Arc Flash & Electrical Safety

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

OSHA Cites MillerCoors in Golden, CO For Arc Flash Injuries

OSHA has cited MillerCoors LLC in Golden, Colo., with 10 alleged safety and health violations from two investigations involving the death of one and the injury of two workers.

OSHA launched an investigation into the company's safety and health practices following the death of an employee at the brewery Feb. 2. A second investigation opened following an accident April 9 in which two employees were injured.

Together, the investigations disclosed one alleged willful and nine alleged serious violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act's regulations governing electrical hazards. OSHA alleges that workplace conditions contributed to two employees being burned by an electrical arc flash April 9. Furthermore, agency officials allege that inadequate safety measures were in place to protect against electrical hazards at the time of the Feb. 2 accident; however, the Jefferson County coroner's office could not determine if those conditions contributed to the final cause of death.

"Our hearts go out to the family and friends of the worker who died as well as the two injured workers," said Greg Baxter, OSHA's regional administrator in Denver. "At the time of both accidents, the company's procedures for dealing with electrical hazards were inadequate. MillerCoors needs to take the necessary steps to eliminate electrical hazards in its workplaces."

The alleged willful violation stems from the company's failure to ensure the use of appropriate electrical protective equipment when employees were working on or near energized electrical parts. OSHA issues a willful violation when an employer exhibits plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

The serious violations relate to inadequate safe work practices and failure to ensure adequate personal protective equipment was available and used by employees working on or near energized equipment. OSHA issues a serious citation when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which an employer knew or should have known.

OSHA proposes $128,500 in penalties against the company for the alleged violations.

MillerCoors has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Englewood, Colo., or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Related Past Posts
OSHA Citation For Failure To Abate Safety Violations
OSHA Reopens Record on Proposed Rule On Power Generation, Distribution and Transmission
Is Your Electrical PPE Adequate?

Labels: Arc Flash Accidents, Electrical Injuries, OSHA

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Arc Flash Safety: History and Requirements

Scott Harris published a post on the Industrial Risk Management blog yesterday that discusses the history of arc flash and requirements for protecting people from arc flash hazards. The article opens with:

"Arc flash was first identified by Dr. Ralph Lee in his 1982 'The Other Electrical Hazard: Electric Arc Blast Burns.' Dr. Lee found that as many as 80% of electrical injuries resulted from arc flash rather than from shock, which had always been thought to be the major risk associated with live electrical work."

After discussing the history of arc flash and code requirements, Mr. Harris points out that labeling of arc flash hazards is required, and in particular a 2006 OSHA interpretation letter. The question posed to OSHA was:

"When work must be performed on energized electric equipment that is capable of exposing employees to arc-flash hazards, does OSHA require the marking of the electric equipment to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc-flash hazards — i.e., as required by NFPA 70E-2004?"

OSHA's answer was:

"OSHA has no specific requirement for such marking. A requirement to mark equipment with flash hazard warnings was not included in the 1981 Subpart S revision. However, paragraph (e) of §1910.303 requires employers to mark electrical equipment with descriptive markings, including the equipment's voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings as necessary. OSHA believes that this information, along with the training requirements for qualified persons, will provide employees the necessary information to protect themselves from arc-flash hazards. "

"Additionally, in §1910.335(b), OSHA requires employers to use alerting techniques (safety signs and tags, barricades, and attendants) . . . to warn and protect employees from hazards which could cause injury due to electric shock, burns or failure of electric equipment parts. Although these Subpart S electrical provisions do not specifically require that electric equipment be marked to warn qualified persons of arc-flash hazards, §1910.335(b)(1) requires the use of safety signs, safety symbols, or accident prevention tags to warn employees about electrical hazards (e.g., electric-arc-flash hazards) which may endanger them as required by §1910.145. "

Read the entire blog post here.

Related past posts:
Arc Flash Labeling Best Practices Guide
Arc Flash Labeling Starter Kit

Labels: Arc Flash Labeling, OSHA, OSHA Standards

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 1 Comments | Add Comment | links

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

OSHA Citations Issued For Failure To Abate Electrical Safety Violations

OSHA cites Houston-based manufacturing company for failing to abate safety violations
Initial inspection followed electrocution death of a worker.

OSHA has issued failure-to-abate citations to JD Manufacturing Inc., doing business as Arrow Waste, in Houston for a follow-up inspection that revealed previous violations had not been abated.

The initial inspection on Jan. 29, 2008, at the company's facility on 11401 Brooklyn St. in Houston, followed the electrocution death of a worker. Upon re-inspection on Oct. 9, 2008, OSHA's investigation found that the six violations, four alleged serious and two alleged other-than-serious, originally cited were not corrected by the company.

"The employer completely ignored abating the violations while continuing to expose employees to a hazardous working environment. That kind of practice will not be tolerated," said Dean McDaniel, OSHA's regional administrator in Dallas. "OSHA standards must be followed to prevent injuries and fatalities."

The serious failure-to-abate violations include failing to have a written program for the control of hazardous energy, not installing the required wiring in accordance with OSHA regulations and failing to adequately mark branch circuits to indicate their purpose. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The other-than-serious violations the company failed to correct are not having a hazard communications program in place and not maintaining the required recordkeeping. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The initial inspection carried proposed penalties totaling $25,500. The re-inspection carries $108,000 in proposed penalties.

JD Manufacturing, a manufacturing and repair facility for mechanized equipment and roll-off containers such as dumpsters or debris containers, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's Houston North area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Employers and employees with questions regarding workplace safety and health standards can call OSHA's Houston North Area Office at 281-591-2438 or OSHA's toll-free hotline number at 800-321-6742 to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.

Labels: Electrical Injuries, Electrical Safety, OSHA, Work Place Safety

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 2 Comments | Add Comment | links

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

OSHA Cites DCS Sanitation Management Inc. Following Electrocution Death

The following is a press release from OSHA dated April 14, 2008.

OSHA cites DCS Sanitation Management Inc. for multiple safety and health violations following an electrocution death.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited DCS Sanitation Management Inc. for 10 alleged violations of federal safety and health standards following the Oct. 12, 2007, death of an employee at a Springfield, Mo., poultry processing facility.

An employee of Cincinnati, Ohio-based DCS Sanitation Management, working to sanitize poultry processing equipment, was electrocuted when the equipment's conductive surface became energized.

"Our inspection revealed multiple violations of OSHA's electrical standards," said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA's regional administrator in Kansas City. "It is imperative that employers remain committed to keeping the workplace safe at all times."

An alleged willful violation addresses hazards associated with the company's failure to ensure employees are removed from equipment hazard areas, all tools are removed, and equipment is operationally intact prior to its release from lockout/tagout safeguards and employee use. Lockout/tagout refers to preventing accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance. Willful violations are those committed with an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and regulations.

An alleged repeat violation addresses a hazard associated with the lack of suitable facilities for quick drenching and/or flushing of the eyes and body in the event of an emergency when employees were working with injurious corrosives. Repeat violations are issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same, or a substantially similar, violation that has become a final order.

Alleged serious violations address the following hazards: failure to ensure electrical equipment was free from recognized hazards; failure to ensure the means of grounding machines and equipment was continuous and effective; enclosures for electrical components in wet environments that were not waterproof; failure to provide all flexible cords with a strain relief; failure to provide a standard guardrail system for every floor opening or platform above dangerous equipment; failure to provide and/or require the use of appropriate eye and face protective equipment; and allowing the consumption of food and beverages in areas exposed to toxic chemicals.

An other-than-serious violation addresses the employer's failure to report the fatal accident to the nearest OSHA area office within the required eight hours of occurrence. The agency's proposed penalties for all violations total $124,500.

DCS Sanitation Management Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request and participate in an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Labels: Electrical Injuries, Lockout/Tagout, OSHA

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Contractors Cited by OSHA Following Electrocution Death At Maine Jobsite

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited two contractors - J&S Carpentry of Columbia, Maine, and Irving Equipment Inc. of Hampton, N.H. - for 15 alleged violations of safety standards following the electrocution death of an employee at a Hermon, Maine, residential construction site.

On Sept. 12, 2007, an Irving crane contacted an energized 7,200 volt overhead power line as two J&S Carpentry employees were attempting to attach the crane's rigging equipment to a section of a modular home that was being constructed at 28 Lily Lane in Hermon. One of the employees was killed and the other seriously injured by the electric current.

OSHA's inspection found that the crane was being operated within 10 feet of the power line, which had not been de-energized beforehand, as required. The two contractors face a combined total of $121,500 in proposed fines.

"The basic safeguards designed to prevent just this sort of accident were ignored here, with fatal results," said William Coffin, OSHA's area director for Maine. "De-energizing the power line and maintaining a safe working distance from it would have prevented this death and injury."

J&S Carpentry, for whom the employees worked, was issued two willful citations for allowing employees to work in close proximity to the energized power line and for not protecting employees against fall hazards. OSHA also issued the company four serious citations for a lack of on-site medical attention; absence of hardhats and electrical warning signs; and ladder hazards. J&S Carpentry faces a total of $32,000 in proposed fines for these conditions.

Irving Equipment, which owned and operated the crane, has been issued three repeat citations for operating the crane in high winds, inadequate support for the crane's outriggers, and not inspecting the job site to identify and correct these and other hazards. OSHA had cited the company in May 2005 for similar hazards at a Freeport, Maine, job site.

Irving Equipment also has been issued six serious citations for operating the crane within 10 feet of the power line; not operating the crane in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and industry standards; and lack of fall protection, hardhats, on-site medical attention and an electrical warning sign. Irving Equipment faces a total of $89,500 in proposed fines for these conditions.

OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Each company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Bangor District Office.

Labels: Electrical Injuries, OSHA

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Friday, March 14, 2008

What OSHA Expects: The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask

This article, What OSHA Expects: The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask During an Investigation by Kenneth Cybart appeared in yesterday's Occupational Hazards Magazine. This is how the article introduces itself:

"Wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly what OSHA is training its inspectors to look for during an inspection that includes electrical safety, including surprising new areas of emphasis based on national OSHA directives? This article covers some of the typical electrical safety questions that OSHA inspectors will ask during a field investigation, what they mean and how to be prepared and in compliance."

The article looks at 17 questions OSHA inspectors will ask, such as:

Is there a description of the circuit or equipment at the job location?

Is there a detailed job description of planned work?

Can you justify why equipment cannot be de-energized or the job deferred until the next scheduled outage?

Has a detailed work procedure been established?

You can read the complete article, including all 17 questions, on Occupational Hazards' web site.

Labels: Electrical Safety, OSHA, Safety Inspections

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links

Friday, December 21, 2007

Top Safety Story of 2007

Occupational Hazards E-News has put out their list of the top ten most read news stories on their web site in 2007. The #1 most read story was about OSHA issuing a final rule on electrical standards.

Here is the February 13th press release from OSHA:

OSHA Issues Final Rule on Electrical Installation Standard

WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will publish a final rule in tomorrow's Federal Register for an updated electrical installation standard.

"These are the first changes to the electrical installation requirements in 25 years, so it is important the standard reflects the most current practices and technologies in the industry," said Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. "The revised standard strengthens employee protections and adds consistency between OSHA's requirements and many state and local building codes which have adopted updated National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and National Electrical Code provisions."

Changes to OSHA's general industry electrical installation standard focus on safety in the design and installation of electric equipment in the workplace. The updated standard includes a new alternative method for classifying and installing equipment in Class I hazardous locations; new requirements for ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) and new provisions on wiring for carnivals and similar installations.

The final rule updates the general industry electrical installation requirements to the 2000 edition of the NFPA 70E, which was used as the foundation of the revised standard. The final rule also replaces the reference to the 1971 National Electrical Code in the mandatory appendix to the powered platform standard with a reference to OSHA's electrical installation standard.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Labels: Electrical Hazards, OSHA

posted by Steve Hudgik | This Arc Flash Post and 0 Comments | Add Comment | links