. Technicians did not require specialized training (e.
The employer was small, privately owned electrical cable testing laboratory that had been in
business for years. The company did not have
a written safety program., college
degree) for the job and were trained on-the-job engineer. Each
area was surrounded six-foot high fence constructed light gauge wire fencing mounted to
two-by-four inch wood framing.g. The cables were then
examined for faults and tested see they continued meet the manufacturer’s specifications. enter the area, a
worker needed unplug the extension cord, which tripped electrical relay and shut down all
power the area. The laboratory tested samples high-voltage electrical cables submitted by
electrical utilities, cable manufactures, and government agencies for quality-control purposes.
The laboratory subjected the cables number different tests that simulate aging, lightning
strikes, and other conditions that would affect the high-voltage cables. Responsibility for safety was
assigned the engineer charge his particular section the lab. The interlocks were made an
ordinary household electrical extension cord stretched across each door. Photos
were not taken the employer’s request order protect proprietary information. that time,
investigators interviewed the employer and witnesses and examined the incident site.
INVESTIGATION
The incident occurred the cable testing laboratory that was located warehouse an
industrial park. had previously worked machine operator an
electrical cable manufacturer and maintenance person for large university. FACE investigator contacted the
employer and arranged conduct site visit, which was done July 1996. Each area was marked with danger signs and warning lights showing that the
power was on. The company employed ten people the time the incident, including
three engineers and secretary. The interlock cords were situated that was impossible open the door
without pulling and unplugging the cord.2
INTRODUCTION
On June 20, 1996, FACE personnel were notified county medical examiner work-
related electrocution/fall that occurred June 18, 1996. Entry into the areas was through identically made doors built
into the fencing. Safety devices included grounding the fence and doors and providing interlock
system that shut down the power whenever door was opened. His job duties were maintain and change the experiments, including
the cables being aged for research.
All electrical testing was done inside several fenced-in areas constructed the laboratory.
The victim was 45-year-old male general technician who had worked for the laboratory for one
year and seven months. Other
information was obtained from OSHA, the police report, and the medical examiner’s report
