Power Design, Inc.: OSHA inspections and violations

Incident on Apr 18, 2006: Employee burned by arc flash while testing power line

On April 18, 2006, Employee #1 was inspecting an excavated line of unknown owner ship to determine if it was energized and if it was safe to relocate. He had bee n issued test equipment that included a Sears Craftsman 600-volt maximum current multimeter. Employee #1 did not contact the local electrical utility for assist ance, and he did not contact his regional supervisor, who had assigned him the j ob, when he examined the cable and determined it might be beyond the capabilitie s of his equipment. Instead, he approached the excavated line and, using the bla ck lead from his multimeter, penetrated the line sheathing, causing an arc flash . Employee #1 sustained first- and second-degree burns over 27 percent of his bo dy, as well as undetermined nerve and sub-dermal injuries. He was transported to the hospital, where he was treated for five days. The electric utility determin ed that the line he contacted was a 7,500-volt feeder line. Subsequent investiga tion revealed that Employee #1 was employed as a journeyman electrician, but he had not been tested as such by his employer or by the county where he was workin g, as was required by law. He had been through no formal program of instruction from the employer, and he had not been trained or tested by the general contract or before entering the work site. He had only received a high-school equivalency to a vocational-technical education involving principles of electricity, from w hich he had obtained a certificate issued by a school in Jamaica that covered ce rtain lower-level parts and subsystem replacement which, according to local law, was only to be done under the supervision of a county-certified journeyman or m aster electrician. In addition, Employee #1 had no testing/detection device that could safely perform the task if the cable was transmitting voltage above 600 v olts. Employee #1 was not equipped with the industry-standard level of personal protective equipment appropriate for exposure to high-voltage current: for level s above 600 volts, this would include face protection, heavy duty rubberized glo ves, and a heavy duty rubberized sleeve/shoulder ensemble. He had only been issu ed hand protection suitable for exposures under 600 volts. Employee #1 had been issued a hard hat, which he was wearing at the time of the incident. He was also wearing protective footgear, which he had been required to purchase himself. Ci tations were recommended for lack of provided personal protective equipment, lac k of employee training, and failure of the employer to inspect the work site for hazardous conditions.