Tag Archives: PPE

PG&E employee died while working in an underground electrical vault in California.

Posted on by

A 26 year old PG&E employee died while working in an underground electrical vault in California. After a lengthy investigation by Cal/OSHA it was found that 9 critical violations were in play. Some of the violations included a legally required on site safety briefing which had not been done, supervisors failed to check that the power to the vault was off or on, the employee was left alone in the work area which is in direct violation of workers who, when they are in a high risk area, must be under observation, and he had been allowed to get too close to an energized area along with the fact he was not wearing the proper safety clothing; insulated gloves.  After this accident, two more PG&E workers were electrocuted on the job. One of these two tragedies included a worker who separated crossed wires and was not wearing the proper safety rubber gloves.

PG&E officials now say that the deaths have caused them to revamp electrical worker’s training.

OSHA awards Michigan plant the Star Award for excellence in safety

Posted on by

(In order to qualify for the Star Award, companies must have illness and injury data rates that are below the national average for their respective industries as set by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Michigan’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (MIOSHA) presented the Star Award to a power plant in River Rouge, Michigan. This is the highest ranking award within OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).According to the plant’s records, the River Rouge facility had an illness and injury rate average of 1.6 in 2010, compared with the industry national average of 6.2 that same year.

One of the reasons for this plants success is that it implements a program that invites other local plant employees to watch for hazards that River Rouge workers might have missed.

Plant manager Vinay Bhakkad described the award as

“the apex of many years of audits, reviews of hazard prevention and control efforts, safety training reviews, assessment of management’s commitment to safety, and a pledge to stay safe from each of the 150 employees who work here.”

Companies should do all they can to strive for excellence. If you are a manager of a business, one way to do that is to make sure all of your employees have proper safety clothing like flame-resistant clothing, rubber insulated gloves and safety goggles, as this equipment can not only reduce the risks of fatal and nonfatal accidents and help decrease the likelihood of receiving any citations or monetary penalties, but most importantly it can save lives.

Macron Safety Lightest Weight Arc Flash Protection

Posted on by

Macron Safety is proud to announce that we are now selling the lightest weight clothing for Arc Flash Protection

Macron Safety is now selling the lightest weight Arc Flash safety clothing available on the market today.

These fabrics come in 3 different weights: 5 ounces, 6 ounces and 7 ounces.  Each fabric weight is a woven light weight dimensionally stable novel fabric composed of an optimal blend of Para-Aramid, OPF, and Novoloid (Phenolic) fibers. The 5 & 6 ounce fabrics are excellent for Electric Arc Splash Protective garments.   The 7 ounce fabric is also excellent for Electric Arc Protective garments; and when used as a single layer, will meet 8 Cal requirements.

This fabric also comes in 3 different Quilt liners. One of these is The Omni Quilt™ Thermal Liner which is 4 layers of Basofil Blend Spunlace Fabric.

The second Quilt fabric is the OMNI™ Quilt synergy (06OQ1PB). This is a high performance thermal liner constructed of two fabric layers quilted in a 3 inch diamond pattern with natural Nomex® thread. The first layer is a blue dyed woven Nomex® fabric. The second layer is a hydro-entangled nonwoven fabric composed of Basofil®, meta-aramid, and para-aramid fibers. This quilted fabric has been tested and meets the requirements of NFPA 1971-2007.

The third OMNI™ Synergy (07OQ2PB) is a high performance thermal liner constructed of three fabric layers quilted in a 2 inch diamond pattern with natural Nomex® thread. the first layer is a blue dyed woven Nomex® fabric. The second and third layers are a hydro-entangled nonwoven fabric composed of Basofil®, meta-aramid, and para-aramid fibers. This quilted fabric has been tested and meets the requirements of NFPA 1971-2007.

Macron Safety has sourced the best safety fabric available in order to allow our customers to wear lightweight but Arc Flash safe PPE Clothing.

This fabric utilizes unique fiber blends in their yarns and woven fabrics, including narrow fabrics of all types (tape, braided packing, twisted rope, woven sleeving, braided sleeving, wick and filler). They develop, manufacture and sell the lightest weight ensemble for NFPA 70 E Category 4 Electric Arc Protection.

This line of CutPro™ fabrics and DREF yarns exceed 3000 grams of cut protection (CPPT) in a 9.0 oz/yd² fabric offering Level 4 ASTM 1790-2005 protection levels. Another recent development is their ArcWeld™ line of fabric. The ArcWeld™ line is a unique multifunctional fabric line offering NFPA 70E Level 2 ARC resistance, 100% inherent flame resistance, ANSI/ISEA 107-2010 high visibility compliance along with Level 2 ASTM 1790-2005 cut protection.

Macron Safety will make your custom Arc Flash Safety clothing to your specification and to fit all your unique needs and work environments. Contact us today or call 1-916-905-6535.

OSHA Cited a Steel Fabricator $132,000 in fines

Posted on by

A Steel plant in Maine was cited by OSHA for alleged willful violations of electric shock, arc flash, crushing and laceration hazards.

“The sizable fines proposed in this case reflect the severity and recurring nature of a number of these hazards,” said William Coffin, OSHA’s area director for Maine. “For the safety of its workers, this employer must take effective and expeditious action to eliminate these conditions and prevent further recurrences.” The inspection was conducted under OSHA’s Site-Specific Targeting Program, which directs inspections toward workplaces with a rate of workdays lost due to injuries and illnesses that is higher than the industry average.

According to the agency, maintenance employees were not supplied with and did not use PPE to protect themselves against the hazards of electric shock, arc flash, and arc blast events while performing diagnostic work on electrical equipment, which resulted in one willful citation with a $70,000 fine.

Failure to correct other work site errors resulted in added fines.

Any doubts that your company is compliant? Your employees safe?

The 2012 Edition of the NFPA 70E recommendations are in print and take effect January 1, 2012.

Do you and your employees know all of the changes? Have they been implemented into your Electrical Safety Program? Do you have an Electrical Safety Program? Have you had Electrical Safety Training in the last year?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then contact Macron Safety today!

Call 916-905-6535 or contact us to be certain you are in compliance.

Arc Flash burns man’s hands and face

Posted on by

SPAIN

During a routine service operation at one of the Vestas company plants located in the district of El Bonillo, an arc flash event caused a fire and burn injuries to a company employee.

The employee, performing a service operation in a control cabinet, suffered burns to hands and face and was rushed to the hospital. According to a reliable source, the employee is home recovering.

The machine was operating in the five-year-old Casa del Aire wind plant in the district of El Bonillo in the south-central province of Albacete, a hot spot for brush and forest fires. The fire brigade extinguished the flames, which also spread to the surrounding vegetation.

The plant developer, Renovalia, declined to comment, saying the full onus for comment fell on Vestas, not only as turbine supplier but also as operations and maintenance provider.

It is unknown at this time if the employee had the proper arc flash training, protective clothing, or procedures in place to prevent an arc flash event.

OSHA cites Spurgeon Vineyards and Winery
 with 12 violations including lack of guarding and training

Posted on by

HIGHLAND, Wis. – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Spurgeon Vineyards and Winery LLC in Highland, Wis., with 12 safety and health – including nine repeat – violations for failing to provide fall protection and a hazard communication program. The citations are the result of a follow-up investigation conducted in January. Proposed penalties total $71,280.

“Employers are responsible for knowing the hazards that exist in their workplaces, and failing to take basic safety precautions to protect workers is unacceptable,” said Kim Stille, OSHA’s area director in Madison. “Repeat violations portray a disregard for workers’ safety and health. OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job.”

Seven repeat safety violations involve failing to protect workers from fall hazards greater than 4 feet on wine tanks and catwalks, implement and train workers on a lockout/tagout program to control the release of hazardous energy resulting in an arc flash event, as well as allowing workers to use damaged electrical cords.

Additionally, the company has been cited with two repeat health violations for failing to implement a personal protective equipment hazard assessment, provide a hazard communication program and training, and provide material safety data sheets for chemicals used in the workplace. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. Similar violations were cited in July 2011.

A serious violation occurs 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.

Spurgeon Vineyards and Winery has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The previous inspection was in 2011, and 24 violations were issued.

Tworkers, the public should call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency’s Madison Area Office at 608-441-5388.

Everything you wanted to know about Arc Flash safety and then some!

Posted on by

Everything you wanted to know about Arc Flash safety and then some! This article breaks down the anatomy of arc flash hazard calculations in an easily understandable format. Also, this information will help you to understand not only the risks involved at a particular site but the type of safety wear that would be required for that specific job site.

A Tidal Wave of Arc-Flash Hazard Calculation Studies by Jim Phillips

Northeast Hospital Corp has been cited by OSHA for alleged repeat and serious electrical safety violations of at its facility in Beverly, MA.

Posted on by

Northeast Hospital Corp has been cited by OSHA for alleged repeat and serious electrical safety violations of at its facility in Beverly, MA. The employer faces a total of $63,000 in proposed fines following an OSHA inspection prompted by a worker complaint.

OSHA  determined that some hospital employees were exposed to potential electric shock, burns, arc flash events and electrocution while changing circuit breakers on live electrical panels.  The employees  did not have or did not use personal protective equipment while working with energized electrical equipment. It was also determined that electrical protective equipment was not periodically tested; electrical safety related work practices were not used; and specific procedures were not developed for the control of hazardous energy while replacing electrical breakers.

$28,000 in citations were issued by OHSA. OSHA issues a serious citation 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.

Because the hospital failed to ensure that unused openings in the electrical panels and control centers were closed, OSHA issued a $35,000 (repeat) fine.. The citation was classified as repeat because OSHA had cited the hospital in May 2010 for a similar condition. A repeat citation is issued when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

“Electricity can kill or severely injure workers, literally in a flash. There is no margin for error here,” said Jeffrey Erskine, OSHA’s area director for Essex and Middlesex counties. “That’s why it is vitally important for the safety and well-being of employees working with electricity that they be properly trained and equipped with effective protective equipment.”

How selecting Personal Protective Equipment can save your employees lives

Posted on by

How you select Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for your employees may save their lives.

Employers are responsible for protecting their workers from the catastrophic results of an arc flash event. How you chose the correct PPE is based on the type(s) of electrical exposure your workers may come into contact with.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) could include hard hats, gloves, hot sticks, or a full bodied arc flash suit with face shield. Many employers use NFPA 70E 2004: table 130.7 (C)(9)(A) as their guide to selecting the correct equipment. Or one could conduct an arc flash analysis. We find that this type of analysis far exceeds trying to use just the tables. In fact, using only the tables often results in improper protection for your worker. The tables (http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/CodesStandards/TIAErrataFI/TIA70E-04-1.pdf)  are based on certain jobs and divided into eight equipment- and voltage-specific sections. The tables are extremely limited in that they only cover eight specific types of equipment. Although the equipment l they list may cover most situations, it may not cover yours. If your equipment, voltage, or task is not listed then 70E requires an arc flash analysis.

Another concern about relying on the tables for your PPE requirements is that they only cover situations up to Category 4. Some equipment is higher than Category 4 and this is what is known as the dangerous level. This level means the arc flash will be so catastrophic and that one cannot work on the panel live.

As you study the table you will see that it is based on a predetermined current and clearing time. Obviously the problem with this scenario is that your facility may have a higher current or a lower current and both can result in an increased thermal hazard. This would mean you could have the incorrect PPE protection which would make the difference between life and death for your worker(s). The best way to protect your employees from injury or death, and your company from devastating law suits is simple: Have an Arc Flash Analysis conducted at your facility. Not only will you save lives, but you will have fulfilled OSHA mandates for training your employees and you will be assured that they are properly protected when the unexpected does happen. Macron Safety is your Safety Solutions Partner and we pride ourselves on education, prevention and safe work environments.

If there is an Arc Flash will the insulation inside your hard hat melt?

Posted on by

Oberon Arc Flash Hard Hat Test

A new test method is being developed for arc exposure in hard hats – due to concerns in the industry that the foam inside insulated hard hats can melt and/or ignite. Recently, Oberon conducted arc tests on Type 2, Class E hard hats with foam liners. For arc flash protection, hard hats are worn with an arc rated face shield or an arc rated hood with a shield window. In the NFPA 70E Hazard/Risk Categories (HRC) 1, 2 and 2-star designated for incident energy levels from 1.2 to 8 cal/cm2, hard hats are equipped with an arc rated face shield. For HRC3 and HRC4, designated for incident energies above 8 cal/cm2 and up to 40 cal/cm2, arc rated hoods are required. Within the utility industry, which is excluded from the NFPA 70E standard, hard hats can be directly exposed well above an incident energy of 8 cal/cm2 when used with a balaclava hood and an arc rated face shield or arc rated goggles. The intent of these Oberon tests was to conduct arc exposures in the range of 25 cal/cm2 with and without an arc rated face shield protecting the hard hat liner.

Oberon Face Shield TestIn the first test, the hard hats/face shield assembly was initially mounted facing the arc exposure in the standard configuration for the ASTM F2178 test method for face protective products. The hard hat was labeled Dynamic HP542 hardhat with foam liner, made in Canada, CSA Z94.1-05 & ANSI Z89.1-2009,Type 2, Class E, Size 53-64 cm, 65/8-8, HPDE, and was equipped with an Oberon ARCX 12 cal shield. As expected, the face shield protected the hard hat and liner. There was no after-flame from the hard hat or liner and no melting, dripping or damage to the hard hat or liner.

In the second test two hard hats/face shield assemblies were mounted backwards on the mannequin head so that the back sides of the two hard hats were facing the arc exposure.
Oberon Arc Flash TestIn this orientation, the face shield does not protect the hard hat and liner. However, there was no after-flame from the hard hat or liner, and no melting, drip- ping or damage to the hard hat or liner with an incident energy exposure on position A of 27.0 cal/cm2 and on position B 23.3 cal/cm2.

Certainly at some level of arc flash exposure, a hard hat and liner can exhibit ignition, melting and dripping. The ASTM F18 Committee test method development will determine the exposure level at which these phenomena can be initiated. Based on this limited testing, it appears that ignition, melting and dripping are not initiated at exposures up to approximately 25 cal/cm2.

Article submitted by Oberon Company.