by , on October 1, 2011
A firm in the UK was ordered by the Health and Safety Executive to pay £30,000 after two workers were burned in an electrical incident.  The workers were electrocuted while working on a dockside crane.  A maintenance worker was asked to investigate a power failure on the crane even though he was not a trained...
by , on October 1, 2011
The employee was working as a subcontractor at a construction site when the incident occurred.    The explosion was caused when a main electrical supply cable to the site was cut during its removal.  A 415 volt three-phase temporary supply had been provided to the site. The Court heard that the worker approached his supervisor to explain that the electrical...
by , on October 1, 2011
The two men, who were working for a geotechnical drilling company, where using a penetrometer to test soil density when the penetrometer came into contact with a 6600-volt cable what was buried about 60cm below the surface. One employee suffered burns to his legs and up his front and  the more seriously injured man received burns to ~10%...
by , on October 1, 2011
The lawsuit, filed by a BPU engineer who has been suspended without pay, alleges “significant safety issues” and cites “arc flash” several times in the complaint.  In the last 16 months, there have been two arc flash incidences involving transmission and distribution workers at BPU. Critical burns were suffered by three electricians in last year’s...
by , on October 1, 2011
OSHA inspectors identified deficiencies in the hazardous energy control program.  This program involves powering down and locking out machines’ power sources to prevent their unintended start up during maintenance.  Lockout procedures were not developed for tasks that resulted in recordable worker injuries, all lockout procedures were not inspected periodically and employees were not trained on lockout procedures....
... 158159160161162163164165166 ... 171 ... 180 ... 189 ... 198 ... 207 ... 216 ... 225 ... 234 ... 243 ...