Citation Details


Back to citations


Section: 56.12004
Date: 09/26/2013
District: SE
Negligence: Moderate
Injury or Illness: Reasonbly Likely
Injury or illness could be expected to be: Fatal
Significant and Substantial: Yes

Condition or Practice: The positive welding lead attached to the Miller Big Blue 400P welder was not being properly maintained. The outer insulation was damaged in three places exposing the inner copper current carrying conductors. The three damaged areas measured 13 feet 6 inches, 36 feet, and 44 feet 6 inches from the electrode holder. The welder is capable of producing 450 amps and is usually operated from 120-140- amps. The welder is located on the bed of the Ford F-Super Duty welding truck company #1115. The welder was last used yesterday in the pit area of the mine. This exposes a miner to an electrical shock in the event of a direct grounding condition due to the exposed inner current carrying conductors.

Action to Terminate: The exposed inner current conductors are now provided with the outer insulation. This citation is terminated.

Why this concerns you: We do not contest the fact that there was one area with a cut that could expose the inner wires, but we completely disagree with the gravity of the citation. It should not have been S&S, reasonably likely or fatal in the gravity determination. It seems that the large majority of electrical violations are written as reasonably likely and fatal when statistics from MSHA show otherwise. Though it is possible to have a fatality from this, it is not reasonably likely that an injury would occur and it is certainly not reasonably expected that that injury would be fatal, according to MSHA's own statistics on electrical injuries reported. In some cases it has been found that only 3% of electrical injuries lead to a fatality. The citation should not have been S&S, reasonably likely and fatal. We accept the possible violation but certainly not the severity as it is written.



Abatement Suggestions From Industry


There are no abatements posted for this citation. Add your suggestion below.


Post a Comment


We have provided a place where you can post your professional comment or add additional information regarding this citation. Before doing so, please read the following guidelines:

Be nice!
If you are angry, step back and take a breath.

Post like you are talking to someone face-to-face. Better yet, post it like your mother is going to read it.

Don't discuss anything that might be construed as restraining trade. Nothing about boycotts and we certainly don't want to read about the price of rock.


Be honest!
Keep it factual. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate; some citations are hard enough to believe as is. Mine safety is important and those who visit the site must be able to rely on posts being accurate.


We review all posts
Sorry, but all posts come to us first. We want this site to be effective, and we want you to use it. The site can only be effective if it is legal and professional. If we get something that isn't both, we won't post it. None of us want that to happen.


No Guarantees
Anyone who has been a mine safety professional for long knows what one inspector approves, another may consider a violation. As much as we would like to, we cannot guarantee any solution offered here will work for your situation. We certainly hope what others have done provides helpful ideas, but we aren't willing to bet the farm on it passing an inspection and you shouldn't either.


Your name and email will not be shown when you post your comment. We ask for these fields because it helps us identify association members and keeps spam off the website.

Your Name

Your Email

Member Of

*

Comment


Any comments or opinions shown on this website reflect the views and opinions of the individuals or organization who posted them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the parties sponsoring or supporting this website. The sponsors are not responsible for the content of any comment posted on this website.