Meet FlashTrack  -Industry's #1 Arc Flash Data Collection Software
December 2, 2014- OSHA Seeks Fines After Worker
Suffers Electrical Shock, Burns

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is seeking $124,000 in fines from the operator of a Pleasant Prairie warehouse after a temporary worker suffered electrical shock and severe burns.

The agency's staff has proposed the fines against Arvato Digital Services LLC, an arm of German publishing firm Bertelsmann. OSHA also is seeking $26,000 in fines from Parallel Employment Group, an Oak Creek staffing company that placed the worker at Arvato.

 

According to OSHA, the 24-year-old maintenance employee was injured on May 19 while troubleshooting an electrical failure on a heat-sealing machine. He couldn't work for more than four months afterward, OSHA said.

 

The conditions resulted in the citation of one willful violation: 

  • Arvato and Parallel were cited for failing to train employees in electrical safety practices, including wearing arc flash and shock protection equipment.



General Electric, ICR Engineering Sued After Electrician Sustains Severe Burns

Published:   November 10, 2014 

Courtesy of  Record News 

 

A Missouri man is suing over claims he sustained severe burns due to a design defect in a General Electric product.

 

Michael Combs Sr. and Dorothy Combs filed a lawsuit Oct. 14 in Madison County Circuit Court against General Electric Company and ICR Engineering, citing negligence.

 

According to the complaint, Michael Combs was working as a maintenance electrician at United States Steel Corporation's Granite City steel mill Feb. 12, when he responded to an alarm and entered the power control room for a drive sold by General Electric and maintained by ICR Engineering. The lawsuit states that when the cabinet door to the drive was opened, an arc flash originated from the fuses, causing third degree burns to more than 30 percent of Combs' body, including his head, face, neck, chest, torso, arms and hands.

 

The complaint states that a U.S. Steel investigation determined that a failure in the drive caused an excessive heat condition causing the metallic coating of the resistor bank guard to flake off toward the fuses, causing a phase to phase arc flash. According to the complaint, the placement of the resistor bank and coated guard above the fuses was an inadequate and dangerous design.  

 

General Electric is accused of negligently designing the drive, and ICR Engineering is accused of negligently failing to warn U.S. Steel and its employees of the danger of the design.

Dorothy Combs is suing for loss consortium.

 

The Combses seek more than $50,000 in damages plus costs of suit. They are represented by attorney Matthew R. Chapman of Becker, Schroader and Chapman in Granite City.

 

Learn More

 

On-Site Training Is What We Do
At Facility Results, we recognize that to remain profitable, contractors and employees need to be working. That's why we offer practical, targeted training programs that capitalize on every minute spent in the classroom. null

Our students have been quoted
as saying...

"That was a real eye opener. Every one of our new employees should take this training!"


Managers that arranged the training have told us...

"My staff personally thanked me for having this training for them."

Call Facility Results 888-762-0090

Satisfaction Guaranteed! 

Big News:  NFPA 70E - 2015 Standard Released  

   

 

The 2015 edition of NFPA 70E introduces a major change in how stakeholders evaluate electrical risk -- so that owners, managers, and employees can work together to ensure an electrically safe working area and comply with OSHA 1910 Subpart S and OSHA 1926 Subpart K.

  • Key changes throughout the Standard replace the phrase "hazard analysis" with "risk assessment" to enable a shift in awareness about the potential for failure.

  • Change in naming from "Hazard Risk Category" to "Arc Flash PPE Category."
  • Elimination of Hazard Risk Category 0.
  • Requirement added for proper maintenance of electrical equipment for both energized and de-energized maintenance.
  • Updated tables add clarity to requirements, such as the restricted approach boundary dimensions in Table 130.4 (D)(a).
  • New requirement 320.3 (A)(1) covers risk assessment associated with battery work.
  • New subsection in 130.2 (A)(4) provides requirements where normal operation of electric equipment is permitted.
  • Informative Annex E has updated text to correlate with the redefined terminology associated with hazard and risk. This annex provides clarity and consistency about definitions as well as risk management principles vital to electrical safety.
Available for purchase at NFPA.ORG 

   


Free Download
Other Popular Downloads, Posters, & Safety Tools FREE