Background
On September 2, 2021, a Washington Department of Labor and Industries compliance officer observed Cache Valley Electric Company employees working on overhead power lines energized at 7,200 volts. One employee operated a gas-powered chainsaw within 12 inches of an exposed power line, well within the mandatory 27-inch minimum approach distance. Additionally, when inspected, the company’s work truck contained five rubber protective blankets that had last been dielectrically tested on October 12, 2020—11 months prior—despite regulations requiring testing every six months. Some blankets showed visible wear.
The Department issued two citations for serious safety violations. Item 1 charged the company with allowing a worker to bring a conductive object closer than the minimum approach distance to exposed energized parts, with a $7,000 penalty. Item 2 cited the company for making expired rubber protective equipment available at the worksite, with a $6,000 penalty. The company appealed to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, which unanimously affirmed Item 1 but split on Item 2, with the majority vacating the second penalty on the ground that mere storage of expired blankets did not constitute “use” under WAC 296-45-255(7).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals partly reversed and partly affirmed. On the central legal question, the court held that “used” in the safety regulation includes making rubber protective equipment available at a worksite, not merely placing it on an energized line. The court adopted a broad construction aligned with WISHA’s fundamental purpose of ensuring worker safety. The narrow interpretation—requiring proof that equipment was actually deployed—would force workers to choose between forgoing safety equipment or using potentially defective expired equipment, serving neither safety goal. By contrast, requiring employers to maintain tested equipment available for use at worksites prevents hazardous situations from developing in the first place.
On Cache Valley’s challenge to the chainsaw violation penalty, the court affirmed the Board’s imposition of a probability rating of 3 (highest risk level). Cache Valley argued the chainsaw was within the minimum approach distance for only 30 seconds—the time needed to cut the crossarm—rather than the 15 minutes the safety officer estimated. The court found no abuse of discretion, reasoning that even 30 seconds of exposure to high-voltage unprotected lines carries substantial risk of electrocution or arc flash injury. The court emphasized that 12 inches of clearance is a minimal safety margin when operating a conductive tool from a mechanical bucket several feet above ground, and the Board reasonably focused on the severity of encroachment rather than merely the duration.
Key Takeaways
- Employers violate electrical safety regulations by making expired protective equipment available at worksites, even if workers never actually deploy it.
- WISHA regulations are construed broadly to advance worker safety, not narrowly to create loopholes that place workers in impossible safety choices.
- Penalty calculations under WISHA emphasize the magnitude of hazard exposure; brief exposure to extreme hazards (high voltage with minimal clearance) justifies maximum probability ratings.
- Compliance officers’ approximations of exposure time need not be contradicted with precision to support penalty determinations; the critical factors are proximity to the hazard and degree of encroachment into safety zones.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly strengthens enforcement of electrical safety standards in Washington. By holding that “used” includes mere availability of protective equipment at a worksite, the court eliminates a loophole that would otherwise allow employers to store expired or defective safety gear on job sites while claiming technical compliance because the equipment was never actively deployed. For contractors, electricians, and utility companies working with high-voltage systems, the ruling means affirmative obligations to audit and replace protective equipment on a strict testing schedule, not merely when equipment is actually put into use.
The decision also reaffirms that WISHA penalties turn fundamentally on the seriousness of the hazard itself, not on how brief the worker’s exposure was. An employer cannot materially reduce a penalty by arguing that dangerous conduct lasted only seconds; what matters is whether the hazard posed a genuine risk of serious injury or death. For electrical work involving voltages in the thousands of volts and minimum approach distances of feet rather than inches, even momentary encroachment into the danger zone justifies maximum-severity penalties.