electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
- Occupation
- Electrician
Does Mr. Leary have a valid argument here? Perhaps I am not clear on the definition of an arc flash?
Kenneth Mastrullo, the Secretary’s expert, opined that when Mr. Reniewicz drilled through the back plate, the drill bit either contacted a vertical bus bar or got close enough such that there was an “arcing effect.
7 In either case, an “arc flash” occurred and came out the hole that was drilled. Mr. Mastrullo said he reached this conclusion based on Mr. Reniewicz’s deposition testimony that there was a bright flash when the accident occurred and that he received second and third-degree burns; these facts are consistent with an arc flash. He also reached his conclusion due to the molten metal below the drilled hole, shown in C-14, which indicated an arc flash.
8 Mr. Mastrullo stated that the bucket was a barrier that deflected most of the arc flash; if the opening or hole had been larger, Mr. Reniewicz’s injuries could have been much worse. He also stated that AMP violated the cited standard because Mr. Reniewicz drilled through the bucket’s back plate, which was in close proximity to the live bus bars. Mr. Mastrullo said that de-energizing the switchboard would have eliminated the hazard and prevented the accident. (Tr. 30-36, 119-25). Michael Leary, AMP’s expert, opined that no arc flash or arc blast had taken place.
9 He said that for an arc flash to occur, an arc has to travel through the air. He did not believe an arc had “jumped” from the bus bar to the drill bit before actual contact was made, because there was insufficient voltage for that to have happened. Mr. Leary stated that if an arc flash had actually taken place, the bucket would have melted down and Mr. Reniewicz would have died. Mr. Leary believed that the drill bit contacted an energized part and faulted against the bucket. In particular, he believed that a ground fault, or short circuit, had occurred and that the over-current fuses on the transformers had opened, shutting off the electrical power.
Kenneth Mastrullo, the Secretary’s expert, opined that when Mr. Reniewicz drilled through the back plate, the drill bit either contacted a vertical bus bar or got close enough such that there was an “arcing effect.
7 In either case, an “arc flash” occurred and came out the hole that was drilled. Mr. Mastrullo said he reached this conclusion based on Mr. Reniewicz’s deposition testimony that there was a bright flash when the accident occurred and that he received second and third-degree burns; these facts are consistent with an arc flash. He also reached his conclusion due to the molten metal below the drilled hole, shown in C-14, which indicated an arc flash.
8 Mr. Mastrullo stated that the bucket was a barrier that deflected most of the arc flash; if the opening or hole had been larger, Mr. Reniewicz’s injuries could have been much worse. He also stated that AMP violated the cited standard because Mr. Reniewicz drilled through the bucket’s back plate, which was in close proximity to the live bus bars. Mr. Mastrullo said that de-energizing the switchboard would have eliminated the hazard and prevented the accident. (Tr. 30-36, 119-25). Michael Leary, AMP’s expert, opined that no arc flash or arc blast had taken place.
9 He said that for an arc flash to occur, an arc has to travel through the air. He did not believe an arc had “jumped” from the bus bar to the drill bit before actual contact was made, because there was insufficient voltage for that to have happened. Mr. Leary stated that if an arc flash had actually taken place, the bucket would have melted down and Mr. Reniewicz would have died. Mr. Leary believed that the drill bit contacted an energized part and faulted against the bucket. In particular, he believed that a ground fault, or short circuit, had occurred and that the over-current fuses on the transformers had opened, shutting off the electrical power.
Last edited by a moderator:
