No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Electrical fatalities reported by federal OSHA for calendar year 2014 with a consideration of design interventions
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
IN 2006, A TOTAL OF 5,840 FATAL occupational injuries occurred in private industry in the U.S. (BLS, 2008). In addition, 4.1 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported, which means that 4.4 nonfatal occupational injuries or illnesses were reported for every 100 full-time-equivalent workers in the U.S. Rosenman, Kalush, Reilly, et al. (2006) have suggested that these statistics are a cause for employer concern, especially in light of a recent study which indicated that the BLS's system for recording work-related injuries and illnesses under-counts the total number of injuries associated with chronic or acute conditions. Most SH&E professionals are very much aware of these statistics and endeavor to reduce the numbers of occupational fatalities, injuries and illnesses. Often, however, there are limits as to what SH&E professionals can do to positively impact occupa-tional safety. For example, practitioners may not be in a position to ultimately determine what and how company resources are allocated to safety interven-tions. They may often have to find ways to convince higher-level managers—who set priorities and control the budget—of the need to fund occupational safety efforts, and of the critical role their support can play in their com-pany's occupational safety. Research has supported the concept that a positive asso-ciation exists between top management support and im-proved workplace safety and health outcomes (Cohen, 1977; Griffiths, 1985; Marsh, Davies, Phillips, et al., 1998). Griffiths (1985) found that top manage-ment commitment to safety and health was associated with reduced lost-time injuries in the industrial gas industry. Sawacha, Naoum and Fong (1999) found that top manage-ments' attitudes toward safety played a significant role in safe-ty performance. Despite these findings, re-search to assess the safety pri-orities and safety concerns of top-level executives/managers (such as corporate financial Yueng-Hsiang Huang, Ph.D., is a senior research scientist at Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety (LMRIS) in Hopkinton, MA. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Portland State University. She is a member of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association, Society for Occupational Health Psychology, the ASSE Foundation Research Committee and the editorial board of Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Of the fifteen papers presented in this volume, the first five papers discuss various aspects of intrinsic safety. the next five papers go into material classification. The last five papers are grouped under area classification and miscellaneous. One paper shows some of the more important German standards and safety regulations by explaining the main principles of explosion protection of electrical apparatus for use in hazardous atmospheres. Following is a list of titles and authors: Intrinsic Safety - A Status Review. By Ernest C. Magison. Intrinsically Safe - The Fable Behind the Label. By Robert D. Coffee. Intrinsic Safety - What Is It? By Alfred H. McKinney. Electrodes, Wiring, and Barriers, By Martin J. Morgan. Invulnerable Safety. By Robert J. Redding. Ignition temperature of Gases and Vapors as Applied to Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous Locations. By P. J. Schram Classification of Chemicals Relative to Explosion-Proof Electrical Equipment. By Homer W. Carhart. Odor Warnings for Safety. By Frederick Sullivan. Flammable Gas and Vapor Detection Promotes Electrical Safety. By Elliot M. Nesvig. Class II Dust Classification. By T. W. Moodie. Division Two as an Objective. By J. H. Burgoyne. Outside Division Two. By George O. Hunt. German Standards, Safety Regulations and PTB Approval Requirements for Explosion Protected Electrical Equipment. By H. Dreier. Static Electricity and Its Ignition Hazards. By Gerhard Schoen. Products Liability. By Leland J. Hall.
This study describes the occurrence of work-related injuries from thermal-, electrical- and chemical-burns among electric utility workers. We describe injury trends by occupation, body part injured, age, sex, and circumstances surrounding the injury. This analysis includes all thermal, electric, and chemical injuries included in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Occupational Health and Safety Database (OHSD). There were a total of 872 thermal burn and electric shock injuries representing 3.7% of all injuries, but accounting for nearly 13% of all medical claim costs, second only to the medical costs associated with sprain- and strain-related injuries (38% of all injuries). The majority of burns involved less than 1 day off of work. The head, hands, and other upper extremities were the body parts most frequently injured by burns or electric shocks. For this industry, electric-related burns accounted for the largest percentage of burn injuries, 399 injuries (45.8%), followed by thermal/heat burns, 345 injuries (39.6%), and chemical burns, 51 injuries (5.8%). These injuries also represented a disproportionate number of fatalities; of the 24 deaths recorded in the database, contact with electric current or with temperature extremes was the source of seven of the fatalities. High-risk occupations included welders, line workers, electricians, meter readers, mechanics, maintenance workers, and plant and equipment operators.
Financial Decision Makers' View on Safety, What SH&E should know
- Y H Huang
- T B Leamon
- T K Courtney
- S Armond
- P Y Chen
- M F Blair
White Paper of June 8, 2002, Addressing the Return on Investment (ROI) for Safety, Health and Environment (SH&E) Management Programs
- White Paper
Design Options That Reduce Likelihood of Injury from Electrical Hazards Including Shock, Arc Flash and Fire
- H L Floyd