Email info@esci.net

360.676.8088

Publication of the Revision to OSHA 1910.269 & OSHA 1926 Subpart V Will be Delayed

David Wallis, Director of Electrical Standards Federal OSHA, has informed ESCI that the revision of OSHA 1910.269 & OSHA 1926 Subpart V will not be published in May 2008 as currently advertised.

The delay in publishing the revisions has to do with errors in the Minimum Approach Distance (MAD) calculations at the upper voltages (above 550kV.) The mistake involves the variable "a" in the MAD distance equation. In the late 1980s we believe the phase-to-ground "a" instead of the phase-to-phase "a" was used to develop the tables, which creates about a 15% error. The variable "a" is the 60 hertz switching-surge saturation factor for tools in the air gap at voltages above 630 kV.

The problem was discussed in length at the IEEE 516 working group meeting during the ESMO Subcommittee meeting in Las Vegas on January 27, 2008. The IEEE 516 working group agreed there was a mistake made in "a," the MAD table will be corrected. However, OSHA will have to re-open the 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V Federal Register for public comment on the change. At best, Mr. Wallis hopes the new revision will be out by the end of 2008.

ESCI's Staff Attends First Meeting of NESC Subcommittee 8 in Preparation for the Publication of the 2012 NESC C-2

Brian Erga, ESCI President, recently participated in the NESC Subcommittee 8 meeting on January 15 - 17, 2008, in Pensacola, Florida. NESC Subcommittee 8 is responsible for the maintenance of NESC Part 4 "Rules for the Operation of Electric Supply and Communications Lines and Equipment." The 2007 NESC Code was published and became effective in early 2007. Yet, Subcommittee 8 has had its first meeting preparing for the publication of the 2012 NESC.

The public has until July 17, 2008 to submit "Change Proposals" (CPs) for any proposed changes to the 2012 NESC Code. Change Proposals will be accepted only on-line by going to the NESC website and downloading the Change Proposal Form.

Subcommittee 8 plans to expand the safety rules for electric generating plants in the 2012 code. The committee also plans on expanding the FR clothing requirements for voltages below 1,000 volts. Currently, the 2007 Code requires a hazard analysis be completed, or the worker must be in a minimum of 4 calorie FR clothing when working on or near voltages below 1,000 volts. When this rule was written by the subcommittee several years ago, we knew 4 calories was not adequate, but we had no technical data to support any other requirements. Dave Wallis, Federal OSHA, is pushing the subcommittee to provide better guidance for low voltage work.

Accurate arc hazard analysis and energy calculations for electric utility systems below 1,000 volts are still nearly non-existent. The subcommittee appointed a working group to review recent arc flash tests conducted by others, and available arc flash information, in hopes the subcommittee will be able to provide better guidance below 1,000 volts for the next code. The working group will report back to the subcommittee in October 2008 with its recommendations.

The subcommittee also realized that we add new information to the Code but often do not review existing Code requirements to ensure they are still valid. Brian Erga, ESCI President, was appointed to chair a working group that will review the entire Part 4 "Rules for the Operation of Electric Supply and Communications Lines and Equipment," word-for-word for accuracy and validity.

Federal OSHA's Final Rule "Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment"

On November 15, 2007, Federal OSHA published its long awaited final rule on employer payment for personal protective equipment (PPE). This new rule will change what PPE items the employer must provide employees. The final rule states the following:

"OSHA is requiring employers to pay for the PPE used to comply with OSHA Standards, with a few exceptions."

"Under the final rule, employers are not required to pay for items that are not PPE."

Table V-1 (page 17) lists the following examples of items exempted from the employer payment requirements:

• Non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear (e.g., steel-toe shoes/boots)
• Non-specialty prescription safety eyewear
• Sunglasses and sunscreen
• Sturdy work shoes
• Lineman's boots
• Ordinary cold weather gear (coats, parkas, cold weather gloves, winter boots)
• Ordinary rain gear
• Back belts
• Long sleeve shirts
• Long pants

The rule provides the following statements to support the list above:

"The regulatory text makes clear that employers are not required to pay for ordinary safety-toe footwear and ordinary prescription safety eyewear, so long as the employer allows the employee to wear these items off the job-site."

"The final rule clarifies the employer is not required to pay for shoes with integrated metatarsal protection as long as the employer provides and pays for metatarsal guards that attach to the shoes."

"Employers are not required to pay for ordinary clothing used for protection from weather, such as winter coats, jackets, gloves and parkas."

"The final rule requires the employer pay for replacement of PPE used to comply with OSHA standards. However, in limited circumstances in which an employee has lost or intentionally damaged the PPE issued to him or her, an employer is not required to pay for its replacement and may require the employee to pay for such replacement."

"Uniforms, caps, or other clothing worn solely to identify a person as an employee would not be considered to be PPE because such items are not being worn for protection from workplace hazards. Similarly, items worn to keep employees clean for purposes unrelated to safety or health are not considered PPE."

The rule specifies what PPE the employer must provide, but does not require employers provide PPE where none has been required before. However, after reading the details of the final rule I do find items that OSHA is now considering PPE that was previously considered "tools of the trade."

Table V-2 of the final rule specifies the employer must provide a long list of standard PPE including:

• Climbing ensembles used by linemen (belts and climbing hooks)
• FR clothing (when required in the new revision of 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V)
• Metatarsal foot protection
• Rubber boots with steel toes
• Insulated hand tools (pliers, screwdrivers, diagonal cutters and wire strippers)

OSHA is now considering climbing ensembles used by linemen (belts and climbing hooks) as PPE.

Currently OSHA 1910.269 requires the employer ensure the employee wears clothing that could not increase the extent of injury, but does not specifically require FR clothing. The rule does state that if the proposed revision to OSHA 1910.269 and 1926 Subpart V requires FR clothing, then the employer must pay for the clothing. It is widely expected that the revision to these standards will require FR clothing when working near energized lines and equipment as currently specified in the 2007 NESC.

The rule does not require the employer pay for non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear (including steel-toe shoes or steel-toe boots). Specialty metatarsal protection footwear (protection of the upper foot) is considered PPE.

The rule also does not consider prescription safety eyewear as PPE since it is designed for use of a single individual, and is not required to be provided by the employer.

Insulated hand tools are considered "engineering controls" that isolate the employee from the hazard, so they, too, are required to be provided by the employer. The rule states:

"Ordinary hand tools are also not PPE. While some specific and specialized tools have protective characteristics, such as electrically insulated "hot sticks" used by electric utility employee to handle live power lines, these tools are not considered to be PPE. They are more properly viewed as engineering controls that isolate the employee from the hazard -- and thus would not be covered by this final rule. (As an engineering control method, however, employers must pay for this equipment.)"