Another unecessacary death

[hillbilly1]

Furthermore, power line guys have a much higher levels of training, have much higher enforcement of safety procedures and still have the highest rate of electrocution.

I don't think they have any higher level of training, it's just they are trained at what they work on, just like us. We don't work on high voltage, as we are normally not trained on it, just as they don't work on anything past the meter, because they are not normally trained on that. But as you said they have safety procedures and the proper equipment to work on it live.

 

[weressl]

I am not buying that, many fully trained, fully qualified, fully responsible employees have been hurt or killed through no fault of their own due to problems left by others before them.

I did not say that. Secondly, safety procedures are to protect you not only from the expected and expectable,but from the 'problems' you cite.

There is no reason not to try to shut things down.

Absolutely. Leaving power on just because it takes time to de-energize things is no reason to work live, for example. I would argue that if a safely conducted energized work can save k$100's by not idling employees, or avoids a lengthy startup, shutdown procedure that has miriads of safety hazards, or things similar in nature that it should be allowed. I have done this many times and still do feel safe the same, regardless what hype generated by special interest about the arc-flash hazard.

Furthermore, power line guys have a much higher levels of training, have much higher enforcement of safety procedures and still have the highest rate of electrocution.

So I think your are speaking from your wishes and not from facts.

Statistics allow you to make statements that sound great, but when the full facts of the base is known may put things in a different light. As an example the above statement - if I think you base it on the data I am familiar with asmost often used, but you did not state it so I don't know - bases the injury rate on total worked hours. That statistics is biased as utility workers work on higher voltage and energy levels than the compared average, AND work live hours multiple magnitudes higher than the same group average, so their exposure is far greater than anyone else within the other segments of the group. In other words it is like stating that airline pilots have the greatest fatality rate -involving an airline incident- among all those who ever board an aircraft.

 

[weressl]

The electrician knew the circuit was hot, it was over a dressing room area. I cannot get into much more detail, as of present we still do work on other sites for both this general contractor and the customer. It was inconvience, not introducing hazards by removing illumination. More than likely not wearing insulated gloves or any other type of PPE.

So are you saying that the incident was likely the result of the victim not following the safety procedures?

Are we of the McDonald defense where the coffee cups have notes printed on them: content may be hot?

Are we going to have warning on PPE like on cigarettes: NOT wearing safety gear may cause you serious injury or death? Why not have these posted all around electrical gear? Even the general public is credited with more intelligence than electricians involving live work.

 

[hillbilly1]

So are you saying that the incident was likely the result of the victim not following the safety procedures?

What I am saying is that nobody followed safety procedures, Not the owner, not the general contractor, not the electrical contractor, and not the electrician. If the victim had been wearing gloves, it might not have protected him from an arc flash, but may have protected him from electrocution. It traveled from one hand on the source across the chest through the other hand which was grounded.

 

[petersonra]

What I am saying is that nobody followed safety procedures, Not the owner, not the general contractor, not the electrical contractor, and not the electrician. If the victim had been wearing gloves, it might not have protected him from an arc flash, but may have protected him from electrocution. It traveled from one hand on the source across the chest through the other hand which was grounded.

I can kind of understand not wanting to wear the gloves. They are cumbersome enough that they probably increase the chances of dropping a tool or maneuvering it where you don't want it, thus potentially increasing the chances of an arc flash incident. A lot of electricians are more afraid of being burned than of being shocked.

 

[weressl]

I can kind of understand not wanting to wear the gloves. They are cumbersome enough that they probably increase the chances of dropping a tool or maneuvering it where you don't want it, thus potentially increasing the chances of an arc flash incident. A lot of electricians are more afraid of being burned than of being shocked.

What seemed to be the loudest objection at the begining - but seem to have tired down, people are just worn out by the counterpressure - was the restriction that the wearing of the PPE produces, restrictive movement, dexterity, vision, breathing, claustrophobia induced stress all contributes to the level of skill that one can produce. I do think that it still exist and as the result people feel less sure about their ability to perform the task as well as they know they can and the increased risk of incidents due to the restrictions.

 

[zog]

What seemed to be the loudest objection at the begining - but seem to have tired down, people are just worn out by the counterpressure - was the restriction that the wearing of the PPE produces, restrictive movement, dexterity, vision, breathing, claustrophobia induced stress all contributes to the level of skill that one can produce. I do think that it still exist and as the result people feel less sure about their ability to perform the task as well as they know they can and the increased risk of incidents due to the restrictions.

Exactly the point of the 70E, to discourage energized work.

 

[weressl]

Exactly the point of the 70E, to discourage energized work.

As I said, it is rooted in the same mindset as current education: bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.:happysad:

 

[pfalcon]

...Are we of the McDonald defense where the coffee cups have notes printed on them: content may be hot?...

Scalding 120 deg +
Coffee 140 deg +
Typical serving temp of Coffee 160 deg
McDonald's serving temp at time of lawsuit 180 deg
McDonald's study at time of lawsuit: No reason to serve above 160 deg (People want to drink right away in their car)
McDonald's arbitrary executive decision traced to one specific executive: I want 180 deg (I want it 160 at the office)

Judicial finding: McDonald's made no error in serving hot coffee. They erred in serving coffee well beyond the temperature served by typical businesses as well as their own internal study. Summary: If you document that over 160 degrees is unsafe then don't serve over 160 degrees.

Moral: If it says it's unsafe to work live then don't work live. The judiciary won't accept your justification.

PS: I believe 160 was about 2 minutes before blistering where 180 was under 5 seconds.

 

[weressl]

Scalding 120 deg +
Coffee 140 deg +
Typical serving temp of Coffee 160 deg
McDonald's serving temp at time of lawsuit 180 deg
McDonald's study at time of lawsuit: No reason to serve above 160 deg (People want to drink right away in their car)
McDonald's arbitrary executive decision traced to one specific executive: I want 180 deg (I want it 160 at the office)

Judicial finding: McDonald's made no error in serving hot coffee. They erred in serving coffee well beyond the temperature served by typical businesses as well as their own internal study. Summary: If you document that over 160 degrees is unsafe then don't serve over 160 degrees.

Moral: If it says it's unsafe to work live then don't work live. The judiciary won't accept your justification.

PS: I believe 160 was about 2 minutes before blistering where 180 was under 5 seconds.

Point well made and taken.

Based on your logic Al-Qaede and the Taliban should file an amicus-brief on the behalf of US army bomb disposal squads.

 

[rbalex]

When I was on the 70E TC, I essentially made the following statement:

It is preferred to work on de-energized equipment unless:

1. Doing so creates an even more dangerous condition or
2. The task to be conducted is impossible on de-energized equipment.

Absent item 1, if a process or operation is so critical that cost or convenience must be considered for a shutdown, then I, as a professional engineer, can design a system that permits de-energizing virtually any item of equipment that may need to be worked on and still permits the critical process or operation to continue – if you are willing to pay for it. If you aren’t willing to pay for it, you aren’t serious about the need for reliability either.

What is often overlooked is safe designs are generally reliable(for the process or operation) and reliable designs are generally safe to repair.