operating systems.  And, to the extent you have that

  documentation you can make available to us as part of

  the post-hearing comment period, we would be very

  interested in seeing.

            DR. HORTON:  We can do that.  I assume you are

  referring to the test data from BPA?

            MS. GOODMAN:  The test data from what?  I am

  sorry I missed?

            DR. HORTON:  Are you referring to the test

  data from BPA?

            MS. GOODMAN:  That, as well.  But I was --

  actually, my question was directed to the first

  paragraph in your testimony in response to question six

  where you reference the documentation of these

  measurements and of numerous simulations.

            DR. HORTON:  Basically, this is going to be a

  culmination of documentation that several different   utility companies have, i.e., literature, references

  and so on.  So it is an enormous amount of data.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Well anything you can provide to

  us will certainly be --

            DR. HORTON:  I mean, we can certainly provide

  you with some examples if that would help.

            MR. WALLIS:  Summaries or reports of those

  measurements would certainly be adequate.

            MS. GOODMAN:  If we can jump to Page 23, in

  your testimony where you make reference to potential

  engineering and construction costs and additional costs

 minimum approach distances.  I

  realize you indicated you did not have time to pull any

  data together for us in the thirty days, but we will be

  having an extended post-hearing period into the extent,

  that if you could provide that it would obviously be

  very useful to us as we prepare the final Rule.

            MR. KELLY:  We will seek to get that.

            MS. GOODMAN:  A couple more questions before I

  turn it over to David.  On Page 24, towards the middle

  of the page, you provide an example.  You said, For

  example, requiring minimum safe approach distances that   exceed the length of standard line insulation would

  require the re-tooling of live-line maintenance

  equipment, new work procedures, et cetera.  And I am

  curious if it is EEI’s position that those step would

  be required if OSHA were to adopt the new IEEE numbers.

            DR. HORTON:  I think what they were referring

  to there is, say for example, and this is typically

  for, what I would say more typical for an EHV system,

  say 500 kV and above.  But when the minimum approach

  distance becomes longer than what the insulator length

  is, if you do not use some method, say for example, a

  portable air gap, to reduce the transient over-voltage,

  you essentially cannot work on the line.  Say for

  example, if the insulator length or the length from the

  energized part to a grounded part is, say eleven feet,

  three inches, and now your minimum approach distances

  is now eleven feet, six inches, you physically would

  not be able to meet that distance.  Now a couple ways

  to get around that is to reduce the transient over-

  voltage which would in turn reduce the minimum approach

  distance.

            So you would have to use the portable, you   know, protective, portable protective air gap or

  something like that. So I would say that being perhaps

  what is meant by re-tooling of live-line maintenance.

  Plus you would have other training issues associated

  with that as far as, you know, having to learn how to

  use the protective air gap and things of that sort.

            MS. GOODMAN:  And my question was more

  specific than that, which is, do you know if, given the

  numbers in the new IEEE standard we would run into that

  situation where the minimum approach distances exceed

  the length of the standard line insulation.

            DR. HORTON:  I would answer it as, possibly.

  If you think about your -- that is sort of a broad

  question where you are looking at every conceivable

  line configuration.  You can also have the issues at

  lower voltages when you have compact timer designs.  So

  I would say, perhaps.

            MR. WALLIS:  Just taking one point of

  clarification.  You are talking about the line-to-

  ground exposure distances, not the line-to-line

  distances.

            DR. HORTON:  That is correct.             MS. GOODMAN:  And finally on Page 25, you had

  a similar sentence where you suggest, any change in

  distances would increase the potential for needing more

  outages for perform maintenance based on insulator

  life.  And again, I want to ask the same question.

            If OSHA were to adopt the new IEEE numbers, do

  you have reason to believe that that would increase the

  need for more outages?

            DR. HORTON:  It is quite possible.  For

  example, if let’s say for, if a utility company did not

  get, did not know this was coming, and sort of

  discovered it once they saw the new Ruling, you know,

  it would take some amount of time to get tooled up to

  actually handle these new minimum approach distances.

            If you were to have an outage during that

  amount time and you were not capable of meeting the

  minimum approach distances you would have to take the

  line out of service to perform maintenance.

            MS. GOODMAN:  And you have concerns about

  that, given the specific numbers given in IEEE, or

  about any numbers that are different in the proposal?

            DR. HORTON:  I would say that the phase-to-  ground numbers that are in IEEE 516, I would not

  actually, I would not view that causing any issues.

            MR. YOHAY:  Before you ask your question

  David, we all agree, that that is another question we

  all need to elaborate on in post-hearing.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you.

            MR. WALLIS:  And my guess is -- my follow up

  question is probably in the same category.  That is

  sounds to me like, what you are really saying is that

  it may take utility companies or employers, I guess I

  should say, some additional time to figure out how to

  comply with this standard in order to avoid outages.

  That is the way I interpreted your question.  And so my

  question is, how long -- this is really an effective

  date question.  How long should OSHA delay

  implementation of the final standard in regard to

  minimum approach distances, so that, to avoid that

  issue?  And feel free to offer that in the post-hearing

  comments, that would be great.

            MR. YOHAY:  Tell us what the final standard is

  going to say and we can give you an answer.

            MR. WALLIS:  There are only a limited number   of issues on the table.  This is line-to-ground tool

  distances you are talking about.

            MS. GOODMAN:  I think David’s question was

  assuming that we were to take the route with

  incorporating the IEEE numbers.  How long would --

            MR. WALLIS:  As you suggested by the way, it

  seems to me.

            MR. KELLY:  In one scenario.

            MR. YOHAY:  As an alternative.

            MR. KELLY:  As an alternative to what we

  really want.  Yeah.  We will address that, yes.

            MR. YOHAY:  If you can, did you understand the

  enormity of the question that you just asked?

            MR. WALLIS:  I understand.

            MR. YOHAY:  That we should know the amount of

  time this process should take?

            MR. WALLIS:  We understand that.  The agency

  also has historically been willing to push back the

  effective date when we find out after we issue a Rule

  that it will take a little longer than we had

  anticipated.

            MR. YOHAY:  That is appreciated, but who wants   to go through that life of process --

            MR. WALLIS:  That is why I asked --

            MR. YOHAY:  -- of post promulgation

  negotiation over implementation dates, which leaves us

  all with the difficult question about, what does the

  standard mean that is being published, and we can leave

  that where it is.

            MR. KELLY:  With that being said, we will do

  our best to provide you with the information.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you.  I have no further

  question.

            MR. WALLIS:  I have a couple questions.

            MR. KELLY:  Engineering, I hope.

            DR. HORTON:  You can direct them to me.

            MR. WALLIS:  Get out your calculator.  For

  the record and for the sake of JUDGE COLWELL reporter,

  could you spell out CRIEPI and tell us what it stands

  for.

            DR. HORTON:  Yes and no.

            MR. WALLIS:  Which part?

            DR. HORTON:  Well, let me make sure I get the

  --               MR. WALLIS:  And also for the record, that is

  an acronym, correct?

            DR. HORTON:  Yes, it is, but I can give you a

  generalization about what it is.  Hold on for just a

  second.  CRIEPI is C-R-I-E-P-I, and basically it is a

  consortium in Japan that does technical tests and

  things of that sort.  They are well known in the high-

  voltage area.  And as far as what it stands for, I am

  not sure.

            MR. WALLIS:  I noticed you use several

  different methods to calculate minimum approach

  distances; CRIEPI, the Gallet method, and Vaisman, is

  that right?

            DR. HORTON:  Yes, for the line-to-line.

            MR. WALLIS:  And could you explain why you

  used a number of different methods instead of just

  picking a single method and presenting that?

            DR. HORTON:  Well, to use the Gallet and

  CRIEPI was basically to address the question, specific

  question about extrapolating the air-saturation factor

  beyond the test data that is available for the IEEE

  method.               And then for the Vaisman method, essentially

  provided another means of determining the what the

  minimum approach distances would be line-to-line, to

  essentially show that the distance line-to-line MAD

  that is in OSHA now is valid.

            MR. WALLIS:  The IEEE standard – which is it

  based on one of those?

            DR. HORTON:  It is also based on the Vaisman

  data, but the difference between that and what we

  showed here was, there is some other multiplying

  factors that is in the 516 method, essentially to take

  into account all tower configurations, floating

  conductor, you know, conductive objects, and that sort

  of thing.  And in the process of all that, the --

  essentially the distances are different than what we

  showed here.  They are more conservative than what we

  showed.

            MR. WALLIS:  That the --

            DR. HORTON:  Also, I would say what is a part

  of this is, you can see that the variability of the

  different methods obviously, you know, they are all

  based on physics, but the different methods provide   different distances based on where you get the test

  data.

            MR. KELLY:  Which creates more confusion for

  you when deciding what to use, which will in turn

  create confusion for us, so.

            MR. WALLIS:  You will forgive me if it takes

  me an extra couple of seconds while I bit my tongue.

  The -- one of the Figures you put up on the screen, I

  think it was Figure 4, with the graph that showed the

  comparison of, I believe, Gallet and CRIEPI and 516-

  2003.  Figure 2, I think, is the one you are really

  relying on to show why you cannot extrapolate.  You

  labeled the blue line on that graph MAID 516-2003 and

  did you use their equations and correct them with an

  extrapolated “a”?  It is my understanding that IEEE,

  that the numbers in IEEE 516-2003 contain the error

  which actually does not extrapolate “a” accurately.

            DR. HORTON:  Basically I guess you have two

  points here.  The actual error that was in 516-2003, it

  was with line-to-line distances.  There was a

  multiplying factor that was used instead of determining

  what the line-to-line transient over-voltage needed to   be and then plugging that into the formula.  There was

  much discussion going on in the early stages of what

  became 516-2009 about the air-saturation factor and how

  it is determined.  And we finally proved that, that

  value was, which essentially came from the 1968 paper

  where the formula is referenced from, is based on what

  is referred to know, what now as minimum tool

  insulation distance curve, which 516-2003 had correct.

            What was going on once 2003 version of 516

  came out, there was a push to try to push that on to

  the MAID curve, which is incorrect.  So the 2003

  version of 516, the way to compute the air saturation

  factor is correct.  In fact, the only difference in

  that, and the way it is done now, the 2009 version, is

  that in 2003 you have essentially two formulas to use

  depending on what level the voltage is at.  And in

  2009, there are multiples just to have a little more

  accuracy.

            MR. WALLIS:  So to get back to my question

  though, the line in your figure does not include the

  error --

            DR. HORTON:  That is correct.             MR. WALLIS:  -- from the 516-2003.  That was

  the root of my question.

            DR. HORTON:  Yes.  Another way of stating that

  is this blue curve is correct.

            MR. WALLIS:  The correct part of 516.

            DR. HORTON:  Yes.

            MR. WALLIS:  Assuming that the IEEE 516

  formula for calculating minimum approach distance, or

  the air insulation distance is accurate, what is the

  probability of spark-over at that distance when that

  over-voltage occurs?

            DR. HORTON:  It is really based on what the,

  the way to actually calculate it, because wave -- are

  you talking about the 2009 version 516?

            MR. WALLIS:  Yes.

            DR. HORTON:  Because it actually uses the two-

  percent statistical over-voltage to determine what the

  minimum air insulation distance is.  So the only way to

  actually determine that probability would be, you would

  have to know what the probability distribution of the

  actual surge is that the air gap is subjected to.  And

  then you could say, assume five-percent sigma for MAID   you could use those two probability distributions,

  multiply them together to create a third, and then

  integrate that to get the area under that curve to

  determine the probability of spark-over.  It would non-

  zero.  I would say, if you take a typical distribution

  of surges, and assume five-percent you are probably on

  the order of maybe one in a thousand.

            MR. WALLIS:  Thank you.  I do not remember

  exactly, I did not mark it down in my notes here, but

  there were several places in your testimony where you

  referred to line-insulation.  And I wanted to make it

  clear for the record that you were talking about air-

  insulating, oops --

            DR. HORTON:  Yep, oops.  See what you did?

            MR. WALLIS:  You were talking about air as an

  insulating medium.  You were not implying that the

  conductors themselves were insulated.

            DR. HORTON:  That is correct.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  David, thanks.  In all my court

  experience, I have never seen a question have such an

  effect.

            MR. KELLY:  -- cause this?             MR. WALLIS:  Now you have.

            MR. YOHAY:  Process safety update

            MS. GOODMAN:  -- go to law school and

  retirement.

            MR. WALLIS:  You are too late then.  I just

  wanted to clarify one of the points.  This is in Chuck

  Kelly’s portion.  It seemed to me that, and I think you

  actually already answered this question; I just wanted

  to make sure I got the gist of your point.  The um, one

  of the things you had mentioned as, where increases at

  minimum approach distances could cause a problem is in

  insulated tools such as insulator cradles and things

  like that where the length of the tool is based on the

  length of the insulation.  And I assume that, that

  consideration only applies in for phase-to-ground

  exposures, phase-to-ground minimum approach distances,

  not phase-to-phase minimum approach distances.

            MR. KELLY:  Is that right, Randy?

            DR. HORTON:  I think that is accurate.

            MR. WALLIS:  What portion of electric utility

  work is performed using live-line bare-hand work

  methods on voltages of 362 kV and higher?             MR. KELLY:  Yeah.

            MR. WALLIS:  If you can provide it and --

            MR. KELLY:  Okay.  We will.

            MR. WALLIS:  In the post-hearing period.

            MR. KELLY:   You know all of these questions

  are going to require an extended period-of-time for

  post-hearing comments.

            MR. YOHAY:  It is not a joke.  Think about

  what we have to do try to get you to answer a question

  like that.

            MR. WALLIS:  Are there -- you talked about

  using a portable air gap, to reduce the over-voltage

  (TOV).  Is, are there ways of using those kinds of

  portable gaps to reduce transient over-voltage (TOV)

  for a phase-to-phase exposure?

            DR. HORTON:  I am not aware that there are

  available.  I know that there is some research going on

that

  they are available.

            MR. WALLIS:  Could you for example, if you

  placed a portable protective gap, one line-to-ground

  gap on each phase, would that also reduce the maximum   TOV on the, three phase maximum TOV?

            DR. HORTON:  Not necessarily.  The way the

  actual surges interact with one another, just limiting

  the phase-to -- well, let me state it this way.

  Limiting the phase-to-ground over-voltage does not

  necessarily give you the same reduction as line-to-line

  over-voltage.  It could have some, depending on the

  circumstances.  There are some circumstances where it

  might not have any effect.  Some it might have a little

  bit.  So it is not as cut and dry as you might think.

            MR. WALLIS:  But the formulas and the method

  in 516 base the phase-to-phase TOV on the phase-to-

  ground TOV, s that correct?

            DR. HORTON:  Yes, that is correct.  Now the

  formula that basically transfers that is based on the

  interaction point --

            MR. WALLIS:  I understand.  So by using the

  IEEE method I could put a phase-to-ground gap on and

  come up with a reduced phase-to-phase TOV.  It might

  not be right, but I could do that under the 516.

            DR. HORTON:  Mathematically you would possibly

  do that.  But as you said, it would be incorrect.             MR. WALLIS:  I thought that was as, you said.

  I will ask the same question I asked of Jim.  It is two

  questions and feel free to combine them in any way to

  answer the questions.  Why should OSHA rely on the

  results of the NESC Subcommittees review rather than

  the IEEE Committee and won’t there be sufficient

  information in the record for OSHA to make a

  determination on how to determine MAD even without the

  results of the NESC Subcommittees deliberation?

            MR. YOHAY:  First, I think we would answer the

  question as the first part of your question and the

  second is, we do not have any way to evaluate what you

  consider to be sufficient.  If you want to accept our

  assessment of what is sufficient, that would be great.

  But I do not know how we answer that.

            MR. WALLIS:  That is okay.  There is a follow

  up question.  If --

            MR. KELLY:  Let me answer the first part of

  your question.  Why should you wait for NESC and not

  adopt 516?  Because as Mr. Tomaseski pointed out, the

  NESC is basically geared toward the safety of the

  worker and the work practices.  And 516 is an   engineering standard, primarily used for design,

  etcetera.  If you want to protect the worker, which is

  what we are here for, you probably want to use what is

  best for the workers.  And traditionally that is what

  you have done.  To deviate from that would be a

  significant change and I am not sure is necessary.

            MR. WALLIS:  So what you are saying is, and

  the way I understand the process is, the NESC takes the

  engineering material in 516 and uses --

            MR. KELLY:  NESC takes the engineering

  material and basically makes it legible and readable

  for the common person.  So most of us in the room who

  listen to the questions and answers between you and

  Randy probably did not understand any of it.  And what

  the NESC does is takes that and makes it workable in

  the field.

            MR. WALLIS:  But you would not expect or in

  your experience have you ever seen a case where the

  NESC used a methodology that was different from what

  was in 516?

            MR. KELLY:  I could not, I do not know.  I

  could not answer that.  I could answer that in the   future, but I could not answer that now.

            MR. WALLIS:  And, so if, the reason I asked

  the question the way I did before is, to the extent the

  NESC Subcommittee is looking at this same information

  that we are, they, I mean, their record and our record

  at this point are, when we get the material from Jim

  Tomaseski, will be pretty much the same.

            MR. YOHAY:  As you yourself said David, the

  National Electric Safety Code is a National Consensus

  Standard, and you acknowledged the statutory obligation

  that OSHA has to explain clearly, why you would deviate

  from a National Consensus Standard and that applies in

  full force with respect to the NESC.  I would suggest,

  that the reason that provision is in the statute, not

  only is NESC, but all National Consensus Standards, is

  recognition that those code committees collect

  expertise from such a wide variety sources, that it is

  a collection of expertise that OSHA should respect and

  give some deference to.  With all due respect, OSHA’s

  capability simply by virtue by the range of people

  involved, the NESC Committee is going to involve a

  consideration by people who come from a broad range of   the industry and hopefully will have considered how the

  standards will apply throughout the industry.  And that

  is why that provision is in the statute.

            MR. WALLIS:  Just two more it looks like.

  No, three more, I finally figured out what that other

  one was.  On Page 20, you refer to the BPA circuit as a

  special 230 kV circuit.

            DR. HORTON:  Special case.

            MR. WALLIS:  It says one special 230 kV

  circuit and it repeats it in the next sentence.  So you

  are talking that this was a special case.  You are not

  implying that the circuit is unique in some manner.

            DR. HORTON:  Correct.  I mean, as far as like

  the construction of the circuit, we are not aware of it

  being abnormal.

            MR. WALLIS:  Okay.  I just wanted to clarify

  that.  On Page 17, I will read this sentence to you.

  Since the shape of the adjacent electrode remains

  unchanged during the task, that is, it remains a

  conductor, the resulting air gap geometry more closely

  resembles that of a conductor-to-conductor.

            Is all line workers, I mean, are all line work   on, in a, basically bare-hand line work, because that

  is what we are talking about here, phase-to-phase.  The

  other phase is only in the form of a conductor.

            DR. HORTON:  Probably what this should have

  said, more, maybe to add to it, it more closely

  resembles that of a conductor-to-conductor rather than

  a rod-to-rod gap.  If you compare those two, that is

  essentially what the statement is trying to say.

            MR. WALLIS:  As a follow-up to that, are you

  aware of any testing that was done for different kinds

  of configurations in a phase-to-phase, um for phase-to-

  phase testing?  For example, and let me explain that a

  little further.  For phase-to-ground testing there are

  several papers with results for testing for rod-to-rod,

  rod-to-plane, conductor-to-conductor, various tower

  configurations.

            Is there a comparable body of evidence for

  conductor-to-conductor or phase-to-phase?

            DR. HORTON:  No, there is not.

            MR. WALLIS:  And one last thing.  Your

  proposal was to retain the existing 269 and Subpart V

  minimum approach distances and leave that portion of   the Rule making open, is that correct?

            MR. KELLY:  Correct.

            MR. WALLIS:  Since it appears that most of

  the controversy is on line-to-line minimum approach

  distances.  Would an option be to hold that, leave

  those distances alone, and promulgate the others?

            MR. KELLY:  So split it?  Finish line-to-

  ground and just leave line-to-line out there.

            MR. WALLIS:  Well, just line -- in fact,

  there, we could leave -- yes.  The answer would be yes.

            MR. KELLY:  I do not think that would probably

  be -- I mean, I do not think it would make much

  difference to us because the issues are on line-to-

  line.  I think it would be more problematic for you to

  split it, but I mean, as you could probably have

  someone challenge you on both of them at two different

  times.

            MR. YOHAY:  I think it is an intriguing

  question.  I think we need to think about it.  I would

  be interested in not knowing how employers, how

  companies in the industry go about putting together

  their Rules and training and whether they segregate   these things -- if I could finish.

            MR. WALLIS:  I guess that –

            MR. YOHAY:  Could I finish my answer?

            MR. WALLIS:  All right.

            MR. YOHAY:  Thanks.  I do not know the answer

  or we do not know the answer whether it would create a

  practical matter, problems in implementation and terms

  of Safety Rules, Operating Rules, Work Practice, all

  that good stuff that flow from changes in the Rule.  I

  just do not know the answer, whether it is as neatly

  divisible in practice as it seems to be from your

  question.  It is a legitimate question and we will

  address it.

            MR. KELLY:  We will pose it and we will ask

  the question and see what kind of response we get.

            MR. WALLIS:  Thanks.  That is all I have.

            MR. BURT:

                         Just one quick question.  As I

  understand it, the minimum approach distances have

  changed a number of times over the years; any

  observations on past costs or economic implications of

  such changes, the past changes?             MR. KELLY:  We would have to go back and dig

  into all the work that was done on 269 prior to that

  coming out, but which you already have, but we

  certainly could resurface that if possible.

            MR. BURT:

                         Thank you.

            MS. GOODMAN:  That is all from us, Your Honor.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let me just see how many

  individuals have questions and we will determine the

  break, whether we take it now or take it after the

  questions.

            Mr. Tomaseski, about how long do you think

  your questions will be?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  It should not take long.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Then why don’t we finish up with

  you please and then, we will take a break.  Then we

  have -- well, you’re up after that?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Thank you.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Just for the record, just please

  state your name --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I am sorry.  I am James

  Tomaseski --             JUDGE COLWELL:  Thanks.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  from the IBEW.  These

  questions are probably aimed at Randy, I would assume.

            MR. KELLY:  Thank you.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  In IEEE 516 there are terms

  like MAID and MTID and we have talked a little bit

  about air, and tools, and everything.  What -- two-part

  question.  What is the principle difference and why is

  that so important to worker safety?

            DR. HORTON:  I think the principle difference

  is to differentiate between the two conditions that a

  worker may be subjected to.  Say for example, if you

  have a worker is climbing a tower, does not have a

  tool, you know, using a tool that would essentially

  equivalate to one minimum approach distance, where as

  if they are using a tool, it would equivalate to

  another.  And the distance with the tool is going to be

  larger than the distance without the tool.  So to use

  the distance, to use one distance for everything that

  is based on just the air insulation distance, you know,

  theoretically that is less conservative than using a

  distance that includes a tool in the air gap.  I think   we have probably proven over the years that the latter

  is safe.  We know we have talked many times, about not

  ever having any issues.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Okay.  Are you aware that the

  2007 NESC in their revision changed to, changed their

  minimum approach distances Tables to MAD for Tools?

            DR. HORTON:  Yes.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  And also in the evolution of

  IEEE 516 I think probably in the 2003 Edition they

  started to include MAD for Tools also?

            DR. HORTON:  That is correct.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  The 2009 Edition of 516 does

  not include the line-to-line MAD for Tools distances,

  does it?

            DR. HORTON:  No, it does not.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Can those distances actually

  be calculated?

            DR. HORTON:  I would say at this time, no.

  Well, let me say it this way.  You could calculate a

  distance, but it would not be based on test data for

  that particular application.  And that is sort of the

  whole history with the line-to-line methodology.  No   matter what you choose, going back to what Mr. Wallis

  asked me, there is really not the same body of test

  data for line-to-line conditions, that there are for

  line-to-ground conditions.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  So the distances that were in

  2003-516 which got into the 2007 NESC, those were based

  on what in your opinion.  Was is based on an assumption

  or --

            DR. HORTON:  Well, actually they were based on

  line-to-ground test data, which is what the IEEE data

  is based on.  But the difference there is the actual

  approach distance was computed using a multiplying

  factor.  They would compute the, say the line-to-ground

  over-voltage factor and then use a multiplying factor

  to kind of essentially increase the distance to be

  adequate for line-to-line applications.  What they

  should have done, and where the error was, is to

  actually compute what the resulting line-to-line

  transient over-voltage is, and then use that in the

  formula to compute the appropriate approach distance.

            Again, the formula is based on line-to-ground

  test data and there is some issues associated with   that.  But based on that method, that is how it should

  have been done.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  One thing that you mentioned

  to, in your comments on the re-closures being turned

  off, or being defeated, 242 kV, did that -- was that

  note that was added, I think you referenced 2009

  Version of IEEE 516, was that for voltages operating at

  242 kV or all voltages operating at or above 242?

            DR. HORTON:  You are talking about as far as

  the re-closing --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Yes.

            DR. HORTON:  Specifically what were the -- I

  guess the differentiation begins, is when you are at

  say, 500 kV -765, the actual design of the system is

  governed by switching surges.  So inherently you are

  reducing the switching surges in those types of systems

  in the order of 2.4 or so for 500 kV and around 2.0 for

  about 800 kV.

            So to do that, you have closing resisters for

  your breakers, or you have surge arresters along the

  line that is at specific points, or maybe at the end of

  the line.  You actually reduce the switching surges to   a level so that you can actually operate your system

  regardless of live line work.  At 242 kV that is not

  the case.  Fact, I do not know of -- there may be some

  out there, but I do not know of a situation where you

  have closure resisters in a 242 kV breaker that is

  protecting a line.  Now for capacitor banks and so on

  you have that.  So that is in there because if you were

  to high-speed a reclose into the line and it has a

  trapped charge, you can get the transient over-voltages

  that are up to, say, three per unit, and that is why

  that caveat is in there. If you have high-speed

  reclosing blocked, you are not going to be reclosing

  into those trapped charges so that the actual resulting

  transient over-voltage is much less than what the

  maximum is.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  So that same principle can be

  applied to all voltages above that also.

            DR. HORTON:  Yes.  I guess what that does is,

  the higher voltages is, say for example, 500 kV, if

  you’ve got closing resisters, you can actually into a

  trapped charge with a closing resister and limit the

  transient over-voltages.               MR. TOMASESKI:  Okay.  Last question.  On IEEE

  516, it went through some significant changes this

  revision cycle, a lot of debate on some principles and

  debate on the calculation method and so forth.  I

  believe the committee will begin meeting again this

  January.

            In your opinion, what is the likelihood of

  change in the next revision cycle referencing the

  minimum approach distances?

            DR. HORTON:  I believe the line-to-ground

  distances; they should stay the same.  There is not

  really anything to debate as far as methodology, you

  know, that is pretty much said.  Line-to-line

  distances; I think there is a very good likelihood that

  they will change.  The methodology that was adopted

  was, you know, based on what was believed to be maybe a

  little bit better science, better replicating what the

  realistic work situations are.  But in the result to

  try to come up with one formula to basically handle all

  structure types, all voltage levels and so on, some of

  the multiplying factors that are imbedded in that

  equation are very conservative.                        In fact, you know, if the EHV level being say

  515 kV - 765 kV, you can change some of the assumptions

  very slightly that were used to develop the equations

  and you can change the minimum approach distances by

  feet. So I would say, there is a high likelihood that

  the line-to-line minimum approach distances will

  change.  There definitely will be some discussion in

  January about looking at that.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  That is all I have.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Any individuals have any

  questions?  Go ahead.

            MR. WALLIS:  I have a follow-up to one of

  Jim’s questions.  You talked about re-- blocking, re-

  closing eliminates the closing in on a trapped charge.

  But does that also eliminate the possibility of re-

  strikes on a breaker opening?

            DR. HORTON:  That would not eliminate the

  possibility of that.  But what is done in IEC Standards

  and what we adopted in IEEE Standards is to not include

  the probability of re-strike in the calculations.  If

  you look at the probability of a breaker, re-strike in

  concert with the probability of a worker actually being   within the minimum approach distances they are actually

  more likely to be struck by lightning walking down the

  street.  So the probability is extremely low, so we

  ignore it.  Like I said, we follow the IEC Standards.

            MR. WALLIS:  One more question.  Does the --

  never mind.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let me just ask you about a break.

  It is my understanding; we will take at least a ten-

  minute break.  Do you want to go all the way through

  and finish?  I think that was the goal to finish around

  1:30 p.m. instead of taking a lunch break.

            MS. GOODMAN:  That was the plan.  Whatever you

  prefer, Your Honor.  The original plan was to conclude

  by 1:30 – 2:00.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let me just ask how much time Mr.

  Tomaseski will be needing to present.  It is up to you

  all.  It does not matter to me.  We could have a short

  break and then hopefully finish, and then we can have

  lunch, head on off, and go to your offices.  How long

  do you think Jim will be?

            MS. GOODMAN:  Our preference would be to push

  through it.               JUDGE COLWELL:  Is that pretty much everybody’s

  preference?

            MR. YOHAY:  So stipulated.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let’s take a ten-minute break and

  then we will come back.

  Stop Recording 12:50 p.m.

  Start Recording 1:00 p.m.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let’s go back on the record,

  please.  Back in session.  We have our next witness.

            Will you please, for the record, state your

  full name and whom you represent?

            MR. HARTLEY:  My name is Donald C. Hartley.  I

  am an international representative with the IBEW

  Utility Department here in Washington, D.C., and my

  responsibilities are for electric utilities industry,

  safety and the transmission distribution end.

            And to my left is Jim Tomaseski who previously

  testified this morning, Director of our Safety and

  Health Department at the IBEW.

            Thank you very much, Your Honor and the OSHA

  panel.  We appreciate this opportunity.  No, let me re-

  state.  We are mad about this opportunity to address   this industry issue.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Very good.

            MR. HARTLEY:  I could not resist that.  The

  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

  is a labor organization representing approximately

  750,000 members that work in a wide variety of

  including utilities, construction, telecommunications,

  broadcasting, manufacturing, railroad, and government.

            Of these 750,000 members, over 200,000 are

  employed in the electric utility industry as full-time

  utility employees and her contractor employees; on

  investor-owned, rural electric cooperative, municipal, or

  other government properties.

            The IBEW has reviewed the Occupational Safety

  and Health Administration’s limited re-opening of the

  record for Electric Power Generation, Transmission,

  Distribution, and Electric Protective Equipment Rule

  Making that was published in the Federal Register in

  September 14, 2009.

            The IBEW continues to support OSHA’s efforts

  to update the existing standards and submits the

  following comments in response to this notice:   The IBEW is genuinely concerned in maintaining and

  where necessary improving safe working conditions for

  our members and for all electrical workers.  We

  represent a significant number of employees in the

  Electric Utility industry; workers that will be

  directly affected by the final Rules developed through

  this Rule Making.

            It is our concern, and we believe this concern

  is shared by the different employers performing work on

  electric utility properties, such as Edison Electric

  Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative

  Association, the American Public Power Association, and

  quite a number of contractors, that adequate work rules

  exist to protect workers when performing tasks on our

  nation’s electric utility systems.  We have developed

  strong relationships with these industry/employers’

  associations through work on industry related consensus

  standard writing committees, including the NESC.

            We are also participating on a one of a kind

  OSHA strategic partnership with major construction

  employers in this industry and we must say that the

  partnership work is experiencing remarkable progress in   the reduction of incidents by the partner members.

            The issue at question in this re-opening of

  the record is minimum approach distances or what we

  would commonly refer to as MAD.  The MAD concept,

  although titled differently over the years, has been

  with us for a long time, almost a hundred years.

            In 1914 the U.S. Department of Commerce

  published in the circular of Bureau of Standards the

  Safety Rules for the operation of electrical equipment

  and lines.  This effort eventually became what we know

  today as the NESC or the NESC-II Standard.  Since 1914,

  in every revision of what is now the NESC, MAD has been

  included in the published Rules.

            Electric transmission and distribution systems

  have changed over the years and so have some

  engineering principles.  As a result, MAD calculation

  methods and resulting values have also changed.  OSHA

  1926 Subpart V originally issued in 1971 contain Tables

  for minimum approach distances and bare-hand work

  minimum clearance distances.  In 1987, the Institute of

  Electrical and Electronics and Engineers (IEEE)

  published Standard 516, Guide for Maintenance Methods   for Energized Power Lines.

            In this guide, the term “minimum approach

  distance” was first introduced in the industry.  Among

  other items, the new IEEE 516 included details on how

  MAD values were derived and what factors need to be

  considered in an engineering analysis on the subject.

            The NESC, beginning with the 1990 Edition,

  began adopting principles regarding MAD from the IEEE

  document.  Even in a 1994 OSHA publication 1920.269,

  OSHA relied on the NESC and IEEE 516 for the basis of

  the minimum approach distances in their regulation.

  That is how the progression should work.

            It is important to look at how to use the MAD

  values.  Regardless of the origin and year of

  publication, we have protected workers performing tasks

  in the vicinity of energized power lines.  The IBEW

  regularly reviews accidents occurring in the electric

  utility industry.  We cannot remember a single accident

  caused by inadequate MAD values.

            OSHA 1920.269 MAD values have proven to

  protect workers, as they were intended to do.  The

  obvious question then is, why change successful MAD   values.  Based on industry performance, we do not see

  why changes are necessary.  IEEE 2009 does contain

  different MAD values and several voltage ranges from

  those in OSHA 1920.269 and those contained in the NESC.

  It does not appear that OSHA can deem any of the

  published MAD values unsafe for workers.

            We understand that mathematical errors were

  identified in many publications containing MAD values.

  We also understand the desire to correct those

  identified errors.  The problem then becomes, the MAD

  values will change and more specifically they will

  likely increase depending on the calculation method

  that is used.

            Again, how can one justify increasing the MAD

  values possibly jeopardizing long existing work

  practices where there has been no determination that

  safety has been compromised.

            Ultimately, IBEW believes there is nothing

  unsafe with the existing 1920.269 MAD values even

  though there may exist a mathematical error.  The

  dilemma is how OSHA’s new MAD protocol should be

  developed.               The IBEW believes the responsibility for

  developing this solution is the responsibility of the

  NESC.  Technical Subcommittee 8 on Work Rules, the body

  responsible for writing Part IV of the NESC where MAD

  Rules and Tables are located, should do this for OSHA

  to follow.

            The NESC is adopted by many states in the

  U.S.  The U.S. World Electric Service requires member

  cooperatives to follow the NESC if they receive

  government loans.  Many public power utilities,

  municipalities are not covered by OSHA.  The NESC in

  these instances becomes the rule to follow.  The value

  of the NESC cannot be understated.  The NESC is

  published every five years.  The 2007 Edition is

  currently in place and the revision process for the

  2012 Edition is well underway, but not completed.

            The MAD issue is at the forefront of

  Subcommittee responsibilities for the next edition,

  including the consideration of IEEE 516 changes.  The

  process of canvassing public opinion on proposals to

  revise existing NESC language, a requirement for ANSI

  approval of new Code, started September 1, 2009.    Determination of the 2012 Code Language will not be

  finalized by Subcommittee 8 until the Fall of 2010.

            It is unfortunate that the timing of the

  revision of the NESC and the reopening of this record

  has not been better aligned.  There is a way to fix

  that problem.  The IBEW strongly recommends that OSHA

  keep this record open until Subcommittee 8 has the

  opportunity to review public comment on this issue and

  develop final Code Language on the MAD principles and

  Rules.

            While this may not be in the best interest of

  implementation of other provisions of the revised

  regulations that will surely enhance the safety of

  workers in this industry, the MAD issue is equally

  important and needs to be addressed correctly.

            OSHA relied on the NESC in the past and that

  should not change with this Rule Making.  By delaying

  the Final Rule until Subcommittee can complete their

  work, the opportunity to align the OSHA Regulations and

  the NESC is a reality.

            Again, it is unfortunate that timing is not

  better, but the only responsible option is to allow the   delay.

            Subcommittee 8 recently met to discuss the MAD

  issues.  Several problems were apparent.  Why changing

  existing MAD values if there are no documented safety

  issues.  And, on a more technical issue, what changes

  should be made to MAD and why use one methodology over

  another?  Is there sound science available; our

  assumption relying on to establish the MAD values.  If

  IEEE 516 is used to revise the NESC, what will change

  in the next revision cycle for IEEE 516 and will the

  NESC have to change again?

            It has become very complicated considering the

  impact it could have on the industry.  On an additional

  note, the following Table represents the preliminary

  discussions during the recent Subcommittee 8 meeting.

  It was apparent the MAD values published in the 2007

  NESC were based on a tool in the air gap, or MAD for

  Tools.

            While this approach is necessary in some work

  applications, it is not always necessary to add the

  factor 4 tool in the air gap, thereby increasing MAD.

  OSHA asked this as one of their questions in the re-  opening.

            It was also apparent there is a need to

  include, in the final Tables, both MAD in the Air and

  MAD with Tools.  While the Subcommittee may have a

  tentative agreement on the issue at that level, nothing

  official can be concluded until the public comment

  period is finalized.

            Most of the questions OSHA asked in the

  Federal Register notice are very technical or at least

  deserve a technical response.  We will not attempt to

  offer the necessary technical responses, but will offer

  what we can, and make sense.

            Question 1.  Should OSHA adopt minimum

  approach distances that are different than those in

  Subpart V Tables V-2 through V-6 and proposed 1920.269

  Tables R-6 through R-10 and if so, what criteria and

  methodology are reasonably necessary to protect

  employees from hazards created from spark-over?

            The answer, as stated earlier, we recognize

  the mathematical errors were identified in trying to

  correct the errors.  Different approach distances will

  result.  How to correct the error is the problem.  The   problem with distances was not unsafe based on industry

  experience, so one should conclude the mathematical

  error did not produce distances that did not protect

  the worker.

            Question 2.   Is there any scientific basis

  for not extrapolating the saturation factor “a” beyond

  the limits of the test data on which earlier versions

  of IEEE Standard 516 relied?  And is there any test

  data that can be used to validate or invalidate the use

  of the extrapolated values for “a”?

            Well, we will leave that up to the engineering

  experts.  You have already heard that from previous

  testimony.  We will leave that up to the engineering

  experts.

            Question 3.  Does the new IEEE methodology for

  calculating minimum approach distances for phase-to-

  phase exposures and voltages of 72.6 kV and higher,

  represent the employee exposure conditions better than

  the methodology OSHA used to generate the minimum

  approach distances in the 2005 proposal?  In

  particular, is the use of conductor-to-conductor test

  data modified with the use of a 3.3 meter floating   electrode preferable to the use of rod-to-rod test data

  for representing the range of employee exposure

  conditions?

            While this probably deserves a technical

  response, it is important to repeat the fact that the

  distances in the 2005 proposal evidently represented

  employee exposure conditions adequately.  The proposed

  distances were based on previously published distances

  that did not experience any problems.

            Question 4.  All of the minimum approach

  distances in the 2005 proposed Rule are based on the

  minimum air insulation distance.  Should the minimum

  approach distances for voltages of 72.6kV and higher be

  based on the minimum tool insulation distance, as is

  the case in the 2007 NESC?

            Should the minimum approach distances for

  voltages of 72.5 kV and lower also be based on the

  minimum tool insulation distance?

            As we stated earlier, preliminary discussions

  at the Subcommittee 8 meeting recognized the need to

  publish both values.

            Question 5.  IEEE Standard 516-2009 does not   provide minimum tool insulation distances for phase-to-

  phase exposures.  Using an insulated boom on the top or

  middle conductor in a vertical configuration and using

  a live-line rope in a similar position involve the use

  of an insulator across the air gap between two phases.

            Are there any other situations in which an

  insulator or a live-line tool is used between two phase

  conductors during live-line work?  If, in the final

  rule, OSHA bases minimum approach distances on minimum

  tool insulation distances, but adopts IEEE’s

  methodology to calculate phase-to-phase minimum

  approach distances, how, if at all, should the final

  Rule address situations in which insulation is present

  across the air gap?

            The answer, based on discussions with our

  members that perform live-line work practices, phase-

  to-phase exposure where the entire air gap is

  compromised is rare to non-existent.  The only work

  practice that could even come close to this practice is

  use of a helicopter between two phases.

            Question 6.  Existing 1910.269 and OSHA’s 2005

  proposal set maximum transient overvoltage’s of 3.0 per   unit for voltages up to 362 kV, 2.4 per unit for

  voltages in the 552 kV range, and 2.0 per unit for

  voltages in the 800 kV range.  The committee and the

  electric utility industry, as reflected in the NESC and

  earlier Editions of IEEE Standard 516, believed that

  these were the highest possible transient over-

  voltages.  However, IEEE Standard 516-2009 now

  recognizes that even higher maximum per unit transient

  overvoltage’s can exist.

            How, if at all, should the final Rule address

  the possibility of higher maximum transient over-

  voltages given that the proposed Rule did not address

  this possibility?

            The answer, higher transient over-voltages may

  exist.  If the higher per unit factors are presented in

  any document, specific instructions should be included

  that explain their use.  IEEE 516 and NESC include

  those higher factors.  There was a CP approved in the

  last Subcommittee on Change Proposals that removed Rule

  Language referring to higher factors.

            It appears that Subcommittee 8 will be

  addressing the continued inclusion of the higher   factors during the Fall, 2010 meetings.

            Question 7.  In drafting the final Rule,

  should OSHA include the 362.1 to 420 kV voltage range

  appearing in the IEEE Standard 516-2009 in addition to

  the voltage ranges in the proposed Rule?  Do any

  existing systems operate at these voltages?

            When a final MAD Table or Tables are

  developed, voltage ranges such as listed in

  Subcommittee 8 included in the earlier discussions

  documents should include all voltages.

            Question 8.  OSHA does not anticipate that

  revising the minimum approach distances using one of

  the methods outlined in this notice will have a

  substantial impact on compliance costs.  However, the

  Agency realizes that some companies might be affected

  by revised minimum approach distances.  Would revised

  minimum approach distances in accordance with one or

  more of the methods described in this notice impose

  additional compliance costs?

            Depending on the Final MAD Values, live-line

  work practices traditionally used may not be possible,

  if MAD increases to the point where the work cannot be   performed.  This may require retraining of workers,

  purchasing different equipment, and possibly de-

  energizing the circuits.

            And lastly, I would like to add, the IBEW

  believes the Final Rule may proceed to publication and

  leave the record open for the purposes of revising MAD

  clearances.

            We thank you for the opportunity to address

  the issues.  We will answer any questions you may have.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Let me ask you.  Is this in your

  materials already?  That they have.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  No.  This will be something

  new at the end.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Do you have something that you

  want to submit as an Exhibit?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Oh, yes, I do.  I made several

  copies.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, I am going to mark

  the document I have just been handed by the witness, as

  Exhibit C and I am going to title it, “Tables

  Accompanying IBEW Testimony and I would ask that this

  be admitted to the record.        [IBEW’s Exhibit C was admitted into evidence.]

            JUDGE COLWELL:  It is now admitted.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Thank you.

            MS. GOODMAN:  I will start with a few

  questions and then I will turn it over to David.  Your

  final recommendations seem to be, to go forward with

  most of the ruling, with minimum approach distances to

  be determined later.  If we were to take that approach,

  would you support, adopting the numbers in the 2005

  proposal, which were slightly different than those in

  the current 269, or would it be your position that we

  would stick with what is in the existing standard and

  not change them at all?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Let me make sure I understand

  the question.  If you’re going to publish something, --

            MS. GOODMAN:  Yes.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- the difference between the

  two isn’t that great on the line-to-line side.  I mean

  the line-to-ground side.  The line-to-line side,

  there’s some -- there’s some differences, but I -- I

  really haven’t -- we haven’t really talked about which   one or the other to publish because -- because we think

  that again once Subcommittee 8 finishes their work,

  it’s possible that we could see something different,

  especially based on the 2007 NESC.

            So I -- I wouldn’t say publish either, you

  know.  I -- I -- our position is that we need to wait.

            MS. GOODMAN:  So your default is to -- to

  leave it as is and not to update it, as recommended or

  as proposed in -- in 2005?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Yeah.  Either way.  Like I

  say, I think the -- the OSHA needs to wait to publish

  anything until -- until the issue has been settled by

  the NESC.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Okay.  Which brings me to my

  next question.  You say in your testimony that there

  have been no problems, no safety problems identified in

  the existing minimum approach distances in the OSHA

  standards.

            You also indicate the need to promulgate the

  rest of the proposal for -- for safety reasons.

            So in that instance, why wait at all?  Why

  shouldn’t OSHA simply proceed with its 2005 proposal?    And it seems to me you’re saying there’s no safety

  benefit to waiting for the NESC to complete its work

  before we move forward with minimum approach distances.

  So what is the reason then to wait?

            MR. HARTLEY:  Well, one of the things that we

  believe is that -- and it was a question asked earlier

  -- is that because OSHA references the NESC and

  recognizes that as a consensus standard and it is a

  practicing document utilized by utilities and

  referenced by workers, you know, in the field, that

  harmony between the two is essential or as close as can

  be, and given the fact that OSHA’s revisions of their

  standards are not exactly frequent, that this is an

  opportunity for the standards to meld or mimic each

  other to as close as possible and to wait the period of

  time that we’re talking about in getting the rest of

  the standard but allowing this to exist is to pass up

  that opportunity and in not doing so just adds to

  confusion when it could be adequately addressed in a

  relatively short period of time, given the time frame

  that OSHA normally operates in promulgating rules.

            MS. GOODMAN:  And to follow up on that   response, and this is a question I’ve asked of the

  earlier witnesses, in your experience, have there been

  any safety repercussions of any confusion that may be

  out there as a result of -- of the differing standards,

  different OSHA and NESC and IEEE standards?

            MR. HARTLEY:  We’re not aware of any of the

  issues, as we state in our testimony, of any of the

  standards that are out there now or the numbers, so to

  speak, that may be utilized that have implicated

  safety.

            MS. GOODMAN:  I -- I probably didn’t state my

  question very clearly.  My question was really did --

  because you’ve suggested that there’s some confusion

  out there about the various standards.

            Does that confusion in your experience rise to

  the level of becoming a safety problem?

            MR. HARTLEY:  Well, I would say it could, but

  one of the fundamental things to understand is that

  there is the attempt by workers in the field to -- and

  -- and safety experts, okay, who help train those same

  workers to address complying with the rules accurately

  and to have differing rules that can be referenced only   enhances that confusion.

            So when trying to decide what the right thing

  is to do, you really need to have a standard,

  especially because they would purport to do the same

  thing, which is to create a safe work environment for

  the employees and those performing the work.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you.  At Page 5 of your

  comments, you suggest that “increasing minimum approach

  distance values could possibly jeopardize long-existing

  work practices.”

            If you have anything specific that you can

  either share with us now or in the post-hearing comment

  period as to particular work practices that would be in

  jeopardy and whether the distances in the IEEE standard

  in particular would jeopardize those work practices,

  I’d be very interested to have that information.

            MR. HARTLEY:  We can find those in the post-

  hearing.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you.  One final question.

  On Page 11 of your comments, and this is a similar

  question to the one I just asked, you suggest that

  “live line work practices traditionally used may not be   possible if MAD increases to the point where the work

  cannot be performed.”

            I’d be interested to know if you believe that

  there would be problems with work being able to be

  performed, given the IEEE, the numbers in the new IEEE

  standard.

            MR. HARTLEY:  Well, I know in -- you’ve heard

  quite a bit of testimony today with regard to the

  physical changes that this could impact with regard to

  existing structures of which, you know, they’re

  voluminous, beyond count, I would say, across the

  United States, and the work -- the condition of those

  physical transmission structures, okay, or pull-line

  structures, whichever, and the way that the employees

  or workers work those today would be implicated to the

  point where they just simply couldn’t perform.

            I know that you previously had a scenario

  testified to, such as climbing a tower where you

  couldn’t physically because of the circle that would be

  drawn, you know, concerning MAD, that you couldn’t

  encroach within that circle to even climb past the

  conductor because of those -- those numbers and much   the same would be the case in operating, doing, you

  know, hot sticking of those same conductors, to the

  point where perhaps you would run up situations where

  -- and -- and really many of the -- the structures are

  different physically that you could wind up not being

  able to have even sticks long enough to be able to

  perform the work or be able to be far enough away on

  that structure to perform the work or implicating the

  angles of which you’d actually move the conductors or

  whatever in doing that work.

            So, you know, they’re all very

  individualistic, based on structure, but certainly it’s

  -- it’s predictable that you could, you know,

  complicate matters to the point of not being able to do

  them under the current operating conditions.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Okay.

            MR. WALLIS:  Just a couple.  We’ve heard

  testimony from you yourselves and from the other

  witnesses that the current MAD, minimum approach

  distances, have not led to accidents.

            Does that mean that there haven’t been

  accidents where employees have gotten too close to   power lines?

            What I’m trying to get at is does that mean --

  does that mean that there aren’t any accidents when

  employees are complying with the existing minimum

  approach distances?  Is that the issue?  I mean, it

  seems to me there are -- there have been accidents

  where employees have gotten too close to lines, is that

  correct or not?  Maybe I’ll ask that question first.

            MR. HARTLEY:  That’s correct.

            MR. WALLIS:  So is -- when you say that there

  haven’t been any accidents, does that mean that there

  haven’t been any accidents when employees are complying

  with the minimum approach distances?  Is that the way

  we should interpret your --

            MR. HARTLEY:  Yes.

            MR. WALLIS:  -- your testimony?

            MR. HARTLEY:  Yes, yes.

            MR. WALLIS:  With respect to -- I think you

  recommended setting two different tables, one with --

  one for -- one for tools and one without tools, and I

  believe the last time we opened the record with a

  question along that line, you recommended setting one   table using the tool distance rather than the air

  distance.

            What made you change your position?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I -- I would have to say that

  once we started taking a good look at what was changing

  in IEEE 516 and also going back to prior versions of

  the NESC and seeing what changed, it -- it made us take

  a closer look at what -- what we’re doing and, in

  particular, what the NESC did and IEEE 516, dated 2003,

  but the 2007 NESC, and why the MAD for Tools was the

  basis of the minimum approach distance tables in the

  NESC and, to be honest with you, we couldn’t come up

  with a good answer.

            And so to recommend that we continue to use

  MAD for Tools in the NESC and to recommend that MAD for

  Tools be used for the basis for the OSHA distances, we

  can’t do that now, and we -- this is one of the

  subjects of discussion, hopefully, that -- that the

  NESC’s group, you know, which we participate in, is --

  is going to look at in making their final

  recommendation.

            MR. WALLIS:  The -- ask the question this way.    The -- when -- your work methods when you’re working on

  power lines, when -- if you’re not using an insulated

  tool, say you’re using the rubber glove work method,

  are there -- and I’m not talking about where a

  conductor is insulated from you, but are there other

  cases where there is insulating material between or

  even conducting material between the employee and the

  energized part, where that would be -- that would be in

  the minimum approach distance?

            MR. HARTLEY:  That’s -- that’s --

            MR. WALLIS:  In other words, --

            MR. HARTLEY:  -- not covered.

            MR. WALLIS:  In other words, it says that the

  IEEE standard gives two tables, one for minimum

  approach distance where air is the insulation medium

  and a second table when you’re using tools, but -- but

  the -- are there other -- what I’m getting at, are

  there other situations in the middle where I’m not

  using tools but I still have insulation between me and

  an energized part or if I’m at energized -- if I’m at

  the -- my part potential, is there insulation between

  me and the ground, even if I’m not using a tool?             My question is right now the table is either

  or, and I’m trying to figure out if there’s -- if

  there’s a position in the middle.  Is -- is your work

  situations give you -- put you in a position where

  there’s some insulation between you and the energized

  part, might not be rated insulation, but it’s a rope or

  some other material --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Were you asking that question

  specific to -- you started out with talking about

  distribution voltages, rubber gloves.

            MR. WALLIS:  Well, it could be -- it could be

  distribution voltage or transmission voltages.  I’m

  mostly concerned about the line-to-ground exposure.

  Forget -- the testimony here seems to indicate that

  doesn’t happen on the phase-to-phase side, but on the

  phase-to-ground side, it’s -- it -- it -- I’m just

  checking.

            There’s only two tables.  One’s with air and

  one’s with insulation, and is there something in the

  middle where there’s some insulation between you or

  some other material between you and the energized part?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  You know, my -- my response to   that is anything could happen, but I don’t think it’s a

  concern, and I think the two tables are -- are

  adequate.  I don’t know if that’s what you were leading

  to.

            MR. WALLIS:  I’m just saying -- I’m not asking

  if they’re adequate.  I’m asking is -- is it -- is

  there a situation where I wouldn’t apply the insulated

  tool table but I -- I have something other than air

  between me and the conductor within the minimum

  approach distance?

            MS. GOODMAN:  Are you asking about the need

  for a third table?

            MR. WALLIS:  No, not really.  Let me put --

  let me explain it.  Maybe I’ll give you a little

  technical information behind my question.

            The -- the test performed to get you to the

  minimum air insulation distances are with air-only

  between the worker and the energized part.  If I have

  another object between me and the -- and the live part,

  usually -- normally, you would consider that to be a

  tool, but it could be -- I can have something else in

  my hand or there could be some other -- maybe I’m in an   insulated aerial lift and there’s insulation in the --

  in the boom is between me and the adjacent phase and so

  --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  You’re -- you’re asking about

  a floating object --

            MR. WALLIS:  Right.  Exactly.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- that hasn’t compromised the

  entire --

            MR. WALLIS:  Right.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- air gap.

            MR. WALLIS:  Are there situations like that?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Sure.  There are situations,

  yes.

            MR. WALLIS:  Sorry that took so long.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  That’s all right.

            MR. WALLIS:  Lauren asked that one.  I’ll ask

  -- I asked the question of the other -- you’ve had your

  chance already.  This is for Don, I guess.  I’ll ask

  these two questions together and you can -- if you --

  feel free to elaborate on either one or both of them.

            Why should OSHA rely on the results of the

  NESC Subcommittee’s review rather than the IEEE   Committee, and won’t there be sufficient information in

  the record for OSHA to make a determination of how to

  determine MAD, even with the results of the NESC

  Subcommittee’s deliberations?

            MRHARTLEY:  Well, first of all, and I’ve

  stated it earlier, we agree with that, that the IEEE is

  an engineering -- an engineering standard.  It’s how

  it’s -- it’s how it’s created and -- and recognized,

  and it’s not something that’s referenced by workers.

            I mean, nobody -- and having been a lineman

  for many years, I can tell you that no one ever

  approached me with MAD table referencing IEEE.  It was

  something that was strictly reserved for those

  designing the systems, you know, and the structures and

  so on and ours was always related to OSHA and in the

  case of where it was necessary, you might refer to the

  NESC, but the point was, is that, OSHA was referencing

  the NESC and -- and -- well, or as close as possible at

  that time, but IEEE never played the role with us.

            So it was -- it was just never applicable,

  and, of course, in the more recent time being exposed

  to it, you know, moving into this different arena of   employment, that its application would be pretty

  incoherent for those working in the field simply

  because we’re talking about MTID, MAID, T Factors, you

  know, transient over-voltage, and stuff for which

  practical -- from a practical aspect, linemen,

  underground linemen, so on, would do that work, would

  have no -- would have no relevance to them.

            It’s -- it’s strictly a question of how far do

  I stay away from the conductor under what conditions,

  period, and that is most accurately addressed through

  the NESC.

            MR. WALLIS:  So what you’re saying is the --

  the Subcommittee 8 uses the information from the IEEE

  Committee and puts it in a more user-friendly format,

  so it’s the application of -- of the information in the

  IEEE standard?

            MRHARTLEY:  Well, I’m not actually on the

  committee, but as I have -- well, I tell you what.  Let

  me -- Jim, can you answer that question --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Yes, --

            MR. HARTLEY:  -- more accurately?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- you’re correct.  You’re   correct, yes.  Let me add one thing, though, to your

  second part of that question about the fact of having

  adequate information in the record to make this

  determination, and I -- I would say that I think not

  because there’s some -- with -- with the little amount

  of comment that you received, specifically on this

  issue, I don’t -- in reading what I’ve seen so far,

  there really isn’t a very good explanation of why the

  2007 NESC used MAD for Tools and whether that was right

  or wrong.

            As a matter of fact, I don’t know if anybody

  specifically addressed that issue in itself and that’s

  going to be a major area of concern and work for the

  NESC Subcommittee and so to get that answered

  correctly, I think that can only come from -- from that

  body.  So the record would be lacking that response.

            MR. WALLIS:  I think that’s everything I have.

            MR. BURT:  I have a couple of questions.

  Referring to your concerns about MAD could increase to

  the point where work cannot be performed, has this

  happened in the past when MAD has changed that there

  was work that now could not be performed?             I mean MAD has changed many times.  We’ve

  heard many times today.  Did any of the previous ones

  lead to scenarios where there was work that couldn’t be

  performed of the kind you’re concerned with in your

  response to Question 8?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I’ll respond to that, and --

  and I think so, especially in light of the -- talking

  about structure design and being able to work inside

  certain parts of the structure, the transmission

  structure, and as MAD has -- has made some changes

  specifically in -- in the NESC of how they may have

  affected those work practices.  I think so, yes.

            MS. GOODMAN:  I just want to ask to them to

  submit any documentation or anything that you have on

  that point in the post-hearing comment period.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Yes, we will try.

            MR. BURT:  We’d appreciate that.  Would NESC

  be gathering any further data about the extent to which

  some structures might result in situations where work

  can’t be performed?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  It’s possible.

            MR. BURT:  Just point of -- I’m speculating, I   admit.  In many kinds of codes and in some OSHA

  standards, situations where there’s a permanent

  structure that would need to be changed or sometimes

  grandfathered in.

            Has anyone thought about this in this context?

  In other words, older structures would be allowed to

  use a different standard than newer structures?  I

  mean, it’s very common in many codes.  Is it something

  that would make any sense here?  I’m just throwing out

  something that occurred to me as I was listening to the

  testimony.

            MR. HARTLEY:  Well, the straight-up answer is

  no, but it becomes a safety issue.  One of the things I

  think that you have to imagine is that from the

  practicality of working, physically working on a

  structure, okay, continuity is important, all right, or

  as -- as, you know, contiguous as you can be in your

  rules, you know, and having a wide variety of variables

  or even quite a number of variables, meaning distances,

  realizing that what structure am I on, okay, what do I

  have to adhere to because there’s a couple of

  variables, and I think David referred to that earlier   which is there’s the actual physicality of the

  structure, but then there’s also the person, you know.

            Do they put themselves, extend themselves into

  MAD or not?  You know, are they aware of the situation?

  So you could find yourself on the new structure and

  adequately finding clearance to be appropriate, but

  then on the very next structure, it could be an old one

  and are you or are you not in that same position and

  aware of it?

            So that would be a complication that would be

  more of a detractor to safety than -- than something --

            MR. BURT:  It would add to confusion?

            MR. HARTLEY:  Oh, absolutely.

            MR. BURT:  Thank you.

            MR. BIERSNER:  Bob Biersner.  I’m not an

  electrical engineer or even an electrical worker, but

  throughout this hearing, I’ve noticed that an issue

  seems to be getting test data for line-to-line

  conduction and that seems to be the big hole in -- in

  the -- in the calculations in -- in determining a -- a

  -- an MAD for -- for electrical workers.

            What are the chances within the next year or   two or even in the comments to the proposal that the

  NESC has drafted of getting those kinds of data that

  you can base it on, like they do in the line-to-ground

  situation?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I think in the short term, it

  would be -- it is not going to happen.  Long term, I --

  I think if getting the right people involved, the right

  companies involved, the right laboratories involved, to

  do the tests is -- is -- I think it’s imperative that

  it get done, that it be accomplished, but how long

  that’s going to take, I don’t know.

            I think we heard Dr. Horton -- was -- was

  testified earlier that one of the IEEE committees

  that’s beginning some -- some work on part of this

  issue, they’re looking at four and five years before we

  get any data back from them.

            So it’s not something that happens overnight

  and it’s going to take some time.

            MS. GOODMAN:  That’s it from us, right?

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Any questions?  Please come up and

  just again for the record just please identify

  yourself.             MR. YOHAY:  Stephen Yohay on behalf of Edison

  Electric Institute.

            You’ve already expressed the view that OSHA

  should wait to complete the revision to the MAD tables.

  You heard Mr. Wallis make a suggestion at the end of

  EEI’s testimony about separating out a portion of the

  MAD issue and going ahead and promulgating part of the

  new MAD tables but waiting on another piece of it.

            Do you have a view of that?  Reaction to that

  suggestion?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I think part of the -- part of

  the issue that the -- the NESC Subcommittee will be

  looking at, as was mentioned earlier, is the air

  insulation distance-based MAD versus tool insulation

  distance for MAD, and, you know, as -- as I also said

  earlier, the -- the NESC committee, during the 2007

  code cycle, used the -- the tool insulation distance

  for all of their -- all of their MAD distances and

  that’s -- that’s gotta be decided of whether or not

  they’re going to continue to do that or not.

            So if I had my preference, I would like to

  see, I guess, nothing changed in terms of -- if we’re   going to keep it open for -- to determine what the MAD

  tables should be -- should look like, keep it open for

  all of it, not part of it.

            MR. YOHAY:  A question Mr. Burt asked prompts

  me to ask this question and you can either answer it

  now or in post-hearing.

electric

  utilities engage electrical contractors to perform

  maintenance work on high-voltage transmission lines?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Yes.

            MR. YOHAY:  And is a large portion of that

  workforce comprised of IBEW journeyman linemen?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  That’s correct.

            MR. YOHAY:  And others who are trained by the

  Journeyman Apprenticeship Training Program?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  That’s correct.

            MR. YOHAY:  My question is, first, Mr. Burt

  raised the question about grandfathering.  Is it

  conceivable that a journeyman lineman coming out of a

  union hall could be asked to work on one structure one

  day with one company and another structure another day

  with another company?             MR. TOMASESKI:  Theoretically possible, yes.

            MR. YOHAY:  Yes.  Second, what would be the

  impact, would you think, either answer now or later, on

  Joint Apprenticeship Training Programs if OSHA were to

  adopt the IEEE values in the format that they’re

  currently issued?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I’m not sure --

            MR. YOHAY:  How -- how would -- how would it

  affect the training of line workers by the Joint

  Apprenticeship Training Programs?  If you don’t want to

  answer now, that’s fine, but I wanted to ask you to

  perhaps address that later, unless you want to answer

  it now.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I -- I’m not -- I’m not sure I

  understand the question.  I --

            MR. YOHAY:  Well, am I correct that Joint

  Apprenticeship Training Programs teach clearance

  distances?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Correct.

            MR. YOHAY:  Okay.  So if the OSHA adopts the

  IEEE values, how would that affect how line workers are

  trained?             MR. TOMASESKI:  Well, they’d have to -- they’d

  have to train under the new OSHA values.

            MR. YOHAY:  So would that require modification

  of existing Joint Apprenticeship Training Program

  curriculums?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Depending upon what the

  outcome of OSHA would be, yes.

            MR. YOHAY:  Okay.  Thank you.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Any other questions?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Can I -- can I just add --

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Go ahead.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- add one thing?

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Go ahead.

            MR. TOMASESKI:  And it might help if I explain

  that --

            MS. GOODMAN:  Exhibit C?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  -- Exhibit C, yes.  If I could

  do that real quickly?

            Basically, what this is is a series of tables

  that show a little bit of history of -- of minimum

  approach distances.  The first -- the first page here

  is -- is not necessarily the -- the technical part of   this in the numbers but how it looks.

            When we were talking about -- in the question

  that Mr. Yohay just asked about how is this going to

  affect training, it’s -- part of that training is how

  do you use a MAD table, and this is -- this is what

  people are used to.  People are seeing -- used to

  seeing a table like this.

            Would you get the next slide?  This, very

  similar, little bit different, this is a table that’s

  currently in the 2007 of the NESC.

            MS. GOODMAN:  And just for the record, you’re

  referring to Table 44-1?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Table 441-1, yes.  That’s --

  that’s what’s currently in the 2007 NESC.  It looks

  very much like it.  It’s very easy to follow.  It’s

  very easy to read, very easy to use.

            The next, referring to Table 441-2, gets a

  little bit more complicated here, but in the -- in most

  recent versions of the NESC, we added these -- this

  type of approach from IEEE 516 where we could list the

  different distances of MAD based on what the maximum

  anticipated per unit over-voltage factor would be.             We also kept in here, if you -- if you notice

  -- if you notice here, these -- these are supposed to

  be bold.  Those are the historical values of 3.0, 2.4,

  and 2.0.  So we wanted to maintain those, but as you

  can also see, the NESC went -- followed IEEE and added

  these higher per unit over-voltage factors, also.

            But this got a little bit more complicated,

  not quite as simple as they were before.

            Next one.  Now this is an example of one of

  the many minimum approach distance tables that’s in the

  current IEEE 516, and if you notice here, you’ve got

  the MAID, minimum air insulation distance, MTID, MAD,

  MAD for Tools, MHID.  You’ve got five different

  distances for one voltage level.

            Now this is -- this is what really gets

  confusing here and if you took something like IEEE 516,

  copied these tables and put it in work practice manuals

  or put it in safety manuals, these workers out there

  would not have any clue of how to use this.  They would

  have no clue of what to do.  It would be complete chaos

  out there on how to -- especially -- well, first of

  all, the per unit over-voltage factors, while some   linemen that are doing live line work understand that,

  not all of them probably have a real good understanding

  of it because the engineering department at the

  utilities figure what this is and set up their work

  practices accordingly.

            So some of the linemen might get it and some

  of them might not, but then you get into, especially

  these two things here, you have a MAD and a MAD for

  Tools.  Well, when I first saw this, when -- when this

  edition of the Code came out, this is what caught my

  eye in terms of how the NESC needs to address this

  issue because it had really never been published

  exactly like this before where you had one column that

  says minimum approach distance and now you have MAD for

  Tools.

            Linemen and most of the employers out there,

  when they publish their rules, they don’t have that.

  They probably never have seen this before.  What

  they’ve seen is MAD and so now how do you explain why

  -- why these are different and which one do you use,

  which one do you don’t use?  It’s going to take some

  work, you know, to get the minimum approach distance   tables correct where people can look at the OSHA

  standard or look at the NESC and understand what

  they’re supposed to do because this isn’t going to do

  it for them.

            Next one, please.  These get real kind of

  confusing here, but basically what these are is some

  tables that I put together to look at what’s happened

  with minimum approach distances over the years.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Would you just state the top of

  that, just so when we’re reading the record later, we

  can see?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  I’m sorry.  This is MAD

  Comparisons from Published Standards, OSHA/IEEE 516,

  NESC Phase-to-Ground Voltages.

            Basically what this has done is it shows what

  has happened with the minimum approach distances over

  the years, from Subpart V and the evolution in IEEE and

  the evolution in the NESC, and what’s important is --

  is this column right here, I think, compared with the

  other -- other columns because this is where the NESC

  chose to use the MAD for Tools as insulation distances,

  the basis for MAD.             MS. GOODMAN:  And just for the record, you’re

  pointing to the column titled --

            MR. TOMASESKI:  NESC 2007.  Excuse me.  And

  next slide.  And this is titled MAD Comparisons from

  Published Standards, OSHA/IEEE 516, NESC Phase-to-Phase

  Voltages.

            And this is where you see some extreme

  differences.  If you go back to the -- again look at

  the 2007 NESC.  This is where you start to see these

  distances increase by over a foot and that’s -- that’s

  what’s critical and that’s what -- that’s what kind of,

  I guess, started to upset folks out in the field when

  we started looking at these -- these increased

  distances where traditionally, like I say on this --

  this last column here, the 551 to 800, where it was 26

  feet, phase-to-phase distance for a number of years,

  and then it jumped up to 2710 and then in the 516,

  which you can’t see on the side of the column here, but

  that last -- that last column at the bottom is 29 feet

  two inches.  That’s what really started to raise some

  eyebrows is when we started to see these distances

  increase.             Go to the next one.  Now the next one here is

  part of the table that the NESC Subcommittee began some

  work on and our approach here was to conceptually again

  -- we haven’t voted on any of this.  None of this has

  been approved, but to go back to simplicity and really

  see what’s important to have in the Code and what’s

  important to have in -- in OSHA’s regulations, also.

            Do we need to have the complicated tables that

  are difficult to understand or can we produce something

  -- again, this -- this is the minimum approach distance

  table, NESC 2012, that’s being considered by

  Subcommittee 8 Working Group.

            This is very much the same format that has

  been used in the past with OSHA and the NESC for the

  lower voltages.  If you go to the next -- the next

  slide is again titled Minimum Approach Distance Table,

  NESC 2012, Being Considered by Subcommittee 8 Working

  Group.  This is the higher voltages, and we have both

  without a live line tool in the air gap and with a live

  line tool in the air gap, and if you notice on the

  right side, all these values are missing under phase-

  to-phase with the live line tool in the air gap and   that was a significant change that came out of the 2009

  516 that we included in prior versions of both the IEEE

  and the NESC.

            So this is -- this is the -- the start of our

  -- our work at the NESC that -- that hopefully we

  conclude -- when we do conclude this -- this -- this

  work, we would like OSHA to -- to follow our -- our

  lead on what -- on what we find best for the industry

  here.

            Our -- the other concept that we’re looking at

  is doing away with the tables that include the

  different reduction in MAD distances based on the

  maximum anticipated per unit over-voltage factor and

  write our rule to direct the user that, if necessary,

  they’re going to revert back to IEEE 516 to do an

  engineering study on their system to establish what

  those distances need to be.

            I mean that’s -- that’s what we’ve talked

  about at this point and we haven’t -- again, we haven’t

  concluded that, but I just wanted to try to explain

  what these things meant, what -- what they were put

  together for, and I’ll leave it at that.             MS. GOODMAN:  Thank you for that.

            MR. WALLIS:  I do have one.  Since you brought

  up training, do you anticipate -- you tell them what

  the minimum approach distance is, but I -- I guess I’ll

  ask it rather than presume.

            Is -- is the training based on that’s where

  they are the whole time at the minimum approach

  distance or is the idea that -- that they’re -- they

  never get any closer than that?

            In other words, how --

            MR. HARTLEY:  The training is that you -- that

  you don’t encroach on MAD.

            MR. WALLIS:  Right.  So -- so most of the time

  the worker is farther away than the minimum approach

  distance, is that right?

            MR. HARTLEY:  Well, depending on the voltages

  you’re talking about.  We -- certainly the proximity

  distributions are much closer.  So you can be closer to

  MAD distances than you might find in some of your

  transmission situations, such as climbing a tower on a

  --

            MR. WALLIS:  I mean, I’m getting kind of --   I’m getting back to your point that -- that there

  haven’t been any accidents and -- and the probabilities

  of -- given the way the probabilities are -- are -- are

  determined, that some of the reason for the lack in

  accidents may be that the employee is not always at the

  minimum approach distance, is -- is -- would that be a

  fair statement?

            MR. TOMASESKI:  Well, I -- I would say that

  hopefully they are and they should be, but that’s not

  always the case.  I think what Don was referring to,

  also, was the difference between rubber gloving work

  methods because you’re going to get closer than MAD

  when -- when you rubber glove, even to an exposed part,

  where in -- and in bare hand work, you -- you are the

  -- the energized part.

            So there’s some -- there’s some differences

  there, but, in general, to your question, it -- yes,

  they -- they should be.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Nothing else from us, Your

  Honor.  Nothing else from us, Your Honor.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Any questions?  Any more questions

  from the audience?  I understand that there’s a Mr.   Shill who would like to make a few comments.  Is he

  still here?

            MR. SHILL:  I’m here, but I’ll pass.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Okay.  I believe the next matter

  is to discuss the time to close the record or how many

  days then to be able to submit additional data

  information.  Then there will be a separate date after

  that to close the record for submission of data and

  information.  I mean, I’m sorry, we’ll leave it open

  for written comments of summation and position

  statements and briefs.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.  OSHA is

  recommending -- we’re obviously going to run up against

  the holidays here.  So we are recommending initial 45-

  day period for the submission of additional data and

  that would take us to December 14th, 2009, I believe,

  and then an additional 30-day period for the submission

  of post-hearing comments and briefs and that would take

  us to January 13th, 2010.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Any comments from any of the

  parties?  Go ahead.

            MR. KELLY:  I would request the time table be   90 days from the date of receipt of the transcript.

  Chuck Kelly with EEI.

            Our request would be 90 days from the receipt

  of the transcript.

            MS. GOODMAN:  90 days from receipt of the

  transcript for?

            MR. KELLY:  Post-hearing comments.

            MR. WALLIS:  The latter?

            MR. KELLY:  The latter.

            MR. WALLIS:  The final?

            MR. KELLY:  Yes, yes.

            MS. GOODMAN:  So you have no objection to 45

  days.  So we’re then talking -- well, the problem is we

  can’t set a firm date if we’re talking about --

            MR. WALLIS:  Well, give them another --

            MS. GOODMAN:  -- receipt of the transcript.

            MR. WALLIS:  The transcript is supposed to be

  in 10 days, so give them another --

            MR. KELLY:  You’ve given us 75, so what’s

  another 15?

            MS. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, OSHA’s willing to

  move the second date of 90 days from today, which, if I   can get my calendar up, is --

            MR. WALLIS:  It’s the 28th, except the 28th is

  a Saturday.

            [Discussion off the record.]

            JUDGE COLWELL:  I think the 28th.

            MR. WALLIS:  It’s another 15 days.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Okay.  Well, --

            MR. WALLIS:  Unless the 13th was wrong.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  That’s pretty close anyway.  Close

  enough.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Yeah.  I think that’s right.

  Okay.  Your Honor, I believe we’ve figured this out.

  If we’re -- we’re prepared -- OSHA is prepared to

  change the second date to January 28th, 2009, which I

  believe is 90 days from today -- January 2010. I’m

  sorry.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Okay.

            MS. GOODMAN:  January 28th, 2010, which we

  believe is 90 days from today.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Sounds good.  Go ahead.

            MR. KELLY:  Okay.  My request was 90 days from   receipt of the transcript.  When can we anticipate the

  transcript?  Seeing it’s such a short hearing, it

  probably shouldn’t be --

            MR. WALLIS:  That doesn’t change anything.

            MR. KELLY:  Okay.

            MS. GOODMAN:  We’re being told approximately

  two weeks.

            MR. KELLY:  Okay.  So -- so you’re giving me

  90 days, but you’re really only giving me 75 days you

  originally gave me.

            MS. GOODMAN:  We’re giving you an additional

  two weeks.

            MR. WALLIS:  You get an additional 15 days.

            MR. KELLY:  Not if I don’t have the

  transcript, I don’t.

            [Pause.]

            MR. WALLIS:  Can’t start without the

  transcript.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  February 10 ?  That gives another

  12 or so days.

            MR. KELLY:  I would be happy with that.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  That’s only 12 more days.  Usually   what we do is we always make sure everybody --

  everything starts after the transcript is received.

  There’s so much that went on with this testimony,

  especially some star witnesses right here, that you

  want to hear how they did, and you need to be able to

  --

            MR. KELLY:  We want to hear what we all think

  we heard.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  That’s true.  Well said.  Okay.

  Let’s change that to February 10 , the last date.

            MS. GOODMAN:  Okay.

            JUDGE COLWELL:  Anything else before I give the

  closing statement?  Anything else anybody wishes to

  raise before we -- we adjourn?

            We now conclude the informal public hearing on

  the limited reopening of the record to solicit

  additional testimony, evidence, and data on the Minimum

  Approach Distances in the Occupational Safety and

  Health Administration’s Proposed Standards for Electric

  Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, and

  Electrical Protective Equipment.

            Let the record show that all persons,   organizations, and entities that filed Notices of

  Intent to Appear had an opportunity to do so.

            Let the record also show that following the

  presentation of testimony, interested parties,

  including OSHA representatives, had the opportunity to

  question each witness and panel of witnesses.

            Exhibits were offered and received at this

  hearing and are identified as A through C, I think, A

  through C, and placed into the record.

            The record will remain open until December

  14 , 2009, for the submission of additional data and

  information.  The record will then close for the

  submission of data and information but will remain open

  for written comments, summations, position statements

  and briefs until February 10 , 2010.

            On behalf of the United States Department of

  Labor, I wish to publicly thank all the participants in

  today’s hearing for their promptness, preparation, and

  attention, and their interest in this important matter.

            This informal public hearing is adjourned, and

  thank you very much.  Have a great rest of the day.

            [Whereupon, at 2:07 p.m., the informal public             hearing was concluded.]

                           * * * * *

                 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

       I, NATASHA KORNILOVA, the officer before whom the

  foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify

  that the witness whose testimony appears in the

  foregoing deposition was duly sworn; that the

  testimony of said witness was taken by me in

  stenotypy and thereafter reduced to typewriting by

  me; that said deposition is a true record of the

  testimony given by said witness; that I am neither

  counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the

  parties to the action in which this deposition was

  taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or

  employee of any counsel or attorney employed by the

  parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise

  interested in the outcome of this action.

                         ____________________

                         NATASHA KORNILOVA

                         NOTARY/COURT REPORTER

 PAGE   201

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 Add Don Hartley.

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 I’m not sure what word he used here, but I’m fairly certain that it wasn’t “printed.”

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 I don’t think that this is the right word either.

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 Or “changes in.”

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 “not sure”?

 PAGE \# "'Page: '#'

 “Restaurant” is not the right word here.