New OSHA rules coming

[PA BEN]

This is an idea for an article for the mag. We heard at our last safety meeting about new OSHA rules coming.

All gloving states will be required to have gloves and sleeves ground to ground. And Hot stick states, IBEW contractors only, will have to wear gloves and sleeves ground to ground and hot stick with them on too.
Also MAD, “minimum approach distance” rules are changing. There's a new 5ft 3" cover all primary rule.
And employer provided PPE. (your employer has to provide per. OSHA) FR clothing and hooks and belts, etc.

[Orgnizdlbr]

This is an idea for an article for the mag. We heard at our last safety meeting about new OSHA rules coming.

All gloving states will be required to have gloves and sleeves ground to ground. And Hot stick states, IBEW contractors only, will have to wear gloves and sleeves ground to ground and hot stick with them on too.
Also MAD, “minimum approach distance” rules are changing. There's a new 5ft 3" cover all primary rule.
And employer provided PPE. (your employer has to provide per. OSHA) FR clothing and hooks and belts, etc.

PA, is this going to be mandated as a requirement, or is it an OSHA "recomendation"? I havent heard this yet......why gloves and sleeves in the Stickstates, and why limited to IBEW contractors, OSHA makes no distinction as to whether workers are organized when rendering recomaendations or rule changes. Something doesnt sound right.

[PA BEN]

What was told to us is that the rule is still in the works no final decision yet. As far as the ground to ground rule in hot stick states Contractors went to CAMP RILEA, a line school in Oregon, I think it was Potelco and Wilson don't quote me on that, anyway, they had OSHA and IBEW Reps. there. They had a crew do different types of line work with sticks and then the same crew do the same job with Gloves and sticks. They did this to come up with recommendations for the new rules. Like I said the rule is in the works now and how it's final form will be? We will see. We were also told the glove rule with sticks well only affect union contractors. As far the 5' 3" rule and the PPE rules these will come down mid 2008. That's all the info I have so maybe someone in the know could post more info on the subject.

[mainline]

I just went to the department of labors web site and looked up 1910.269 for the first time. If you read the section on using rubber gloves and sleeves 1910.269(1)(3) it almost sounds like they could force us to wear sleeves all the time. " 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:

1910.269(l)(3)(i)

If exposed energized parts on which work is not being performed are insulated from the employee and

1910.269(l)(3)(ii)

If such insulation is placed from a position not exposing the employee's upper arm to contact with other energized parts.

The problem with these rules is they always allow safety people to interpret them differently. I hope our department sticks with their current interpretation. I don't look forward to ground to ground sleeves.

[thrasher]

Companies are already receiving ads from firms claiming to teach the "new OSHA 2008" rules. The problem is there ARE NO FINAL RULES published. OSHA says they are aiming to publish the new rules by April 2008. However they have been working on them since June of 2005 when the proposed rules were posted for comment. I called a labor lawyer I know and he said he will be suprised if the new rules come out before the fall of 2008.

[WCLR]

Something doesnt sound right.

I agree, something doesnt sound right with this. Why would OSHA just set rules for IBEW contractors?

[JRT]

I will try to clear things up as to what OSHA is doing and not doing.

First, OSHA is working on the revision of both the construction and maintenance regulations for Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution (1926 Subpart V and 1910.269). OSHA's website states they will be published this month, the regulatory agenda was amended and states they will be published in April 2008. Both of those are incorrect, because OSHA does not know when they will be published. One post stated around the fall of this year, but I doubt that will happen either - sometime in 2009 may be possible, we will just have to wait and see. The process takes time because of the many levels of approval they must complete. What we do know is that once the final draft goes to OMB (Office of Management and Budget), they will release it within 90 days of their receipt - usually on the 90th day - and then it will be official. So until we know for sure that the draft has been released to OMB, we will not have a clue as to the release date.

Now the rubber glove and sleeve issue.

OSHA is not proposing to make everyone start rubber gloving and giving up hot sticking work methods. OSHA is not proposing to put linemen in rubber sleeves all the time. What is happening is the employer members of the OSHA Strategic Partnership that the IBEW, EEI, NECA, OSHA and some of the large contractors (union and non-union) are trying to implement some new ideas on their job sites. These are referred to as the Partnership's "Best Practices". None of these Best Practices are forcing linemen to rubber glove instead of hot sticking - the Partnership is not trying to eliminate hot sticking. What they are trying to do is to standardize when rubber gloves are necessary to be worn. There is a lock-to-lock (padmounted devices) best practice and a cradle-to-cradle best practice that is probably where the confusion is coming from.

The cradle-to-cradle best practice is not intended to require rubber gloves to be worn when hot sticking, unless your employer requires it - but the best practice does not. What it does require is that if you are going to use the rubber glove work method out of an aerial lift, rubber gloves (and sleeves if required) will be worn cradle-to-cradle (put on before the boom leaves the cradle, and not removed until the boom is back in the cradle). If you are going to use the hot stick method, the cradle-to-cradle Best Practice does not apply.

The work demonstrations that were performed in Oregon were designed to look at the issue of working within MAD using the hot stick work method. For example, hot sticks are used (lineman not wearing gloves or sleeves) to fan out a conductor to be able to change an insulator (the Partnership does not have a problem with this practice). After the conductor is moved, hardware now needs changing. The question is does the lineman encroach MAD while doing this, and if so, is that proper without either all energized conductors and parts covered, or the lineman insulated (gloves and/or sleeves) or both? Nothing has been settled on this yet.

The Partnership was formed to try to increase the level of safety in this industry. We have reviewed over 10 years of accident data and concluded certain issues were prevalent, for example electric contact being the number one incident, and failure to have gloves on as a primary cause. Based on the data analysis, task teams have been formed to address the issues. The Best Practices are one of the products from these task teams. Within the Partnership, we have had unanimous support for everything we have produced so far. Some of you have been through the new OSHA 10 hour training - this is a product of the Partnership.

The Partnership Best Practices are not new OSHA rules. The Best Practices are not being forced on utilities or employers not in the Partnership. The employer members of the Partnership will implement these practices on their jobsites as part of the Partnership agreement. Other employers may adopt these practices as they see fit, and the Partnership members hope this will happen. Many employers outside of the Partnership are already asking for access to the new OSHA 10 hour training because they see the quality of the training is second to none.

I will throw in one more thing on climbing poles and structures. OSHA did not propose to prohibit free climbing. They did ask some questions as to the safety of free climbing and whether or not it should be allowed to be continued or not. If you read submitted comments and testimony that was offered at the public hearings on the proposed regulations, most supported free climbing. There was some discussion that described the difference between wood poles, steel poles and lattice towers, but again, OSHA has not proposed to prohibit any free climbing. That is not to say however that OSHA will not publish the new rules prohibiting free climbing anything, but in my opinion that will not happen. As you know, some states and some employers are implementing their own rules that are and probably will continue to be more stringent than federal OSHA.

Many of the issues in the works are controversial - have been for years, and will continue to be for years. I have been involved in the trade for almost 35 years, and the controversy hasn't changed much. We are going to have rules, and someone has to write them and they sure as heck will not please everyone.

[scammy]

just who are you jrt?

[Orgnizdlbr]

Thanks JRT, if you are who I think you are, keep up the great work!

[Dbearman]

The January issue of the IBEW Electrical Worker paper has a article in it that states that OSHA has clarified on Nov. 15 , 2007 that employers must now provide fall protection, pole climbing gear and work gloves . The article goes on to say that the standard will go into effect on Feb. 15 and must be implemented within 6 months . Can anyone else also verify these new rules ?
Thanks , Bear

[scammy]

thats what ive heard ,,,scammy

[PA BEN]

FR clothing is PPE, not Ordinary clothing

(4) The employer is not required to pay for:

(i) The logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v);

(ii) Everyday clothing, such as longsleeve shirts, long pants, street shoes, and normal work boots; or

(iii) Ordinary clothing, skin creams, or other items, used solely for protection from weather, such as winter coats, jackets, gloves, parkas, rubber boots, hats, raincoats, ordinary sunglasses, and sunscreen.


http://www.pathfndr.com/newppe.html

[lineman641]

fr clothing is ppe but is not required by osha,so will not be provided.For a good(if thats possible from osha) explaination ,check this link and look at article 5. page 13. eh/steel-toe boots are also exempt.page 9:(

http://www.ibew.org/articles/07daily/0712/071202_OSHA.htm

[PA BEN]

fr clothing is ppe but is not required by osha,so will not be provided.For a good(if thats possible from osha) explaination ,check this link and look at article 5. page 13. eh/steel-toe boots are also exempt.page 9:(

http://www.ibew.org/articles/07daily/0712/071202_OSHA.htm

But, January of 2009 OSHA well require FR clothing:)

[lineman641]

that is good.the company here provides two of the cheapest shirts in the catalog now. it wouldn't be so bad if they went with a two day work week:rolleyes: maybe when its required they'll get us shirts that will keep the buttons on for more than a month:D

[lineman641]

found the fr clothing thread in the linework forum.guess I should read before I post............naaaaaaaaaaaaa!:D

[PA BEN]

The final rule contains a few exceptions for ordinary safety-toed footwear, ordinary prescription safety eyewear, logging boots, and ordinary clothing and weather-related gear. The final rule also clarifies OSHA's requirements regarding payment for employee-owned PPE and replacement PPE. While these clarifications have added several paragraphs to the regulatory text, the final rule provides employees no less protection than they would have received under the 1999 proposed standard


Lineman climbing boots are not ordinary footwear.

[CPOPE]

Since its adoption in 2000, NFPA 70E has become quickly become a benchmark of determining protection for electrical workers in a number of settings. NFPA 70E does not presently apply to the electric utility industry since it is a voluntary consensus standard.

OSHA officials have hinted the NFPA 70E will be incorporated and/or referenced in part in the upcoming Subpart S revision of CFR 1910,

If OSHA does referance NFPA 70E we are in for some major changes in work practice and required PPE. Adapting this best practice standard to the electric utility industry is difficult and challenging for the following reasons:

• Many of the electric utility electrical work tasks are long duration. This poses a problem based upon the use of the recommend personal protection equipment. Much of the recommended personal protection equipment (depending upon the hazard category) is somewhat cumbersome and restrictive. This is fine for short duration tasks – but for long duration tasks, this poses a potential greater hazard.

• For transmission and distribution operations, which are predominately outdoor electrical work tasks, these tasks are also long duration and involve working at heights. This poses a challenge for many of the recommended work practices and personal protective equipment requirements outlined in NFPA 70E.

About the only place in our industry you can apply 70E effectively is in power production. The systems in the power plants are considerably more complex than the systems in industrial and manufacturing plants. However similarities exist in the power control operations. Substation control wiring etc.

[just say no]

look for heat related injuries to shoot up in florida and other hot humid areas if this happens..:(

[CPOPE]

OSHA seeks approval for proposed rule on remedies for violations of personal protective equipment and training standards

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will announce today in the Aug. 19 Federal Register that it is accepting public comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and training standards. The proposal clarifies that when an OSHA standard requires an employer to provide PPE, such as respirators, or training to employees, the employer must do so for each employee subject to the requirement. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation for penalty purposes.

"We want employers to understand the importance of complying with OSHA’s PPE rule for each and every one of their employees," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "Without question, providing PPE for all employees will reduce costs, save money and, most importantly, save lives."

The proposed rule affects OSHA’s general industry, construction, and maritime standards. In many cases, OSHA combines separate violations of a single requirement in a standard into a single penalty. However, under the instance-by-instance penalty policy, OSHA may propose a separate penalty for each specific violation where the employer demonstrates a flagrant disregard for safety and health.

The proposed rule makes clear that failure to provide appropriate PPE or training may result in per-instance penalties in appropriate cases. The proposed rule does not add new compliance obligations, nor are employers required to provide any new type of PPE or training. The amendments merely clarify that a separate penalty may be assessed for each employee not provided the required PPE or training.

The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule until Sept. 18. Interested parties may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; or by FAX at (202) 693-1678 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages. Comments must include the Agency name and Docket Number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0031).

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.


###

[CPOPE]

The Bush legacy: Few policies aimed at protecting worker health were passed during the Bush administration, according to The Washington Post, potentially exposing blue and white-collar workers to dangerous workplace physical, chemical and radiation exposures.

Created during the Nixon Administration in 1970, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor with the mission to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths by issuing and enforcing rules (called standards) for workplace safety and health.

OSHA continues to be widely criticized for confusing, burdensome regulations which cover most private sector workplaces. A good deal of conflict is due to the arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. In addition, businesses are expected to retrofit and implement various hazard controls, often at considerable expense, to bring them in line with then-current best safety practices. Other requirements, such as mandated training, communication, and extensive documentation are seen as even more difficult and expensive.

Current and former career officials at OSHA report that Bush administration political appointees ordered the withdrawal of dozens of workplace health regulations, slow-rolled others, and altered the reach of its warnings and rules in response to industry pressure.

The result is a history of deregulation common to several health-protection agencies under Bush. From 2001 to the end of 2007, OSHA issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations termed economically significant by the Office of Management and Budget than their counterparts did during President Bill Clinton's tenure, according to White House lists.
The Bush administration has largely replaced the process of issuing mandatory regulations with voluntary guidelines and put additional resources into other previously existing voluntary programs, as well as new "Alliance" programs. It is sometimes believed that the Agency promotes "voluntary compliance" when in fact all employers are required by law to comply with all final published rules promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

"The legacy of the Bush administration has been one of dismal inaction," Robert Harrison, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco and chairman of the occupational health section of the American Public Health Association told the Post. He went on to describe the lack of regulation at OSHA "like turning a ketchup bottle upside down, banging the bottom of the container, and nothing comes out. You shake and shake and nothing comes out," Harrison said.

OSHA was most recently headed by Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a South Carolina lawyer and former Bush fundraiser who spent years defending companies cited by OSHA for safety and health violations.
"Foulke quickly acquired a reputation inside the Labor Department as a man who literally fell asleep on the job: eyewitnesses said they saw him suddenly doze off at staff meetings, during teleconferences, in one-on-one briefings, at retreats involving senior deputies, on the dais at a conference in Europe, at an award ceremony for a corporation and during an interview with a candidate for deputy regional administrator."

Foulke resigned November 9, 2008, and the next day began work at an Atlanta law firm that represents companies accused of workplace safety violations.