Powered by GoogleTranslate

Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA

Inspection Detail

Inspection: 104400064 - Laser Applications, Inc.

Inspection Information - Office: Maryland Region 2

Nr: 104400064Report ID: 0352420Open Date: 02/26/1988

Laser Applications, Inc.
1110 Business Parkway South
Westminster, MD 21157
Union Status: NonUnion
SIC: 3398/Metal Heat Treating

Inspection Type:Accident
Scope:Partial Advanced Notice:N
Ownership:Private
Safety/Health:Safety Close Conference:04/12/1988
Planning Guide: Safety-Manufacturing Close Case:06/03/1988

Related Activity:TypeIDSafetyHealth
 Accident360616718    

Violation Summary
Serious Willful Repeat Other Unclass Total
Initial Violations 2 2
Current Violations 2 2
Initial Penalty $780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $780
Current Penalty $780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $780
FTA Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Violation Items
# ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr$ Init$ Fta$ Contest LastEvent
  1. 01001 Serious 19100303 B 1 05/11/1988 05/14/1988 $400 $400 $0 -
  2. 02001 Serious 19100303 H 2 I 05/11/1988 05/14/1988 $380 $380 $0 -

Accident Investigation Summary
Summary Nr: 823294Event: 02/25/1988Electric Shock - Direct Contact With Energized Parts
A project engineer informed two maintenance workers that a Rofin-Sinar 1000-watt carbon dioxide laser was not cutting to standards. One of the maintenance workers, who was the head of the maintenance department and an experienced electrician, went with the project engineer, who showed him that the discharge current on one of the eight tetrodes was low. The electrician opened the left door at the front of high-voltage cabinet and pulled out the drawer containing four of the eight tetrodes. He then began adjusting the discharge current using a small pocket screwdriver. The laser was being used in production at the time and being operated by a production worker. The engineer twice asked the electrician if the laser should be deenergized (once before the drawer was opened). The electrician, who had received his training from the laser manufacturer, said not to. The engineer walked away after the electrician completed the adjustments to the left side of the high-voltage cabinet. The electrician then opened the right door, opened the drawer containing the other four tetrodes, and began adjusting them. The second maintenance worker came over, and the two employees discussed the problem with the laser. The electrician then returned to his work. His coworker informed him that his procedure was unsafe and noted that the job could be done safety with the equipment deenergized. The electrician ignored this advice and continued to work. As the second maintenance worker turned leave, he heard and saw sparking and saw his coworker slump to the floor. The electrician had contacted energized parts operating at 21.5 to 30 kilovolts, dc, and was electrocuted. The manufacturer had equipped each of the high-voltage cabinet doors with an interlock to deenergize the enclosed circuits; however, the interlocks on both front doors had been bypassed during the adjustment and might even have been bypassed well beforehand.
Keywords: e gi iv, electrical, electrician, electrocuted, laser, electrical work, interlock, lockout, elec circ part--misc
Inspection Degree Nature Occupation
1 104400064 Fatality Electric Shock Electrical and electronic technicians

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.

Close