Proposed Revisions to Subpart V and 1910.269 Summaryesafetyline.com/eei/conference s/EEI Spring 2011/Safety/269... · standard was based on the 1956 ANSI A14.3 Fixed Ladder Standard,

April 2011

EEI written comments 83 pages long.

Proposal issued in 2005. Author has been rewriting for the last 2 years.

Preamble for final rule will be 1,000 pages.It is very technical and very detailed.

What follows is EEI’s comments on specific proposals.

Cannot predict how these will appear in the final rule.

EEI did not expect that in proposing to update Subpart V, that both standards would be open to comprehensive revision, including portions of 1910.269 dealing with power plants.◦ But since they did, EEI took opportunity to comment on

portions that have created enforcement and compliance problems. (power plant tagging).

◦ EEI asks OSHA to incorporate “Clarifications” from the CPL 2-1.38 into the regulation. These deal with power plant tagging.

◦ OSHA needs to clarify the standard to make the discussion of group tagging in CPL 2-1.38 unnecessary.

Rather than propose specific regulatory requirements, OSHA listed 70 questions that it considers open for discussion as matters that may be addressed in the final standard.

Rather than propose specific regulatory requirements, OSHA listed 70 questions that it considers open for discussion as matters that may be addressed in the final standard.

OSHA has not quantified or explained significant risk or benefit. OSHA must provide risk assessment showing why the

existing regulatory requirements create significant risk and how the proposed changes reduce that risk.

Key portions of the proposals are vague and violate procedural requirements of the OSH Act and the APA.

The host employer/contractor proposal is without legal authority.

(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.

(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.

Go beyond current multi-employer policy. EEI comments:

◦ OSHA act does not confer authority upon OSHA to require one employer to be responsible for the safety of another employer’s employees.

◦ Case law under existing multi-employer policy does not support the proposal.

◦ Requiring a contractor to comply with a host employer’s safety rules is unconstitutional delegation of rulemaking authority and would create confusion among contractors.

◦ Some sections are vague and unenforceable: “Host employer shall inform contractor employers of known

hazards…that might not be recognized by contract employer or employees.’ What would constitute compliance?

OSHA:◦ Proposal requires host to inform contract employers

of “information about the employer installation that the contract employer needs to make assessments required by this section.”

EEI:◦ Ambiguous. Unenforceable. What is compliant?

OSHA:◦ Proposal requires host employer to report observed

contract employer related violations of the standard to the contract employer.

EEI: ◦ OSHA has no statutory authority for this.◦ Proposal provides no guidance as to kind of observation

that would trigger notification.◦ Is oral report satisfactory? Does it have to be

documented?◦ Supervisors/foreman are trained in company work rules

– not in OSHA standards. They may not recognize violations of the “standard” vs. violations of company rules.

OSHA:◦ Proposal requires contract employees to “follow the

work practices ……required by the host employer.”

EEI:◦ These are contractual issues and OSHA should not

be involved.

◦ Causes confusion for contractors who work for multiple clients with various rules.

◦ Issue with storm response – we don’t want mutual aid providers to adopt our rules for 3 or 4 days.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that “degree of training” shall be determined

by the risk to the employee for the task involved.

EEI:◦ Unnecessary and does not reflect the reality of utility

work.◦ Term “degree of training” is vague. Not evident how

OSHA would classify a “degree” of training.◦ Concerned that compliance officers would abuse.◦ Utilities train employees in the knowledge and skills

necessary to accomplish the tasks they are expected to encounter but can’t anticipate every single task that could be performed.

1926.960(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.

(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.

(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.

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.

EEI Comments:◦ The proposed standards are unenforceable.

◦ OSHA has not shown that the risk of harm would be materially reduced by using the methods specified in the proposal.

◦ The proposal could increase exposure to heat stress.

◦ Questioned reliability of calculation methods.

◦ Since then ---- NESC rule issued.

◦ If you are complying with NESC, you may not have a problem with the proposal.

◦ Did not contain the exception below 1000 V as included in NESC. That is going away in 2012 NESC anyway.

EEI petitions OSHA to revise 29 C.F.R. 1910.269(d)(8) to clarify several aspects of the standard. ◦ First, OSHA should revise the regulatory text of

paragraph1910.269(d)(8)(ii) to state that employers using otherwise compliant tagging programs in work involving group tagging are not required to have employees who are working on de-energized equipment take a physical affirmative step, such as individual sign-on and sign-off, before equipment may be re-energized.

◦ The standard should be revised to make clear that the person who is responsible for the equipment – in utility parlance, the person who “holds the clearance” – may communicate orally with the employees working on the equipment to assure that they are informed that equipment is about to be de-energized, and to receive the employees’ assurances that it is safe to do so, and communicate that to operations personnel who would reactivate the equipment.

Exelon lawsuit???

EEI:◦ Second, OSHA should eliminate from

paragraph1910.269(d)(8)(v) the concept that a system operator may place tags instead of operations employees where energy control devices are in a central location under the exclusive control of a system operator. Such facilities do not exist in power generation plants.

OSHA requests comment on whether the final standard should require AEDs.

Does not say when or where.

EEI:◦ Rather than requiring employers to provide AEDs

employers should be afforded the flexibility to assess their workplaces and determine the circumstances in which AEDs may provide a safety benefit to employees, and where an AED program can be achieved.

OSHA:◦ 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.

EEI:◦ This would apparently require a representative of the employer (a

manager or supervisor) to brief employees prior to assigning a job as to the specific hazards expected to be associated with that particular job.

◦ This is inconsistent with the increasing use of technology in work management and scheduling. Today’s utility line crews drive vehicles equipped with computers with wireless communications.

◦ The crews receive job assignments throughout the day via computer.◦ Frequently, there is no direct supervisor-employee interface to

discuss specific work assignments. The computer-generated job assignment will contain information related to the location, circuit, and task to be accomplished but no information related to unique hazards of the assignment.

EEI:◦ Rule should include a statement to the effect that it is

not expected that an employer representative (i.e. a supervisor) necessarily will communicate directly with each employee prior to assigning a job.

◦ Computer-generated work orders, in conjunction with established safety manuals, procedures, and training, may be used to provide employees information related to typical hazards that can be expected.

◦ It is also not to be expected that an employer actually visit each job site prior to assigning a job and survey it for hazards.

◦ Employees, upon arrival, are expected to survey the site for hazards, perform job briefings, and take appropriate precautions.

OSHA: ◦ Test instruments used to monitor atmospheres in

enclosed spaces shall be kept in calibration and shall have a minimum accuracy of ± 10 percent.

EEI: ◦ OSHA should only require that test instruments be

kept in calibration using the recommendations set forth by the specific manufacturer.

OSHA: ◦ Work positioning equipment shall be rigged so that an

employee can free fall no more than two feet, unless no anchorage is available.

EEI: ◦ With the current free fall distance set at six feet in

paragraph (g)(2)(vi)(c), EEI believes that to limit a free fall to two feet will require significant changes in work practices of the industry.

◦ For example, by limiting the fall to two feet, the line worker would have to adjust the pole strap to such an extent that he/she could not reach the outer phase on a cross arm. This would require the company to develop and teach a new work method.

OSHA:◦ Seeking comments on whether they should require

devices such as BuckSqueeze or PoleShark while climbing wood poles.

EEI:◦ Did not support requiring wood pole fall protection.

OSHA: ◦ Is the proposed incorporation of the general industry

standard for fixed ladders warranted, especially in light of the proposed revision of Subpart D.

EEI: ◦ OSHA should not incorporate the current general

industry standard for fixed ladders (1910.27). That standard was based on the 1956 ANSI A14.3 Fixed Ladder Standard, which subsequently has been revised many times.

◦ There are numerous differences between the current OSHA 1910.27 requirements for fixed ladders, and between the 2002 ANSI A14.3 standard and the requirements in OSHA’s proposed revisions to 1910 Subpart D that were issued in April 1990 (and then reissued in 2010.)

OSHA◦ Seeks comments on the safety of employees working on

lines and equipment operating at 600 volts or less. OSHA poses the following questions: What types of work can be done 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?

EEI: ◦ There is no need for further precautions to be required

for such work, provided that the required insulated cover-up materials are used and personal protective equipment is being worn by employees while working on lines and equipment energized at less than 600 volts.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that an employee can breach the

minimum approach distance (MAD) as long as the employee is wearing gloves or gloves with sleeves, provided that the employee has control of the part in a manner sufficient to prevent exposure to un-insulated portions of the body.

EEI:◦ Objected to this proposal because employers

cannot always ensure that an employee has sufficient control over the part of the body that may come into contact.

OSHA: ◦ Proposed that rubber gloves and sleeves be worn once

the employee reaches a position from which he or she can reach into the minimum approach distance.

EEI:◦ MAD has an electrical component as well as an

ergonomic (reach) component. It seems that OSHA is adding yet another ergonomic component, thus doubling the MAD. This change would have a significant, adverse impact on industry work procedures.

◦ Objected to this proposal because without justification, it would essentially double the minimum approach distance. EEI also notes that compliance with the proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that 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, the employee shall work from a position where the employee cannot reach into the minimum approach distance.

◦ OSHA seeks comments on the need for this requirement and on whether there are other effective means of protecting employees from the hazard involved.

EEI:◦ Requested that OSHA place in the record the evidence on

which it relies to substantiate this change.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that 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) and that independent crews shall coordinate deenergizing and reenergizing the lines or equipment if there is no system operator in charge of the lines or equipment.

◦ OSHA is seeking 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.

EEI:◦ Submits that by doing this, the crew in effect becomes one,

not two, independent crews. Thus, we would suggest that the standard should not require each crew to have a separate tag. That is, crews should be able to work under one clearance.

Paragraph (m) requires 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 deengergized to be opened and tagged. Paragraph (m) also requires automatically and remotely controlled switches to be tagged at the point of control.

In 1993, OSHA met with EEI member companies and recognized the extreme difficulty and complexity that this would introduce if required for our network protectors.

EEI:◦ Recommends the following regulatory language:

◦ “Network feeders utilizing low voltage network protectors are considered isolated from all network sources of supply when the associated feeder is removed from service at the source station and verified as being de-energized, and provided that the design of the protectors prevent local and remote operation of the device when the supply feeder is de-energized.”

OSHA◦ Proposed that if protective grounding equipment would be larger than the

conductor to which it is attached, the equipment may be reduced in size provided that it is sized and placed so that 1. The conductor being grounded will fail before the protective grounding

equipment, 2. The conductor is only considered as grounded where it is protected

against failure by the protective grounding equipment, and 3. No employees would be endangered by the failed conductor.

EEI:◦ Concerned that OSHA is proposing that in grounding operations,

companies must use the same size ground chains as the conductor that is to be grounded. If this is the case, a crew would have to carry ten different sets of ground chains. For the very large conductors, it would be almost impossible to have and install the type of chain needed. The chains need to be of sufficient size to carry the fault current amps. For those companies that use fiberglass sticks to install grounds, it would be particularly problematic to install a chain the same size as the biggest wire.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that 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 adverse effects of a fault.

EEI:◦ Believes that the wording as currently proposed would eliminate

any work in a structure with live equipment.◦ Recommends the following language: If the work being performed in a manhole or vault could be expected to

lead to a fault in a cable, that cable shall be de-energized before an employee may work on that cable.

OSHA:◦ Proposed that 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 remained energized.

◦ In that case, employees may enter the manhole or vault provided they are protected from possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices that are capable of containing adverse health affects of a fault, or steps are taken to eliminate the possibility of the work causing a fault.

EEI◦ Agreed with the proposal, but OSHA should clarify what it

means when it refers to a shield or other device that is capable of containing adverse effects of a fault.

Final Rule expected August 2011.

1000 page preamble.

Significant effort required to prepare industry position.