed to enter the work
area. The forced air ventilation shall be so directed as to ventilate
the immediate area where employees are present within the enclosed
space and shall continue until all employees leave the enclosed space.
(n) Air supply. The air supply for the continuous forced air
ventilation shall be from a clean source and may not increase the
hazards in the enclosed space.
(o) Open flames. If open flames are used in enclosed spaces, a test
for flammable gases and vapors shall be made immediately before the
open flame device is used and at least once per hour while the device
is used in the space. Testing shall be conducted more frequently if
conditions present in the enclosed space indicate that once per hour is
insufficient to detect hazardous accumulations of flammable gases or
vapors.
Note to paragraph (o) of this section: See the definition of
``hazardous atmosphere'' for guidance in determining whether or not
a given concentration of a substance is considered to be hazardous.
Sec. 1926.954 Personal protective equipment.
(a) General. Personal protective equipment shall meet the
requirements of Subpart E of this Part.
(b) Fall protection. (1) Personal fall arrest systems. Personal
fall arrest systems shall meet the requirements of Subpart M of this
part.
Note to paragraph (b)(1) of this section: This paragraph applies
to all personal fall arrest systems used in work covered by this
Subpart.
(2) Work positioning equipment. Body belts and positioning straps
for work positioning shall meet the following requirements:
(i) Hardware for body belts and positioning straps shall meet the
following requirements:
(A) Hardware shall be made of drop-forged, pressed, or formed steel
or equivalent material.
(B) Hardware shall have a corrosion-resistant finish.
(C) Hardware surfaces shall be smooth and free of sharp edges.
(ii) Buckles shall be capable of withstanding an 8.9-kN (2,000-lbf)
tension test with a maximum permanent deformation no greater than 0.4
mm (0.0156 in.).
(iii) D rings shall be capable of withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf)
tensile test without cracking or breaking.
(iv) Snaphooks shall be capable of withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf)
tension test without failure.
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section: Tensile failure of
a snaphook is indicated by distortion of the snaphook sufficient to
release the keeper.
(v) Top grain leather or leather substitute may be used in the
manufacture of body belts and positioning straps; however, leather and
leather substitutes may not be used alone as a load bearing component
of the assembly.
(vi) Plied fabric used in positioning straps and in load bearing
parts of body belts shall be so constructed in such a way that no raw
edges are exposed and that the plies do not separate.
(vii) Positioning straps shall be capable of withstanding the
following tests:
(A) A dielectric test of 819.7 volts, AC, per centimeter (25000
volts per foot) for 3 minutes without visible deterioration;
(B) A leakage test of 98.4 volts, AC, per centimeter (3000 volts
per foot) with a leakage current of no more than 1 mA;
Note to paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and (b)(2)(vii)(B) of this
section: Positioning straps that pass direct current tests at
equivalent voltages are considered as meeting this requirement.
(C) Tension tests of 20 kN (4500 lbf) for sections free of buckle
holes and of 15 kN (3500 lbf) for sections with buckle holes;
(D) A buckle tear test with a load of 4.4 kN (1000 lbf); and
(E) A flammability test in accordance with Table V-1.
Table V-1.--Flammability Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test method Criteria for passing the test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertically suspend a 500-mm (19.7-inch) Any flames on the positioning
length of strapping holding up a 100- strap shall self extinguish.
kg (200.5-lb) weight.
Use a butane or propane burner with a The positioning strap shall
76-mm (3-inch) flame. continue to support the 100-kg
(220.5-lb) mass.
Direct the flame to an edge of the
strapping at a distance of 25 mm (1
inch).
Remove the flame after 5 seconds.......
Wait until any flames on the
positioning strap go out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(viii) The cushion part of the body belt shall contain no exposed
rivets on the inside and shall be at least 76 mm (3 in.) in width.
(ix) Tool loops shall be so situated on the body of a body belt
that 100 mm (4 in.) of the body belt in the center of the back,
measuring from D ring to D ring, is free of tool loops and any other
attachments.
(x) Copper, steel, or equivalent liners shall be used around the
bars of D rings to prevent wear between these members and the leather
or fabric enclosing them.
(xi) Snaphooks shall be of the locking type meeting the following
requirements:
(A) The locking mechanism shall first be released or a destructive
force shall be placed on the keeper before the keeper will open.
(B) A force in the range of 6.6 N (1.5 lbf) to 17.6 N (4 lbf) shall
be required to release the locking mechanism.
(C) With the locking mechanism released and with a force applied on
the keeper against the face of the nose, the keeper may not begin to
open with a force of 11.0 N (2.5 lbf) or less and shall begin to open
with a maximum force of 17.6 N (4 lbf).
(xii) Body belts and positioning straps shall be capable of
withstanding a drop test as follows:
(A) The test mass shall be rigidly constructed of steel or
equivalent material with a mass of 100 kg (220.5 lbm).
(B) For body belts, the body belt shall be fitted snugly around the
test mass and shall be attached to the test structure anchorage point
by means of a wire rope.
(C) For positioning straps, the strap shall be adjusted to its
shortest length to permit the test and connected to the test structure
anchorage point at one end and to the test mass on the other.
(D) The test mass shall be dropped an unobstructed distance of 1 m
(39.4 in.) from a supporting structure that will sustain minimal
deflection during the test.
(E) Body belts shall successfully arrest the fall of the test mass
and shall be capable of supporting the mass after the test.
(F) Positioning straps shall successfully arrest the fall of the
test mass without breaking and the arrest force may not exceed 17.8 kN
(4000 lbf). Additionally, snaphooks on positioning straps may not have
distorted sufficiently to allow the keeper to be released.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: This paragraph
applies to all work positioning equipment used in work covered by
this Subpart.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: Body belts and
positioning straps that conform to American Society of Testing and
Materials Standard Specifications for Personal Climbing Equipment,
ASTM F 887-04, are deemed to be in compliance with the manufacturing
and construction requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section
provided that the body belt or positioning strap also conforms to
paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and (b)(2)(xi) of this section.
Note 3 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: Body belts and
positioning straps that conform to Sec. 1926.502(e) on positioning
device systems are deemed to be in compliance with the manufacturing
and construction requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section
provided that the positioning strap also conforms to paragraph
(b)(2)(vii) of this section.
(3) Care and use of personal fall protection equipment. (i) Work
positioning equipment shall be inspected before use each day to
determine that the equipment is in safe working condition. Defective
equipment may not be used.
Note to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section: Appendix G to this
subpart contains guidelines for the inspection of work positioning
equipment.
(ii) Personal fall arrest systems shall be used in accordance with
Sec. 1926.502(d). However, the attachment point need not be located as
required by Sec. 1926.502(d)(17) if the body harness is being used as
work positioning equipment and if the maximum free fall distance is
limited to 0.6 m (2 ft).
(iii) A personal fall arrest system or work positioning equipment
shall be used by employees working at elevated locations more than 1.2
m (4 ft) above the ground on poles, towers, or similar structures if
other fall protection has not been provided. Fall protection equipment
is not required to be used by a qualified employee climbing or changing
location on poles, towers, or similar structures, unless conditions,
such as, but not limited to, ice, high winds, the design of the
structure (for example, no provision for holding on with hands), or the
presence of contaminants on the structure, could cause the employee to
lose his or her grip or footing.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section: This paragraph
applies to structures that support overhead electric power
transmission and distribution lines and equipment. It does not apply
to portions of buildings, such as loading docks, to electric
equipment, such as transformers and capacitors, nor to aerial lifts.
The duty to provide fall protection associated with walking and
working surfaces is contained in Subpart M of this Part; the duty to
provide fall protection associated with aerial lifts is contained in
Sec. 1926.453.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section: Employees who
have not completed training in climbing and the use of fall
protection are not considered ``qualified employees'' for the
purposes of this provision. Unqualified employees (including
trainees) are required to use fall protection any time they are more
than 1.2 m (4 ft) above the ground.
(iv) Work positioning systems shall be rigged so that an employee
can free fall no more than 0.6 m (2 ft) unless no anchorage is
available.
(v) Anchorages for work positioning equipment shall be capable of
supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall or 13.3 kN (3,000 lbf), whichever is greater.
(vi) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed
specifically for the following connections, snaphooks on work
positioning equipment may not be engaged:
(A) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
(B) To each other;
(C) To a D ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
(D) To a horizontal lifeline; or
(E) To any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
Sec. 1926.955 Ladders and platforms.
(a) General. Requirements for portable ladders contained in Subpart
X of this Part apply, except as specifically noted in paragraph (b) of
this section. Fixed ladders shall meet Part 1910, Subpart D of this
chapter.
(b) Special ladders and platforms. Portable ladders and platforms
used on structures or conductors in conjunction with overhead line work
need not meet paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(12) of Sec. 1926.1053.
However, these ladders and platforms shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Design load. In the configurations in which they are used,
ladders and platforms shall be capable of supporting without failure at
least 2.5 times the maximum intended load.
(2) Maximum load. Ladders and platforms may not be loaded in excess
of the working loads for which they are designed.
(3) Secured in place. Ladders and platforms shall be secured to
prevent their becoming accidentally dislodged.
(4) Intended use. Ladders and platforms may be used only in
applications for which they are designed.
(c) Conductive ladders. Portable metal ladders and other portable
conductive ladders may not be used near exposed energized lines or
equipment. However, in specialized high-voltage work, conductive
ladders shall be used where the employer can demonstrate that
nonconductive ladders would present a greater hazard than conductive
ladders.
Sec. 1926.956 Hand and portable power tools.
(a) General. Paragraph (b) of this section applies to electric
equipment connected by cord and plug. Paragraph (c) of this section
applies to portable and vehicle-mounted generators used to supply cord-
and plug-connected equipment. Paragraph (d) of this section applies to
hydraulic and pneumatic tools.
(b) Cord- and plug-connected equipment. (1) Supplied by premises
wiring. Cord- and plug-connected equipment supplied by premises wiring
is covered by Subpart K of this Part.
(2) Supplied by other than premises wiring. Any cord- and plug-
connected equipment supplied by other than premises wiring shall comply
with one of the following in lieu of Sec. 1926.302(a)(1):
(i) It shall be equipped with a cord containing an equipment
grounding conductor connected to the tool frame and to a means for
grounding the other end (however, this option may not be used where the
introduction of the ground into the work environment increases the
hazard to an employee); or
(ii) It shall be of the double-insulated type conforming to Subpart
K of this Part; or
(iii) It shall be connected to the power supply through an
isolating transformer with an ungrounded secondary.
(c) Portable and vehicle-mounted generators. Portable and vehicle-
mounted generators used to supply cord- and plug-connected equipment
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Equipment to be supplied. The generator may only supply
equipment located on the generator or the vehicle and cord- and plug-
connected equipment through receptacles mounted on the generator or the
vehicle.
(2) Equipment grounding. The noncurrent-carrying metal parts of
equipment and the equipment grounding conductor terminals of the
receptacles shall be bonded to the generator frame.
(3) Bonding the frame. In the case of vehicle-mounted generators,
the frame of the generator shall be bonded to the vehicle frame.
(4) Bonding the neutral conductor. Any neutral conductor shall be
bonded to the generator frame.
(d) Hydraulic and pneumatic tools. (1) Hydraulic fluid in
insulating tools. Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.302 does not apply to
hydraulic fluid used in insulating sections of hydraulic tools.
(2) Operating pressure. Safe operating pressures for hydraulic and
pneumatic tools, hoses, valves, pipes, filters, and fittings may not be
exceeded.
Note to paragraph (d)(2) of this section: If any hazardous
defects are present, no operating pressure would be safe, and the
hydraulic or pneumatic equipment involved may not be used. In the
absence of defects, the maximum rated operating pressure is the
maximum safe pressure.
(3) Work near energized parts. A hydraulic or pneumatic tool used
where it may contact exposed energized parts shall be designed and
maintained for such use.
(4) Protection against vacuum formation. The hydraulic system
supplying a hydraulic tool used where it may contact exposed live parts
shall provide protection against loss of insulating value for the
voltage involved due to the formation of a partial vacuum in the
hydraulic line.
Note to paragraph (d)(4) of this section: Hydraulic lines
without check valves having a separation of more than 10.7 m (35 ft)
between the oil reservoir and the upper end of the hydraulic system
promote the formation of a partial vacuum.
(5) Protection against the accumulation of moisture. A pneumatic
tool used on energized electric lines or equipment or used where it may
contact exposed live parts shall provide protection against the
accumulation of moisture in the air supply.
(6) Breaking connections. Pressure shall be released before
connections are broken, unless quick acting, self-closing connectors
are used.
(7) Leaks. Employees may not use any part of their bodies to locate
or attempt to stop a hydraulic leak.
(8) Hoses. Hoses may not be kinked.
Sec. 1926.957 Live-line tools.
(a) Design of tools. Live-line tool rods, tubes, and poles shall be
designed and constructed to withstand the following minimum tests:
(1) Fiberglass-reinforced plastic. If the tool is made of
fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP), it shall withstand 328100 volts
per meter (100,000 volts per foot) of length for 5 minutes, or
Note to paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Live-line tools using
rod and tube that meet ASTM F 711-02, Standard Specification for
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Rod and Tube Used in Live Line
Tools, conform to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Wood. If the tool is made of wood, it shall withstand 246100
volts per meter (75,000 volts per foot) of length for 3 minutes, or
(3) Equivalent tests. The tool shall withstand other tests that the
employer can demonstrate are equivalent.
(b) Condition of tools. (1) Daily inspection. Each live-line tool
shall be wiped clean and visually inspected for defects before use each
day.
(2) Defects. If any defect or contamination that could adversely
affect the insulating qualities or mechanical integrity of the live-
line tool is present after wiping, the tool shall be removed from
service and examined and tested according to paragraph (b)(3) of this
section before being returned to service.
(3) Biennial inspection and testing. Live-line tools used for
primary employee protection shall be removed from service every 2 years
and whenever required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section for
examination, cleaning, repair, and testing as follows:
(i) Each tool shall be thoroughly examined for defects.
(ii) If a defect or contamination that could adversely affect the
insulating qualities or mechanical integrity of the live-line tool is
found, the tool shall be repaired and refinished or shall be
permanently removed from service. If no such defect or contamination is
found, the tool shall be cleaned and waxed.
(iii) The tool shall be tested in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(3)(iv) and (b)(3)(v) of this section under the following
conditions:
(A) After the tool has been repaired or refinished; and
(B) After the examination if repair or refinishing is not
performed, unless the tool is made of FRP rod or foam-filled FRP tube
and the employer can demonstrate that the tool has no defects that
could cause it to fail in use.
(iv) The test method used shall be designed to verify the tool's
integrity along its entire working length and, if the tool is made of
fiberglass-reinforced plastic, its integrity under wet conditions.
(v) The voltage applied during the tests shall be as follows:
(A) 246,100 volts per meter (75,000 volts per foot) of length for 1
minute if the tool is made of fiberglass, or
(B) 164,000 volts per meter (50,000 volts per foot) of length for 1
minute if the tool is made of wood, or
(C) Other tests that the employer can demonstrate are equivalent.
Note to paragraph (b) of this section: Guidelines for the
examination, cleaning, repairing, and in-service testing of live-
line tools are contained in the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers' IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines, IEEE Std. 516-2003.
Sec. 1926.958 Materials handling and storage.
(a) General. Materials handling and storage shall conform to the
requirements of Subpart N of this Part.
(b) Materials storage near energized lines or equipment. (1)
Unrestricted areas. In areas not restricted to qualified persons only,
materials or equipment may not be stored closer to energized lines or
exposed energized parts of equipment than the following distances plus
an amount providing for the maximum sag and side swing of all
conductors and providing for the height and movement of material
handling equipment:
(i) For lines and equipment energized at 50 kV or less, the
distance is 3.05 m (10 ft).
(ii) For lines and equipment energized at more than 50 kV, the
distance is 3.05 m (10 ft) plus 0.10 m (4 in.) for every 10 kV over 50
kV.
(2) Restricted areas. In areas restricted to qualified employees,
material may not be stored within the working space about energized
lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: Requirements for the
size of the working space are contained in Sec. 1926.966(b).
Sec. 1926.959 Mechanical equipment.
(a) General requirements. (1) Other applicable requirements.
Mechanical equipment shall be operated in accordance with Subparts N
and O of this Part, except that Sec. Sec. 1926.550(a)(15) and
1926.600(a)(6) do not apply to operations performed by qualified
employees.
(2) Inspection before use. The critical safety components of
mechanical elevating and rotating equipment shall receive a thorough
visual inspection before use on each shift.
Note to paragraph (a)(2) of this section: Critical safety
components of mechanical elevating and rotating equipment are
components whose failure would result in a free fall or free
rotation of the boom.
(3) Operator. The operator of an electric line truck may not leave
his or her position at the controls while a load is suspended, unless
the employer can demonstrate that no employee (including the operator)
might be endangered.
(b) Outriggers. (1) Extend outriggers. Vehicular equipment, if
provided with outriggers, shall be operated with the outriggers
extended and firmly set as necessary for the stability of the specific
configuration of the equipment. Outriggers may not be extended or
retracted outside of clear view of the operator unless all employees
are outside the range of possible equipment motion.
(2) Operation without outriggers. If the work area or the terrain
precludes the use of outriggers, the equipment may be operated only
within its maximum load ratings for the particular configuration of the
equipment without outriggers.
(c) Applied loads. Mechanical equipment used to lift or move lines
or other material shall be used within its maximum load rating and
other design limitations for the conditions under which the work is
being performed.
(d) Operations near energized lines or equipment. (1) Minimum
approach distance. Mechanical equipment shall be operated so that the
minimum approach distances of Table V-2 through Table V-6 are
maintained from exposed energized lines and equipment. However, the
insulated portion of an aerial lift operated by a qualified employee in
the lift is exempt from this requirement if the applicable minimum
approach distance is maintained between the uninsulated portions of the
aerial lift and exposed objects at a different potential.
(2) Observer. A designated employee other than the equipment
operator shall observe the approach distance to exposed lines and
equipment and give timely warnings before the minimum approach distance
required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section is reached, unless the
employer can demonstrate that the operator can accurately determine
that the minimum approach distance is being maintained.
(3) Extra precautions. If, during operation of the mechanical
equipment, the equipment could become energized, the operation shall
also comply with at least one of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through
(d)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) The energized lines exposed to contact shall be covered with
insulating protective material that will withstand the type of contact
that might be made during the operation.
(ii) The equipment shall be insulated for the voltage involved. The
equipment shall be positioned so that its uninsulated portions cannot
approach the lines or equipment any closer than the minimum approach
distances specified in Table V-2 through Table V-6 in Sec. 1926.960.
(iii) Each employee shall be protected from hazards that might
arise from equipment contact with the energized lines. The measures
used shall ensure that employees will not be exposed to hazardous
differences in potential. Unless the employer can demonstrate that the
methods in use protect each employee from the hazards that might arise
if the equipment contacts the energized line, the measures used shall
include all of the following techniques:
(A) Using the best available ground to minimize the time the lines
remain energized,
(B) Bonding equipment together to minimize potential differences,
(C) Providing ground mats to extend areas of equipotential, and
(D) Employing insulating protective equipment or barricades to
guard against any remaining hazardous potential differences.
Note to paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section: Appendix C to
this Subpart contains information on hazardous step and touch
potentials and on methods of protecting employees from hazards
resulting from such potentials.
Sec. 1926.960 Working on or near exposed energized parts.
(a) Application. This section applies to work on exposed live
parts, or near enough to them, to expose the employee to any hazard
they present.
(b) General. (1) Qualified employees only. (i) Only qualified
employees may work on or with exposed energized lines or parts of
equipment.
(ii) Only qualified employees may work in areas containing
unguarded, uninsulated energized lines or parts of equipment operating
at 50 volts or more.
(2) Treat as energized. Electric lines and equipment shall be
considered and treated as energized unless they have been deenergized
in accordance with Sec. 1926.961.
(3) At least two employees. (i) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, at least two employees shall be present
while the following types of work are being performed:
(A) Installation, removal, or repair of lines that are energized at
more than 600 volts,
(B) Installation, removal, or repair of deenergized lines if an
employee is exposed to contact with other parts energized at more than
600 volts,
(C) 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,
(D) Work involving the use of mechanical equipment, other than
insulated aerial lifts, near parts energized at more than 600 volts,
and
(E) Other work that exposes an employee to electrical hazards
greater than or equal to those posed by operations that are
specifically listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section.
(ii) Paragraph (b)(3) of this section does not apply to the
following operations:
(A) Routine switching of circuits, if the employer can demonstrate
that conditions at the site allow this work to be performed safely,
(B) Work performed with live-line tools if the employee is
positioned so that he or she is neither within reach of nor otherwise
exposed to contact with energized parts, and
(C) Emergency repairs to the extent necessary to safeguard the
general public.
(c) Live work. (1) Minimum approach distances. The employer shall
ensure that no employee approaches or takes any conductive object
closer to exposed energized parts than set forth in Table V-2 through
Table V-6, unless:
(i) The employee is insulated from the energized part (insulating
gloves or insulating gloves and sleeves worn in accordance with
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are considered insulation of the
employee from the energized part upon which the employee is working
provided that the employee has control of the part in a manner
sufficient to prevent exposure to uninsulated portions of the body), or
(ii) The energized part is insulated from the employee and from any
other conductive object at a different potential, or
(iii) The employee is insulated from any other exposed conductive
object, as during live-line bare-hand work.
Note to paragraph (c)(1) of this section: Paragraph (f)(1) of
Sec. 1926.966 contains requirements for the guarding and isolation
of live parts. Parts of electric circuits that meet these two
provisions are not considered as ``exposed'' unless a guard is
removed or an employee enters the space intended to provide
isolation from the live parts.
(2) Type of insulation. (i) If the employee is to be insulated from
energized parts by the use of insulating gloves (under paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section), insulating sleeves shall also be used.
However, insulating sleeves need not be used under the following
conditions:
(A) If exposed energized parts on which work is not being performed
are insulated from the employee and
(B) If such insulation is placed from a position not exposing the
employee's upper arm to contact with other energized parts.
(ii) If the employee is to be insulated from energized parts by the
use of insulating gloves or insulating gloves with sleeves,
(A) The insulating gloves and sleeves shall be put on in a position
where the employee cannot reach into the minimum approach distance
given in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(B) The insulating gloves and sleeves may not be removed until the
employee is in a position where he or she cannot reach into the minimum
approach distance given in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d) Working position. (1) Working from below. The employer shall
ensure that each employee, to the extent that other safety-related
conditions at the worksite permit, works in a position from which a
slip or shock will not bring the employee's body into contact with
exposed, uninsulated parts energized at a potential different from the
employee.
(2) Working without electrical protective equipment. If work is
performed near exposed parts energized at more than 600 volts but not
more than 72.5 kilovolts and if the employee is not insulated from the
energized parts or performing live-line bare-hand work, the employee
shall work from a position where the employee cannot reach into the
minimum approach distance given in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(e) Making connections. The employer shall ensure that connections
are made as follows:
(1) Connecting. In connecting deenergized equipment or lines to an
energized circuit by means of a conducting wire or device, an employee
shall first attach the wire to the deenergized part;
(2) Disconnecting. When disconnecting equipment or lines from an
energized circuit by means of a conducting wire or device, an employee
shall remove the source end first; and
(3) Loose conductors. When lines or equipment are connected to or
disconnected from energized circuits, loose conductors shall be kept
away from exposed energized parts.
(f) Conductive articles. When work is performed within reaching
distance of exposed energized parts of equipment, the employer shall
ensure that each employee removes or renders nonconductive all exposed
conductive articles, such as key or watch chains, rings, or wrist
watches or bands, unless such articles do not increase the hazards
associated with contact with the energized parts.
(g) Clothing. (1) Hazard assessment. The employer shall assess the
workplace to determine if each employee is exposed to hazards from
flames or from electric arcs.
(2) Estimate of available heat energy. For each employee exposed to
hazards from electric arcs, the employer shall make a reasonable
estimate of the maximum available heat energy to which the employee
would be exposed.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2) of this section: Appendix F to this
Subpart provides guidance on the estimation of available heat
energy.
Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this section: This paragraph does
not require the employer to estimate the heat energy exposure for
every job task performed by each employee. The employer may make
broad estimates that cover multiple system areas provided the
employer uses reasonable assumptions about the energy exposure
distribution throughout the system and provided the estimates
represent the maximum exposure for those areas. For example, the
employer could estimate the heat energy just outside a substation
feeding a radial distribution system and use that estimate for all jobs
performed on that radial system.
(3) Prohibited clothing. The employer shall ensure that each
employee who is exposed to hazards from electric arcs does not wear
clothing that could melt onto his or her skin or that could ignite and
continue to burn when exposed to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
Note to paragraph (g)(3) of this section: Clothing made from the
following types of fabrics, either alone or in blends, is prohibited
by this paragraph, unless the employer can demonstrate that the
fabric has been treated to withstand the conditions that may be
encountered or that the clothing is worn in such a manner as to
eliminate the hazard involved: acetate, nylon, polyester, rayon.
(4) Flame-resistant clothing. The employer shall ensure that an
employee wears clothing that is flame resistant under any of the
following conditions:
(i) The employee is subject to contact with energized circuit parts
operating at more than 600 volts,
(ii) The employee's clothing could be ignited by flammable material
in the work area that could be ignited by an electric arc, or
(iii) The employee's clothing could be ignited by molten metal or
electric arcs from faulted conductors in the work area.
Note to paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this section: This paragraph
does not apply to conductors that are capable of carrying, without
failure, the maximum available fault current for the time the
circuit protective devices take to interrupt the fault.
(5) Clothing rating. The employer shall ensure that each employee
who is exposed to hazards from electric arcs wears clothing with an arc
rating greater than or equal to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
Note to paragraph (g) of this section: See Appendix F to this
subpart for further information on the selection of appropriate
clothing.
(h) Fuse handling. When fuses must be installed or removed with one
or both terminals energized at more than 300 volts or with exposed
parts energized at more than 50 volts, the employer shall ensure that
tools or gloves rated for the voltage are used. When expulsion-type
fuses are installed with one or both terminals energized at more than
300 volts, the employer shall ensure that each employee wears eye
protection meeting the requirements of Subpart E of this Part, uses a
tool rated for the voltage, and is clear of the exhaust path of the
fuse barrel.
(i) Covered (noninsulated) conductors. The requirements of this
section which pertain to the hazards of exposed live parts also apply
when work is performed in the proximity of covered (noninsulated)
wires.
(j) Noncurrent-carrying metal parts. Noncurrent-carrying metal
parts of equipment or devices, such as transformer cases and circuit
breaker housings, shall be treated as energized at the highest voltage
to which they are exposed, unless the employer inspects the
installation and determines that these parts are grounded before work
is performed.
(k) Opening circuits under load. Devices used to open circuits
under load conditions shall be designed to interrupt the current
involved.
Table V-2.--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance
------------------------------------------------------
Nominal voltage in kilovolts phase to phase Phase-to-ground exposure Phase-to-phase exposure
------------------------------------------------------
m ft-in m ft-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.051 to 0.300 \1\....................................... Avoid contact
Avoid contact
0.301 to 0.750 \1\....................................... 0.31 1-0 0.31 1-0
0.751 to 15.0............................................ 0.65 2-2 0.67 2-3
15.1 to 36.0............................................. 0.77 2-7 0.86 2-10
36.1 to 46.0............................................. 0.84 2-9 0.96 3-2
46.1 to 72.5............................................. 1.00 3-3 1.20 3-11
72.6 to 121.............................................. 0.95 3-2 1.29 4-3
138 to 145............................................... 1.09 3-7 1.50 4-11
161 to 169............................................... 1.22 4-0 1.71 5-8
230 to 242............................................... 1.59 5-3 2.27 7-6
345 to 362............................................... 2.59 8-6 3.80 12-6
500 to 550............................................... 3.42 11-3 5.50 18-1
765 to 800............................................... 4.53 14-11 7.91 26-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For single-phase systems, use the voltage to ground.
Note 1: These distances take into consideration the highest switching surge an employee will be exposed to on
any system with air as the insulating medium and the maximum voltages shown.
Note 2: The clear live-line tool distance shall equal or exceed the values for the indicated voltage ranges.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived.
Table V-3.--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance With Overvoltage Factor Phase-to-Ground Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in kilovolts
overvoltage --------------------------------------------------------------
121 145 169 242 362 552 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.82 2.95
1.6.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.97 3.23
1.7.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.13 3.54
1.8.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.29 3.86
1.9.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.47 4.19
2.0.............................................. 0.74 0.83 0.92 1.16 1.59 2.65 4.53
2.1.............................................. 0.76 0.85 0.95 1.21 1.65 2.83 .......
2.2.............................................. 0.78 0.88 0.98 1.25 1.74 3.01 .......
2.3.............................................. 0.80 0.91 1.01 1.29 1.84 3.20 .......
2.4.............................................. 0.82 0.93 1.04 1.33 1.94 3.42 .......
2.5.............................................. 0.84 0.96 1.07 1.38 2.04 ....... .......
2.6.............................................. 0.86 0.98 1.10 1.42 2.14 ....... .......
2.7.............................................. 0.88 1.01 1.13 1.45 2.25 ....... .......
2.8.............................................. 0.91 1.03 1.16 1.50 2.36 ....... .......
2.9.............................................. 0.93 1.06 1.19 1.54 2.47 ....... .......
3.0.............................................. 0.95 1.09 1.22 1.59 2.59 ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit
transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table
V-2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived and on how to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of
transient overvoltages.
Table V-3.--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance With Overvoltage Factor Phase-to-Ground Exposure
(continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in feet-inches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in kilovolts
overvoltage --------------------------------------------------------------
121 145 169 242 362 552 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6-0 9-8
1.6.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6-6 10-8
1.7.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 7-0 11-8
1.8.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 7-7 12-8
1.9.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 8-1 13-9
2.0.............................................. 2-5 2-9 3-0 3-10 5-3 8-9 114-11
2.1.............................................. 2-6 2-10 3-2 4-0 5-5 9-4 .......
2.2.............................................. 2-7 2-11 3-3 4-1 5-9 9-11 .......
2.3.............................................. 2-8 3-0 3-4 4-3 6-1 10-6 .......
2.4.............................................. 2-9 3-1 3-5 4-5 6-4 11-3 .......
2.5.............................................. 2-9 3-2 3-6 4-6 6-8 ....... .......
2.6.............................................. 2-10 3-3 3-8 4-8 7-1 ....... .......
2.7.............................................. 2-11 3-4 3-9 4-10 7-5 ....... .......
2.8.............................................. 3-0 3-5 3-10 4-11 7-9 ....... .......
2.9.............................................. 3-1 3-6 3-11 5-1 8-2 ....... .......
3.0.............................................. 3-2 3-7 4-0 5-3 8-6 ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit
transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table
V-2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived and on how to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of
transient overvoltages.
Table V-4.--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance With Overvoltage Factor Phase-to-Phase Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in kilovolts
overvoltage --------------------------------------------------------------
121 145 169 242 362 552 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.24 3.67
1.6.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.65 4.42
1.7.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.08 5.23
1.8.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.53 6.07
1.9.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4.01 6.97
2.0.............................................. 1.08 1.24 1.41 1.85 2.61 4.52 7.91
2.1.............................................. 1.10 1.27 1.44 1.89 2.68 4.75 .......
2.2.............................................. 1.12 1.29 1.47 1.93 2.78 4.98 .......
2.3.............................................. 1.14 1.32 1.50 1.97 2.90 5.21 .......
2.4.............................................. 1.16 1.35 1.53 2.01 3.02 5.50 .......
2.5.............................................. 1.18 1.37 1.56 2.06 3.14 ....... .......
2.6.............................................. 1.21 1.40 1.59 2.10 3.27 ....... .......
2.7.............................................. 1.23 1.43 1.62 2.13 3.40 ....... .......
2.8.............................................. 1.25 1.45 1.65 2.19 3.53 ....... .......
2.9.............................................. 1.27 1.48 1.68 2.22 3.67 ....... .......
3.0.............................................. 1.29 1.50 1.71 2.27 3.80 ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit
transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table
V-2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived and on how to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of
transient overvoltages.
Table V-4.--A-C Live-Line Work Minimum Approach Distance With Overvoltage Factor Phase-to-Phase Exposure
(continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in kilovolts
overvoltage --------------------------------------------------------------
121 145 169 242 362 552 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 7-4 12-1
1.6.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 8-9 14-6
1.7.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 10-2 17-2
1.8.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 11-7 19-11
1.9.............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 13-2 22-11
2.0.............................................. 3-7 4-1 4-8 6-1 8-7 14-10 26-0
2.1.............................................. 3-7 4-1 4-9 6-3 8-10 15-7 .......
2.2.............................................. 3-8 4-3 4-10 6-4 9-2 16-4 .......
2.3.............................................. 3-9 4-4 4-11 6-6 9-6 17-2 .......
2.4.............................................. 3-10 4-5 5-0 6-7 9-11 18-1 .......
2.5.............................................. 3-11 4-6 5-2 6-9 10-4 ....... .......
2.6.............................................. 4-0 4-7 5-3 6-11 10-9 ....... .......
2.7.............................................. 4-1 4-8 5-4 7-0 11-2 ....... .......
2.8.............................................. 4-1 4-9 5-5 7-2 11-7 ....... .......
2.9.............................................. 4-2 4-10 5-6 7-4 12-1 ....... .......
3.0.............................................. 4-3 4-11 5-8 7-6 12-6 ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit
transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table
V-2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the
tables were derived and on how to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of
transient overvoltages.
Table V-5.--D-C Live-Line Minimum Approach Distance With Overvoltage Factor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit Distance in meters (feet-inches)
transient overvoltage Maximum line-to-ground voltage in kilovolts
-----------
250
400
500
600
750
-----------------------------------------------------
1.5 or lower........................................ 1.12 (3-8) 1.60 (5-3) 2.06 (6-9) 2.62 (8-7) 3.61 (11-10)
1.6................................................. 1.17 (3-10) 1.69 (5-7) 2.24 (7-4) 2.86 (9-5) 3.98 (13-1)
1.7................................................. 1.23 (4-1) 1.82 (6-0) 2.42 (7-11) 3.12 (10-3) 4.37 (14-4)
1.8................................................. 1.28 (4-3) 1.95 (6-5) 2.62 (8-7) 3.39 (11-2) 4.79 (15-9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The distance specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by
engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. However, if the transient overvoltage factor is not known, a factor of 1.8 shall be
assumed.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Table V-6.--Altitude Correction Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altitude
------------------------------------------------------------ Correction
m ft factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
900.............................. 3000.................... 1.00
1200............................. 4000.................... 1.02
1500............................. 5000.................... 1.05
1800............................. 6000.................... 1.08
2100............................. 7000.................... 1.11
2400............................. 8000.................... 1.14
2700............................. 9000.................... 1.17
3000............................. 10000................... 1.20
3600............................. 12000................... 1.25
4200............................. 14000................... 1.30
4800............................. 16000................... 1.35
5400............................. 18000................... 1.39
6000............................. 20000................... 1.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If the work is performed at elevations greater than 900 m (3000
ft) above mean sea level, the minimum approach distance shall be
determined by multiplying the distances in Table V-2 through Table V-5
by the correction factor corresponding to the altitude at which work
is performed.
Sec. 1926.961 Deenergizing lines and equipment for employee
protection.
(a) Application. This section applies to the deenergizing of
transmission and distribution lines and equipment for the purpose of
protecting employees. Conductors and parts of electric equipment that
have been deenergized under procedures other than those required by
this section shall be treated as energized.
(b) General. (1) System operator. If a system operator is in charge
of the lines or equipment and their means of disconnection, all of the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section shall be observed, in the
order given.
(2) No system operator. If no system operator is in charge of the
lines or equipment and their means of disconnection, one employee in
the crew shall be designated as being in charge of the clearance. All
of the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section apply, in the
order given, except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
The employee in charge of the clearance shall take the place of the
system operator, as necessary.
(3) Number of crews working. (i) If only one crew will be working
on the lines or equipment and if the means of disconnection is
accessible and visible to and under the sole control of the employee in
charge of the clearance, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(11)
of this section do not apply. Additionally, tags required by the
remaining provisions of paragraph (c) of this section need not be used.
(ii) If two or more independent crews will be working on the same
lines or equipment, each crew shall independently comply with the
requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. The independent crews
shall coordinate deenergizing and reenergizing the lines or equipment
if there is no system operator in charge of the lines or equipment.
(4) Disconnecting means accessible to general public. Any
disconnecting means that are accessible to persons outside the
employer's control (for example, the general public) shall be rendered
inoperable while they are open for the purpose of protecting employees.
(c) Deenergizing lines and equipment. (1) Request to deenergize. A
designated employee shall make a request of the system operator to have
the particular section of line or equipment deenergized. The designated
employee becomes the employee in charge (as this term is used in
paragraph (c) of this section) and is responsible for the clearance.
(2) Open disconnecting means. All switches, disconnectors, jumpers,
taps, and other means through which known sources of electric energy
may be supplied to the particular lines and equipment to be deenergized
shall be opened. Such means shall be rendered inoperable, unless its
design does not so permit, and tagged to indicate that employees are at
work.
(3) Automatically and remotely controlled switches. Automatically
and remotely controlled switches that could cause the opened
disconnecting means to close shall also be tagged at the point of
control. The automatic or remote control feature shall be rendered
inoperable, unless its design does not so permit.
(4) Tags. Tags shall prohibit operation of the disconnecting means
and shall indicate that employees are at work.
(5) Test for energized condition. After the applicable requirements
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section have been followed
and the employee in charge of the work has been given a clearance by
the system operator, the lines and equipment to be worked shall be
tested to ensure that they are deenergized.
(6) Install grounds. Protective grounds shall be installed as
required by Sec. 1926.962.
(7) Consider lines and equipment deenergized. After the applicable
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section have
been followed, the lines and equipment involved may be worked as
deenergized.
(8) Transferring clearances. To transfer the clearance, the
employee in charge (or, if the employee in charge is forced to leave
the worksite due to illness or other emergency, the employee's
supervisor) shall inform the system operator; employees in the crew
shall be informed of the transfer; and the new employee in charge shall
be responsible for the clearance.
(9) Releasing clearances. To release a clearance, the employee in
charge shall:
(i) Notify each employee under his or her direction that the
clearance is to be released;
(ii) Determine that all employees in the crew are clear of the
lines and equipment;
(iii) Determine that all protective grounds installed by the crew
have been removed; and
(iv) Report this information to the system operator and release the
clearance.
(10) Person releasing clearance. The person releasing a clearance
shall be the same person who requested the clearance, unless
responsibility has been transferred under paragraph (c)(8) of this
section.
(11) Removal of tags. Tags may not be removed unless the associated
clearance has been released under paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(12) Reenergizing lines and equipment. Only after all protective
grounds have been removed, after all crews working on the lines or
equipment have released their clearances, after all employees are clear
of the lines and equipment, and after all protective tags have been
removed from a given point of disconnection, may action be initiated to
reenergize the lines or equipment at that point of disconnection.
Sec. 1926.962 Grounding for the protection of employees.
(a) Application. This section applies to the grounding of
transmission and distribution lines and equipment for the purpose of
protecting employees. Paragraph (d) of this section also applies to the
protective grounding of other equipment as required elsewhere in this
Subpart.
(b) General. For any employee to work lines or equipment as
deenergized, the lines or equipment shall be deenergized under the
provisions of Sec. 1926.961 and shall be grounded as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section. However, if the employer
can demonstrate that installation of a ground is impracticable or that
the conditions resulting from the installation of a ground would
present greater hazards than working without grounds, the lines and
equipment may be treated as deenergized provided all of the following
conditions are met:
(1) Deenergized. The lines and equipment have been deenergized
under the provisions of Sec. 1926.961.
(2) No possibility of contact. There is no possibility of contact
with another energized source.
(3) No induced voltage. The hazard of induced voltage is not
present.
(c) Equipotential zone. Temporary protective grounds shall be
placed at such locations and arranged in such a manner as to prevent
each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electrical
potential.
(d) Protective grounding equipment. (1) Ampacity. (i) Protective
grounding equipment shall be capable of conducting the maximum fault
current that could flow at the point of grounding for the time
necessary to clear the fault.
(ii) If the protective grounding equipment required under paragraph
(d)(1)(i) of this section would be larger than the conductor to which
it is attached, this equipment may be reduced in size provided that it
is sized and placed so that:
(A) The conductor being grounded will fail before the protective
grounding equipment,
(B) The conductor is only considered as grounded where it is
protected against failure by the protective grounding equipment, and
(C) No employees would be endangered by the failed conductor.
(iii) This equipment shall have an ampacity greater than or equal
to that of No. 2 AWG copper.
(2) Impedance. Protective grounds shall have an impedance low
enough so that they do not delay the operation of protective devices in
case of accidental energizing of the lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section: Guidelines for protective
grounding equipment are contained in American Society for Testing
and Materials Standard Specifications for Temporary Protective
Grounds to Be Used on De-Energized Electric Power Lines and
Equipment, ASTM F 855-03.
(e) Testing. Before any ground is installed, lines and equipment
shall be tested and found absent of nominal voltage, unless a
previously installed ground is present.
(f) Connecting and removing grounds. (1) Order of connection. When
a ground is to be attached to a line or to equipment, the ground-end
connection shall be attached first, and then the other end shall be
attached by means of a live-line tool. For lines or equipment operating
at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment other than a live-line tool
may be used if the employer ensures that the line or equipment is not
energized at the time the ground is connected or if the employer can
demonstrate that each employee would be protected from hazards that may
develop if the line or equipment is energized.
(2) Order of removal. When a ground is to be removed, the grounding
device shall be removed from the line or equipment using a live-line
tool before the ground-end connection is removed. For lines or
equipment operating at 600 volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the employer ensures that the line
or equipment is not energized at the time the ground is disconnected or
if the employer can demonstrate that each employee would be protected
from hazards that may develop if the line or equipment is energized.
(g) Additional precautions. When work is performed on a cable at a
location remote from the cable terminal, the cable may not be grounded
at the cable terminal if there is a possibility of hazardous transfer
of potential should a fault occur.
(h) Removal of grounds for test. Grounds may be removed temporarily
during tests. During the test procedure, the employer shall ensure that
each employee uses insulating equipment and is isolated from any
hazards involved, and the employer shall institute any additional
measures as may be necessary to protect each exposed employee in case
the previously grounded lines and equipment become energized.
Sec. 1926.963 Testing and test facilities.
(a) Application. This section provides for safe work practices for
high-voltage and high-power testing performed in laboratories, shops,
and substations, and in the field and on electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment. It applies only to testing involving
interim measurements utilizing high voltage, high power, or
combinations of both, and not to testing involving continuous
measurements as in routine metering, relaying, and normal line work.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: Routine inspection and
maintenance measurements made by qualified employees are considered
to be routine line work and are not included in the scope of this
section, as long as the hazards related to the use of intrinsic
high-voltage or high-power sources require only the normal
precautions associated with routine operation and maintenance work
required in the other paragraphs of this section. Two typical
examples of such excluded test work procedures are ``phasing-out''
testing and testing for a ``no-voltage'' condition.
(b) General requirements. (1) Safe work practices. The employer
shall establish and enforce work practices for the protection of each
worker from the hazards of high-voltage or high-power testing at all
test areas, temporary and permanent. Such work practices shall include,
as a minimum, test area guarding, grounding, and the safe use of
measuring and control circuits. A means providing for periodic safety
checks of field test areas shall also be included. (See paragraph (f)
of this section.)
(2) Training. Employees shall be trained in safe work practices
upon their initial assignment to the test area, with periodic reviews
and updates provided as required by Sec. 1926.950(b).
(c) Guarding of test areas. (1) Guarding. Guarding shall be
provided within test areas to control access to test equipment or to
apparatus under test that may become energized as part of the testing
by either direct or inductive coupling, in order to prevent accidental
employee contact with energized parts.
(2) Permanent test areas. Permanent test areas shall be guarded by
walls, fences, or barriers designed to keep employees out of the test
areas.
(3) Temporary test areas. In field testing, or at a temporary test
site where permanent fences and gates are not provided, one of the
following means shall be used to prevent unauthorized employees from
entering:
(i) The test area shall be guarded by the use of distinctively
colored safety tape that is supported approximately waist high and to
which safety signs are attached,
(ii) The test area shall be guarded by a barrier or barricade that
limits access to the test area to a degree equivalent, physically and
visually, to the barricade specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section, or
(iii) The test area shall be guarded by one or more test observers
stationed so that the entire area can be monitored.
(4) Removal of barriers. The barriers required by paragraph (c)(3)
of this section shall be removed when the protection they provide is no
longer needed.
(d) Grounding practices. (1) Establish and implement practices. The
employer shall establish and implement safe grounding practices for the
test facility.
(i) All conductive parts accessible to the test operator during the
time the equipment is operating at high voltage shall be maintained at
ground potential except for portions of the equipment that are isolated
from the test operator by guarding.
(ii) Wherever ungrounded terminals of test equipment or apparatus
under test may be present, they shall be treated as energized until
determined by tests to be deenergized.
(2) Installation of grounds. Visible grounds shall be applied,
either automatically or manually with properly insulated tools, to the
high-voltage circuits after they are deenergized and before work is
performed on the circuit or item or apparatus under test. Common ground
connections shall be solidly connected to the test equipment and the
apparatus under test.
(3) Isolated ground return. In high-power testing, an isolated
ground-return conductor system shall be provided so that no intentional
passage of current, with its attendant voltage rise, can occur in the
ground grid or in the earth. However, an isolated ground-return
conductor need not be provided if the employer can demonstrate that
both the following conditions are met:
(i) An isolated ground-return conductor cannot be provided due to
the distance of the test site from the electric energy source, and
(ii) Employees are protected from any hazardous step and touch
potentials that may develop during the test.
Note to paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section: See Appendix C to
this Subpart for information on measures that can be taken to
protect employees from hazardous step and touch potentials.
(4) Equipment grounding conductors. In tests in which grounding of
test equipment by means of the equipment grounding conductor located in
the equipment power cord cannot be used due to increased hazards to
test personnel or the prevention of satisfactory measurements, a ground
that the employer can demonstrate affords equivalent safety shall be
provided, and the safety ground shall be clearly indicated in the test
set-up.
(5) Grounding after tests. When the test area is entered after
equipment is deenergized, a ground shall be placed on the high-voltage
terminal and any other exposed terminals.
(i) High capacitance equipment or apparatus shall be discharged
through a resistor rated for the available energy.
(ii) A direct ground shall be applied to the exposed terminals when
the stored energy drops to a level at which it is safe to do so.
(6) Grounding test vehicles. If a test trailer or test vehicle is
used in field testing, its chassis shall be grounded. Protection
against hazardous touch potentials with respect to the vehicle,
instrument panels, and other conductive parts accessible to employees
shall be provided by bonding, insulation, or isolation.
(e) Control and measuring circuits. (1) Control wiring. Control
wiring, meter connections, test leads and cables may not be run from a
test area unless they are contained in a grounded metallic sheath and
terminated in a grounded metallic enclosure or unless other precautions
are taken that the employer can demonstrate as ensuring equivalent
safety.
(2) Instruments. Meters and other instruments with accessible
terminals or parts shall be isolated from test personnel to protect
against hazards arising from such terminals and parts becoming
energized during testing. If this isolation is provided by locating
test equipment in metal compartments with viewing windows, interlocks
shall be provided to interrupt the power supply if the compartment
cover is opened.
(3) Routing temporary wiring. The routing and connections of
temporary wiring shall be made secure against damage, accidental
interruptions, and other hazards. To the maximum extent possible,
signal, control, ground, and power cables shall be kept separate.
(4) Test observer. If employees will be present in the test area
during testing, a test observer shall be present. The test observer
shall be capable of implementing the immediate deenergizing of test
circuits for safety purposes.
(f) Safety check. (1) Before each test. Safety practices governing
employee work at temporary or field test areas shall provide for a
routine check of such test areas for safety at the beginning of each
series of tests.
(2) Conditions to be checked. The test operator in charge shall
conduct these routine safety checks before each series of tests and
shall verify at least the following conditions:
(i) That barriers and guards are in workable condition and are
properly placed to isolate hazardous areas;
(ii) That system test status signals, if used, are in operable
condition;
(iii) That test power disconnects are clearly marked and readily
available in an emergency;
(iv) That ground connections are clearly identifiable;
(v) That personal protective equipment is provided and used as
required by Subpart E of this Part and by this section; and
(vi) That signal, ground, and power cables are properly separated.
Sec. 1926.964 Overhead lines.
(a) General. (1) Application. This section provides additional
requirements for work performed on or near overhead lines and
equipment.
(2) Checking structure before climbing. Before elevated structures,
such as poles or towers, are subjected to such stresses as climbing or
the installation or removal of equipment may impose, the employer shall
ascertain that the structures are capable of sustaining the additional
or unbalanced stresses. If the pole or other structure cannot withstand
the loads which will be imposed, it shall be braced or otherwise
supported so as to prevent failure.
Note to paragraph (a)(2) of this section: Appendix D to this
Subpart contains test methods that can be used in ascertaining
whether a wood pole is capable of sustaining the forces that would
be imposed by an employee climbing the pole. This paragraph also
requires the employer to ascertain that the pole can sustain all
other forces that will be imposed by the work to be performed.
(3) Setting and moving poles. (i) When poles are set, moved, or
removed near exposed energized overhead conductors, the pole may not
contact the conductors.
(ii) When a pole is set, moved, or removed near an exposed
energized overhead conductor, the employer shall ensure that each
employee wears electrical protective equipment or uses insulated devices
when handling the pole and that no employee contacts the pole with uninsulated
parts of his or her body.
(iii) To protect employees from falling into holes into which poles
are to be placed, the holes shall be attended by employees or
physically guarded whenever anyone is working nearby.
(b) Installing and removing overhead lines. The following
provisions apply to the installation and removal of overhead conductors
or cable.
(1) Tension stringing method. The employer shall use the tension
stringing method, barriers, or other equivalent measures to minimize
the possibility that conductors and cables being installed or removed
will contact energized power lines or equipment.
(2) Conductors, cables, and pulling and tensioning equipment. The
protective measures required by Sec. 1926.959(d)(3) for mechanical
equipment shall also be provided for conductors, cables, and pulling
and tensioning equipment when the conductor or cable is being installed
or removed close enough to energized conductors that any of the
following failures could energize the pulling or tensioning equipment
or the wire or cable being installed or removed:
(i) Failure of the pulling or tensioning equipment,
(ii) Failure of the wire or cable being pulled, or
(iii) Failure of the previously installed lines or equipment.
(3) Disable automatic-reclosing feature. If the conductors being
installed or removed cross over energized conductors in excess of 600
volts and if the design of the circuit-interrupting devices protecting
the lines so permits, the automatic-reclosing feature of these devices
shall be made inoperative.
(4) Induced voltage. Before lines are installed parallel to
existing energized lines, the employer shall make a determination of
the approximate voltage to be induced in the new lines, or work shall
proceed on the assumption that the induced voltage is hazardous. Unless
the employer can demonstrate that the lines being installed are not
subject to the induction of a hazardous voltage or unless the lines are
treated as energized, the following requirements also apply:
(i) Each bare conductor shall be grounded in increments so that no
point along the conductor is more than 3.22 km (2 miles) from a ground.
(ii) The grounds required in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section
shall be left in place until the conductor installation is completed
between dead ends.
(iii) The grounds required in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section
shall be removed as the last phase of aerial cleanup.
(iv) If employees are working on bare conductors, grounds shall
also be installed at each location where these employees are working,
and grounds shall be installed at all open dead-end or catch-off points
or the next adjacent structure.
(v) If two bare conductors are to be spliced, the conductors shall
be bonded and grounded before being spliced.
(5) Safe operating condition. Reel handling equipment, including
pulling and tensioning devices, shall be in safe operating condition
and shall be leveled and aligned.
(6) Load ratings. Load ratings of stringing lines, pulling lines,
conductor grips, load-bearing hardware and accessories, rigging, and
hoists may not be exceeded.
(7) Defective pulling lines. Pulling lines and accessories shall be
repaired or replaced when defective.
(8) Conductor grips. Conductor grips may not be used on wire rope,
unless the grip is specifically designed for this application.
(9) Communications. Reliable communications, through two-way radios
or other equivalent means, shall be maintained between the reel tender
and the pulling rig operator.
(10) Operation of pulling rig. The pulling rig may only be operated
when it is safe to do so.
Note to paragraph (b)(10) of this section: Examples of unsafe
conditions include: employees in locations prohibited by paragraph
(b)(11) of this section, conductor and pulling line hang-ups, and
slipping of the conductor grip.
(11) Working under overhead operations. While the conductor or
pulling line is being pulled (in motion) with a power-driven device,
employees are not permitted directly under overhead operations or on
the cross arm, except as necessary to guide the stringing sock or board
over or through the stringing sheave.
(c) Live-line bare-hand work. In addition to other applicable
provisions contained in this section, the following requirements apply
to live-line bare-hand work:
(1) Training. Before using or supervising the use of the live-line
bare-hand technique on energized circuits, employees shall be trained
in the technique and in the safety requirements of paragraph (c) of
this section. Employees shall receive refresher training as required by
Sec. 1926.950(b).
(2) Existing conditions. Before any employee uses the live-line
bare-hand technique on energized high-voltage conductors or parts, the
following information shall be ascertained:
(i) The nominal voltage rating of the circuit on which the work is
to be performed,
(ii) The minimum approach distances to ground of lines and other
energized parts on which work is to be performed, and
(iii) The voltage limitations of equipment to be used.
(3) Insulated tools and equipment. The insulated equipment,
insulated tools, and aerial devices and platforms used shall be
designed, tested, and intended for live-line bare-hand work. Tools and
equipment shall be kept clean and dry while they are in use.
(4) Disable automatic-reclosing feature. The automatic-reclosing
feature of circuit-interrupting devices protecting the lines shall be
made inoperative, if the design of the devices permits.
(5) Adverse weather conditions. Work may not be performed when
adverse weather conditions would make the work hazardous even after the
work practices required by this section are employed. Additionally,
work may not be performed when winds reduce the phase-to-phase or
phase-to-ground minimum approach distances at the work location below
that specified in paragraph (c)(13) of this section, unless the
grounded objects and other lines and equipment are covered by
insulating guards.
Note to paragraph (c)(5) of this section: Thunderstorms in the
immediate vicinity, high winds, snow storms, and ice storms are
examples of adverse weather conditions that are presumed to make
live-line bare-hand work too hazardous to perform safely.
(6) Bucket liners and electrostatic shielding. A conductive bucket
liner or other conductive device shall be provided for bonding the
insulated aerial device to the energized line or equipment.
(i) The employee shall be connected to the bucket liner or other
conductive device by the use of conductive shoes, leg clips, or other
means.
(ii) Where differences in potentials at the worksite pose a hazard
to employees, electrostatic shielding designed for the voltage being
worked shall be provided.
(7) Bonding the employee to the energized part. Before the employee
contacts the energized part, the conductive bucket liner or other
conductive device shall be bonded to the energized conductor by means
of a positive connection. This connection shall remain attached to the
energized conductor until the work on the energized circuit is
completed.
(8) Aerial lift controls. Aerial lifts to be used for live-line
bare-hand work shall have dual controls (lower and upper) as follows:
(i) The upper controls shall be within easy reach of the employee
in the bucket. On a two-bucket-type lift, access to the controls shall
be within easy reach from either bucket.
(ii) The lower set of controls shall be located near the base of
the boom, and they shall be so designed that they can override
operation of the equipment at any time.
(9) Operation of lower controls. Lower (ground-level) lift controls
may not be operated with an employee in the lift, except in case of
emergency.
(10) Check controls. Before employees are elevated into the work
position, all controls (ground level and bucket) shall be checked to
determine that they are in proper working condition.
(11) Body of aerial lift truck. Before the boom of an aerial lift
is elevated, the body of the truck shall be grounded, or the body of
the truck shall be barricaded and treated as energized.
(12) Boom-current test. A boom-current test shall be made before
work is started each day, each time during the day when higher voltage
is encountered, and when changed conditions indicate a need for an
additional test. This test shall consist of placing the bucket in
contact with an energized source equal to the voltage to be encountered
for a minimum of 3 minutes. The leakage current may not exceed 1
microampere per kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground voltage. Work from
the aerial lift shall be immediately suspended upon indication of a
malfunction in the equipment.
(13) Minimum approach distance. The minimum approach distances
specified in Table V-2 through Table V-6 in Sec. 1926.960 shall be
maintained from all grounded objects and from lines and equipment at a
potential different from that to which the live-line bare-hand
equipment is bonded, unless such grounded objects and other lines and
equipment are covered by insulating guards.
(14) Approaching, leaving, and bonding to energized part. While an
employee is approaching, leaving, or bonding to an energized circuit,
the minimum approach distances in Table V-2 through Table V-6 shall be
maintained between the employee and any grounded parts, including the
lower boom and portions of the truck.
(15) Positioning bucket near energized bushing or insulator string.
While the bucket is positioned alongside an energized bushing or
insulator string, the phase-to-ground minimum approach distances of
Table V-2 through Table V-6 shall be maintained between all parts of
the bucket and the grounded end of the bushing or insulator string or
any other grounded surface.
(16) Hand lines. Hand lines may not be used between the bucket and
the boom or between the bucket and the ground. However, nonconductive-
type hand lines may be used from conductor to ground if not supported
from the bucket. Ropes used for live-line bare-hand work may not be
used for other purposes.
(17) Passing objects to employee. Uninsulated equipment or material
may not be passed between a pole or structure and an aerial lift while
an employee working from the bucket is bonded to an energized part.
(18) Table of minimum approach distances. A minimum approach
distance table reflecting the minimum approach distances listed in
Table V-2 through Table V-6 shall be printed on a plate of durable
nonconductive material. This table shall be mounted so as to be visible
to the operator of the boom.
(19) Nonconductive measuring device. A nonconductive measuring
device shall be readily accessible to assist employees in maintaining
the required minimum approach distance.
(d) Towers and structures. The following requirements apply to work
performed on towers or other structures that support overhead lines.
(1) Working beneath towers and structures. The employer shall
ensure that no employee is under a tower or structure while work is in
progress, except where the employer can demonstrate that such a working
position is necessary to assist employees working above.
(2) Tag lines. Tag lines or other similar devices shall be used to
maintain control of tower sections being raised or positioned, unless
the employer can demonstrate that the use of such devices would create
a greater hazard.
(3) Disconnecting load lines. The loadline may not be detached from
a member or section until the load is safely secured.
(4) Adverse weather conditions. Except during emergency restoration
procedures, work shall be discontinued when adverse weather conditions
would make the work hazardous in spite of the work practices required
by this section.
Note to paragraph (d)(4) of this section: Thunderstorms in the
immediate vicinity, high winds, snow storms, and ice storms are
examples of adverse weather conditions that are presumed to make
this work too hazardous to perform, except under emergency
conditions.
Sec. 1926.965 Underground electrical installations.
(a) Application. This section provides additional requirements for
work on underground electrical installations.
(b) Access. A ladder or other climbing device shall be used to
enter and exit a manhole or subsurface vault exceeding 1.22 m (4 feet)
in depth. No employee may climb into or out of a manhole or vault by
stepping on cables or hangers.
(c) Lowering equipment into manholes. Equipment used to lower
materials and tools into manholes or vaults shall be capable of
supporting the weight to be lowered and shall be checked for defects
before use. Before tools or material are lowered into the opening for a
manhole or vault, each employee working in the manhole or vault shall
be clear of the area directly under the opening.
(d) Attendants for manholes and vaults. (1) When required. While
work is being performed in a manhole or vault containing energized
electric equipment, an employee with first aid and CPR training meeting
Sec. 1926.951(b)(1) shall be available on the surface in the immediate
vicinity of the manhole or vault entrance to render emergency
assistance.
(2) Brief entries allowed. Occasionally, the employee on the
surface may briefly enter a manhole or vault to provide assistance,
other than emergency.
Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section: An attendant may
also be required under Sec. 1926.953(h). One person may serve to
fulfill both requirements. However, attendants required under Sec.
1926.953(h) are not permitted to enter the manhole or vault.
Note 2 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section: Employees entering
manholes or vaults containing unguarded, uninsulated energized lines
or parts of electric equipment operating at 50 volts or more are
required to be qualified under Sec. 1926.960(b).
(3) Entry without attendant. For the purpose of inspection,
housekeeping, taking readings, or similar work, an employee working
alone may enter, for brief periods of time, a manhole or vault where
energized cables or equipment are in service, if the employer can
demonstrate that the employee will be protected from all electrical
hazards.
(4) Communications. Reliable communications, through two-way
radios or other equivalent means, shall be maintained among all
employees involved in the job.
(e) Duct rods. If duct rods are used, they shall be installed in
the direction presenting the least hazard to employees. An employee
shall be stationed at the far end of the duct line being rodded to
ensure that the required minimum approach distances are maintained.
(f) Multiple cables. When multiple cables are present in a work
area, the cable to be worked shall be identified by electrical means,
unless its identity is obvious by reason of distinctive appearance or
location or by other readily apparent means of identification. Cables
other than the one being worked shall be protected from damage.
(g) Moving cables. Energized cables that are to be moved shall be
inspected for defects.
(h) Protection against faults. (1) Defective cables. Where a cable
in a manhole or vault has one or more abnormalities that could lead to
or be an indication of an impending fault, the defective cable shall be
deenergized before any employee may work in the manhole or vault,
except when service load conditions and a lack of feasible alternatives
require that the cable remain energized. In that case, employees may
enter the manhole or vault provided they are protected from the
possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices that are
capable of containing the adverse effects of a fault.
Note to paragraph (h)(1) of this section: Abnormalities such as
oil or compound leaking from cable or joints, broken cable sheaths
or joint sleeves, hot localized surface temperatures of cables or
joints, or joints that are swollen beyond normal tolerance are
presumed to lead to or be an indication of an impending fault.
(2) Work-related faults. If the work being performed in a manhole
or vault could cause a fault in a cable, that cable shall be
deenergized before any employee may work in the manhole or vault,
except when service load conditions and a lack of feasible alternatives
require that the cable remain energized. In that case, employees may
enter the manhole or vault provided they are protected from the
possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices that are
capable of containing the adverse effects of a fault.
(i) Sheath continuity. When work is performed on buried cable or on
cable in a manhole or vault, metallic sheath continuity shall be
maintained or the cable sheath shall be treated as energized.
Sec. 1926.966 Substations.
(a) Application. This section provides additional requirements for
substations and for work performed in them.
(b) Access and working space. Sufficient access and working space
shall be provided and maintained about electric equipment to permit
ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.
Note to paragraph (b) of this section: Guidelines for the
dimensions of access and working space about electric equipment in
substations are contained in American National Standard National
Electrical Safety Code, ANSI C2-2002. Installations meeting the ANSI
provisions comply with paragraph (b) of this section. An
installation that does not conform to this ANSI standard will,
nonetheless, be considered as complying with paragraph (b) of this
section if the employer can demonstrate that the installation
provides ready and safe access based on the following evidence:
(1) That the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI C2
that was in effect at the time the installation was made,
(2) That the configuration of the installation enables employees
to maintain the minimum approach distances required by Sec.
1926.960(c)(1) while they working on exposed, energized parts, and
(3) That the precautions taken when work is performed on the
installation provide protection equivalent to the protection that
would be provide by access and working space meeting ANSI C2-2002.
(c) Draw-out-type circuit breakers. When draw-out-type circuit
breakers are removed or inserted, the breaker shall be in the open
position. The control circuit shall also be rendered inoperative, if
the design of the equipment permits.
(d) Substation fences. Conductive fences around substations shall
be grounded. When a substation fence is expanded or a section is
removed, fence grounding continuity shall be maintained, and bonding
shall be used to prevent electrical discontinuity.
(e) Guarding of rooms containing electric supply equipment. (1)
When guarding of rooms is required. Rooms and spaces in which electric
supply lines or equipment are installed shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this section under the following
conditions:
(i) If exposed live parts operating at 50 to 150 volts to ground
are located within 8 feet of the ground or other working surface inside
the room or space,
(ii) If live parts operating at 151 to 600 volts to ground and
located within 8 feet of the ground or other working surface inside the
room or space are guarded only by location, as permitted under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or
(iii) If live parts operating at more than 600 volts to ground are
located within the room or space, unless:
(A) The live parts are enclosed within grounded, metal-enclosed
equipment whose only openings are designed so that foreign objects
inserted in these openings will be deflected from energized parts, or
(B) The live parts are installed at a height above ground and any
other working surface that provides protection at the voltage to which
they are energized corresponding to the protection provided by a 2.4-
meter (8-foot) height at 50 volts.
(2) Prevent access by unqualified persons. The rooms and spaces
shall be so enclosed within fences, screens, partitions, or walls as to
minimize the possibility that unqualified persons will enter.
(3) Restricted entry. Unqualified persons may not enter the rooms
or spaces while the electric supply lines or equipment are energized.
(4) Warning signs. Signs warning unqualified persons to keep out
shall be displayed at entrances to the rooms and spaces.
(5) Entrances to rooms. Entrances to rooms and spaces that are not
under the observation of an attendant shall be kept locked.
(f) Guarding of energized parts. (1) Type of guarding. Guards shall
be provided around all live parts operating at more than 150 volts to
ground without an insulating covering, unless the location of the live
parts gives sufficient horizontal or vertical or a combination of these
clearances to minimize the possibility of accidental employee contact.
Note to paragraph (f)(1) of this section: Guidelines for the
dimensions of clearance distances about electric equipment in
substations are contained in American National Standard National
Electrical Safety Code, ANSI C2-2002. Installations meeting the ANSI
provisions comply with paragraph (f)1. of this section. An
installation that does not conform to this ANSI standard will,
nonetheless, be considered as complying with paragraph (f)(1) of
this section if the employer can demonstrate that the installation
provides sufficient clearance based on the following evidence:
1. That the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI C2 that
was in effect at the time the installation was made,
2. That each employee is isolated from energized parts at the
point of closest approach, and
3. That the precautions taken when work is performed on the
installation provide protection equivalent to the protection that
would be provide by horizontal and vertical clearances meeting ANSI
C2-2002.
(2) Maintaining guards during operation. Except for fuse
replacement and other necessary access by qualified persons, the
guarding of energized parts within a compartment shall be maintained
during operation and maintenance functions to prevent accidental
contact with energized parts and to prevent tools or other equipment
from being dropped on energized parts.
(3) Temporary removal of guards. When guards are removed from
energized equipment, barriers shall be installed around the work area
to prevent employees who are not working on the equipment, but who are
in the area, from contacting the exposed live parts.
(g) Substation entry. (1) Report upon entering. Upon entering an
attended substation, each employee other than those regularly working
in the station shall report his or her presence to the employee in
charge in order to receive information on special system conditions
affecting employee safety.
(2) Job briefing. The job briefing required by Sec. 1926.952 shall
cover such additional subjects as the location of energized equipment
in or adjacent to the work area and the limits of any deenergized work
area.
Sec. 1926.967 Special conditions.
(a) Capacitors. The following additional requirements apply to work
on capacitors and on lines connected to capacitors.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: See Sec. Sec. 1926.961
and 1926.962 for requirements pertaining to the deenergizing and
grounding of capacitor installations.
(1) Disconnect from energized source. Before employees work on
capacitors, the capacitors shall be disconnected from energized sources
and, after a wait of at least 5 minutes from the time of disconnection,
short-circuited.
(2) Short circuiting units. Before the units are handled, each unit
in series-parallel capacitor banks shall be short-circuited between all
terminals and the capacitor case or its rack. If the cases of
capacitors are on ungrounded substation racks, the racks shall be
bonded to ground.
(3) Short circuiting connected lines. Any line to which capacitors
are connected shall be short-circuited before it is considered
deenergized.
(b) Current transformer secondaries. The secondary of a current
transformer may not be opened while the transformer is energized. If
the primary of the current transformer cannot be deenergized before
work is performed on an instrument, a relay, or other section of a
current transformer secondary circuit, the circuit shall be bridged so
that the current transformer secondary will not be opened.
(c) Series streetlighting. (1) Applicable requirements. If the
open-circuit voltage exceeds 600 volts, the series streetlighting
circuit shall be worked in accordance with Sec. 1926.964 or Sec.
1926.965, as appropriate.
(2) Opening a series loop. A series loop may only be opened after
the streetlighting transformer has been deenergized and isolated from
the source of supply or after the loop is bridged to avoid an open-
circuit condition.
(d) Illumination. Sufficient illumination shall be provided to
enable the employee to perform the work safely.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section: See Sec. 1926.56 for
specific levels of illumination.
(e) Protection against drowning. (1) Personal flotation devices.
Whenever an employee may be pulled or pushed or may fall into water
where the danger of drowning exists, the employee shall be provided
with and shall use personal flotation devices meeting Sec. 1926.106.
(2) Maintaining flotation devices in safe condition. Each personal
flotation device shall be maintained in safe condition and shall be
inspected frequently enough to ensure that it does not have rot,
mildew, water saturation, or any other condition that could render the
device unsuitable for use.
(3) Crossing bodies of water. An employee may cross streams or
other bodies of water only if a safe means of passage, such as a
bridge, is provided.
(f) Excavations. Excavation operations shall comply with Subpart P
of this Part.
(g) Employee protection in public work areas. (1) Traffic control
devices. Traffic control signs and traffic control devices used for the
protection of employees shall meet the requirements of Sec.
1926.200(g)(2).
(2) Controlling traffic. Before work is begun in the vicinity of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic that may endanger employees, warning
signs or flags and other traffic control devices shall be placed in
conspicuous locations to alert and channel approaching traffic.
(3) Barricades. Where additional employee protection is necessary,
barricades shall be used.
(4) Excavated areas. Excavated areas shall be protected with
barricades.
(5) Warning lights. At night, warning lights shall be prominently
displayed.
(h) Backfeed. If there is a possibility of voltage backfeed from
sources of cogeneration or from the secondary system (for example,
backfeed from more than one energized phase feeding a common load), the
requirements of Sec. 1926.960 apply if the lines or equipment are to
be worked as energized, and the requirements of Sec. Sec. 1926.961 and
1926.962 apply if the lines or equipment are to be worked as
deenergized.
(i) Lasers. Laser equipment shall be installed, adjusted, and
operated in accordance with Sec. 1926.54.
(j) Hydraulic fluids. Hydraulic fluids used for the insulated
sections of equipment shall provide insulation for the voltage
involved. These fluids need not meet Sec. 1926.302(d)(1).
(k) Communication facilities. (1) Microwave transmission. (i) The
employer shall ensure that no employee looks into an open waveguide or
antenna that is connected to an energized microwave source.
(ii) If the electromagnetic radiation level within an accessible
area associated with microwave communications systems exceeds the
radiation protection guide given in Sec. 1910.97(a)(2) of this
chapter, the area shall be posted with the warning symbol described in
Sec. 1910.97(a)(3) of this chapter. The lower half of the warning
symbol shall include the following statements or ones that the employer
can demonstrate are equivalent:
Radiation in this area may exceed hazard limitations and special
precautions are required. Obtain specific instruction before
entering.
(iii) When an employee works in an area where the electromagnetic
radiation could exceed the radiation protection guide, the employer
shall institute measures that ensure that the employee's exposure is
not greater than that permitted by that guide. Such measures may
include administrative and engineering controls and personal protective
equipment.
(2) Power line carrier. Power line carrier work, including work on
equipment used for coupling carrier current to power line conductors,
shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of this section
pertaining to work on energized lines.
Sec. 1926.968 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Affected employee. An employee whose job requires him or her to
operate or use a machine or equipment on which servicing or maintenance
is being performed under lockout or tagout, or whose job requires him
or her to work in an area in which such servicing or maintenance is
being performed.
Attendant. An employee assigned to remain immediately outside the
entrance to an enclosed or other space to render assistance as needed to
employees inside the space.
Authorized employee. An employee who locks out or tags out machines
or equipment in order to perform servicing or maintenance on that
machine or equipment. An affected employee becomes an authorized
employee when that employee's duties include performing servicing or
maintenance covered under this section.
Automatic circuit recloser. A self-controlled device for
interrupting and reclosing an alternating current circuit with a
predetermined sequence of opening and reclosing followed by resetting,
hold-closed, or lockout operation.
Barricade. A physical obstruction such as tapes, cones, or A-frame
type wood or metal structures intended to provide a warning about and
to limit access to a hazardous area.
Barrier. A physical obstruction which is intended to prevent
contact with energized lines or equipment or to prevent unauthorized
access to a work area.
Bond. The electrical interconnection of conductive parts designed
to maintain a common electrical potential.
Bus. A conductor or a group of conductors that serve as a common
connection for two or more circuits.
Bushing. An insulating structure, including a through conductor or
providing a passageway for such a conductor, with provision for
mounting on a barrier, conducting or otherwise, for the purposes of
insulating the conductor from the barrier and conducting current from
one side of the barrier to the other.
Cable. A conductor with insulation, or a stranded conductor with or
without insulation and other coverings (single-conductor cable), or a
combination of conductors insulated from one another (multiple-
conductor cable).
Cable sheath. A conductive protective covering applied to cables.
Note: A cable sheath may consist of multiple layers of which one
or more is conductive.
Circuit. A conductor or system of conductors through which an
electric current is intended to flow.
Clearance (between objects). The clear distance between two objects
measured surface to surface.
Clearance (for work). Authorization to perform specified work or
permission to enter a restricted area.
Communication lines. (See Lines, communication.)
Conductor. A material, usually in the form of a wire, cable, or bus
bar, used for carrying an electric current.
Contract employer. An employer who performs work covered by Subpart
V of this Part for a host employer.
Covered conductor. A conductor covered with a dielectric having no
rated insulating strength or having a rated insulating strength less
than the voltage of the circuit in which the conductor is used.
Current-carrying part. A conducting part intended to be connected
in an electric circuit to a source of voltage. Noncurrent-carrying
parts are those not intended to be so connected.
Deenergized. Free from any electrical connection to a source of
potential difference and from electric charge; not having a potential
different from that of the earth.
Note: The term is used only with reference to current-carrying
parts, which are sometimes energized (alive).
Designated employee (designated person). An employee (or person)
who is assigned by the employer to perform specific duties under the
terms of this section and who has sufficient knowledge of the
construction and operation of the equipment and the hazards involved to
perform his or her duties safely.
Electric line truck. A truck used to transport personnel, tools,
and material for electric supply line work.
Electric supply equipment. Equipment that produces, modifies,
regulates, controls, or safeguards a supply of electric energy.
Electric supply lines. (See Lines, electric supply.)
Electric utility. An organization responsible for the installation,
operation, or maintenance of an electric supply system.
Enclosed space. A working space, such as a manhole, vault, tunnel,
or shaft, that has a limited means of egress or entry, that is designed
for periodic employee entry under normal operating conditions, and that
under normal conditions does not contain a hazardous atmosphere, but
that may contain a hazardous atmosphere under abnormal conditions.
Note: Spaces that are enclosed but not designed for employee
entry under normal operating conditions are not considered to be
enclosed spaces for the purposes of this section. Similarly, spaces
that are enclosed and that are expected to contain a hazardous
atmosphere are not considered to be enclosed spaces for the purposes
of this section. Such spaces meet the definition of permit spaces in
Sec. 1910.146 of this chapter, and entry into them must be
performed in accordance with that standard.
Energized (alive, live). Electrically connected to a source of
potential difference, or electrically charged so as to have a potential
significantly different from that of earth in the vicinity.
Energy isolating device. A physical device that prevents the
transmission or release of energy, including, but not limited to, the
following: a manually operated electric circuit breaker, a disconnect
switch, a manually operated switch, a slide gate, a slip blind, a line
valve, blocks, and any similar device with a visible indication of the
position of the device. (Push buttons, selector switches, and other
control-circuit-type devices are not energy isolating devices.)
Energy source. Any electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic,
chemical, nuclear, thermal, or other energy source that could cause
injury to personnel.
Entry (as used in Sec. 1926.953). The action by which a person
passes through an opening into an enclosed space. Entry includes
ensuing work activities in that space and is considered to have
occurred as soon as any part of the entrant's body breaks the plane of
an opening into the space.
Equipment (electric). A general term including material, fittings,
devices, appliances, fixtures, apparatus, and the like used as part of
or in connection with an electrical installation.
Exposed. Not isolated or guarded.
Ground. A conducting connection, whether intentional or accidental,
between an electric circuit or equipment and the earth, or to some
conducting body that serves in place of the earth.
Grounded. Connected to earth or to some conducting body that serves
in place of the earth.
Guarded. Covered, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise protected, by
means of suitable covers or casings, barrier rails or screens, mats, or
platforms, designed to minimize the possibility, under normal
conditions, of dangerous approach or accidental contact by persons or
objects.
Note: Wires that are insulated, but not otherwise protected, are
not considered as guarded.
Hazardous atmosphere. An atmosphere that may expose employees to
the risk of death, incapacitation, impairment of ability to self-rescue
(that is, escape unaided from an enclosed space), injury, or acute
illness from one or more of the following causes:
(1) Flammable gas, vapor, or mist in excess of 10 percent of its
lower flammable limit (LFL);
(2) Airborne combustible dust at a concentration that meets or
exceeds its LFL;
Note: This concentration may be approximated as a condition in
which the dust obscures vision at a distance of 1.52 m (5 feet) or
less.
(3) Atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent or above
23.5 percent;
(4) Atmospheric concentration of any substance for which a dose or
a permissible exposure limit is published in Subpart G, Occupational
Health and Environmental Control, or in Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous
Substances, of this Part and which could result in employee exposure in
excess of its dose or permissible exposure limit;
Note: An atmospheric concentration of any substance that is not
capable of causing death, incapacitation, impairment of ability to
self-rescue, injury, or acute illness due to its health effects is
not covered by this provision.
(5) Any other atmospheric condition that is immediately dangerous
to life or health.
Note: For air contaminants for which OSHA has not determined a
dose or permissible exposure limit, other sources of information,
such as Material Safety Data Sheets that comply with the Hazard
Communication Standard, Sec. 1926.1200, published information, and
internal documents can provide guidance in establishing acceptable
atmospheric conditions.
High-power tests. Tests in which fault currents, load currents,
magnetizing currents, and line-dropping currents are used to test
equipment, either at the equipment's rated voltage or at lower
voltages.
High-voltage tests. Tests in which voltages of approximately 1000
volts are used as a practical minimum and in which the voltage source
has sufficient energy to cause injury.
High wind. A wind of such velocity that the following hazards would
be present:
(1) An employee would be exposed to being blown from elevated
locations, or
(2) An employee or material handling equipment could lose control
of material being handled, or
(3) An employee would be exposed to other hazards not controlled by
the standard involved.
Note: Winds exceeding 64.4 kilometers per hour (40 miles per
hour), or 48.3 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) if material
handling is involved, are normally considered as meeting this
criteria unless precautions are taken to protect employees from the
hazardous effects of the wind.
Host employer. An employer who operates and maintains an electric
power transmission or distribution installation covered by Subpart V of
this Part and who hires a contract employer to perform work on that
installation.
Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). Any condition that
poses an immediate or delayed threat to life or that would cause
irreversible adverse health effects or that would interfere with an
individual's ability to escape unaided from a permit space.
Note: Some materials--hydrogen fluoride gas and cadmium vapor,
for example--may produce immediate transient effects that, even if
severe, may pass without medical attention, but are followed by
sudden, possibly fatal collapse 12-72 hours after exposure. The
victim ``feels normal'' from recovery from transient effects until
collapse. Such materials in hazardous quantities are considered to
be ``immediately'' dangerous to life or health.
Insulated. Separated from other conducting surfaces by a dielectric
(including air space) offering a high resistance to the passage of
current.
Note: When any object is said to be insulated, it is understood
to be insulated for the conditions to which it is normally
subjected. Otherwise, it is, within the purpose of this section,
uninsulated.
Insulation (cable). That which is relied upon to insulate the
conductor from other conductors or conducting parts or from ground.
Line-clearance tree trimming. The pruning, trimming, repairing,
maintaining, removing, or clearing of trees or the cutting of brush
that is within 3.05 m (10 feet) of electric supply lines and equipment.
Lines. (1) Communication lines. The conductors and their supporting
or containing structures which are used for public or private signal or
communication service, and which operate at potentials not exceeding
400 volts to ground or 750 volts between any two points of the circuit,
and the transmitted power of which does not exceed 150 watts. If the
lines are operating at less than 150 volts, no limit is placed on the
transmitted power of the system. Under certain conditions,
communication cables may include communication circuits exceeding these
limitations where such circuits are also used to supply power solely to
communication equipment.
Note: Telephone, telegraph, railroad signal, data, clock, fire,
police alarm, cable television, and other systems conforming to this
definition are included. Lines used for signaling purposes, but not
included under this definition, are considered as electric supply
lines of the same voltage.
(2) Electric supply lines. Conductors used to transmit electric
energy and their necessary supporting or containing structures. Signal
lines of more than 400 volts are always supply lines within this
section, and those of less than 400 volts are considered as supply
lines, if so run and operated throughout.
Manhole. A subsurface enclosure which personnel may enter and which
is used for the purpose of installing, operating, and maintaining
submersible equipment or cable.
Manhole steps. A series of steps individually attached to or set
into the walls of a manhole structure.
Minimum approach distance. The closest distance an employee is
permitted to approach an energized or a grounded object.
Qualified employee (qualified person). One knowledgeable in the
construction and operation of the electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution equipment involved, along with the
associated hazards.
Note 1: An employee must have the training required by Sec.
1926.950(b)(2) in order to be considered a qualified employee.
Note 2: Except under Sec. 1926.954(b)(3)(iii), an employee who
is undergoing on-the-job training and who, in the course of such
training, has demonstrated 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 considered to be a qualified person for the
performance of those duties.
Step bolt. A bolt or rung attached at intervals along a structural
member and used for foot placement during climbing or standing.
Switch. A device for opening and closing or for changing the
connection of a circuit. In this section, a switch is understood to be
manually operable, unless otherwise stated.
System operator. A qualified person designated to operate the
system or its parts.
Vault. An enclosure, above or below ground, which personnel may
enter and which is used for the purpose of installing, operating, or
maintaining equipment or cable.
Vented vault. A vault that has provision for air changes using
exhaust flue stacks and low level air intakes operating on
differentials of pressure and temperature providing for airflow that
precludes a hazardous atmosphere from developing.
Voltage. The effective (rms) potential difference between any two
conductors or between a conductor and ground. Voltages are expressed in
nominal values unless otherwise indicated. The nominal voltage of a
system or circuit is the value assigned to a system or circuit of a
given voltage class for the purpose of convenient designation. The operating
voltage of the system may vary above or below this value.
Appendix A to Subpart V--Flow Charts
For information, in the form of flow charts, that helps
illustrate the scope and application of subpart V of this part, see
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.269 of this chapter. That appendix
addresses the interface between Sec. 1910.269 of this chapter and
subpart S of part 1910 of this chapter (Electrical), between Sec.
1910.269 and Sec. 1910.146 of this chapter (Permit-required
confined spaces), and between Sec. 1910.269 and Sec. 1910.147 of
this chapter (the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)). The
flow charts presented in that Appendix provide guidance for
employers trying to implement the requirements of Sec. 1910.269 in
combination with other General Industry Standards contained in part
1910 of this chapter. Because subpart V of this part also interfaces
these general industry standards, Appendix A to Sec. 1910.269 of
this chapter will assist employers in determining which of these
standards applies in different situations.
Appendix B to Subpart V--Working on Exposed Energized Parts
I. Introduction
Electric transmission and distribution line installations have
been designed to meet National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), ANSI
C2, requirements and to provide the level of line outage performance
required by system reliability criteria. Transmission and
distribution lines are also designed to withstand the maximum
overvoltages expected to be impressed on the system. Such
overvoltages can be caused by such conditions as switching surges,
faults, or lightning. Insulator design and lengths and the
clearances to structural parts (which, for low voltage through
extra-high voltage, or EHV, facilities, are generally based on the
performance of the line as a result of contamination of the
insulation or during storms) have, over the years, come closer to
the minimum approach distances used by workers (which are generally
based on non-storm conditions). Thus, as minimum approach (working)
distances and structural distances (clearances) converge, it is
increasingly important that basic considerations for establishing
safe approach distances for performing work be understood by the
designers and the operating and maintenance personnel involved.
The information in this Appendix will assist employers in
complying with the minimum approach distance requirements contained
in Sec. 1926.960(c)(1) and Sec. 1926.964(c). The technical
criteria and methodology presented herein is mandatory for employers
using reduced minimum approach distances as permitted in Table V-2
and Table V-3 in Sec. 1926.960. This Appendix is intended to
provide essential background information and technical criteria for
the development or modification, if possible, of the safe minimum
approach distances for electric transmission and distribution live-
line work. The development of these safe distances must be
undertaken by persons knowledgeable in the techniques discussed in
this appendix and competent in the field of electric transmission
and distribution system design.
II. General
A. Definitions. The following definitions from Sec. 1926.968 of
this part relate to work on or near transmission and distribution
lines and equipment and the electrical hazards they present.
Exposed. Not isolated or guarded.
Guarded. Covered, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise protected, by
means of suitable covers or casings, barrier rails or screens, mats,
or platforms, designed to minimize the possibility, under normal
conditions, of dangerous approach or accidental contact by persons
or objects.
Note: Wires which are insulated, but not otherwise protected,
are not considered as guarded.
Insulated. Separated from other conducting surfaces by a
dielectric (including air space) offering a high resistance to the
passage of current.
Note: When any object is said to be insulated, it is understood
to be insulated for the conditions to which it is normally
subjected. Otherwise, it is, within the purpose of this section,
uninsulated.
B. Installations energized at 50 to 300 volts. The hazards posed
by installations energized at 50 to 300 volts are the same as those
found in many other workplaces. That is not to say that there is no
hazard, but the complexity of electrical protection required does
not compare to that required for high voltage systems. The employee
must avoid contact with the exposed parts, and the protective
equipment used (such as rubber insulating gloves) must provide
insulation for the voltages involved.
C. Exposed energized parts over 300 volts AC. Table V-1, Table
V-2, Table V-3, and Table V-4 of Sec. 1926.960 of this part provide
minimum approach distances in the vicinity of energized electric
apparatus so that work can be done safely without risk of electrical
flashover.
The distance between the employee and an energized part must
withstand the maximum transient overvoltage that can reach the work
site under the working conditions and practices in use. Normal
system design may provide or include a means to control transient
overvoltages, or temporary devices may be employed to achieve the
same result. The use of technically correct practices or procedures
to control overvoltages (for example, portable gaps or preventing
the automatic control from initiating breaker reclosing) enables
line design and operation to be based on reduced transient
overvoltage values. Technical information for U.S. electrical
systems indicates that current design provides for the following
maximum transient overvoltage values (usually produced by switching
surges):
362 kV and less--3.0 per unit
552 kV--2.4 per unit
800 kV--2.0 per unit
Additional discussion of maximum transient overvoltages can be
found in paragraph III.A.2, later in this Appendix.
III. Determination of the Electrical Component of Minimum Approach
Distances
A. Voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5 kV. For voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5
kV, the electrical component of minimum approach distances is based
on American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Institute
of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) Standard No.4, March 1943, Tables III
and IV. (AIEE is the predecessor technical society to the Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).) These distances are
represented by the following formula:
Equation (1)--For voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5 kV:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.005
Where: D = Electrical component of the minimum approach distance in
air in feet
Vmax = Maximum rated line-to-ground rms voltage in kV
pu = Maximum transient overvoltage factor in per unit
Source: AIEE Standard No. 4, 1943.
Table 1 shows the electrical component of the minimum approach
distances based on that AIEE standard.
Table 1.--A-C Energized Line Work Phase-to-Ground Electrical Component of the Minimum Approach Distance 1.1 to
72.5 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-to-phase voltage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient 15,000 36,000 46,000 72,500
overvoltage -----------------------------------------------------------------------
m ft m ft m ft m ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0..................................... 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.58 0.23 0.75 0.39 1.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The distances given are for air as the insulating medium
and provide no additional clearance for inadvertent movement.
B. Voltages of 72.6 kV to 800 kV. For voltages of 72.6 kV to 800
kV, the electrical component of minimum approach distances is based
on ANSI/IEEE Standard 516-1987, ``IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods
on Energized Power Lines.'' This standard gives the electrical
component of the minimum approach distance based on power frequency
rod-gap data, supplemented with transient overvoltage information
and a saturation factor for high voltages. The distances listed in
ANSI/IEEE Standard 516 have been calculated according to the
following formula:
Equation (2)--For voltages of 72.6 kV to 800 kV:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.006
Where: D = Electrical component of the minimum approach distance in
air in feet
C = 0.01 to take care of correction factors associated with the
variation of gap sparkover with voltage
a = A factor relating to the saturation of air at voltages of 345 kV
or higher
pu = Maximum anticipated transient overvoltage, in per unit (p.u.)
Vmax = Maximum rms system line-to-ground voltage in
kilovolts--it should be the ``actual'' maximum, or the normal
highest voltage for the range (for example, 10 percent above the
nominal voltage)
Source: Formula developed from ANSI/IEEE Standard No. 516, 1987.
This formula is used to calculate the electrical component of
the minimum approach distances in air and is used in the development
of Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2.--A-C Energized Line Work Phase-to-Ground Electrical Component of the Minimum Approach Distance 121 to
242 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-to-phase voltage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient 121,000 145,000 169,000 242,000
overvoltage -----------------------------------------------------------------------
m ft m ft m ft m ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0..................................... 0.44 1.40 0.53 1.70 0.62 2.00 0.86 2.80
2.1..................................... 0.46 1.47 0.55 1.79 0.65 2.10 0.91 2.94
2.2..................................... 0.48 1.54 0.58 1.87 0.68 2.20 0.95 3.08
2.3..................................... 0.50 1.61 0.61 1.96 0.71 2.30 0.99 3.22
2.4..................................... 0.52 1.68 0.63 2.04 0.74 2.40 1.03 3.35
2.5..................................... 0.54 1.75 0.66 2.13 0.77 2.50 1.08 3.50
2.6..................................... 0.56 1.82 0.68 2.21 0.80 2.60 1.12 3.64
2.7..................................... 0.58 1.89 0.71 2.30 0.83 2.70 1.15 3.76
2.8..................................... 0.61 1.96 0.73 2.38 0.86 2.80 1.20 3.92
2.9..................................... 0.63 2.03 0.76 2.47 0.89 2.90 1.24 4.05
3.0..................................... 0.65 2.10 0.79 2.55 0.92 3.00 1.29 4.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--A-C Energized Line Work Phase-to-Ground Electrical Component of the Minimum Approach Distance 362 to
800 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-to-phase voltage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient 362,000 552,000 800,000
overvoltage -----------------------------------------------------------------
m ft m ft m ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5........................................... ......... ......... 1.52 4.97 2.65 8.66
1.6........................................... ......... ......... 1.67 5.46 2.93 9.60
1.7........................................... ......... ......... 1.83 5.98 3.24 10.60
1.8........................................... ......... ......... 1.99 6.51 3.56 11.64
1.9........................................... ......... ......... 2.17 7.08 3.89 12.73
2.0........................................... 1.29 4.20 2.35 7.68 4.23 13.86
2.1........................................... 1.35 4.41 2.53 8.27
2.2........................................... 1.44 4.70 2.71 8.87
2.3........................................... 1.54 5.01 2.9 9.49
2.4........................................... 1.64 5.34 3.12 10.21
2.5........................................... 1.74 5.67
2.6........................................... 1.84 6.01
2.7........................................... 1.95 6.36
2.8........................................... 2.06 6.73
2.9........................................... 2.17 7.10
3.0........................................... 2.29 7.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The distances given are for air as the insulating medium
and provide no additional clearance for inadvertent movement.
C. Provisions for inadvertent movement. The minimum approach
distances (working distances) must include an ``adder'' to
compensate for the inadvertent movement of the worker relative to an
energized part or the movement of the part relative to the worker. A
certain allowance must be made to account for this possible
inadvertent movement and to provide the worker with a comfortable
and safe zone in which to work. A distance for inadvertent movement
(called the ``ergonomic component of the minimum approach
distance'') must be added to the electrical component to determine
the total safe minimum approach distances used in live-line work.
One approach that can be used to estimate the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach distance is response time-distance
analysis. When this technique is used, the total response time to a
hazardous incident is estimated and converted to distance traveled.
For example, the driver of a car takes a given amount of time to
respond to a ``stimulus'' and stop the vehicle. The elapsed time
involved results in a distance being traveled before the car comes to
a complete stop. This distance is dependent on the speed of the car at
the time the stimulus appears.
In the case of live-line work, the employee must first perceive
that he or she is approaching the danger zone. Then, the worker
responds to the danger and must decelerate and stop all motion
toward the energized part. During the time it takes to stop, a
distance will have been traversed. It is this distance that must be
added to the electrical component of the minimum approach distance
to obtain the total safe minimum approach distance.
At voltages below 72.5 kV, the electrical component of the
minimum approach distance is smaller than the ergonomic component.
At 72.5 kV the electrical component is only a little more than 0.3 m
(1 foot). An ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance is
needed that will provide for all the worker's unexpected movements.
The usual live-line work method for these voltages is the use of
rubber insulating equipment, frequently rubber gloves. The energized
object needs to be far enough away to provide the worker's face with
a safe approach distance, as his or her hands and arms are
insulated. In this case, 0.61 m (2 feet) has been accepted as a
sufficient and practical value.
For voltages between 72.6 and 800 kV, there is a change in the
work practices employed during energized line work. Generally, live-
line tools (hot sticks) are employed to perform work while equipment
is energized. These tools, by design, keep the energized part at a
constant distance from the employee and thus maintain the
appropriate minimum approach distance automatically.
The length of the ergonomic component of the minimum approach
distance is also influenced by the location of the worker and by the
nature of the work. In these higher voltage ranges, the employees
use work methods that more tightly control their movements than when
the workers perform rubber glove work. The worker is farther from
energized line or equipment and needs to be more precise in his or
her movements just to perform the work.
For these reasons, a smaller ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance is needed, and a distance of 0.30 m (1 foot) has
been selected for voltages between 72.6 and 800 kV.
Table 4 summarizes the ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance for the two voltage ranges.
Table 4.--Ergonomic Component of Minimum Approach Distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance
Voltage range (kV) -----------------
m ft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 to 72.5........................................... 0.61 2.0
72.6 to 800........................................... 0.30 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This distance must be added to the electrical component of
the minimum approach distance to obtain the full minimum approach
distance.
It must be noted that the ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance is intended to account only for unexpected
movements of the employee. The working position selected must
account for all the employee's anticipated movements and still
enable the employee to maintain the safe minimum approach distance.
(See Figure 1.) Anticipated movements include: An employee's
adjustments to tools, equipment, and working positions; expected
errors in positioning tools and equipment; and all movements needed
to perform the work. For example, the employee should be able to
perform all of the following actions without straying into the
minimum approach distance:
Adjust his or her hard hat,
Maneuver a tool onto an energized part with a certain
amount of over or underreaching,
Reach out for and handle tools, material, and equipment
being passed to the employee in the working position, and
Adjust tools and replace components on them, if
necessary during the work procedure.
The training of qualified employees required under Sec.
1926.950 and the job planning and briefing required under Sec.
1926.952 must address selection of the proper working position.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.007
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
D. Bare-Hand Live-Line Minimum Approach Distances. Calculating
the strength of phase-to-phase transient overvoltages is complicated
by the varying time displacement between overvoltages on parallel
conductors (electrodes) and by the varying ratio between the
positive and negative voltages on the two electrodes. The time
displacement causes the maximum voltage between phases to be less
than the sum of the phase-to-ground voltages. The International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee 28, Working
Group 2, has developed the following formula for determining the
phase-to-phase maximum transient overvoltage based on the per unit
(p.u.) of the system nominal voltage phase-to-ground crest:
pup = pug + 1.6.
Where: pug = p.u. phase-to-ground maximum transient
overvoltage
pup = p.u. phase-to-phase maximum transient overvoltage
This value of maximum anticipated transient overvoltage must be
used in Equation (2) to calculate the phase-to-phase minimum
approach distances for live-line bare-hand work.
E. Compiling the minimum approach distance tables. For each
voltage involved, the distance in Table 4 in this appendix has been
added to the distance in Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3 in this
appendix to determine the resulting minimum approach distances in
Table V-1, Table V-2, and Table V-3 in Sec. 1926.960 of this part.
F. Miscellaneous correction factors. The strength of an air gap
is influenced by the changes in the air medium that forms the
insulation. A brief discussion of each factor follows, with a
summary at the end.
1. Dielectric strength of air. The dielectric strength of air in
a uniform electric field at standard atmospheric conditions is
approximately 31 kV (crest) per cm at 60 Hz. The disruptive gradient
is affected by the air pressure, temperature, and humidity, by the
shape, dimensions, and separation of the electrodes, and by the
characteristics of the applied voltage (wave shape).
2. Atmospheric effect. Flashover for a given air gap is
inhibited by an increase in the density (humidity) of the air. The
empirically determined electrical strength of a given gap is
normally applicable at standard atmospheric conditions (20 C, 101.3
kPa, 11 g/cm \3\ humidity).
The combination of temperature and air pressure that gives the
lowest gap flashover voltage is high temperature and low pressure.
These are conditions not likely to occur simultaneously. Low air
pressure is generally associated with high humidity, and this causes
increased electrical strength. An average air pressure is more
likely to be associated with low humidity. Hot and dry working
conditions are thus normally associated with reduced electrical
strength.
The electrical component of the minimum approach distances in
Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 has been calculated using the maximum
transient overvoltages to determine withstand voltages at standard
atmospheric conditions.
3. Altitude. The electrical strength of an air gap is reduced at
high altitude, due principally to the reduced air pressure. An
increase of about 3 percent per 300 meters in the minimum approach
distance for altitudes above 900 meters is required. Table V-5 of
Sec. 1926.960 of this Part presents this information in tabular
form.
Summary. After taking all these correction factors into account
and after considering their interrelationships relative to the air
gap insulation strength and the conditions under which live work is
performed, one finds that only a correction for altitude need be
made. An elevation of 900 meters is established as the base
elevation, and the values of the electrical component of the minimum
approach distances has been derived with this correction factor in
mind. Thus, the values used for elevations below 900 meters are
conservative without any change; corrections have to be made only
above this base elevation.
IV. Determination of Reduced Minimum Approach Distances
A. Factors Affecting Voltage Stress at the Work Site
1. System voltage (nominal). The nominal system voltage range
sets the absolute lower limit for the minimum approach distance. The
highest value within the range, as given in the relevant table, is
selected and used as a reference for per unit calculations.
2. Transient overvoltages. Transient overvoltages may be
generated on an electrical system by the operation of switches or
breakers, by the occurrence of a fault on the line or circuit being
worked or on an adjacent circuit, and by similar activities. Most of
the overvoltages are caused by switching, and the term ``switching
surge'' is often used to refer generically to all types of
overvoltages. However, each overvoltage has an associated transient
voltage wave shape. The wave shape arriving at the site and its
magnitude vary considerably.
The information used in the development of the minimum approach
distances takes into consideration the most common wave shapes;
thus, the required minimum approach distances are appropriate for
any transient overvoltage level usually found on electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution systems. The values of
the per unit (p.u.) voltage relative to the nominal maximum voltage
are used in the calculation of these distances.
3. Typical magnitude of overvoltages. The magnitude of typical
transient overvoltages is given in Table 5.
Table 5.--Magnitude of Typical Transient Overvoltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause Magnitude (per unit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energized 200-mile line without closing 3.5
resistors.
Energized 200-mile line with one-step 2.1
closing resistor.
Energized 200-mile line with multi-step 2.5
resistor.
Reclosed with trapped charge one-step 2.2
resistor.
Opening surge with single restrike....... 3.0
Fault initiation unfaulted phase......... 2.1
Fault initiation adjacent circuit........ 2.5
Fault clearing........................... 1.7 to 1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ANSI/IEEE Standard No. 516, 1987.
4. Standard deviation--air-gap withstand. For each air gap
length, and under the same atmospheric conditions, there is a
statistical variation in the breakdown voltage. The probability of
the breakdown voltage is assumed to have a normal (Gaussian)
distribution. The standard deviation of this distribution varies
with the wave shape, gap geometry, and atmospheric conditions. The
withstand voltage of the air gap used in calculating the electrical
component of the minimum approach distance has been set at three
standard deviations (3[sigma]1) below the critical
flashover voltage. (The critical flashover voltage is the crest
value of the impulse wave that, under specified conditions, causes
flashover on 50 percent of the applications. An impulse wave of
three standard deviations below this value, that is, the withstand
voltage, has a probability of flashover of approximately 1 in 1000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sigma ([sigma]) is the symbol for standard deviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Broken Insulators. Tests have shown that the insulation
strength of an insulator string with broken skirts is reduced.
Broken units may have lost up to 70% of their withstand capacity.
Because the insulating capability of a broken unit cannot be
determined without testing it, damaged units in an insulator are
usually considered to have no insulating value. Additionally, the
overall insulating strength of a string with broken units may be
further reduced in the presence of a live-line tool alongside it.
The number of good units that must be present in a string is based
on the maximum overvoltage possible at the worksite.
B. Minimum Approach Distances Based on Known Maximum Anticipated
Per-Unit Transient Overvoltages
1. Reduction of the minimum approach distance for AC systems.
When the transient overvoltage values are known and supplied by the
employer, Table V-2 and Table V-3 of Sec. 1926.960 of this Part
allow the minimum approach distances from energized parts to be
reduced. In order to determine what this maximum overvoltage is, the
employer must undertake an engineering analysis of the system. As a
result of this engineering study, the employer must provide new live
work procedures, reflecting the new minimum approach distances, the
conditions and limitations of application of the new minimum
approach distances, and the specific practices to be used when these
procedures are implemented.
2. Calculation of reduced approach distance values. The
following method of calculating reduced minimum approach
distances is based on ANSI/IEEE Standard 516:
Step 1. Determine the maximum voltage (with respect to a given
nominal voltage range) for the energized part.
Step 2. Determine the maximum transient overvoltage (normally a
switching surge) that can be present at the work site during work
operation.
Step 3. Determine the technique to be used to control the
maximum transient overvoltage. (See paragraphs III.C and III.D of
this appendix.) Determine the maximum voltage that can exist at the
work site with that form of control in place and with a confidence
level of 3 . This voltage is considered to be the withstand voltage
for the purpose of calculating the appropriate minimum approach
distance.
Step 4. Specify in detail the control technique to be used, and
direct its implementation during the course of the work.
Step 5. Using the new value of transient overvoltage in per unit
(p.u.), determine the required phase-to-ground minimum approach
distance from Table V-2 or Table V-3 of Sec. 1926.960 of this Part.
C. Methods of Controlling Possible Transient Overvoltage Stress
Found on a System.
1. Introduction. There are several means of controlling
overvoltages that occur on transmission systems. First, the
operation of circuit breakers or other switching devices may be
modified to reduce switching transient overvoltages. Second, the
overvoltage itself may be forcibly held to an acceptable level by
means of installation of surge arresters at the specific location to
be protected. Third, the transmission system may be changed to
minimize the effect of switching operations.
2. Operation of circuit breakers.\2\ The maximum transient
overvoltage that can reach the work site is often due to switching
on the line on which work is being performed. If the automatic-
reclosing is removed during energized line work so that the line
will not be reenergized after being opened for any reason, the
maximum switching surge overvoltage is then limited to the larger of
the opening surge or the greatest possible fault-generated surge,
provided that the devices (for example, insertion resistors) are
operable and will function to limit the transient overvoltage. It is
essential that the operating ability of such devices be assured when
they are employed to limit the overvoltage level. If it is prudent
not to remove the reclosing feature (because of system operating
conditions), other methods of controlling the switching surge level
may be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The detailed design of a circuit interrupter, such as the
design of the contacts, of resistor insertion, and of breaker timing
control, are beyond the scope of this appendix. These features are
routinely provided as part of the design for the system. Only
features that can limit the maximum switching transient overvoltage
on a system are discussed in this appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transient surges on an adjacent line, particularly for double
circuit construction, may cause a significant overvoltage on the
line on which work is being performed. The coupling to adjacent
lines must be accounted for when minimum approach distances are
calculated based on the maximum transient overvoltage.
3. Surge arresters. The use of modern surge arresters has
permitted a reduction in the basic impulse-insulation levels of much
transmission system equipment. The primary function of early
arresters was to protect the system insulation from the effects of
lightning. Modern arresters not only dissipate lightning-caused
transients, but may also control many other system transients that
may be caused by switching or faults.
It is possible to use properly designed arresters to control
transient overvoltages along a transmission line and thereby reduce
the requisite length of the insulator string. On the other hand, if
the installation of arresters has not been used to reduce the length
of the insulator string, it may be used to reduce the minimum
approach distance instead.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Surge arrester application is beyond the scope of this
appendix. However, if the arrester is installed near the work site,
the application would be similar to protective gaps as discussed in
paragraph III.D of this appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Switching Restrictions. Another form of overvoltage control
is the establishment of switching restrictions, under which breakers
are not permitted to be operated until certain system conditions are
satisfied. Restriction of switching is achieved by the use of a
tagging system, similar to that used for a ``permit'', except that
the common term used for this activity is a ``hold-off'' or
``restriction''. These terms are used to indicate that operation is
not prevented, but only modified during the live-work activity.
D. Minimum Approach Distance Based on Control of Voltage Stress
(Overvoltages) at the Work Site
Reduced minimum approach distances can be calculated as follows:
1. First Method--Determining the reduced minimum approach
distance from a given withstand voltage.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since a given rod gap of a given configuration corresponds
to a certain withstand voltage, this method can also be used to
determine the minimum approach distance for a known gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1. Select the appropriate withstand voltage for the
protective gap based on system requirements and an acceptable
probability of actual gap flashover.
Step 2. Determine a gap distance that provides a withstand
voltage \5\ greater than or equal to the one selected in the first
step.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The withstand voltage for the gap is equal to 85 percent of
its critical flashover voltage.
\6\ Switch steps 1 and 2 if the length of the protective gap is
known. The withstand voltage must then be checked to ensure that it
provides an acceptable probability of gap flashover. In general, it
should be at least 1.25 times the maximum crest operating voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3. Using 110 percent of the gap's critical flashover
voltage, determine the electrical component of the minimum approach
distance from Equation (2) or Table 6, which is a tabulation of
distance vs. withstand voltage based on Equation (2).
Table 6.--Withstand Distances for Transient Overvoltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withstand distance
air gap
Crest voltage (kV) ---------------------
m ft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................................... 0.22 0.71
150............................................... 0.32 1.06
200............................................... 0.43 1.41
250............................................... 0.54 1.77
300............................................... 0.65 2.12
350............................................... 0.75 2.47
400............................................... 0.86 2.83
450............................................... 0.97 3.18
500............................................... 1.08 3.54
550............................................... 1.19 3.89
600............................................... 1.29 4.24
650............................................... 1.40 4.60
700............................................... 1.58 5.17
750............................................... 1.75 5.73
800............................................... 1.92 6.31
850............................................... 2.11 6.91
900............................................... 2.31 7.57
950............................................... 2.51 8.23
1000.............................................. 2.72 8.94
1050.............................................. 2.94 9.65
1100.............................................. 3.18 10.42
1150.............................................. 3.41 11.18
1200.............................................. 3.67 12.05
1250.............................................. 3.93 12.90
1300.............................................. 4.20 13.79
1350.............................................. 4.48 14.70
1400.............................................. 4.77 15.64
1450.............................................. 5.06 16.61
1500.............................................. 5.37 17.61
1550.............................................. 5.68 18.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The air gap is based on the 60-Hz rod-gap withstand
distance.
Source: Calculations are based on Equation (2).
Step 4. Add the 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic component to obtain
the total minimum approach distance to be maintained by the
employee.
2. Second Method--Determining the necessary protective gap
length from a desired (reduced) minimum approach distance.
Step 1. Determine the desired minimum approach distance for the
employee. Subtract the 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic component of the
minimum approach distance.
Step 2. Using this distance, calculate the air gap withstand
voltage from Equation (2). Alternatively, find the voltage
corresponding to the distance in Table 6.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Since the value of the saturation factor, a, in Equation (2)
is dependent on the maximum voltage, several iterative computations
may be necessary to determine the correct withstand voltage using
the equation. A graph of withstand voltage vs. distance is given in
ANSI/IEEE Std. No. 516-1987. This graph could also be used to
determine the appropriate withstand voltage for the minimum approach
distance involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3. Select a protective gap distance corresponding to a
critical flashover voltage that, when multiplied by 110 percent, is
less than or equal to the withstand voltage from Step 2.
Step 4. Calculate the withstand voltage of the protective gap
(85 percent of the critical flashover voltage) to ensure that it provides
an acceptable risk of flashover during the time the gap is installed.
3. Sample protective gap calculations.
Problem 1: Work is to be performed on a 500-kV transmission line
that is subject to transient overvoltages of 2.4 p.u. The maximum
operating voltage of the line is 552 kV. Determine the length of the
protective gap that will provide the minimum practical safe approach
distance. Also, determine what that minimum approach distance is.
Step 1. Calculate the smallest practical maximum transient
overvoltage (1.25 times the crest line-to-ground voltage):\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ To eliminate unwanted flashovers due to minor system
disturbances, it is desirable to have the crest withstand voltage no
lower than 1.25 p.u.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.008
This will be the withstand voltage of the protective gap.
Step 2. Using test data for a particular protective gap, select
a gap that has a critical flashover voltage greater than or equal
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.009
For example, if a protective gap with a 1.22-m (4.0-foot)
spacing tested to a critical flashover voltage of 665 kV, crest,
select this gap spacing.
Step 3. This protective gap corresponds to a 110 percent of
critical flashover voltage value of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.010
This corresponds to the withstand voltage of the electrical
component of the minimum approach distance.
Step 4. Using this voltage in Equation (2) results in an
electrical component of the minimum approach distance of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.011
Step 5. Add 0.30 m (1 foot) to the distance calculated in Step
4, resulting in a total minimum approach distance of 1.98 m (6.5
feet).
Problem 2: For a line operating at a maximum voltage of 552 kV
subject to a maximum transient overvoltage of 2.4 p.u., find a
protective gap distance that will permit the use of a 2.74-m (9.0-
foot) minimum approach distance. (A minimum approach distance of
3.42 m (11 feet, 3 inches) is normally required.)
Step 1. Subtracting the 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic component of
the minimum approach distance yields an electrical component of the
minimum approach distance of 2.44 m (8.0 feet).
Step 2. From Table 6, select the withstand voltage corresponding
to a distance of 2.44 m (8.0 feet). By interpolation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.012
Step 3. The voltage calculated in Step 2 corresponds to 110
percent of the critical flashover voltage of the gap that should be
employed. Using test data for a particular protective gap, select a
gap that has a critical flashover voltage less than or equal to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.013
For example, if a protective gap with a 1.77-m (5.8-foot)
spacing tested to a critical flashover voltage of 820 kV, crest,
select this gap spacing.
Step 4. The withstand voltage of this protective gap would be:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.014
The maximum operating crest voltage would be:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.015
The crest withstand voltage of the protective gap in per unit is
thus:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.016
If this is acceptable, the protective gap could be installed
with a 1.77-m (5.8-foot) spacing, and the minimum approach distance
could then be reduced to 2.74 m (9.0 feet).
4. Comments and variations. The 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic
component of the minimum approach distance must be added to the
electrical component of the minimum approach distance calculated
under paragraph III.D of this appendix. The calculations may be
varied by starting with the protective gap distance or by starting
with the minimum approach distance.
E. Location of Protective Gaps
1. Adjacent structures. Installation of the protective gap on a
structure adjacent to the work site is an acceptable practice, as
this does not significantly reduce the protection afforded by the
gap.
2. Terminal stations. Gaps installed at terminal stations of
lines or circuits provide a given level of protection. The level may
not, however, extend throughout the length of the line to the
worksite. The use of gaps at terminal stations must be studied in
depth. The use of substation terminal gaps raises the possibility
that separate surges could enter the line at opposite ends, each
with low enough magnitude to pass the terminal gaps without
flashover. When voltage surges are initiated simultaneously at each
end of a line and travel toward each other, the total voltage on the
line at the point where they meet is the arithmetic sum of the two
surges. A gap that is installed within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the work
site will protect against such intersecting waves. Engineering
studies of a particular line or system may indicate that adequate
protection can be provided by even more distant gaps.
3. Work site. If protective gaps are used at the work site, the
work site impulse insulation strength is established by the gap
setting. Lightning strikes as much as 6 miles away from the worksite
may cause a voltage surge greater than the insulation withstand
voltage, and a gap flashover may occur. The flashover will not occur
between the employee and the line, but across the protective gap
instead.
F. Disabling Automatic Reclosing
There are two reasons to disable the automatic-reclosing feature
of circuit-interrupting devices while employees are performing live-
line maintenance:
To prevent the reenergizing of a circuit faulted by
actions of a worker, which could possibly create a hazard or
compound injuries or damage produced by the original fault;
To prevent any transient overvoltage caused by the
switching surge that would occur if the circuit were reenergized.
However, due to system stability considerations, it may not
always be feasible to disable the automatic-reclosing feature.
Appendix C to Subpart V--Protection From Step and Touch Potentials
I. Introduction
When a ground fault occurs on a power line, voltage is impressed
on the ``grounded'' object faulting the line. The voltage to which
this object rises depends largely on the voltage on the line, on the
impedance of the faulted conductor, and on the impedance to
``true,'' or ``absolute,'' ground represented by the object. If the
object causing the fault represents a relatively large impedance,
the voltage impressed on it is essentially the phase-to-ground
system voltage. However, even faults to well grounded transmission
towers or substation structures can result in hazardous voltages.\1\
The degree of the hazard depends upon the magnitude of the fault
current and the time of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This appendix provides information primarily with respect to
employee protection from contact between equipment being used and an
energized power line. The information presented is also relevant to
ground faults to transmission towers and substation structures;
however, grounding systems for these structures should be designed
to minimize the step and touch potentials involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Voltage-Gradient Distribution
A. Voltage-Gradient Distribution Curve.
The dissipation of voltage from a grounding electrode (or from
the grounded end of an energized grounded object) is called the
ground potential gradient. Voltage drops associated with this
dissipation of voltage are called ground potentials. Figure 2
is a typical voltage-gradient distribution curve (assuming a uniform
soil texture). This graph shows that voltage decreases rapidly with
increasing distance from the grounding electrode.
BILLING CODE 4501-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.017
B. Step and Touch Potentials
``Step potential'' is the voltage between the feet of a person
standing near an energized grounded object. It is equal to the
difference in voltage, given by the voltage distribution curve,
between two points at different distances from the ``electrode.'' A
person could be at risk of injury during a fault simply by standing
near the grounding point.
``Touch potential'' is the voltage between the energized object
and the feet of a person in contact with the object. It is equal to
the difference in voltage between the object (which is at a distance
of 0 feet) and a point some distance away. It should be noted that
the touch potential could be nearly the full voltage across the
grounded object if that object is grounded at a point remote from
the place where the person is in contact with it. For example, a
crane that was grounded to the system neutral and that contacted an
energized line would expose any person in contact with the crane or
its uninsulated load line to a touch potential nearly equal to the
full fault voltage.
Step and touch potentials are illustrated in Figure 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.018
C. Protection From the Hazards of Ground-Potential Gradients
An engineering analysis of the power system under fault
conditions can be used to determine whether or not hazardous step
and touch voltages will develop. The result of this analysis can
ascertain the need for protective measures and can guide the
selection of appropriate precautions.
Several methods may be used to protect employees from hazardous
ground-potential gradients, including equipotential zones,
insulating equipment, and restricted work areas.
1. The creation of an equipotential zone will protect a worker
standing within it from hazardous step and touch potentials. (See
Figure 4.) Such a zone can be produced through the use of a metal
mat connected to the grounded object. In some cases, a grounding
grid can be used to equalize the voltage within the grid.
Equipotential zones will not, however, protect employees who are
either wholly or partially outside the protected area. Bonding
conductive objects in the immediate work area can also be used to
minimize the potential between the objects and between each object
and ground. (Bonding an object outside the work area can increase
the touch potential to that object in some cases, however.)
2. The use of insulating equipment, such as rubber gloves, can
protect employees handling grounded equipment and conductors from
hazardous touch potentials. The insulating equipment must be rated
for the highest voltage that can be impressed on the grounded
objects under fault conditions (rather than for the full system
voltage).
3. Restricting employees from areas where hazardous step or
touch potentials could arise can protect employees not directly
involved in the operation being performed. Employees on the ground
in the vicinity of transmission structures should be kept at a
distance where step voltages would be insufficient to cause injury.
Employees should not handle grounded conductors or equipment likely
to become energized to hazardous voltages unless the employees are
within an equipotential zone or are protected by insulating
equipment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.019
Appendix D to Subpart V--Methods of Inspecting and Testing Wood Poles
I. Introduction
When work is to be performed on a wood pole, it is important to
determine the condition of the pole before it is climbed. The weight
of the employee, the weight of equipment being installed, and other
working stresses (such as the removal or retensioning of conductors)
can lead to the failure of a defective pole or one that is not
designed to handle the additional stresses.\1\ For these reasons, it
is essential that an inspection and test of the condition of a wood
pole be performed before it is climbed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A properly guyed pole in good condition should, at a
minimum, be able to handle the weight of an employee climbing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the pole is found to be unsafe to climb or to work from, it
must be secured so that it does not fail while an employee is on it.
The pole can be secured by a line truck boom, by ropes or guys, or
by lashing a new pole alongside it. If a new one is lashed alongside
the defective pole, work should be performed from the new one.
II. Inspection of Wood Poles
Wood poles should be inspected by a qualified employee for the
following conditions: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The presence of any of these conditions is an indication
that the pole may not be safe to climb or to work from. The employee
performing the inspection must be qualified to make a determination
as to whether or not it is safe to perform the work without taking
additional precautions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General condition. The pole should be inspected for buckling
at the ground line and for an unusual angle with respect to the
ground. Buckling and odd angles may indicate that the pole has
rotted or is broken.
B. Cracks. The pole should be inspected for cracks. Horizontal
cracks perpendicular to the grain of the wood may weaken the pole.
Vertical ones, although not considered to be a sign of a defective
pole, can pose a hazard to the climber, and the employee should keep
his or her gaffs away from them while climbing.
C. Holes. Hollow spots and woodpecker holes can reduce the
strength of a wood pole.
D. Shell rot and decay. Rotting and decay are cutout hazards and
possible indications of the age and internal condition of the pole.
E. Knots. One large knot or several smaller ones at the same
height on the pole may be evidence of a weak point on the pole.
F. Depth of setting. Evidence of the existence of a former
ground line substantially above the existing ground level may be an
indication that the pole is no longer buried to a sufficient extent.
G. Soil conditions. Soft, wet, or loose soil may not support any
changes of stress on the pole.
H. Burn marks. Burning from transformer failures or conductor
faults could damage the pole so that it cannot withstand mechanical
stress changes.
III. Testing of Wood Poles
The following tests, which have been taken from Sec.
1910.268(n)(3) of this chapter, are recognized as acceptable methods
of testing wood poles:
A. Hammer test. Rap the pole sharply with a hammer weighing
about 1.4 kg (3 pounds), starting near the ground line and
continuing upwards circumferentially around the pole to a height of
approximately 1.8 m (6 feet). The hammer will produce a clear sound
and rebound sharply when striking sound wood. Decay pockets will be
indicated by a dull sound or a less pronounced hammer rebound. Also,
prod the pole as near the ground line as possible using a pole prod
or a screwdriver with a blade at least 127 mm (5 inches) long. If
substantial decay is encountered, the pole is considered unsafe.
B. Rocking test. Apply a horizontal force to the pole and
attempt to rock it back and forth in a direction perpendicular to
the line. Caution must be exercised to avoid causing power lines to
swing together. The force may be applied either by pushing with a
pike pole or pulling with a rope. If the pole cracks during the
test, it shall be considered unsafe.
Appendix E to Subpart V--Reference Documents
The references contained in this appendix provide information
that can be helpful in understanding and complying with the
requirements contained in subpart V of this part. The national
consensus standards referenced in this appendix contain detailed
specifications that employers may follow in complying with the more
performance-oriented requirements of OSHA's final rule. Except as
specifically noted in subpart V of this part, however, compliance
with the national consensus standards is not a substitute for
compliance with the provisions of the OSHA standard.
ANSI/SIA A92.2-2001, American National Standard for Vehicle-
Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices.
ANSI C2-2002, National Electrical Safety Code.
ANSI Z133.1-2000, American National Standard Safety Requirements
for Pruning, Trimming, Repairing, Maintaining, and Removing Trees,
and for Cutting Brush.
ANSI/ASME B20.1-2003, Safety Standard for Conveyors and Related
Equipment.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 4-1995, IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage
Testing.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 100-2000, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
Standards Terms, 7th Edition.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 516-2003, IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 935-1989, IEEE Guide on Terminology for Tools and
Equipment To Be Used in Live Line Working.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 957-1995, IEEE Guide for Cleaning Insulators.
ASTM D 120-02a, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Gloves.
ASTM D 149-97a, Standard Test Method for Dielectric Breakdown
Voltage and Dielectric Strength of Solid Electrical Insulating
Materials at Commercial Power Frequencies.
ASTM D 178-01e1, Standard Specification for Rubber
Insulating Matting.
ASTM D 1048-99, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM D 1049-98e1, Standard Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
ASTM D 1050-90, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051-02, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Sleeves.
ASTM F 478-92, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Line Hose and Covers.
ASTM F 479-95, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F 496-02a, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Gloves and Sleeves.
ASTM F 711-02, Standard Specification for Fiberglass-Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) Rod and Tube Used in Live Line Tools.
ASTM F 712-88, Standard Test Methods for Electrically Insulating
Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection of Workers.
ASTM F 819-00e1, Standard Terminology Relating to
Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers.
ASTM F 855-03, Standard Specifications for Temporary Protective
Grounds to Be Used on De-Energized Electric Power Lines and
Equipment.
ASTM F 887-04, Standard Specifications for Personal Climbing
Equipment.
ASTM F 914-03, Standard Test Method for Acoustic Emission for
Insulated and Non-Insulated Aerial Personnel Devices Without
Supplemental Load Handling Attachments.
ASTM F 968-93e1, Standard Specification for
Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection of
Workers.
ASTM F 1116-03, Standard Test Method for Determining Dielectric
Strength of Dielectric Footwear.
ASTM F 1117-03, Standard Specification for Dielectric Footwear.
ASTM F 1236-96, Standard Guide for Visual Inspection of
Electrical Protective Rubber Products.
ASTM F 1430-03, Standard Test Method for Acoustic Emission
Testing of Insulated and Non-Insulated Aerial Personnel Devices with
Supplemental Load Handling Attachments.
ASTM F 1505-01, Standard Specification for Insulated and
Insulating Hand Tools.
ASTM F 1506-02ae1, Standard Performance Specification
for Flame Resistant Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel for Use by
Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and Related
Thermal Hazards.
ASTM F 1564-95, Standard Specification for Structure-Mounted
Insulating Work Platforms for Electrical Workers.
ASTM F 1701-96, Standard Specification for Unused Polypropylene
Rope with Special Electrical Properties.
ASTM F 1742-03, Standard Specifications for PVC Insulating
Sheeting.
ASTM F 1796-97, Standard Specification for High Voltage
Detectors--Part 1 Capacitive Type to be Used for Voltages Exceeding
600 Volts AC.
ASTM F 1797-98, Standard Test Method for Acoustic Emission
Testing of Insulated Digger Derricks.
ASTM F1825-03, Standard Specification for Clampstick Type Live
Line Tools.
ASTM F1826-00, Standard Specification for Live Line and
Measuring Telescoping Tools.
ASTM F 1891-02b, Standard Specification for Arc and Flame
Resistant Rainwear.
ASTM F 1958/F 1958M-99, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Ignitability of Non-flame-Resistant Materials for Clothing by
Electric Arc Exposure Method Using Mannequins.
ASTM F1959/F 1959M-99, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Arc Thermal Performance Value of Materials for Clothing.
IEEE Std. 62-1995, IEEE Guide for Diagnostic Field Testing of
Electric Power Apparatus
IEEE Std. 524-2003, IEEE Guide to the Installation of Overhead
Transmission Line Conductors.
IEEE Std. 1048-2003, IEEE Guide for Protective Grounding of
Power Lines.
IEEE Std. 1067-1996, IEEE Guide for the In-Service Use, Care,
Maintenance, and Testing of Conductive Clothing for Use on Voltages
up to 765 kV AC and 750 kV DC.
NFPA 70E-2004, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace.
Appendix F to Subpart V--Clothing
I. Introduction
Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1926.960 addresses clothing worn by an
employee. This paragraph requires employers to: (1) Assess the
workplace for flame and arc hazards (paragraph (g)(1)); (2) estimate
the available heat energy from electric arcs to which employees
could be exposed (paragraph (g)(2)), (3) ensure that employees wear
clothing that has an arc rating greater than or equal to the
available heat energy (paragraph (g)(5)), (4) ensure that employees
wear clothing that could not melt or ignite and continue to burn in
the presence of electric arcs to which an employee could be exposed
(paragraph (g)(3)), and (5) ensure that employees wear flame-
resistant clothing \1\ under certain conditions (paragraph (g)(4)).
This appendix contains information to help employers estimate
available heat energy as required by Sec. 1926.960(g)(2), select
clothing with an arc rating suitable for the available heat energy
as required by Sec. 1926.960(g)(5), and ensure that employees do
not wear flammable clothing that could lead to burn injury as
addressed by Sec. Sec. 1926.960(g)(3) and (g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Flame-resistant clothing includes clothing that is
inherently flame resistant and clothing that has been chemically
treated with a flame retardant. (See ASTM F1506-02a, Standard
Performance Specification for Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel
for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and
Related Thermal Hazards.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Protection Against Burn Injury
A. Estimating Available Heat Energy
The first step in protecting employees from burn injury
resulting from an electric arc is to estimate the potential heat
energy if an arc does occur. Table 7 lists various methods of
calculating values of available heat energy from an electric
circuit. OSHA does not endorse any of these specific methods. Each
method requires the input of various parameters, such as fault
current, the expected length of the electric arc, the distance from
the arc to the employee, and the clearing time for the fault (that
is, the time the circuit protective devices take to open the circuit
and clear the fault). Some of these parameters, such as the fault
current and the clearing time, are known quantities for a given
system. Other parameters, such as the length of the arc and the
distance between the arc and the employee, vary widely and can only
be estimated.
Table 7.--Methods of Calculating Incident Heat Energy From an Electric
Arc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces,
NFPA 70E-2004, Annex D, ``Sample Calculation of Flash Protection
Boundary.''
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, T.E., and Floyd II, H.L., ``Predicting Incident
Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V Power
Distribution Systems,'' Record of Conference Papers IEEE IAS 45th
Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, Septebmer 28-30,
1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan
Privette (widely available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by
Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of heat energy calculated by any of the methods is
approximately directly proportional to the square of the distance
between the employee and the arc. In other words, if the employee is
very close to the arc, the heat energy is very high; but if he or
she is just a few more centimeters away, the heat energy drops
substantially. Thus, estimating the distance from the arc to the
employee is key to protecting employees.
In estimating available heat energy, the employer must make some
reasonable assumptions about how far the employee will be from the
electric arc. In some instances, such as during some work performed
using live-line tools, the employee will be at least the minimum
approach distance from an energized part. However, in this
situation, the arc could still extend towards the employee. Thus, in
this case, a reasonable estimate of the distance between the
employee and the arc would be the minimum approach distance minus
twice the sparkover distance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The sparkover distance equals the shortest possible arc
length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other cases, as during rubber glove work, parts of the
employee's body will be closer to an energized part than the minimum
approach distance. An employee's chest will be about 380 millimeters
(15 in.) from an energized conductor during rubber glove work on
that conductor. Because there should not be any surfaces at a
potential other than the conductor between the employee and the
conductor, it is reasonable to assume that the arc will not extend
towards the employee. Thus, in this situation, it would be
reasonable to use 380 millimeters (15 in.) as the distance between
the employee and the arc.
The standard permits an employer to make broad estimates of
available heat energy covering multiple system areas using
reasonable assumptions about the energy exposure distribution. For
example, the employer can use the maximum fault current and clearing
time to cover several system areas at once. Table 8 presents
estimates of available energy for different parts of an electrical
system operating at 4 to 46 kV. The table is for open-air, phase-to-
ground electric arc exposures typical for overhead systems operating
at these voltages. The table assumes that the employee will be 380
millimeters (15 in.) from the electric arc, which is a reasonable
estimate for rubber glove work. To use the table, an employer would
use the voltage, maximum fault current, and maximum clearing time
for a system area and select the appropriate heat energy (5, 8, or
12 calories) from the table. For example, an employer might have a
12,470-volt power line supplying a system area. The power line can
supply a maximum fault current of 8 kiloamperes with a maximum
clearing time of 10 cycles. This system falls in the 4.0-to-15.0-kV
range; the fault current is less than 10 kA (the second row in that
voltage range); and the clearing time is under 14.5 cycles (the
first column to the right of the fault current column). Thus, the
available heat energy for this part of the system will be 5 calories
or less (from the column heading), and the employer could select
clothing with a 5-calorie rating to meet Sec. 1926.960(g)(5).
Table 9 presents similar estimates for systems operating at
voltages of 46.1 to 800 kV. This table is also for open-air, phase-
to-ground electric arc exposures typical for overhead systems
operating at these voltages. The table assumes that the arc length
will be equal to the sparkover distance \3\ and that the employee
will be a distance from the arc equal to the minimum approach
distance minus twice the arc length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The dielectric strength of air is about 10 kV for every 25.4
mm (1 in.). Thus, the arc length can be estimated to be the phase-
to-ground voltage divided by 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employer will need to use other methods for estimating
available heat energy in situations not addressed by Table 8 or
Table 9. The calculation methods listed in Table 7 will help
employers do this. For example, employers can use Table
130.7(C)(9)(a), Table 130.7(C)(10), and Table 130.7(C)(11) of NFPA
70E-2004 to estimate the available heat energy (and to select appropriate
protective clothing) for many specific situations, including lower-voltage,
phase-to-phase arc, and enclosed arc exposures.
Table 8.--Available Heat Energy for Variations Fault Currents, Clearing Times, and Voltages of 4.0 to 46.0 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-cal maximum 8-cal maximum 12-cal maximum
Voltage range (kV) Fault current clearing time clearing time clearing time
(kA) (cycles) (cycles) (cycles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 to 15.0..................................... 5 37.3 59.6 89.4
10 14.5 23.2 34.8
15 8.0 12.9 19.3
20 5.2 8.3 12.5
15.1 to 25.0.................................... 5 34.5 55.2 82.8
10 14.2 22.7 34.1
15 8.2 13.2 19.8
20 5.5 8.8 13.2
25.1 to 36.0.................................... 5 16.9 27.0 40.4
10 7.1 11.4 17.1
15 4.2 6.8 10.1
20 2.9 4.6 6.9
36.1............................................ 5 13.3 21.2 31.9
10 5.7 9.1 13.7
15 3.5 5.6 8.4
20 2.5 4.0 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase
arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the employee will be 380 mm (15 in.) from the electric arc. The table also assumes
the arc length to be the sparkover distance for the maximum voltage of each voltage range, as follows:
4.0 to 15.0 kV 51 mm (2 in.).
15.1 to 25.0 kV 102 mm (4 in.).
25.1 to 36.0 kV 152 mm (6 in.).
36.1 to 46.0 kV 229 mm (9 in.).
Table 9.--Available Heat Energy for Various Fault Currents, Clearing Times, and Voltages of 46.1 to 800 kV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-cal maximum 8-cal maximum 12-cal maximum
Voltage range (kV) Fault current clearing time clearing time clearing time
(kA) (cycles) (cycles) (cycles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.1 to 72.5.................................... 20 10.6 17.0 25.5
30 6.6 10.5 15.8
40 4.6 7.3 11.0
50 3.4 5.5 8.3
72.6 to 121..................................... 20 10.3 16.5 24.7
30 5.9 9.4 14.1
40 3.9 6.2 9.3
50 2.7 4.4 6.6
138 to 145...................................... 20 12.2 19.5 29.3
30 7.0 11.2 16.8
40 4.6 7.4 11.1
50 3.3 5.3 7.9
161 to 169...................................... 20 11.6 18.6 27.9
30 7.2 11.5 17.2
40 5.0 8.0 12.0
50 3.8 6.0 9.0
230 to 242...................................... 20 13.0 20.9 31.3
30 8.0 12.9 19.3
40 5.6 9.0 13.5
50 4.2 6.8 10.1
345 to 362...................................... 20 28.3 45.3 67.9
30 17.5 28.1 42.1
40 12.2 19.6 29.4
50 9.2 14.7 22.1
500 to 550...................................... 20 23.6 37.8 56.7
30 14.6 23.3 35.0
40 10.2 16.3 24.4
50 7.6 12.2 18.3
765 to 800...................................... 20 54.5 87.3 130.9
30 33.7 53.9 80.9
40 23.6 37.8 56.7
50 17.8 28.4 42.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase
arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the arc length will be the phase-to-ground voltage divided by 10 and that the
distance from the arc to the employee is the minimum approach distance minus twice the arc length.
B. Selecting Protective Clothing
Table 10 presents protective clothing guidelines for exposure to
electric arcs. Protective clothing meeting the guidelines in this
table are expected, based on extensive laboratory testing, to be
capable of preventing second-degree burn injury to an employee
exposed to the corresponding range of calculated incident heat
energy from an electric arc. It should be noted that actual electric
arc exposures may be more or less severe than the laboratory
exposures because of factors such as arc movement, arc length,
arcing from reclosing of the system, secondary fires or explosions,
and weather conditions. Therefore, it is possible that an employee
will sustain a second-degree or worse burn wearing clothing
conforming to the guidelines in Table 10 under certain
circumstances. Such clothing will, however, provide an appropriate
degree of protection for an employee who is exposed to electric arc
hazards.
Table 10.--Protection Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothing Arc thermal
Range of calculated incident energy cal/ Clothing description (number of weight oz/ performance
cm\3\ layers) yd\2\ value (ATPV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2........................................ Untreated Cotton (1)............... 4.5-7 N/A
2-5........................................ FR Shirt (1)....................... 4.5-8 5-7
5-10....................................... T-Shirt plus FR Shirt and FR Pants 9-12 10-17
(2).
10-20...................................... T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus FR 16-20 22-25
Coverall (3).
20-40...................................... T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus Double 24-30 55
Layer Switching Coat (4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR--Flame resistant.
ATPV--Arc Thermal Performance Value based on ASTM F1959 test method. (The method was modified as necessary to
test the performance of the three- and four-layer systems.)
Source: ``Protective Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Exposure,'' Neal, T. E., Bingham, A. H. Doughty, R.
L., IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference Record, September 1996, p. 294.
It should be noted that Table 10 permits untreated cotton
clothing for exposures of 2 cal/cm\2\ or less. Cotton clothing will
reduce a 2-cal/cm\2\ exposure below the 1.6-cal/cm\2\ level
necessary to cause burn injury and is not expected to ignite at such
low heat energy levels. Although untreated cotton clothing is deemed
to meet the requirement for suitable arc ratings in Sec.
1926.960(g)(5) and the prohibition against clothing that could
ignite and continue to burn in Sec. 1926.960(g)(3) when the
available heat energy is 2 cal/cm\2\ or less, this type of clothing
is still prohibited under certain conditions by Sec.
1926.960(g)(4), as discussed further below.
Protective performance of any particular fabric type generally
increases with fabric weight, as long as the fabric does not ignite
and continue to burn. Multiple layers of clothing usually block more
heat and are normally more protective than a single layer of the
equivalent weight.
Exposed skin is expected to sustain a second-degree burn for
incident energy levels of 1.6 cal/cm\2\ or more. Though it is not
required by the standard, if the heat energy estimated under Sec.
1926.960(g)(2) is greater than or equal to 1.6 cal/cm\2\, the
employer should require each exposed employee to have no more than
10 percent of his or her body unprotected. Due to the unpredictable
nature of electric arcs, the employer should also consider requiring
the protection of bare skin from any exposure exceeding 0.8 cal/
cm\2\ so as to minimize the risk of burn injury.
III. Protection Against Ignition
Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec. 1926.960 prohibits clothing that could
melt onto an employee's skin or that could ignite and continue to
burn when exposed to the available heat energy estimated by the
employer. Meltable fabrics, such as acetate, nylon, and polyester,
even in blends, must be avoided. When these fibers melt, they can
adhere to the skin, transferring heat more rapidly, exacerbating any
burns, and complicating treatment. This can be true even if the
meltable fabric is not directly next to the skin. The remainder of
this section focuses on the prevention of ignition.
Paragraph (g)(5) of Sec. 1926.960 requires clothing with an arc
rating greater than or equal to the employer's estimate of available
heat energy. As explained earlier, untreated cotton is acceptable
for exposures of 2 cal/cm2 or less. If the exposure is
greater than that, the employee must wear flame-resistant clothing
with a suitable arc rating. However, even though an employee is
wearing a layer of flame-resistant clothing, there are circumstances
under which flammable layers of clothing would be exposed and
subject to ignition. For example, if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing (for example, winter coveralls) over the layer of
flame-resistant clothing, the outer flammable layer can ignite.
Similarly, clothing ignition is possible if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing under the flame-resistant clothing and the
underlayer is exposed by an opening in the flame-resistant clothing.
Thus, it is important for the employer to consider the possibility
of clothing ignition even when an employee is wearing clothing with
a suitable arc rating.
Table 11 lists the minimum heat energy under electric arc
conditions that can reasonably be expected to ignite different
weights and colors of cotton fabrics. The values listed, expressed
in calories per square centimeter, represent a 10 percent
probability of ignition with a 95 percent confidence level. If the
heat energy estimated under Sec. 1926.960(g)(2) does not exceed the
values listed in Table 11 for a particular weight and color of
cotton fabric, then an outer layer of that material would not be
expected to ignite and would be considered as being permitted under
Sec. 1926.960(g)(3).\4\ Conversely, if the heat energy estimated
under Sec. 1926.960(g)(2) exceeds the values listed in Table 11 for
a particular weight and color of cotton fabric, that material may
not be worn as an outer layer of garment and may not be otherwise exposed
due to an opening in the flame-resistant clothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An underlayer of clothing with an arc rating greater than or
equal to the estimate of available heat energy would still be
required under Sec. 1926.960(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For white cotton fabrics of a different weight from those
listed, choose the next lower weight of white cotton fabric listed
in Table 11. For cotton fabrics of a different color and weight
combination than those listed, select a value from the table
corresponding to an equal or lesser weight of blue cotton fabric.
For example, for a 6.0-oz/yd2 brown twill fabric, select
4.6 cal/cm2 for the ignition threshold, which corresponds
to 5.2-oz/yd2 blue twill. If a white garment has a
silkscreen logo, insignia, or other similar design included on it,
then the entire garment will be considered as being of a color other
than white. (The darker portion of the garment can ignite earlier
than the rest of the garment, which would cause the entire garment
to burn.)
Employers may choose to test samples of genuine garments rather
than rely on the values given in Table 11. The appropriate electric
arc ignition test method is given in ASTM F 1958/F 1958M-99,
Standard Test Method for Determining the Ignitability of Non-flame-
Resistant Materials for Clothing by Electric Arc Exposure Method
Using Mannequins. Using this test method, employers may substitute
actual test data analysis results representing an energy level that
is reasonably certain not to be capable of igniting the fabric. For
example, based on test data, the employer may select a level
representing a 10 percent probability of ignition with a 95 percent
confidence level, representing a 1 percent probability of ignition
according to actual test results, or representing an energy level
that is two standard deviations below the mean ignition threshold.
The employer may also select some other comparable level.
Table 11.--Ignition Threshold for Cotton Fabrics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric description Ignition
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- threshold (cal/
Weight (oz/yd2) Color Weave cm2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.............................. White......................... Jersey Kit.................... 4.3
5.2............................. Blue.......................... Twill......................... 4.6
6.2............................. White......................... Fleece........................ 6.4
6.9............................. Blue.......................... Twill......................... 5.3
8.0............................. Black......................... Twill......................... 6.1
8.3............................. White......................... Sateen........................ 11.6
11.9............................ Tan........................... Duck.......................... 11.3
12.8............................ Blue.......................... Denim......................... 15.5
13.3............................ Blue.......................... Denim......................... 15.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Testing Update on Protective Clothing & Equipment for Electric Arc Exposure,'' IEEE Paper No. PCIC-97-
35.
Clothing loses weight as it wears. This can lower the ignition
threshold, especially if the garment has threadbare areas or is
torn.
Adding layers of clothing beneath an outer layer of flammable
fabric has no significant effect on the heat energy needed to ignite
the outer fabric layer. Therefore, the outer layer of clothing must
be treated as if it were a single layer to determine the proper
ignition threshold.
Flammable clothing worn in conjunction with flame-resistant
clothing is not permitted to pose an ignition hazard.\5\ Flammable
clothing may not be worn as an outer layer if it could be exposed to
heat energy above the ignition threshold. Outer flame-resistant
layers may not have openings that expose flammable inner layers that
could be ignited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec. 1926.960 prohibits clothing that
could ignite and continue to burn when exposed to the heat energy
estimated under paragraph (g)(2).
Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec. prohibits clothing that could ignite
and continue to burn when exposed to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an outer flame-resistant layer would be unable to resist
breakopen,\6\ the next (inner) layer should be flame-resistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Breakopen is the creation of holes, tears, or cracks in the
exposed fabric such that incident energy is no longer effectively
blocked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding conductors can become a source of electric arcing if
they cannot carry fault current without failure. These possible
sources of electric arcs \7\ must be considered in determining
whether the employee's clothing could ignite under Sec.
1926.960(g)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Static wires and pole grounds are examples of grounding
conductors that might not be capable of carrying fault current
without failure. Grounds that can carry the maximum available fault
current are not a concern and need not be considered a possible
electric arc source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flammable clothing can also be ignited by arcing that occurs
when a conductor contacts an employee or by nearby material that
ignites upon exposure to an electric arc. These sources of ignition
must be considered in determining whether the employee's clothing
could ignite under Sec. 1926.960(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii).
Appendix G to Subpart V--Work Positioning Equipment Inspection
Guidelines
I. Body Belts
Inspect body belts to ensure that:
A. Hardware has no cracks, nicks, distortion, or corrosion;
B. No loose or worn rivets are present;
C. The waist strap has no loose grommets;
D. The fastening straps are not made of 100 percent leather;
E. No worn materials that could affect the safety of the user
are present; and
F. D-rings are compatible with the snaphooks with which they
will be used.
Note: An incompatibility between a snaphook and a D-ring may
cause snaphook rollout, or unintentional disengagement of the
snaphook from the D-ring. Employers should take extra precaution
when determining compatibility between snaphooks and D-rings of
different manufacturers.
II. Positioning Straps
Inspect positioning straps to ensure that:
A. The warning center of the strap material is not exposed;
B. No cuts, burns, extra holes, or fraying of strap material is
present;
C. Rivets are properly secured;
D. Straps are not made from 100 percent leather; and
E. Snaphooks do not have cracks, burns, or corrosion.
III. Climbers
Inspect pole and tree climbers to ensure that:
A. Gaffs on pole climbers are no less than 32 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
B. Gaffs on tree climbers are no less than 51 millimeters in
length measured on the underside of the gaff;
C. Gaffs and leg irons are not fractured or cracked;
D. Stirrups and leg irons are free of excessive wear;
E. Gaffs are not loose;
F. Gaffs are free of deformation that could adversely affect use;
G. Gaffs are properly sharpened; and
H. There are no broken straps or buckles.
[FR Doc. 05-11585 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
