Cal/OSHA

Arc Flash & Areas Above High Voltage Wires

Dangers of Arc Flash

Dangerous Arc Flash Videos

§2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/2946.html

(a) General. No person, firm, or corporation, or agent of same, shall require or permit any employee to perform any function in proximity to energized high-voltage lines; to enter upon any land, building, or other premises and there engage in any excavation, demolition, construction, repair, or other operation; or to erect, install, operate, or store in or upon such premises any tools, machinery, equipment, materials, or structures (including scaffolding, house moving, well drilling, pile driving, or hoisting equipment) unless and until danger from accidental contact with said high-voltage lines has been effectively guarded against.

(b) Clearances or Safeguards Required. Except where overhead electrical distribution and transmission lines have been de-energized and visibly grounded, the following provisions shall be met:

   (1) Over Lines. The operation, erection, or handling of tools, machinery, apparatus, supplies, or materials, or any part thereof, over energized overhead high-voltage lines shall be prohibited.

Feb 12, 2020
 

Mr. Michael Frye
CAL/OSHA, Dept. of Safety and Health
Regional Safety Manager
455 Golden Gate Ave.
Room 9516
San Francisco, CA 94102
 

cc: Ms. Kathy Garner,
Distict Manager, CAL/OSHA
DOSH American Canyon District Office
 

Dear Mr. Frye,

Thank you for talking with me over the phone today. In our conversation, we discussed the facts of the still-open complaint No. 375-20, 1541108, which is just one of many examples of negligent application of OSHA rules throughout Santa Rosa and many other California communities, including San Francisco.

Many cellular antennas have been installed in the dangerous, potentially lethal, electrical supply area of wooden utility poles in clear violation of CAL/OSHA rules — on your watch. Please listen to attorney Eric Langley discuss this very issue in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges (https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=5600) on Feb 10, 2020:

Feb 10, 2020: Argument in US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, CA

The investor-owned utility attorney, Eric Langley, says:

"The electric supply space is the top of the pole. It’s where the [high voltage] electric lines are. It’s where the stuff is, that quite literally, if you touch it, it could kill you — as distinguished from the communications space, which is generally the lowest portion of the pole."

You, Mr. Frye and Ms. Garner may be uncomfortable with such evidence of clear CAL/OSHA rules violations occurring on your watches, but nothing changes the following facts:

  • The CAL/OSHA rule §2946 states that to work in the electrical supply area, "overhead electrical distribution and transmission lines" must be "de-energized and visibly grounded"

  • The photo below, which was submitted with my complaint clearly shows no visible grounding, which anyone can plainly see. I asked what you, Mr. Frye, saw in the photo. You refused to answer the question. I told you in our conversation that there are two easy ways to get the data that would establish if the transmission lines were de-energized when doing such installations.

    1. PG&E records exist whenever high voltage lines are de-energized for construction on poles (this was admitted to me by PG&E employee Robert Armstrong (530-949-6003) at around 5:15 pm on 2/11/20 in a telephone conversation. I asked you to please request these records from PG&E, but you refused to do so. Why?

    2. Affidavits by the affected residents who were in their homes near the antenna installations, at the time of said installations can establish if there was an interruption in their electrical service during cellular antenna installation. We have such affidavits for the cellular antenna installation in my complaint.

  • Such evidence can establish a clear pattern of willful negligence by Wireless Carriers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and their various subcontractors and even CAL//OSHA itself allowing violations of CAL//OSHA rule §2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines, that enables the on-going (even today on Feb 12, 2020) "operation [of] . . . . machinery, apparatus, supplies, or materials, or any part thereof, over energized overhead high-voltage lines" which "shall be prohibited".

I pointed out to you that we have evidence that the two relevant "machinery, apparatus, supplies, or materials" items installed in, around and above the dangerous, potentially lethal, electrical supply area of wooden utility poles — the antennas within the shroud and the cable connecting the radios installed lower on the pole to the antennas installed on top of the pole, are not certified by Underwriters Laboratory (https://www.ul.com/) to be installed or operating in, around and above the dangerous, potentially lethal, electrical supply area of wooden utility poles.

The dangers of arc flashes are what we are trying to avoid in fire-prone CA neighborhoods, videos of which you can see here —> http://scientists4wiredtech.com/osha

When you attempted to tell me that the workers in the photo, below, used leather blankets (as allowed by Federal OSHA rules) for protection, I directed you to the photo and told you that I see no such blankets in the photo. I asked what you, Mr. Frye, saw in the photo. You refused to answer the question. I also pointed out that CAL/OSHA defines a stricter standard than Federal OSHA and that CAL/OSHA has jurisdiction in California.

I then asked you to show me or give citations to any parts of the CAL/OSHA rules that would provide any "exceptions" or "variances" that would somehow enable workers to work in violation of the clear OSHA rule, cited below, §2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines. Both you, Mr. Frye and Ms. Gardner have refused to provide any such citations. I can only assume that no such "exceptions" or "variances" actually exist.

What you did commit to do today was to inform PG&E to follow §2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines. But when I asked you when I could expect to receive a copy of the letter that you plan to issue to PG&E on this matter, you refused to say if you were even going to write such a letter, let alone share it with me.

California Public Records Act Request

Consider the rest of this email a CA Public Records Act Request for all correspondence between CAL/OSHA and PG&E and any of its relevant subcontractors for any and all installation of wireless cellular antennas above high voltage lines on wooden Utility poles throughout the State of California.

This is a California Public Records request, per the California Public Records Act (CPRA), Government Code Section 6250 et seq., for the inspection of any and all public records about or related to any and all installations of wireless cellular antennas above high voltage lines on wooden Utility poles throughout the State of California — including the critically important PG&E records to establish if any high voltage power lines were, in fact deenergized, on the dates and during the times cellular antennas were ibeing nstalled — for the period from Jan 1, 2017 to the latter of Feb 28, 2020 or whenever this CPRA request is fulfilled by CAL/OSHA. This CPRA request is for all documents including but not limited to presentations, maps, RF Microwave Radiation Exposure analyses, contracts, invoices, other CAL/OSHA documents (agendas, minutes, decisions, links to video-taped meetings), correspondence to/from/among CAL/OSHA, PG&E, Wireless Cos. and any of PG&E’s, Wireless Cos.’ agents and/or subcontractors, including, but not limited to letters, emails, text messages and other forms of written communications.

The CPRA information request detailed above is not subject to delay, ten days or otherwise, for the following reasons:

  1. I am not requesting any copies, just inspection of the existing records in any form (if not easily available in digital format, I prefer to inspect the original documents on site at CAL/OSHA San Francisco or American Canyon offices at a specified date/time)
  2. The information exists in some form within or can be transported to the CAL/OSHA San Francisco or American Canyon Offices
  3. The information is not exempt from the CPRA process

Links to text of California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) are here:

Thank you for your prompt attention to the matters above. We look forward to timely inspection of the requested public records. Separately, I will submit additional evidence to refute the written statements provided by PG&E employee Robert Armstrong in response to the still-open complaint No. 375-20, 1541108.

>>> Resident wrote on 2/11/2020 5:34 PM:

Feb 11. 2020

Dear Ms. Garner and Mr. Frye,

This afternoon, I had an unsatisfying conversation with Ms. Garner who alleged that she has closed complaint No. 375-20, 1541108.

I told her that we had incontrovertible evidence that at the times I took the photo below, the lines were energized and did not have proper grounding during the installation in 2018. That seemed to make no difference to Ms. Garner. Although she said I could send in additional evidence regarding the complaint, her nonsensical position to continue treat the matter as a closed matter, is unacceptable. Clearly, CAL/OSHA must base its determinations on verified evidence, not on statements typed the responsible party, PG&E who hired the third party contractor to do the work.

Ms. Garner said that there were several "variances" or "exceptions" that would allow PG&E’s third party contractors to violate the clear OSHA rule, quoted below, §2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines.

I asked Ms. Garner to provide to me the "variances" or "exceptions" to which she was referring. Ms. Garner was unwilling to provide the requested information.

I will read both attachments that I received today to understand if there is any difference between the two:

I received, by email, two attachments:

  1. 2020-0211-1423-AMCOSHDO_202@dir.ca — 2020-0211-1423-AMCOSHDO_202@dir.ca.gov_20200211_135148.pdf
  2. 2020-0211-1540-AMCOSHDO_202@dir.ca — 2020-0211-1540-AMCOSHDO_202@dir.ca).gov_20200211_135148.pdf

I found the CAL/OSHA request to "recall the message, ‘Complaint Correspondence’ "a bid odd.

I just spoke to Robert Armstrong (530-949-6003) at around 5:15 pm. He was driving to Sacramento. He agreed to provide verifiable PG&E operational records of whether or not the lines were deenergized or properly grounded during the installation. Our photographic evidence and affidavits (three of them) establish that the lines were fully energized during this installation and not properly grounded.

Considering that this complaint needs to have additional evidence for a determination of OSHA violation, we cannot accept Ms. Garner’s allegation that complaint No. 375-20, 1541108 is a closed matter.

I communicated to Ms. Garner, Mr. Frye and Mr. Armstrong that we have both strong evidence and strong resolve that will not enable PG&E, its subcontractors or CAL/OSHA to simply look the other way re: this and many other similar violations.

>>> DIR DOSHAmericanCanyon wrote on 2/11/2020 3:40 PM:

Mr. ____________,

Attached is a letter for you, which includes a copy of the written response received from Mr. Robert Armstrong regarding complaint no. 375-20, 1541108.

Sincerely,

DOSH American Canyon District Office
3419 Broadway Street, Suite H8
American Canyon, CA 94503
(707) 649-3700 office
(707) 649-3712 fax

>>> DIR DOSHAmericanCanyon wrote on 2/11/2020 2:28 PM:

DIR DOSHAmericanCanyon would like to recall the message, "Complaint Correspondence ".

>>> DIR DOSHAmericanCanyon wrote on 2/11/2020 2:23 PM:

Mr. ____________,

Attached is a letter for you, which includes a copy of the written response received from Mr. Robert Armstrong, regarding complaint no. 375-20, 1541108.

Sincerely,

DOSH American Canyon District Office
3419 Broadway Street, Suite H8
American Canyon, CA 94503
(707) 649-3700 office
(707) 649-3712 fax

>>> Resident wrote on 2/4/2020 4:57 PM:

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject: OSHA Fail in Santa Rosa, CA re: Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:57:09 -0800
From: Resident
To: DIRDOSHAmericanCanyon@dir.ca.gov

To: DIRDOSHAmericanCanyon@dir.ca.gov

To: Lawrence Hughes

Re: OSHA Fail in Santa Rosa, CA re: Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs)

For the installation of these small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs), in Santa Rosa, CA — WE KNOW THE POWER WAS NOT OFF because the surrounding houses all had power at the time of this installation. I took these photos. We talked to our neighbors in the surrounding houses.

§2946. Provisions for Preventing Accidents Due to Proximity to Overhead Lines.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/2946.html

(a) General. No person, firm, or corporation, or agent of same, shall require or permit any employee to perform any function in proximity to energized high-voltage lines; to enter upon any land, building, or other premises and there engage in any excavation, demolition, construction, repair, or other operation; or to erect, install, operate, or store in or upon such premises any tools, machinery, equipment, materials, or structures (including scaffolding, house moving, well drilling, pile driving, or hoisting equipment) unless and until danger from accidental contact with said high-voltage lines has been effectively guarded against.

(b) Clearances or Safeguards Required. Except where overhead electrical distribution and transmission lines have been de-energized and visibly grounded, the following provisions shall be met:

   (1) Over Lines. The operation, erection, or handling of tools, machinery, apparatus, supplies, or materials, or any part thereof, over energized overhead high-voltage lines shall be prohibited.