<%BANNER%>

Analysis of Electrical Incidents in Construction

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021092/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis of Electrical Incidents in Construction Emphasis on Powerline Contacts
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Domeier, John H
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: boom, construction, contact, crane, electrical, electrocution, fatality, line, overhead, powerline, worker
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL INCIDENTS IN CONSTRUCTION: EMPHASIS ON POWERLINE CONTACTS By John H. Domeier, Jr. August, 2007 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Master of Science in Building Construction Electrical incidents on construction sites are one of the leading causes of OSHA recordable accidents. There are roughly 123 recorded electrical incidents per year in the American workforce. Of these incidents, 80% occur on construction jobsites and 65% of the construction jobsite electrical incidents are caused by contacting powerlines. The objective of my research was to determine the root causes of these incidents and the conditions that surrounded them. Roofers were most likely to contact powerlines and incidents were most likely to occur between 10:00a.m. to noon or from 1:00p.m. to 3:00p.m. Cranes were the most common way that electricity was contacted and he or she contacted the powerline with the load line or boom in 84% of the cases. Boomed vehicles and equipment and ladders were also common sources for powerline contacts. Over 99% of the cases involved males and 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 26-30 and another 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 21-25. The trades of the workers and the type of jobsite he or she was on did affect the number of occurrences. Carpenters were most likely to be involved in powerline contacts on residential jobsites, and plumbers were most likely to contact powerlines on civil jobsites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by John H Domeier.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021092:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021092/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis of Electrical Incidents in Construction Emphasis on Powerline Contacts
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Domeier, John H
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: boom, construction, contact, crane, electrical, electrocution, fatality, line, overhead, powerline, worker
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL INCIDENTS IN CONSTRUCTION: EMPHASIS ON POWERLINE CONTACTS By John H. Domeier, Jr. August, 2007 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Master of Science in Building Construction Electrical incidents on construction sites are one of the leading causes of OSHA recordable accidents. There are roughly 123 recorded electrical incidents per year in the American workforce. Of these incidents, 80% occur on construction jobsites and 65% of the construction jobsite electrical incidents are caused by contacting powerlines. The objective of my research was to determine the root causes of these incidents and the conditions that surrounded them. Roofers were most likely to contact powerlines and incidents were most likely to occur between 10:00a.m. to noon or from 1:00p.m. to 3:00p.m. Cranes were the most common way that electricity was contacted and he or she contacted the powerline with the load line or boom in 84% of the cases. Boomed vehicles and equipment and ladders were also common sources for powerline contacts. Over 99% of the cases involved males and 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 26-30 and another 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 21-25. The trades of the workers and the type of jobsite he or she was on did affect the number of occurrences. Carpenters were most likely to be involved in powerline contacts on residential jobsites, and plumbers were most likely to contact powerlines on civil jobsites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by John H Domeier.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021092:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL INCIDENTS IN CONSTRUCTION: EMPHASIS ON POWERLINE CONTACTS By JOHN H DOMEIER, JR. A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 John H. Domeier, Jr.

PAGE 3

3 To my family, friends, and the staff and facu lty of the M.E. Rinker Sr., School of Building Construction at the University of Florida, as we ll as all of those in th e construction industry who have lost their lives helping to bu ild the world into a better place.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and forem ost, I would like to thank my parents John and Dee Dee Domeier, for the love, support, and sacrifices they have given me over the past 25 years. Their encouragement and devotion to me and my sisters has allowed us to grow and prosper into successful adults. I would also like to thank my gi rlfriend, Katie Lopez. Without the daily support she provided, I would not be where I am today. She has always pushed me to pursue my dreams and it is because of her help that I have been able to ma nage my time and resources that were needed to complete this research. A speci al thanks also goes out to my sisters, Shannon Sumerlin and Jackie Mauldin. They have always looked out for me and have been there no matter what. Finally, I would also like to tha nk all my friends. Without my fa mily and friends none of this would have been possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11 General Background...............................................................................................................11 Construction Safety.........................................................................................................11 Electrical Safety...............................................................................................................12 Powerlines and Construction........................................................................................... 13 Aims, Objectives, and Scope.................................................................................................. 13 Hypothesis..............................................................................................................................14 2 LITERARY REVIEW............................................................................................................ 15 Electrical Injuries in the Workforce ....................................................................................... 15 Electrical Injuries in Construction ..........................................................................................17 Electrical Incidents Involving Cranes or Boom ed Vehicles................................................... 18 Cranes..............................................................................................................................19 Crane incidents.........................................................................................................19 Safety and development........................................................................................... 23 Trucks and Boomed Equipment...................................................................................... 24 Personnel lif ts........................................................................................................... 24 Concrete pumps and placing booms.........................................................................25 Electrical Injuries Involving Ladders and Scaffolds .............................................................. 26 Ladders............................................................................................................................26 Scaffolds..........................................................................................................................26 Adolescent Electrocutions...................................................................................................... 27 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 29 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........29 Previous Studies......................................................................................................................29 Data Identification and Analysis............................................................................................ 30 Data Identification...........................................................................................................30 Category Selection...........................................................................................................31 Statistical Data Analysis...................................................................................................... ...32 Frequencies......................................................................................................................32

PAGE 6

6 Cross Tabulation..............................................................................................................35 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................36 Analysis of All Electr ical Incidents: 1990-2004 .................................................................... 36 Electrical Incidents by Year............................................................................................ 36 Electrical Incidents by Month......................................................................................... 36 Electrical Incidents by Day of Month............................................................................. 36 Electrical Incidents by Day of the Week .........................................................................37 Electrical Incidents by Tim e of Day................................................................................ 37 Construction Activity......................................................................................................37 Type of Job Site...............................................................................................................38 Fatality vs. Injury............................................................................................................ .38 Type of Injury from the Electrical Incident ..................................................................... 38 Number of Employees Involved...................................................................................... 38 Electricity Source of Electrical Incidents ........................................................................ 39 Workers Trade................................................................................................................39 Type of Contact Made with Electricity........................................................................... 40 Voltage............................................................................................................................40 Electricity Location......................................................................................................... 40 Fault of the Accident....................................................................................................... 41 Gender of the Victim....................................................................................................... 41 Age of the Victim............................................................................................................ 41 OSHA Region..................................................................................................................41 Analysis of Electrical In cidents from Powerlines in Construction: 1990-2004 .....................41 Electrical Incidents from Po werlines in Construction by the Y ear of Incident............... 42 Electrical Incidents from Po werlines in Construction by the Month of the Year ........... 42 Electrical Incidents from Powerlines in Construction by the D ay of the Week.............. 42 Electrical Incident from Powerlines in Construction by Tim e of Day............................ 42 Type of Job Site Where Electrical Inci dents Occur from Contacting Powerlines.......... 43 Fatality vs. Injury from Contacting Powerlines on Construction Jobsites ...................... 43 Type of Injury from Contacting a Powerline on a Construction Jobsite .........................43 Number of Employees Involved in Cont acts with Powerlines on Construction Jobsites .........................................................................................................................43 Trade of the Injured Worker from Powerline Contacts on Construction Jobsites .......... 43 Type of Contact Made with the Powerlines....................................................................44 Voltage of Powerlines When C ontacted on Construction Jobsites ................................. 45 Location of Powerlines that Were Contacted on Construction Jobsites .......................... 45 Fault of the Accident when Powerlines were Contacted on Construction Jobsites ........ 45 Gender of the Victim in Powerlin e C ontacts on Construction Jobsites.......................... 45 Age of the Victim in Powerline Contacts on Construction Jobsites............................... 46 OSHA Region where Powerline Contact s on Construction Jobsites Occur .................... 46 States where Powerline Contacts on Construction Jobsites Occur ................................. 46 Comparison of Events Occurring When an Elec trical In cident Occu rs from Contacting a Powerline on a Construction Jobsite................................................................................... 47 Worker Trade vs. Time of Day........................................................................................ 47 Worker Trade vs. Month of Year....................................................................................47

PAGE 7

7 Worker Trade vs. How Crane Contacted Powerlines......................................................47 Worker Trade vs. Type of Construction Site................................................................... 48 Type of Jobsite vs. Time of Day.....................................................................................48 Type of Jobsite vs. Above/Below Ground Powerlines....................................................48 OSHA Region vs. Month of the Year.............................................................................48 OSHA Region vs. Type of Crane Contacting Powerlines............................................... 49 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ............................................................................. 69 Conclusions and Results Analysis.......................................................................................... 69 Causes of Electrical Incidents.........................................................................................69 Electrical Incidents by Year............................................................................................ 69 Electrical Incidents by Month......................................................................................... 69 Electrical Incidents by Day of the Month........................................................................ 70 Electrical Incidents by Day of the Week .........................................................................70 Electrical Incidents by Tim e of Day................................................................................ 71 Electrical Incidents by Construction Activity ................................................................. 72 Electrical Incidents by Type of Jobsite ...........................................................................72 Type of Contact Made with Electricity........................................................................... 73 Trade of Workers Involved in Electrical Incidents .........................................................73 Workers Trade vs. Type of Construction Site................................................................ 74 Fatalities vs. Injuries from Electrical Contact ................................................................. 74 Type of Fatal Injuries from Electrical Contact ................................................................ 75 Number of Employees Involve d in E lectrical Incidents.................................................. 75 Voltage of Electricity Contacted.....................................................................................75 Location of Electrical S ource (Above/Below Ground) ...................................................76 Type of Jobsite vs. Above/Below Ground Powerlines....................................................76 Fault of Electrical Incidents............................................................................................. 77 Gender of Victims of Electrical Incidents ....................................................................... 77 Age of Victims of Electrical Incidents............................................................................ 77 OHSA Region of Electrical Incidents.............................................................................78 OSHA Region vs. Month of the Year.............................................................................78 State of Electrical Incidents............................................................................................. 79 Recommendations................................................................................................................ ...79 Preventing Incidents from Occurring..............................................................................79 Post Incident Reporting...................................................................................................80 Future Works..........................................................................................................................81 APPENDIX A OSHA 300 FORM.................................................................................................................. 84 B OSHA 301 FORM.................................................................................................................. 94 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................100

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4.1 Trade of worker invo lved in electrical incidents from contacting a powerline on a construction jobsite............................................................................................................62 4.2 How cranes contact powerlines on construction jobsites .................................................. 64 4.3 Types of other equipm ent" contacting powerlines........................................................... 64 4.4 Comparison of fault of all electrical incident s vs. electrical inci dents from contacting powerlines on construction jobsites................................................................................... 64 4.5 Electrical incidents by st ate or U.S. territory ..................................................................... 65 4.6 Electrical incidents fo r contacting powerlines by workers trade ...................................... 67 5.1 Trade of worker contacting powerlines vs. m eans in which he or she contacts them ....... 83

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4.1 Num ber of electri cal incidents and power line contacts per year...................................... 50 4.2 Total electrical incidents by m onth...................................................................................51 4.3 Electrical incidents by day of the m onth........................................................................... 52 4.4 Electrical incidents by day of the week ............................................................................53 4.5 Time of day incidents occurred......................................................................................... 54 4.6 Num ber of employees involve d in electrical incidents..................................................... 55 4.7 Electricity source for electrical incidents .......................................................................... 56 4.8 Electrical incidents by trade of worker .............................................................................57 4.9 Means of contacting electricity ......................................................................................... 58 4.10 Line voltage of electrical incidents ....................................................................................59 4.11 Number of electrical incidents by age group..................................................................... 60 4.12 Number of electrical in cidents by OSHA region...............................................................61 4.13 Means of contacting powerlin es on construction jobsites ................................................. 63 4.14 Electrical incidents from powerline contacts am ong conc rete workers by month............ 68

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL INCIDENTS IN CONSTRUCTION: EMPHASIS ON POWERLINE CONTACTS By John H. Domeier, Jr. August 2007 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Building Construction Electrical incidents on c onstruction sites are one of the l eading causes of OSHA recordable accidents. There are roughly 123 recorded electrical incidents per year in the American workforce. Of these incidents, 80% occur on construction jobsites and 65% of the construction jobsite electrical incidents are caused by contac ting powerlines. The objective of my research was to determine the root causes of these inci dents and the conditions that surrounded them. Roofers were most likely to contact powerlines a nd incidents were most likely to occur between 10:00a.m. to noon or from 1:00p.m. to 3:00p.m. Cranes were the most common way that electricity was contacted and he or she contacted the powerline w ith the load line or boom in 84% of the cases. Boomed vehicles and equi pment and ladders were also common sources for powerline contacts. Over 99% of the cases involved males a nd 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 26-30 and another 20% of the cases involved workers between the ages of 21-25. The trades of the workers and the type of jobsite he or she was on did affect the number of occurrences. Carpente rs were most likely to be in volved in powerline contacts on residential jobsites, and plumbers were most likely to contact powerlines on civil jobsites.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General Background Construction Safety Throughout the history of the United States, the constructi on industry has experienced m any grand accomplishments, including the Hoover Dam, the Empire State Building, and the Chrysler Building. To this day, these projects stand as a testam ent to the amazing strides of the construction industry. However, these have come with the heavy cost of American lives. Evidence of unsafe conditions on construction site s is widely publicized, such as the famous picture of construction workers ea ting lunch on the steel structur e of the Empire State Building without being tied off. To improve the American industrial worker safety performance Pr esident Richard Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Although this act addressed all private sector employees, it made safety a particularly important part of the construction industry. Through this legislation, violati ons of safety standards could l ead to monetary and/or legal ramifications. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 created three organizations. The first organization Occupational Safety and H ealth Administration (OSH A)is responsible for creating and enforcing workplace safety and health regulations. The second organizationthe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)is a research based organization that recommends guidelines for preventing workplace injuries and illnesses. The third organization is the Occupa tional Safety and Health Review Commission which is charged with making final decisions about OSHA cases that are appealed ( About 2006).

PAGE 12

12 Electrical Safety One of the areas of concentration for these gove rning bodies is electrica l safety on jobsites. An electric shock is the effect of an electrical current entering the body. It m ay be a quick and harmless jolt from the discharge of static electr icity or a lethal discharge from a power source. The majority of the lethal occurrences occur at frequencies that are commonly found in homes (approximately 60 hertz), or those that occur from contact with a conductor containing less than 500 volts. The frequency of these types of electro cutions is due mainly to the fact that higher voltages of power are generally found only in powe rlines that are designed to be accessed by trained professionals who are used to d ealing with high amounts of electricity ( Electrical Shock, 2007). Electrocutions are a major safety concern in the construction industry. According to a study conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Admini stration (OSHA) between the years 1985-1989, there were 580 work-related electrocutions. Of these, 377 or 65% occurred in the construction industry ( Preventing, 1995). As one of the leading causes of deaths on jobsites, electrocutions are probably the most preventable accidents. Most construction site electrocutions can be eliminated by better communication. Another factor that could help to eliminate construction jobsite electrocutions is workers fo llowing protocol and employers enforcing the proper personal protection requirements on live wires. Of these electrical shock accidents, one of the major causes of electrocuti on is contact with power lines. Most of the research done on contact with powerlines focuses on specific types of contact such as booms, cranes, or ladders. Despite the plentiful research on these occurrences, most of this research is dated at least ten years.

PAGE 13

13 Powerlines and Construction Powerlines present a serious electrical dange r to workers and personnel in all types of industries. Between 1985 and 1989, a study of cons truction fatalities show ed that 11% of the fatalities were caused by contacts with overhead lines. Oddly enough, th e most common for m of electrocution from powerlines is direct contact, followed by crane boom contacts, materials contacting the lines, and ladder contacts (Hinze and Bren, 1996). In the age of advanced technology, it is quite unacceptable that 11% of a ll construction fatalities are caused by contact with a powerline. Numerous types of problems can arise when powerlines are in close vicinity to construction sites. With all the bare metal a nd tons of steel that are common on construction sites, all it takes is a sp lit-second of carelessness for materials or equipment to come too close to an energized powerline, create an electric arc, and cause a trage dy. It is a simple as a truck driver failing to lower the boom as he or she driv es away, or a crane operator forgetting about the transmission line next to the boom. Often it is th e negligence of one co-w orker which results in the tragic death of a coworker. Aims, Objectives, and Scope The intended objective of m y res earch is to create an unders tanding within the construction industry of the risks that lie within powerlines. My documen t reveals the consequences of construction workers not being aware of common hazards around them and not taking the proper precautions that could have not only prevented their own injury or death, but that of a peer as well. I began by compiling OSHA data on electrocutions for the past 10 years and determining the: a. type of construction where the electrocution occured b. type of contact made with powerlines c. voltage of the power line contacted

PAGE 14

14 d. trade of the worker who contacted the power line e. type of error that occurred (opera tor, communication, equipment, etc.) To effectively analyze the data, every case need ed to be studied to determine how it related to electrocution. In order to identify cases and to fully unde rstand how electrocutions from powerlines differed from other el ectrocutions, even the cases that did not involve powerlines were carefully reviewed so that a su ccessful analysis could be made. By breaking down the records of electrocuti ons on construction job sites, this paper analyzed common types of electrocutions, common events that lead to electrocutions, common actions that lead to electrocutions, and an analysis of how all of these rela te. This type of study will allow workers to identify tasks that put them at the most risk so that they will be aware of where the largest dangers lie while working and a void serious injury and/or death to themselves, or their co-workers. Hypothesis Safety in construction has been em phasized fo r many years. The presence of OSHA and the constant reminders employers have placed on th eir workers is greater than ever. As a result, the construction industry is much safer than it was 50 years ago. However, despite the heavy legislation imposed upon the construction industry, electrocution is still one of the leading causes of injury and death on jobsites today. The rate of injury an d death due to contact with powerlines on construction sites has changed little over the last 10 to 20 years, and without a harder push from governing bodies, is unlikely to change.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERARY REVIEW Electrical Injuries in the Workforce Before a construction worker begins any task, it is im portant that he or she has surveyed their work and the surroundings, and have analyzed any and all dangers that he or she may encounter. OSHA requires that every worker be trained in the rec ognition, avoidance and prevention of unsafe conditions. One of the most dangerous concerns on jobsites should be electrical hazards. Elect ricity can be avoided and should be easily identified, yet nearly 140 construction workers are killed every year by electricity, primarily through contacts with powerlines If working outside, all powerlines should be identified whether ove rhead or underground. Ideally, all overhead lines should be turned off or insulated. If neither is possible, the area around the overhead lines should be marked off in a clearly visible way or some other approach should be taken to address the hazard. And as a rule of thumb, all workers should stay at least 10 feet away from powerlines, unl ess they know for sure the lin e has been deactivated. If working on machines or equipment, it is importa nt to lock out or to tag out the electrical item being worked on and other employees should re main at least three feet away from the area where the work is taking place ( Electric, 2006). Electrical incidents cause an average of 13 da ys away from work injuries and nearly one fatality every day (Cawley and Homce, 2003). No one plans to be electrocuted and yet this happens almost everyday. On average, there is on e fatality and 10 lost days of work everyday as a result of electricity (Cawley, 2001). Betw een 1992 and 1998, there were 2,267 fatal electrical incidents and 3,239 nonfatal electrical incidents for all industries. Of the 2,267 fatal incidents,

PAGE 16

16 993 (approximately 44%) were th e result of making contact w ith a powerline (Cawley and Homce, 2003). The problem of electrical injuri es and fatalities is not limited to the United States. Around the world it has been problematic. In Australia, electrical fatalities are th e fifth highest cause of death in the workplace. Of the fatalities identified in a study from 1982-1994, contact with a powerlines was the most common type of elect rical accident (Williamson and Feyer, 1998). In Williamson and Feyers 1998 study, it was evident that certain fields of work are more likely to be exposed to electrocutions, with c onstruction being one of them. Surprisingly, even though most of the occupationa l categories identified by Willi amson and Feyer involved exposure to electricity in one wa y or another, 38% of the categor ies had zero electrical incidents over the course of the three year study including air and rail transportation and timber workers. Another category with zero incidents with a high level of exposure was the emergency and armed services (Williamson and Feyer, 1998). Although this may seem unusual, when the high level of protocol and training received by the em ergency and armed services is considered the number seems more realistic. Williamson and Feyers study also showed th at the majority (approximately 69%) of electrical incidents in Australia occurred to people in the ag e bracket of 20-40 years old. This may seem high, but this age group also makes up the majority of the workforce (Williamson and Feyer, 1998). Williamsons study is supported by an earlier study over a three year period in the 1980s (1984-1986). This study suggested th at workers in their early 20s we re most likely to be killed by electricity. As the employee age increased, the chances of being killed by electricity decreased (Suruda, 1988).

PAGE 17

17 During the 1990s electricity was the fourth leading cause of death in the mining industry. However, it was the 14th leading cause of injuries. This not only points out the how dangerous electricity is, but demonstrates th at when an electrical incident occurs, it has a higher chance of resulting in a fatality (Laws, 2004). Surudas study also separated the electric source and the indust ry. The construction industry had almost 4 times as many electrocuti ons as the number two industry manufacturing, and powerlines were the cause of 60% of all the electrocutions in all industries. Electrical Injuries in Construction Construction workers make up less than 10% of the workforce in the United States, but they are responsible for 44% of a ll the electrical fatalities that occur (Cawley and Homce, 2003). One of the key risk facto rs for electrical incident s in construction is that electricity is readily available on almost all jobsites. Almost all workers are exposed to electrical energy while performing their daily tasks, so he or she may get accustomed to the hazard to the point of ignoring it. Some of the most hazardous exposures are overhead powerlines and such innocuous hazards such as broken light bulbs ( Worker 1998). Based on a study by the National Traumatic O ccupational Fatalities (NTOF) surveillance system maintained by the National Institute fo r Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 5,348 workers died from making contact with an el ectric circuit between 1980 and 1992. The average of 411 deaths per year is the fifth leading cause of death accounting for 7% of all workplace fatalities. During a five-year study from 1985-1989, 11% of all the construction fatalities in the United States were a result of contacting an overhead powerline (Hinze and Bren, 1996). In 1995, the construction industry was responsible for roughly half of the electrocutions in the workforce. Of the 347 electrocutions, 139 (40%) of the fatalities were a re sult of the workers or

PAGE 18

18 their equipment making contact with powerlines. In construction, most contacts occurred from bucket trucks, cranes, bulldozers, and ladders. There were also a significant number of electrocutions from workers in the crawl space of houses or working in tight quarters such as attics (Toscano and Windau 1996). Electrical incidents are by no means proportionate to other types of injuries, or balanced between injuries and fatalities. In 1997 there were over six million nonfatal injuries reported. Approximately 1.8 million of these cases required at least one day off work. In that same year, there were 3,710 lost days due to el ectrical injuries about 0.2% of the total lost day cases. On the other hand, 298 or about 5% of the 6,238 fatal cas es in 1997 were the result of electricity. This equates to electrical incidents accounti ng for 1 in 494 missed day injuries but 1 in 20 fatalities (Cawley and Homce, 2003). Suruda also pointed out the high concentration of overhead powerline accidents that caused almost all of the electrocutions. Of 335 reporte d cases of workers not doing electrical work when he or she was electrocuted, 71% were from contacting powerlines. Only four of these cases involved underground or bur ied powerlines, clearly identifyi ng an easy method to reduce the high number of deaths caused by electrocution (S uruda, 1988). Electrical Incidents Involving Cranes or Boomed Vehicles Equipm ent contacting elevated high voltage lin es and concurrent contact by an employee with the hot equipment can and will cause serious injury and burns that are often fatal. Most common in industries such as mining, agricultu re, communications/utili ties, and construction, around 2300 unintentional contacts between a crane or boom truck and a powerline occur every year. Luckily, most of these do not result in inju ries or deaths, but the high number of close calls is a serious issue that needs to be addressed (Sacks, et al., 2001).

PAGE 19

19 Over a 12 year span (1982-1994) NIOSH invest igated 226 electrocutions at work in 16 states. Of the 226 investigated incidents, ther e were 31 fatalities in 29 cases that involved a crane or boom truck and almost half of these cases were construction related. Over a five year span (1985-1989) OSHA conducted a study showing that of 580 work related electrocutions, almost 30% involved cranes ( Preventing Electrocutions 1995). The Bureau of Labor Statistics groups cran es and other mobile construction equipment together in the category of indus trial vehicles and equipment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also groups falls, electrocutions, and struck by incidents into th eir own category. Because the categories can overlap and are not clear cut, the estimated 17% of fatal injuries from industrial vehicles and equipment is probably below the actual number. An ASSE Journal article from 1978 showed that L. Dugan conducted a survey of members of the In ternational Union of Operating Engineers Local 3 that looked at operators, th eir approach to safety, their training and participation in safety meetings, and their work related attitude towards safety. The conclusion was that there is a direct risk related to jobsite injuries and th e operators approach, training, and attitude toward safety. Cranes Crane incidents In an OSHA study from 1984-1994, 502 construction workers died in crane accidents, and forty-five percent of these fatalities occurred in heavy construction. Electrocutions resulting from powerline contacts resulted in 39% of the fatalities more than triple the number two category, assembly/dismantling. The crane operator wa s the victim in 13% of the fatality cases; however, only 17 of the 179 electroc utions from crane contact with powerlines were to the crane operator. Therefore, the lives of their fellow employees (riggers, si gnalers, etc.) are directly in the hands of the operator ( U.S. Crane 1998).

PAGE 20

20 There are numerous standards and regulations that will help in the safe operation of cranes and boom trucks in construction and it is not onl y recommended, but required by law that these standards be followed. NIOSH has summarized OSHAs recommendations: Employers shall ensure that overhead powerlines are de-energ ized or separated from the crane and its load by implementing one or more of the following procedures: 1 De-energize and visibly gr ound electrical distribution and transmission lines [29 CFR 1910.333(c)(3); [ 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(15)]. 2 Use independent insulated barriers to prevent physical contact with the powerlines [29 CFR 1910.333(c)(3); [ 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(15)]. 3 Maintain minimum clearance between energized powerlines and the crane and its load: At least 10 feet for lines rated 50 kilovolts or less. At least 10 feet plus 0.4 inch for each kilovolt above 50 kilovolts; or maintain double the length of the line insulator (but not less than 10 feet [29 CFR 1910.333(c)(3); [29 CFR 1 926.550(a)(15) (i), (ii), (iii)]. Where it is difficult for the crane operator to maintain clearance by visual means, a person shall be designated to observe the clearan ce between the energized powerlines and the crane and its load [29 CFR 1926.550(a)(15)(iv)]. The use of cage-type boom guards, insulating li nks, or proximity warning devices shall not alter the need to follow required prec autions [29 CFR 1926.550(a)(15)(v)]: These devices are not a substitute for de-e nergizing and grounding lines or maintaining safe line clearances ( Preventing Electrocutions 1995). The American National Standards Institute ( ANSI), in 1994, also has published a standard for working with cranes around powerlines. NIOSH summarized ANSIs recommendations as: Considering any overhead wire to be energized unless, and until, the person owning the line, or the utility authorizes and/or verifies that the line is not energized. De-energizing powerlines before work begins erecting insulated barriers to prevent physical contact with energized lines, or main taining safe clearance between the energized lines and boomed equipment. Limitations of cage-type boom guards, insula ting links, and proximity warning devices.

PAGE 21

21 Notifying line owners before work is performed near power lines ( Preventing Electrocutions 1995). Powerline safety and cranes have also caught the attention of other countries. In Canada, the Construction Safety Associat ion of Ontario added several recommendations on top of the ANSI and OSHA recommendations. They include: Operating cranes and booms at slower speeds when working near powerlines and utilities. Using extreme caution when work on powerlines spread over a long distance because wind can increase the sway of the lines reducing the clearance between the powerline and the crane or boom. Marking a safe path for the crane to trav el when it must continuously travel under powerlines. Being aware of an uneven ground in work area, or traveling to avoid the crane weaving or bobbing into the powerline. Prohibiting personnel from c ontacting the crane, loads, or tag lines until it has been verified that it is safe ( Preventing Electrocutions 1995). Research has been conducted on crane and pow erline safety for over 30 years. Despite this, a successful prevention syst em has yet to be developed a nd implemented into the OSHA standards. The Southwest Research Institut e (SWRI) of San Antonio, Texas has studied the various solutions that have co me about over the years, includ ing, deenergizing the powerline, maintaining the OSHA regulated distance from ener gized powerlines, using a spotter or observer to warn crane and truck operators when he or she comes in the vici nity of powerlines, and barriers to stop the actual physic al contact with powerlines. The SWRI also studied more modern approaches that have th e potential to be very successful but lack the technological advancement to be 100% successful. One such me thod is the use of the insulating links in the line load of cranes. Another current approach to crane safety is the implementation of warning devices that would inform the crane operator that he or she is nearing a powerline. As the cranes load line or boom became close to the electromagnetic field produced by the powerlines,

PAGE 22

22 a sensor sends a signal to the cab, allowing the operator ample time to react and avoid a dangerous situation (Sacks, et al., 2001). With advancing technology, computer simulati on has become a successful tool to help improve crane safety. In a simulated study of el ectricity flow from overhead powerlines through cranes by G.G Karady in 1991, it was concluded th at direct contact between the crane and powerline produces a large current, which endang ers the workers life, but tragedies can be significantly reduced by the use of insulating links (Karady, 1991). In a study of data from 1982-1994, involving 40 fatal crane accide nts recorded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, it was concluded that 20% could have been avoided if a contact alarm system had been in place at the time of the accident, and 55% could have been avoided if a combination of a co ntact alarm system and in sulated links had been in use. Although both methods have been proven to be very successful in increasing worker safety, there are still many improvements and tec hnological advances that need to be made to make the systems more effective. One of the main problems with the insula ted load line is that the makeup of the insulation can be contaminated with moisture which can reduce or eliminate its effectiveness. Also, if the load line is in contact with a powerline, only workers who contact the load will be safe. If a worker who was grounded were to contact the crane cab that worker would still be exposed to the electric current. Likewise, the warning system also has some problems. There is a good chance that these devi ces could fail if the ideal configuration of multiple powerlines were being used in the vicinity of the device when he or she was measuring the electrostatic field (Sacks, et al., 2001).

PAGE 23

23 Safety and development Beginning in the early 1970s the idea of a cr ane being m anufactured to operate safely was introduced in the industry. In 1973 in the Cook County Circuit Court, Burke v. Illinois Power resulted in a $2,500,000 verdict holding crane manufacturers liable for not installing safety devices on cranes, such as insulated hooks. Because of this verdict, more and more steps have been taken to take crane safety to a new level (MacCollum, 1980). There have not been sufficient steps taken to fully prevent accidents from occurring. Take into account what a crane operator must do all at the same time: Pay attention to the flagger while keep ing the load and/or line under control Observe the effect of the weat her on the load and how the load reacts as it is lifted and respond with an appropriate movement of the controls Know where all personnel and equipment surr ounding the load are posi tioned, predict their movements, and adjust the way the load is lifted and moved Stay aware of the operation and stability of the crane as it lifts the loads Know where all powerlines are and estimate the distance between the load line and the powerline. Although the last item is the easiest to dismiss, it could be the most difficult of the tasks to complete. Even in a study of crane oper ators under good weather conditions when not performing work, crane operators had a diffi cult time estimating the distance between a powerline and a load line. The difficulty in es timating the distance is then multiplied when the crane operator is actually at work and conditions are not ideal. Unfortunately mistakes can be made, often at the expense of some ones life (Lehamn and Gage, 1995). Perhaps the blame for most of the crane rela ted accidents lies with the government and contractors. In the United Kingdom, the Heal th and Safety Directorate, mandates that the general contractor design their jobsites so that the crane can never reach an energized powerline.

PAGE 24

24 The contractor is responsible for installing stops on the crane, disallowing it from being able to reach any part of the live powerline and also by de-energizing the powerlines. Because the site plan must be developed so that the crane will never pass near a live powerline, many of the safety restrictions placed on cranes in the United States are not needed. Trucks and Boomed Equipment Trucks and boom ed equipment pose a serious ri sk to electrocution on jobsites when the operators are not being careful. On e of the biggest risks is when dump trucks are unloading their loads. When the truck bed is fully extended and the driver begins to pu ll away, given the height of the canopy and the possibility of overhead powerlines crossi ng the roadway, it can be easy for a disaster to occur. Much like other construction equipment, most equipment is made of metal, allowing for easy conductivity of electricity. When boomed vehicles get within 10 feet of powerlines, the possibility of an electric arc exists and any worker in the immediate area becomes endangered ( Look Out at Work 2006). Personnel lifts There were 339 deaths in construction rela ting to boom lifts between 1992 and 1999. Of theses, the major causes were falls, collapses/tipove rs, and electrocutions. Forty-three percent of the deaths on boomed-supported lifts were cause d by electrocution. The majority of these incidents were the result of the lift contacti ng an overhead powerline. Of the 43% of electrocutions about half were electricians working on overhead lines. This leaves about half of the workers being electrocuted by a powerline from which he or she should have maintained a safe distance from. Most of these occurred when an uninsulated piece of the lift or bucket, or the unsuspecting construction worker, contacted the powerline. In th is study, 64 deaths were from vertical lifts coming in contact with an energized line.

PAGE 25

25 Concrete pumps and placing booms In Quebec, Canada, placing boom s on concrete pumps are responsible for 10% of the contacts between mobile equipment and overhea d powerlines. Because very few placing booms actually exist in Quebec, roughl y 200, the 10% value represents a significant number of instances. Obviously, there is a serious issue with safety of this type of equipment when the small number of pieces of this equipment is ta ken into consideration. In 31 boom contacts from concrete placing booms, 41 employees were either injured or killed, illust rating this point that multiple party incidents are common. In the Quebec study, 19 ground helpers were among the injured/deceased. Of the 19, eight were holding the distribution hose, two were spreading concrete, seven were leaning against the truck, one was filling the hopper, and one occurred in a rescue attempt. Fifteen operators were injured/deceased in the Quebec study. In 73% of these cases, the operator was out of the truck and holding the remote control. Because the remote control panel is only insulated for low voltage, almost all of these occurrences could have been avoided if the panel had been fully insulated. One the operator cases involved an operator exiting an electrified truck. There were no cases where the operator was standing on the truck and an injury or fatality occurred (Paques, 1995). Of the reported crane related deaths where an 11 year period, electr ocutions accounted for 198 of the 502 fatalities. Without a doubt, the construction industry faces a serious dilemma when dealing with cranes and boomed equipment. It would be nice to say that the industry is improving and fewer accidents are occurring, but this is simply not true. Too many accidents go unreported, data are often incomplete and scatte red, and to this day, fatality data are often misclassified and unclear (Korman and Winston, 1997). There are many safeguards that can be exercised to avoid contact with powerlines, but these are largely ignored in the construction

PAGE 26

26 industry. There is considerable room for improve ment and safety when working in the vicinity of powerlines. Electrical Injuries Involving Ladders and Scaffolds Ladders In a 1988 study that yielded 109 cases involving a worker carrying or holding onto an item that contacted a powerline, 53 were caused by ladders and scaffolds (Suruda, 1988). No matter what type of material is used to make a ladder, it is dangerous when it contacts a powerline. If it is wet or can get wet, it represents a serious hazard. Wood ladders are dangerous because the wood can become saturated with water and quick ly become good conductors. Therefore, any ladder stored outside is danger ous. Metal ladders are dangerous around electrical lines because metal is a good conductor of electri city. Fiberglass ladders are cons idered one of the safest types of ladders as far as being safe fr om electricity but if a worker is wet, ladders still pose a threat ( Powerline 2006). One of the reasons ladders are so dangerous is because workers using them often misjudge the distance between the ladder and the powerline. Many of the workers get lazy and do not lower the ladder before moving it. Also, when a ladder is extended it becomes much harder to control and a worker can easily lo se control of it if the ladder is moved (Moghtader, et al., 1995). Ladders are not only dangerous on the jobsite, but also account for one of the highest rates of electrocution outside of wor k. One in five nonworking el ectrocutions involve ladders contacting powerlines ( Look Out at Home 2006). Scaffolds Because sca ffolds are made of metal and ar e often built under or near powerlines, it essential that workers consider the dangers that exist from powerlines when erecting, working on, or dismantling scaffolding. It is imperative to know the location of the overhead lines.

PAGE 27

27 When working on and erecting scaffolds, it is im portant for the workers to take into account OSHAs regulations that require ten feet of clearance plus one foot for every 30 kilovolts over 50 kilovolts. This distance must include all materials, including the scaffold, paint roller extensions, bull floats, etc. (Burkart, 2004). When working on scaffolds or ladders, deaths ar e not always the direct result of contacting a powerline. In one incident an employee was setting up a scaffold system 35 feet above the ground to do work on a billboard. The employee r eceived an electric s hock when the 21 foot guardrail he was installing contac ted a 34 kilovolt overhead powerlin e. As a result of the shock, he was thrown from the scaffold. The resulting fall produced fatal injuries to the employee, not the actual electrical shock (Burkart, 2004). The need for better training is fairly obvious when it comes to scaffolds. Training procedures for erecting, moving, and dismantling sca ffolding is important. However, there needs to be a focus on safety while working on scaffolds too. Because a variety of trades work on and around scaffolds, it is important that almost all trades experience some type of safety training in order to reduce the number of electrocutions from contact from powerlines while working on scaffolds (Lipscomb and Rodriguez-Acosta, 2000). Adolescent Electrocutions Between 1980 and 1989, electrocution was th e third highest cause of death am ong teenagers in construction. Twelve percent of adolescent work related deat hs were the result of electrocution. Contacting overhead powerlines result ed in 50% of these incidents. Because of the nature of adolescent activities on jobsites, the tasks involved differ from those of adults. The most frequent causes of electrocutions include: Using poles, pipes, and ladde rs near overhead powerlines during construction work, painting, and pool cleaning.

PAGE 28

28 Working on roofs to perform jobs such as roofing, roof maintenan ce, cleaning of rain gutters, installation and repair of heating and cooling equipmen t, installation and repair of television antennas, and cleaning of chimneys and smoke stacks. Operating boomed vehicles, such as bucket trucks, telescopic fork lifts, and telescopic cranes. Tree trimming. Wiring electrical circuits and other work i nvolving exposure to el ectrical circuitry, including work performed by electricians helpers. One of the most surprising statistics involving adolescents is that in 70% of the deaths reported, OSHA issued citations for safety violations (Preventing 1995). Therefore, the companies that the teenagers worked for generally were not following and/or enforcing standard safety procedures.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This study exam ined and analyzed data on construction workers electrical shocks and electrocutions. The data were obtained from OSHA and consisted of serous injuries and fatalities that were investigated from 1990-2004 by OSHA. The methodology followed in this research was determined by the objective of the study and the hypotheses listed in the introduction. The steps taken were as follows: 1. A literature search was conducted to examine previous studies on similar construction accidents. Those results would be useful to determine if the findings of this research were comparable. 2. The data needed were identified and obtained. 3. The variables in the data were identified. 4. The data were coded for each electrical incident. 5. The data were analyzed. 6. The thesis was written. Previous Studies To determ ine the feasibility of conducting this study, previous studies were examined. To successfully find related topics, Google Scholar was used by s earching for various key words and combinations of key words, including but not limited to: construction electrocution powerline fatality jobsite Because of limited access to some of the onlin e versions of the journals, it was sometimes necessary to use the universitys library website to be able to view and review the articles.

PAGE 30

30 After a thorough review of the articles, it was found that many of the articles made reference to the same research studies. After re viewing several articles, it became difficult to find new information that had not already been de scribed. The majority of the studies occurred during the late 80s and in the early to mid 90s. Even the articl es that were written after the turn of the century cited past studies and these newer studies were limited in information. Most of these articles limited the area of the study provi ded, or limited information on the causes of the electrocution. There was also limited information on the voltage or equipment involved in the electrical incidents. Data Identification and Analysis Data Identification The basis of this research cam e through the co llection and interpreta tion of OSHA fatality investigation data from 1994-2003. The data were provided direc tly from the OSHA office in Washington D.C. to Dr. Jimmie Hi nze, Director of the Flour Program for Construction Safety at the Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida. The database began with 10,600 cases which included all OSHA investigat ed accidents.. To accu rately establish the proper use of the data obtained from the data base, incidents that we re not be related to electrocutions were immediately rejected prior to sorting the data, such as incidents that were labeled crushed by or struck by. However, all cases involving falls were carefully read and reviewed to establish if the fall ma y have been the result of an el ectric shock. Burns also had to be reviewed to establish if the burn may have be en the result of contactin g electricity. Once all cases were reviewed, further analysis was performed only on those cas es involving electrical shocks, a total of 1,711 cases.

PAGE 31

31 Category Selection Once it was determ ined that all the remaining cases involved electri cal shocks, the data were sorted into several categorie s. The category titles and their selected variables are described as follows: Construction Type indicates if the job was related to construction, electrical distribution, or some other work activity. Type of Job Site identifies if the project was a commercia l job, a residential job, a job working on utility lines, or an other job site. Fatality vs. Injury indicates the severity of the accident and whether the result is a fatality or an injury. Injury Type classifies if the injury was a direct electrocution, a s hock and fall, a burn, or another type of injury Number of Employees Involved indicates the number of em ployees directly involved in the electrical incident. Cause of Electrocution determines if the el ectrical source the victim contacted was a powerline, a defective tool, an energized circuit, lightning, result of an electrical burn, or an electrical panel or bus bar. Workers Trade identifies th e trade of the worker at the time of the incident. Contact Type establishes if the contact was made by a crane, a truck, a lift, a ladder, another type of equipment, a piece of material, direct cont act with the body, or direct contact with the head. Line Voltage indicates the vol tage level of the circuit with whichthat the victim made contact with. Above or Below Ground specifies if th e power source was above or below ground. Error Type denotes the fault of the acci dent, whether the victim, a co-worker, a communication problem, or an equipment problem/error. Date states the date of the injury occurre nce, including month, day of the week, day of the month, and year. Time of Day indicates the time of injury occurrence in military time.

PAGE 32

32 Statistical Data Analysis Frequencies The data categories and variab les were entered into SPSS stat istical software for further analysis. The analysis was focused on determ inin g the main causes of electrocutions with an emphasis being placed on electrocutions as a result of powerlines. By isolating specific situations such as female workers, and compari ng these variables with other specific situations such as the time a day, trends within the data came out and comparisons like this were used to determine the highest problem areas. To allow for analysis, every case was read and coded. If there was insufficient information for the data to be assigned for a particular case, the da ta were coded as missing. This allowed the statistical software to remove those cases when specific information was not provided. In the analysis, the data were manipulated to isolate th e role of specific variables in the incidents. The final breakdown of the cate gories used and the variables within each category were identified as follows: Year This category established the year of the incident occurrence. Month of Year This categor y identified the month of the year the incident occurred. Day of Month This category identified th e day of the month the incidents occurred. Day of Week Like the Day of the Month th is category identified the day of the week of incident occurrence. Time of Day To allow for a consistent gr ouping, the time of day was rounded to the nearest hour of incident occurr ence based on a 24-hour clock. Construction Activity This category was to show what type of construction was being performed at the time of the incident. This could help eliminate incidents that occurred while utility work was being performed. Although it is often associated with new construction and the utility field must coordi nate with the construction field during most construction jobs, these incidents were sepe rated to better show incidents on a typical construction site. Utility workers generally ha ve more training, but are also exposed to

PAGE 33

33 deadly ranges of electricity on a more regular basis. Theref ore, all utility workers were classified as electricians, but their work was not classi fied as general construction. Type of Job Site This category was used to describe if the incident occurred on a civil, commercial, or residential job site. Type of Injury This category was used to desc ribe if the fatal injury was caused by direct electrocution, from severe burns from electri city, the result of an electric shock causing a fall, or something else. Number of Workers Involved This category provided the number of workers involved in the task when the incident occurred. Cause of Electrocution This cat egory identified the source of the electricity. The sources were broken down as powerlines, tools, ener gized circuits (HVAC units that were incorrectly wired, 120volt a/c power within a building, etc.), li ghtning, electric arcs causing burns, or electrical panels/bus bars. Worker Trade The worker trade provided info rmation on the trade of the victim, whether electrician, plumber, etc. Type of Contact To describe how the contact with the electricity occurred, this category was used. The variables assigned to this category were: Cranes Because of the number of crane cases this category was further broken down to: tower cranes mobile heavy cranes/t rack mounted cranes truck mounted cranes/light weight cranes tire cranes Cranes were also broken down to the part of the crane that made contact with a powerline as follows: boom load line material lead line/tag line Trucks Ladders Other Equipment Because there was a number of other pieces of equipment, but not a large value of one specific type, this category was broken down as follows: excavator roof hoist back hoe auger or well drill man lift others

PAGE 34

34 Material Direct Contact Body Direct Contact Head Line Voltage The line voltage indicated the voltage involved in the electrical contact incident. The groups were established as: 0-4,999 volts 5,000 -9,999 volts o 10,000-49,999 volts o 50,000+ volts Above or Below Ground This category was used to sort the cases according to where the electrical source was located. Accident Fault This category was used to esta blish if the victim in the accident was the same person whose actions result ed in the accident occurring. Gender of Victim This category was used to sort the cases to determine the frequency of the accidents of males verses the fre quency of the accidents with females. Age of Victim This category was used to provide information on the construction workers age. The bracket were determined as follows: o 15-17 o 18-20 o 21-25 o 26-30 o 31-35 o 36-40 o 41-45 o 46-50 o 51-55 o 56-60 o 61-65 o 65+ OSHA Region This provided information on OSHA region of incident occurrence. State This was used to identify th e state where the incident occurred.

PAGE 35

35 Cross Tabulation To better understand the frequencies established above, several of the data categories were com pared to each other to determine if there wa s a relationship between the two. After analysis, the categories used were: Worker Trade vs. Time of Day Worker Trade vs. Month of Year Worker Trade vs. How the Crane Contacted the Powerline Worker Trade vs. Type of Construction Site Type of Jobsite vs. Time of Day Type of Jobsite vs. Above/Below Ground Powerlines OSHA Region vs. Month of Year OSHA Region vs. Type of Crane Contacting Powerlines

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Analysis of All Electri cal Incidents: 1990-2004 Electrical Incidents by Year Between 1990 and May of 2004, there were 1,73 4 OSHA recordable cases involving electrical in cidents. During th at span, the average number of el ectrical incidents per year was 123 not including 2004 because in was not a comple te year. As is evident in Figure 4.01, the year with the highest number of cases was 1995 w ith 154, and the year with the fewest cases was 1999 with 95 cases. The data from this study show a decreasing number of incidents over time. After 1995, only one year produced more than the average number of elec trical incidents, 1998, with 134 cases. After 1995, the next highest numbe r of cases occurred in 2001 when the average number (123) of cases occurred. Electrical Incidents by Month When looking at the tim e of year when most incidents occurred, the data showed a trend with a higher frequency of inci dents happening in the summer months. Nearly 15% of all the electrical incidents o ccurred in July, and almost 15% occu rred in August. Meanwhile, the months of December, January, and February combined for just over 15% of the incidents. Figure 4.02 shows that the summer months accounted for more incidents of electrical shock than the other months of the year. Electrical Incidents by Day of Month Breaking down the incidents by the day of th e m onth showed that the occurrences were fairly uniform and no day of the month showed a significant increase or decrease from the previous day. Figure 4.03 shows that there is no more than a 1% increase or decrease between

PAGE 37

37 days of the month. It also highlights that any given day had between 2.5% 4.2% of the incidents occur on that day. Electrical Incidents by Day of the Week The frequency of electrical in cidents occurri ng during the week is highest on Tuesday and Wednesday (20.3 % and 20.9% of the cases, resp ectively) (see Figur e 4.04). Monday and Thursday had similar, but sligh tly lower frequencies (19% and 18.1% respectively). Friday was the lowest day of the workweek with 13.5% of th e cases, followed by Saturday with 5.6% of the cases, and Sunday reported the fewest inci dents with 2.7% of the incidents. Electrical Incidents by Time of Day The tim e of day of event occurrence was record ed in military time in one-hour segments. Therefore, if an event occurred at 4:40 a.m. it was put in the time frame of 4:00a.m. 4:59a.m. The coding was not available for all cases. Two hundred sixty-six of the 1,734 cases did not provide information on the time the incident occurre d. Of the cases that contained time data, less than 1% occurred each hour between 8:00 p.m and 7:00 a.m., showing 95% of the cases occurred between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (see Figure 4.05). The hi ghest frequency of occurrence took place in the late morning (betw een 10:00a.m and noon) and again in the early afternoon (between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.). There was a noticea ble drop in frequencies during the standard lunch hour, as the number of cases went from 148 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. to 91 from noon to 12:59 p.m. and then back up to 172 from 1:00 p.m. to 1:59 p.m. Construction Activity Of the 1,720 incidents that contained sufficient infor mation to code to a specific activity, 1,372, or 80%, occurred under the scope of general construction, wh ile 348, or 20%, were identified as power/telephone/ cable distribution. To bette r understand the scope of this

PAGE 38

38 research, the events not under the general cons truction category were removed from the data and the data were reanalyzed. The results of this data analysis will be discussed later. Type of Job Site Of the 1,431 cases whose descriptions containe d sufficient infor mation to determine the type of job site where the in cident occurred, 688 (48.1%) were on commercial sites, 224 (15.7%) were on residential job sites, 172 (12%) were on civi l job sites or road work, and 347 (24.2%) occurred while doing some type of line work either powerline, cab le, or telephone line. Fatality vs. Injury Ninety two percent of the workers in volved in the cases received fatal injuries due to their contact with electricity. This left only eight percent of the OS HA reported victims that survived their contact with electricity. Type of Injury from the Electrical Incident The injuries that resulted from contacti ng powerlines were broken down as follows: 1,566 (90.6%) were directly caused by electricity 111 (6.4%) were considered a burn from electricity 51 (3%) caused the victim to fall In some of the cases that were directly caused by electricity, the victims may have had burn marks on their bodies that indicated where th e electricity entered or exited their bodies. Also, in the cases where the victim fell, the victims fall may have been the official cause of death, or may have been recorded as the cau se on the OSHA report, but electricity was the initiating cause. Number of Employees Involved The num ber of employees involved in the incide nt (not the number of employees injured or killed) declined dramatically from 1,086 cases involving one employee, to two cases involving six employees as shown in Figure 4.06.

PAGE 39

39 Electricity Source of Electrical Incidents Of all the electrical incide nts reported by OSHA between 1990 and May 2004, almost 65% of the cases were the result of contacting powerlines (see F igure 4.07). Other contacts were associated with faulty tools, energized circu its, lightning, burns, and elec trical panels/busbars. Workers Trade To identify the trades that had higher rates of electrical incident on construction sites, the electrical in cidents reported by OSHA were eval uated by the trade of the employee injured or killed in each case (see Figure 4.08). The most frequent rate of electri cal incidents occurred among electricians who accounted for 58.9% of all el ectrical incidents. Plumbers and roofers followed with 11% and 10.9%, respectively. Pain ters accounted for 5.1% of the electrical incidents and concrete workers, carpenters, crane operators, and HVAC technicians accounted for 3-4% of the electrical incidents each. In ma ny cases, the event was identified as an electrical incident, but the task did not necessitate the need for the worker to be an electrician. Although the worker may have been working near or with an electrical compone nt, he or she was not supposed to make contact with any live parts. The description of the ev ent did not mention the trade of the worker, but it was evident, a licen sed electrician was not needed. For example An employee was helping to move a sign that was suspended by a Case model 580d backhoe. The operator used the backhoe to lift the sign off the ground and to move it, while the first employee held onto the sign to guide it. They ha d taken the sign about 180 meters when they began passing under an overhead power line. The ba se of the sign contacted the power line, and the employee holding onto the sign was electrocuted. The worker who was electrocuted was not work ing on an electrical circuit and there was no way to determine the trade of the worker. These occurrences were noted as Non-Electrical Activity, and the cases were not included in the data analysis just as the cases classified as Missing were not included.

PAGE 40

40 Type of Contact Made with Electricity To recognize the way that the victim cont acted the electrical source, each case was identified as one of the following: Crane Boom /Truck/Dozer Ladder Scaffold Other Equipment Material Direct Contact with the Body Direct Contact with the Head Other The most common means of elect ricity entering a victim was by direct contact with the body. In 48.5% of the electrical incidents in this study the victim made direct contact with the electrical source with an arm, hand, leg, or torso (see Figure 4.09). The other means were evenly dispersed with the exception of Direct Contact with the Head, which was only responsible for 1.5% of the incidents and contact from a sca ffolding system which was responsible for 2.4%. Voltage The power source m ay have been a factor in ma ny of the cases and to better understand the voltage of the line being contacted by the vic tim, a breakdown is shown in Figure 4.10. Because many of the case descriptions were not complete, only 1,026 cases contained voltage information. Note that over 90% of the powerlin e contacts were with powerlines less than 50 kilovolts. Electricity Location In 97.7% of the recorded cases, it was eviden t that the source of electricity was above ground and should have been identifiable. W hile many powerlines are buried, the number of contacts with these lines is relatively small.

PAGE 41

41 Fault of the Accident The victim of the incident was not always th e person at fault. In 73% of the cases the victim was the person blamed for the accident, or the person whose actions led to the accident. In 15.8% of the cases a co-worker was to blame, in 7.4% of the cases, there was an equipment malfunction, and in 3.6% of the cases, a lack of communication caused the incident to occur. Gender of the Victim In 99.7% of the 1,437 cases where the gender of th e victim was identified, the victim was a male. Thus, females accounted for the 0.3% of the electrical incidents. Age of the Victim The age of the victim was provided in 1,434 of the cases. The age group with the most victims was from 26-30 and just over two thirds of all the victims were between 21 and 40. The range of the ages of the victims was from 14. A linear graph of the distribution shows that the distribution is shown in Figure 4.11. OSHA Region The num ber of electrical incidents varies by area in the United States. Figure 4.12 shows the number of cases per region. The area with the most cases over the course of the study is the Atlanta region (OHSA Region 4) w ith 399 cases, consisting of near ly 28% of all the electrical incidents. Chicago and Dallas re gions (Region 5 and 6, respectively) both had just over 16% of the cases each. The regions with the fewest electrical incidents were Se attle, Denver, and Boston with 35 (2.4%), 43 (3.0%), and 47 (3.3%), respectively. Analysis of Electrical In cidents from Pow erlines in Construction: 1990-2004 Six hundred eighteen cases were the result of contacting a powerline on a construction job site. To further understand the correlation be tween electrical inci dents and powerlines on jobsites, another data analysis was prepared.

PAGE 42

42 Electrical Incidents from Powerlines in Construction by the Year of Incident In the 14 years for which data were analyze d, th ere has been an overall decrease in the number of electrical incidents that have occurr ed on construction jobsites Figure 4.01 identifies the steady decrease in electrica l incidents from powerlines. There were an average of 43.6 incidents each year, and after 1998 there were no higher than 39 incidents in any given year. Electrical Incidents from Powerlines in Construction by the Month of the Year Again, there is a noticeable peak of incident s occurring in the summer m onths. There was a peak in the number of cases in July with 72 cases and the month with the fewest cases was January with 35 cases (see Figure 4.02). Electrical Incidents from Powerlines in Construction by the Day of the Week The day of the week that had the m ost incidents was Wednesday when 144 (23.3%) of the cases occurred (see Figure 4.04). Tuesday and Thursday followed suit with 20% of the cases each. Monday accounted for 19% of the cases followed by Friday with 11% of the cases. Saturday had 30 cases over the 14 years and Sunday had 10 cases. Electrical Incident from Powerlines in Construction by Time of Day The tim e the powerline event occu rred was examined by the hour of the day. Five hundred sixteen of the 618 cases provided the time of the event. Again, very few cases occurred during non-typical work hours. Less than 1% of the cases occurred per hour between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., leaving 98% of the cases to occur be tween 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Figure 4.05 shows all the electrocution and the elect rical incidents from powerlines in construction. Both graphs have a similar shape with a peak in the late morning followed by a drop during lunch and then another peak in the afternoon.

PAGE 43

43 Type of Job Site Where Electrical Incide nts Occur from C ontacting Powerlines Three hundred forty-three of the 618 incident s occurred on commercial job sites. One hundred twenty (19.4%) occurred on a residential jobsite and 1 55 (25.1%) occurred on a civil jobsite. One hundred fifty-five of the 172 electrical incidents on civil jobsites were the result of contacting powerlines. Fatality vs. Injury from Contacting Pow erlines on Construction Jobsites Compared with the 92% of contacts that were fatal for all cases, the powerline contacts were fatal in 87.5% of the cases. Type of Injury from Contacting a Po w erline on a Construction Jobsite The breakdown of injury type from contacti ng a powerline is consistent with the injury type of all electrical incidents 89.8% were directly cause by electricity 6.8% were considered a burn from electricity 3.4% caused the victim to fall Number of Employees Involved in Contacts w ith Powerlines on Construction Jobsites Unlike all electrical incidents, when powerlines were involve d, there was a much greater chance of having multiple employees involved in the task that led to the contact with the powerline. In 60% of the cases, at least two employees were work ing together when the contact occurred (see Figure 4.06). Trade of the Injured Worker from Power line Contacts on Construction Jobsites Of the cases that involved cont acting powerlines on construction jobsites, roofers appear to be at th e greatest risk of being electrocute d. Table 4.01 breaks down the frequencies of each trade; however, a large portion (281 of the 375) of the Non Electri cal Activity cases was powerline related. These cases did not have a clear description of th e workers trade and therefore could not be easily cl assified. It was possible to de termine that the worker was not

PAGE 44

44 doing electrical work at the time of the incident These cases were not included in the data analysis. Even though cranes were involved in a hi gh amount of the cases (28.9%), the crane operator was electrocuted in 10.6% of the cases. There also were 12% of the workers that were classified as electricians. HVAC technicians were victims twice in 301 definable cases. Type of Contact Made with the Powerlines Cranes were the num ber one means that cont act was made with powerlines on jobsites (Figure 4.13). The 143 contacts accounted for 23% of all contacts. Of the 143 cases, 82 provided sufficient information to decipher the type of crane being us ed. The most common incident involved truck mounted or light mobile cranes. These cranes were used when 57% of these crane accidents occurred. Mobile heavy cranes or track cranes were used in 37% of the cases. When a crane did contact a power line, it usually was either the boom or the load line that made the contact (Table 4.02). Although 114 of the 143 cases provided sufficient information to determine how the crane contacte d the powerline, in 46.5% of the cases the load line somehow contacted the powerline, and in 37.7% of the cases the boom contacted the powerline. The material being lifted created the contact in 12.3% of the cases and the lead line/tag line was the source of contact in 3.5% of the cases. Of the remaining contacts, trucks were the ne xt most common way to contact a powerline (15.7%) followed by ladders (14.9%) Material contacting the power line was a serious risk too. There were 78 cases in which material was the mean s that resulted in the victim creating contact with the powerline. Direct human contact did have an impact (71 of the 612 cases were from direct contact to a powerline). Of the 99 cas es where other equipment contacted the powerline, the most significant of these were au gers and drills. Twenty-six cases involving

PAGE 45

45 augers and drills resulted in a powerline cont act where at least one employee was injured or killed. The breakdown of the other equipment can be seen in Table 4.03. Voltage of Powerlines When Cont acted on Construction Jobsites Of the 441 cases that provided voltage in form ation, when a powerline on a construction jobsite was contacted, the voltage was between 5,000-10,000 volts in 49% of the incidents (see Figure 4.10). Of the remaining voltages, 35% were between 10,000-50,000 volts, 9% were less than 5,000 volts and a 7% chance it was over 50,000 volts. Location of Powerlines that Were Contacted on Construction Jobsites In 97.2% of the powerlines that were contac ted of a construction jobsite were overhead powerlines, as opposed to being buried. Sevent een of the 618 cases involved an underground powerline being contacted just over one contact per year. Fault of the Accident when Powerlines w ere Contacted on Construction Jobsites The likelihood of an accident being the fault of the victim declined to under 65% when powerlines were involved. Table 4.04 shows that the likelihood of someone being hurt by a coworker nearly doubled while dealing with contacti ng powerlines when compared to all electrical incidents. There also was a dramatic decrease in the probability that there was an equipment malfunction when a powerline contact was made. For example, 1.1% of the powerline contacts were due to equipment error while 7.4% of all el ectrical incidents were the result of faulty equipment. Gender of the Victim in Powerline Contacts on Construction Jobsites The victim of a powerline cont act was a male 99.2% of the ti me. Of 525 cases where the gender of the victim was recorded, four were female.

PAGE 46

46 Age of the Victim in Powerline Co ntacts on Construction Jobsites In powerline contacts on constr uction jobsites, in 71.1% of the victim was between the ages of 21-40. Figure 4.11 displays the probabil ity of the victim being within a certain age group. OSHA Region where Powerline Contacts on Constructio n Jobsites Occur Figure 4.12 displays the number of cases where a powerline contact occurred on a construction jobsite by OSHA regi on. Atlanta had the most cases with 139 of the 525 cases where region data were available. Chicago wa s not too far behind with 103 cases. The Denver region had the fewest cases with 12. Philadelphia and Dallas were the only other regions to have more than 50 cases with 73 and 60, respectively. States where Powerline Contacts on Construction Jobsites Occur Between 1990 and 2004, a powerline contact oc curred in all but two of the OSHA governed provinces including, the 50 states, W ash ington D.C., the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and all of the United States provinces an d territories Table 4.05. Florida had the most incidents where contact was made with a powerli ne on a construction jobsite with 44 cases over the 14 year study. This accounted for 35.5% of all the electrical incidents in the state. Texas was next with 39 contacts with powerlines 25% of their total electrical incidents. West Virginia and Washington, D.C. were the only tw o regions where a contact with a powerline was not recorded by OSHA. All of North Dakotas and Delawares el ectrical incidents were the result of contacting a power line on a construction jobsite.

PAGE 47

47 Comparison of Events Occurring When an El ectrical Incident Occurs from Contacting a Pow erline on a Construction Jobsite Worker Trade vs. Time of Day One of the key questions regard ing electr ical incidents is what was the trade of the worker who was electrocuted? To effectively find a tr end among the field that construction workers work in and the chances of them being electr ocuted by contacting a powerline, the data were analyzed is a way that the trade of the worker c ould be compared to other variables in the data. Of the trades used in this study, there was not a noticeable increase or decrease in a certain trade by the time of day. The only incident that seemed to sta nd out, was the one case where the trade was classifiable that took pl ace before 7:00a.m. was the elec trocution of a cr ane operator. No other trades had a single case before 7:00a.m. Worker Trade vs. Month of Year To determ ine any trends among trades and the time of year that electrical incidents from powerlines occur within that trade, a data analysis was done The most common trend was that there were fewer electrical incidents in the winter months than in the warmer months of the year (Table 4.06). The one exception to this is concre te workers. There were ten incidents during the winter months of December, January, and Febr uary. Meanwhile, there were only four during the summer months of June, July, and August (Figure 4.13). Worker Trade vs. How Cran e Contacted Po werlines Cranes accounted for a large portion of the elec trical incidents from powerlines. When the way the crane contacted the powerline was compar ed to the trade of the worker, the following was shown: Plumbers and Crane Operators were more i nvolved in incidents where the boom contacted the powerline. Concrete workers, Roofers, and Carpenters we re involved in incidents where the load line contacted the powerline.

PAGE 48

48 Worker Trade vs. Type of Construction Site In the cases where the w orkers trade was identi fiable, the chances of an electrical incident from a powerline on a residential jobsite where about one-half of that of a commercial site, and civil jobsites were about one-third as likely to have an electric al incident from a powerline as a commercial jobsite. However, carpenters where mo re likely to make contact with a powerline on a residential jobsite than a commercial site. Plumbers were three times more likely to be involved in an electrical incide nt from a powerline on a civil j obsite than a commercial jobsite and five times more likely than a residential jobsite. Type of Jobsite vs. Time of Day The num ber of electrical incidents from pow erlines on specific types of jobsites was distributed in a way consistent w ith the distribution of all electri cal incidents from powerlines. There were few if any incidents in the late night and early morning. Most of the incidents occurred during the day with a drop from 12:00p.m. to 1:00p.m. Type of Jobsite vs. Above/Below Ground Powerlines More than half of the incidents invol ving underground powerlines occurred on civil construction sites. How ever, this number was sti ll low compared to the number of incidents that occurred involving overhead powerlines. OSHA Region vs. Month of the Year Al most all of the regions followed the same pattern previously discussed, showing that most of the incidents occurred in the summer mont hs and fewer occurred in the winter months. The strongest case of this is th e Chicago region where the number of incidents from June to October was 15, 14, 13, 15, and 12 respectively. In the remaining seven months, the highest total number of incidents for any month was eigh t. With 103 incidents occurring in the Chicago region, this reinforces the strong pattern.

PAGE 49

49 However, the Atlanta region conf licts with this pattern. With 139 incidents occurring in his region, the most that occurred during the su mmer months was 13. The month with the most incidents was March with 21, and the months of October, November, and December all had double digit incidents (11, 17, and 12). The only other region that had a different pa ttern, was the Dallas region where the number of incidents that occurred each month was fair ly equal and there was not a month or group of months that stood above the others. OSHA Region vs. Type of Crane Contacting Powerlines There were 78 cases wh ere a crane contacted a powerline, the type of crane was identifiable, and the OSHA region was known. Of thes e cases a little over ha lf of them were the result of truck mounted or light mobile cranes. This also seemed to be the standard for each of the regions with the exception of Philadelphia. In the Philadelphia region, there were a total of six incidents that were classifiab le. Of these six cases, all six of them were the result of a heavy/track crane contacting the powerline.

PAGE 50

50 129 117 137 154 96 123 134 95 106 123 112 56 49 39 140 132 117 44 48 53 50 36 34 36 34 38 51 42 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003 YearNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.1 Number of electrical inci dents and powerline contacts per year

PAGE 51

51 87 88 120 128 127 163 247 258 154 164 110 88 35 41 57 49 39 50 72 68 56 59 53 39 0 50 100 150 200 250 300JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember Month of YearNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.2 Total electr ical incidents by month

PAGE 52

52 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 Day of the MonthPercent of Electircal Incidents All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.3 Electrical inci dents by day of the month

PAGE 53

53 46 329 352 362 314 234 97 10 115 122 144 126 71 30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Sunday Monday TuesdayWednesdayThursday Friday Saturday Day of the WeekNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.4 Electrical inci dents by day of the week

PAGE 54

54 102 121 173 148 91 172 175 162 107 67 30 23 10 9 0 1 00 1 2 12 46 57 67 30 63 71 50 35 20 1 3 4 4 3 6 3 7 12 5 31 0 1 3 0 4 7 45 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Time of DayNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.5 Time of day incidents occurred

PAGE 55

55 1,086 471 2 14 136 25 2 7 247 263 88 11 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 123456 Number of Employees InvolvedNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.6 Number of employees involved in electrical incidents

PAGE 56

56 Electrical Panel/Busbar 91 5% Lightning 35 2% Burn 9 1% Tool 44 3% Energized Circuit 424 25% Poweline 1,108 64% Poweline Tool Energized Circuit Lightning Burn Electrical Panel/Busbar Figure 4.7 Electricity source for electrical incidents

PAGE 57

57 714 133 132 62 46 45 44 37 36 50 32 33 30 87 2 31 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ElectricianPlumberRooferPainterConcrete Worker CarpenterHVAC Technician Crane/Boom Operator Trade of WorkerNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.8 Electrical inci dents by trade of worker

PAGE 58

58 170 152 148 182 147 813 26 40 143 96 91 99 78 62 9 34 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900Crane Boom/T r u c k/Lif t / D o z e r L a dde r Other Equip m e n t Material D ire c t C o nt act Bod y Direct Contact Head/Neck Scaf foldMeans of Contacting ElectricityNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.9 Means of contacting electricity

PAGE 59

59 392 236 70 39 32 328 154 216 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 4,999 5,000 9,999 10,000 49,999 50,000 + Line VoltageNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.10 Line voltage of electrical incidents

PAGE 60

60 94 237 278 254 205 128 94 69 40 3 34 103 96 70 38 3 7 16 12 106 28 21 14 7 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Age 14-17Age 18-20Age 21-25Age 26-30Age 31-35Age 36-40Age 41-45Age 46-50Age 51-55Age 56-60Age 61-65Age 66 + Age BracketsNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.11 Number of elect rical incidents by age group

PAGE 61

61 23 28 73 139 103 60 32 12 33 22 154 82 47 43 125 88 231 233 399 35 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4501 B o s t o n 2 N e w Y o r k 3 P h i l a d e l p h i a 4 A t l a n t a 5 C h i c a g o 6 D a l l a s 7 K a n s a s C i t y 8 D e n v e r 9 S a n Fr a n c i s c o 1 0 S e a t tl eOSHA RegionNumber of Occurrences All Electrical Incidents Powerline Contacts Figure 4.12 Number of electri cal incidents by OSHA region

PAGE 62

62 Table 4.1 Trade of worker involved in electr ical incidents from contacting a powerline on a construction jobsite Trade Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Roofer 8728.9% 28.9% Plumber 5016.6% 45.5% Electrician 3612.0% 57.5% Concrete worker 3311.0% 68.4% Crane/boom operator 3210.6% 79.1% Carpenter 3110.3% 89.4% Painter 3010.0% 99.3% HVAC technician 20.7% 100.0% Total 301100.0

PAGE 63

63 Crane 143 23% Ladder 91 15% Other Equipment 99 16% Material 78 13% Direct Contact Body 62 10% Direct Contact Head/Neck 9 1% Scaffold 34 6% Boom/Truck/Lift/Dozer 96 16% Crane Boom/Truck/Lift/Dozer Ladder Other Equipment Material Direct Contact Body Direct Contact Head/Neck Scaffold Figure 4.13 Means of contacting powe rlines on construction jobsites

PAGE 64

64 Table 4.2 How cranes contact pow erlines on construction jobsites How Contact was Made Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Boom 4337.7% 37.7% Load line 5346.5% 84.2% Material 1412.3% 96.5% Lead line/tag line 43.5% 100.0% Total 114100.0 Table 4.3 Types of other e quipment" contacting powerlines Equipment Type Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Excavator 13 13.1% 13.1% Roof Hoist 4 4.0% 17.2% Back Hoe 10 10.1% 27.3% Augur/well drill 26 26.3% 53.5% Manlift 5 5.1% 58.6% Other 41 41.4% 100.0% Total 99 100.0 Table 4.4 Comparison of fault of all electrical incidents vs. electr ical incidents from contacting powerlines on construction jobsites All Electrical Incidents Electrical Incidents from Contacting Powerlines Cause Frequency Percent FrequencyPercent Operator self 1,226 73.2%40165.2% Operator other 265 15.8%19131.1% Communication 60 3.6%162.6% Equipment 124 7.4%71.1% Total 1,675 100.0%615100.0%

PAGE 65

65 Table 4.5 Electrical incidents by state or U.S. territory State All Electrical Incidents Electrical Incidents from Contacting Powerlines on Construction Jobsites Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent FrequencyPercent Cumulative Percent Percent of Electrical Incidents that are from Contacting Powerlines TX 156 10.9% 10.9%397.4%7.4% 25.0% FL 124 8.6% 19.5%448.4%15.8% 35.5% CA 83 5.8% 25.3%214.0%19.8% 25.3% IL 65 4.5% 29.8%305.7%25.5% 46.2% GA 64 4.5% 34.2%214.0%29.5% 32.8% VA 61 4.2% 38.5%305.7%35.2% 49.2% PA 59 4.1% 42.6%295.5%40.8% 49.2% MI 57 4.0% 46.6%183.4%44.2% 31.6% NC 49 3.4% 50.0%254.8%49.0% 51.0% OH 48 3.3% 53.3%214.0%53.0% 43.8% AL 40 2.8% 56.1%101.9%54.9% 25.0% SC 40 2.8% 58.9%183.4%58.3% 45.0% MO 39 2.7% 61.6%152.9%61.1% 38.5% NY 36 2.5% 64.1%81.5%62.7% 22.2% TN 36 2.5% 66.6%81.5%64.2% 22.2% IN 29 2.0% 68.6%173.2%67.4% 58.6% LA 29 2.0% 70.6%142.7%70.1% 48.3% MS 29 2.0% 72.7%81.5%71.6% 27.6% NJ 29 2.0% 74.7%132.5%74.1% 44.8% CO 24 1.7% 76.3%51.0%75.0% 20.8% WI 24 1.7% 78.0%122.3%77.3% 50.0% GU 22 1.5% 79.5%71.3%78.7% 31.8% AZ 21 1.5% 81.0%61.1%79.8% 28.6% OK 21 1.5% 82.5%40.8%80.6% 19.0% AR 20 1.4% 83.9%20.4%81.0% 10.0% MD 20 1.4% 85.2%122.3%83.2% 60.0% WA 20 1.4% 86.6%132.5%85.7% 65.0% IA 19 1.3% 88.0%71.3%87.0% 36.8% KS 17 1.2% 89.1%71.3%88.4% 41.2% KY 17 1.2% 90.3%51.0%89.3% 29.4% MA 16 1.1% 91.4%51.0%90.3% 31.3% NE 13 0.9% 92.3%30.6%90.9% 23.1% CT 11 0.8% 93.1%91.7%92.6% 81.8% RI 11 0.8% 93.9%51.0%93.5% 45.5% MN 10 0.7% 94.6%51.0%94.5% 50.0% WV 10 0.7% 95.3%00.0%94.5% 0.0% NV 9 0.6% 95.9%20.4%94.9% 22.2% MT 8 0.6% 96.5%30.6%95.4% 37.5%

PAGE 66

66 Table 4.5 Continued ME 6 0.4% 96.9%30.6%96.0% 50.0% OR 6 0.4% 97.3%20.4%96.4% 33.3% UT 6 0.4% 97.7%10.2%96.6% 16.7% ID 5 0.3% 98.1%40.8%97.3% 80.0% NM 5 0.3% 98.4%10.2%97.5% 20.0% AK 4 0.3% 98.7%30.6%98.1% 75.0% HI 4 0.3% 99.0%30.6%98.7% 75.0% SD 4 0.3% 99.2%20.4%99.0% 50.0% NH 3 0.2% 99.4%10.2%99.2% 33.3% MH 3 0.2% 99.7%10.2%99.4% 33.3% DE 2 0.1% 99.8%20.4%99.8% 100.0% DC 2 0.1% 99.9%00.0%99.8% 0.0% ND 1 0.1% 100.0%10.2%100.0% 100.0% Total 1,437 100.0 525100.0

PAGE 67

67Table 4.6 Electrical incide nts for contacting power lines by workers trade Month of Electrician Plumber Crane/Boom C oncrete Painter Roofer HVAC Carpenter Total Year Operator Worker Technician January 0 1 2431 0516 February 3 3 1106 0317 March 2 5 4468 0130 April 6 2 2408 1124 May 4 4 1424 1121 June 1 8 2028 0526 July 5 5 52612 0237 August 4 4 3257 0126 September 4 4 1435 0324 October 3 6 32312 0130 November 3 4 6107 0627 December 1 4 2509 0223 Total 36 50 32333087 231301

PAGE 68

68 4 1 444 0 22 4 2 1 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6January Febr uar y Mar c h A p ril May June July A ugus t September October N ovember Dec embe rMonth of YearNumber of Occurrences Figure 4.14 Electrical incident s from powerline contacts among concrete workers by month

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Conclusions and Results Analysis Causes of Electrical Incidents Of the electrical incid ents that occur, powerlines are the cause of them 65% of the time. Workers contacting an energized circuit did occur 424 times during the period of the study. There were a few cases where a tool had an electr ical fault, someone was burned or contacted an electrical panel or busbar. A fe w lightning strike victims were also noted. However, it was clear that powerlines were too ofte n the cause of the incident. Electrical Incidents by Year One of the most im portant facts revealed from this study is that the number of electrical incidents occurring each year is decreasing. However, there is still a great deal of work to do. Most of the electrical inci dents that occurred were eas ily preventable with better communications, or the workers who were involved simply being more cautious. Likewise, electrical incidents i nvolving powerlines on constructi on sites decrease d as well. Again, this emphasizes that the i ndustry as a whole is becoming mo re aware of the dangers that exist with powerlines on and around jobsites and th at the workers are either getting more training with this deadly hazard, or the jobsites could pos sible be designed with safety in mind. Keeping hazards away from the powerlines, relocating or burying the powerlines, or putting up barriers are becoming more routine and the be tter practice is being performed. Electrical Incidents by Month The m ajority of electrical incidents occurr ed during the summer months. This was the expected result because, especia lly in the northern states, the wo rking conditions are less ideal in the winter time and less work is done. This was a consistent trend among el ectrical incidents and

PAGE 70

70 this trend continued into electr ical incidents from powerlines (Figure 4.02). Especially with powerlines, a trend like this would be expected. In the northern stat es, less work is expected to be done outside in the winter and the probability of working in the vicinity of powerlines is therefore less. Of the 1,734 incidents where a month was given in the data, 618 were from powerlines. However, the percentage of powerli ne incidents of all el ectrical incidents was higher for the winter months versus the summer months. This might suggest that even though there were an overall increase in the number of electrical incidents from powerlines in the summer months versus the winter months, the chan ces that an incident involves a powerline is greater. In summary, if an electr ical incident occurs during the winter months, there is a higher chance it will involve a powerlin e whereas if the incide nt occurs in the su mmer months, there is less of a chance it will involve a powerline. Electrical Incidents by Day of the Month To evaluate the im portance of the day of the month, the data were sorted and analyzed to find what day of the month each incident occurre d on. Unexpectedly, there were no discretions noted. It was expected that there would possibly be a sudden increase in the number of incidents that occurred around payday, the middle and be ginning/end of the month, because the workers may become more lackadaisical in their safety efforts as payday approaches. The lack on fluctuation at these times could be for severa l reasons, but the most probable is that many construction workers are paid weekly as opposed to bi-monthly. Overall, the days were not a factor in the occurrence of incidents. The results were th e same for incidents that involved contacting powerlines. Electrical Incidents by Day of the Week The num ber of electrical incide nts was highest in the middle of the week. The number of incidents increasing from Monday, to Tuesday, to Wednesday was expected to increase as the

PAGE 71

71 work week went on. However, it was not expected that the number of incidents would decrease from Wednesday, to Thursday, to Friday, as th e work week ended. It was expected that Thursday and Friday would be the days with th e highest number of incidents. Again, this was expected because the workers would get lackluster to safety procedur es as the work week ended. These results may have occurred for several reasons. Some compan ies or jobs require that the workers work four ten hour days. Also, it is not common that a construction jobsite is comparable to a ghost town on Friday afternoons from workers leaving quickly and/or early. This trend carried over into electrical incide nts from powerlines. The peak day of the week was Wednesday. Friday again was the workday with the fewest incidents, and Saturday and Sunday had far fewer cases than any day of the week. Electrical Incidents by Time of Day The tim e that and electrical inci dent occurred was expected. There were two time frames each day that the risk of electr ical incidents was high before and after lunch. From about 10:00a.m. to noon and from 1:00 to 4:00 there was a considerably greater ri sk of an electrical incident occurring. These results were expected b ecause when a worker gets to work, he or she usually will take a little while to pick-up where he or she left off from the day before. The workers also are usually more aw are of possible risks and therefor e perform safer. As the day progresses, their productivity goes down and workers become less focu sed, leading to more chances of an incident occurring. There was an obvious drop in the number of cas es occurring from noon to 1p.m. This was due to workers traditionally taking their lunch break at this time. For the most part, this break is for half of an hour resulting in ha lf of the time available for an incident to occur. However, once the time is taken to get back to the task he or she was working on, this time may become a little longer, and reduces the chances of an incident occurring even more.

PAGE 72

72 These results were consistent for powerline in cidents as well. There was a peak in the morning before lunch, and a peak in the afternoo n at about 2:00p.m as previously displayed in Figure 4.05. Electrical Incidents by Constructio n Activity Of the electrical incidents that were repor ted by OSHA, only 20% occurred while working on powerline, telephone line, or cable distribution lines. This left 80% of the incidents occurring during other general construction practices. It is surprising that 20% of the incidents occurred during line work considering the amount of training required by the line workers. On the other hand, these workers are dealing wi th electricity all day, everyda y, and their work resulted in fewer incidents. Electrical Incidents by Type of Jobsite Of the 1,432 cases, 48% of the cases were on co mmercial jobsites, 16% were on residential jobsites, 12% were on civil jobsites, a nd 24% occurred while doing som e type of power/telephone/cable distribution. Of these numbers, the most su rprising is that 16% of the electrical incidents occu rred on residential jobsites. With the substantial increase in the housing market that occurred during the course of the study, it is remarkable that there were only 224 reported incidents. One of the reasons that this number may be low could be accredited to the fact that the residential field unfor tunately is usually more relaxed in many aspects of safety. In reality, there is a good chance that this number is much higher and that there were many cases where an incident occurred and there was no report filed with OSHA. When looking at the number of incidents i nvolving powerlines on c onstruction sites, the numbers are very similar, but the residential fi eld still only reported 25% of the incidents. However, this number is more realistic than the 16% overall because many of the subdivisions

PAGE 73

73 recently built had underground powerlines and telephone lines installed as opposed to the typical overhead lines, drastically reducing th e risk of contacting a powerline. Type of Contact Made with Electricity Of all the electrical incidents, th e most common means for the victim to come into contact with an electric source was by directly contactin g it with their body. However, when evaluating contacts with powerlines, the most common way the victim came into contact with the source was with a crane. In these cases, usually the boo m or load line made contact with the powerline and the victim was either touching the loa d, the load line, or the cranes body. The next highest form of contacting powerlines was with trucks. In most of the cases, the truck driver was moving their truck with the be d lifted and he or she made contact with an overhead powerline. Ladders were not uncommon either. Most of these cases were the result of the workers being lazy and not lowering the ladder before movi ng it. When the worker went to move it, he or she either lost control of the ladder and it fell into a powerline, or the worker moved the ladder directly into the powerli ne without looking for it. Trade of Workers Involved in Electrical Incidents The trade of the worker involved in the electr ical incident was one of the key items not readily available from the OHSA data. Five hundred seventeen of the 1,730 cases did not have the trade of the victim listed. Of the 57% of th e cases where the victim did have a classifiable trade, 45% of them were electricians. This high frequency is due to the fact that they deal with electricity more frequently. Th e next highest trades in electri cal incidents were plumbers and roofers with 8.4% and 8.3%, respectively. When the data were narrowed down to electr ical incidents (301 incidents where the trade was identifiable) from powerlines on constructi on sites, these percentages changed. Roofers

PAGE 74

74 became the victim in nearly 29% of the incidents. Plumbers were the victim in 17% of the cases and electricians were the victim in only 12% of the cases. Concrete workers, crane operators, carpenters, and painters all ha d around 30 incidents each. When looking at these statistics, it becomes evident that certain trades are at highe r risks of contacting power lines and their safety procedures need to be evaluated. When the workers trades were identifiable, th e type of contact made also changed values. The most frequent form of contacting a power line was from ladders (see Table 5.01). Ladders accounted for 25% of the electrical incidents, and were most frequent way roofers contacted powerlines. The trade of the worker involved in a crane contact was available in 36 cases. Workers Trade vs. Type of Construction Site The trade of the workers was an important factor of what type of jobsites he or she was at risk of being involved in an elec trical incident from a powerline. Plumbers were most likely to be involved in an incident on a civil jobsite. This was mainly due to them installing reinforced concrete pipe under freeways and roads. The ma in contact came from equipment so it was likely that the workers had backhoes or excavators lif ting pipe into trenches and this equipment contacted powerlines. Fatalities vs. Injuries from Electrical Contact Of all the OSHA reported cases involving electric ity, 92% of them resulted in fatalities. However, when looking at electrical incidents involving powerlines on co nstruction sites, the number dropped to 87.5% fatality rate. This seemed strange due to the fact that the incident that involved powerlines had much highe r voltages than the incident that did not. However, many of the cases that did involve powerlines had more of a chance to have multiple employees involved. In many cases, one employee may have been fa tally injured, while their co-worker was only shocked.

PAGE 75

75 Type of Fatal Injuries from Electrical Contact Of the reported incidents, 90% of the injuries were directly from the electricity, 7% were from burns, and 3% were from falls after the el ectric shock. The same holds true for powerline contacts on construction sites. These numbers may be skewed though. Many of the reports were not very clear in the description of the incident, and the incident may have been mislabeled. There is a good chance that many of the falls in the data were caused by el ectricity, but the report was not clearly written or investigated thoroughly and therefore classified incorrectly. Also, when the victim contacted an el ectrical circuit, there usually were burn marks from where the electrical current entered and/or exited the victim. Therefore, stat ing that only 7% of the victims were from burns is not very clear. This 7% de scribes the victims whose burns were the cause of death. All of these numbers probably vary some. The key is that they all were the result of initial contact of an electrical circuit. Number of Employees Involve d in Electrical I ncidents When dealing with all electrical incidents, mo st of the cases occurred when an employee was working alone. On the contrary, when dealing with powerline incidents on construction sites, 60% of the cases involved two or more employees (see Figure 4.06). Therefore, employees working on powerlines must work together to prevent incidents from occurring. Not only do these employees need to watch out for themselves, but he or she has to keep the safety of their co-worker in mind too. Voltage of Electricity Contacted The voltage that was contacted ranged from 69 volts to 750,000 volts. Thirty eight percent of the time (when the data were available), the voltage was between 5,000 9,999 volts, 32% of the time it was between 0 -4,999 volts, 23% of the time it was from 10,000 49,000 volts and it was 50,000 volts or greater 7% of the time. Most of the lower voltage incidents occurred after

PAGE 76

76 the power was in a building or through an electrical panel. When only dealing with powerlines on construction sites, most of the contacts occurred with a voltage between 5,000 and 9,999 volts. Although it is obvious th at higher voltage incidents ar e from powerline contacts, it doesnt mean that all the incidents occurred on construction sites. Only 34 of the 70 cases where the voltage was 50,000 volts or higher were on construction sites. This study does show that the powerline serv ices of lower voltages (less than 10,000 volts) are more dangerous to construction workers and he or she is more likely to contact this type of services. Location of Electrical Source (Above/Below Ground) Knowing where th e powerlines ar e is one of the most important precautions when working around powerlines. Only 17 incidents occurred over the course of the study where a worker contacted a powerline that was underground. Nine ty seven percent of the time, the powerline was overhead. The OSHA data did not specify wh at types of preparation were taken when the incidents occurred, so it is unknown if the empl oyees involved in the underground incidents utilized the 1-800-DIG services pr ovided by their local municipalities before they struck the underground line. Regardless, powerlines being underground clearly is a safer alternative to overhead lines. Type of Jobsite vs. Above/Below Ground Powerlines Most of incidents involvi ng underground powerlines were on civil jobsites. Civil contractors generally in stall underground util ities quickly and in long st retches at a tim e. Once they get going, it is easy to miss a marker si gnaling underground lines. It is not unreasonable that most of the contacts occur on civil sites. Civil constructi on deals with the most underground work and digging into the earth making worker s more at risk of finding underground powerlines.

PAGE 77

77 Fault of Electrical Incidents Table 4.04 clearly shows the im pact that co-worke rs have on one another. In all electrical incidents, the victim was also the person to blam e for the incident occurring. However, when the incident involved powerlines on construction site s, the victim was responsible only 65% of the time. This means that in 35% of the cases, th ere victim was not the person who initiated the contact with the powerline. Several victims were holding on to a load or load line on a crane when the operator put the boom or load line into a powerline. In a few cas es, the worker responsible for signaling to the crane operator failed to identify the powerline. In a few cases, a dozer operator was lifting a piece of equipment or material when the hydrau lic lift contacted a powerline. Meanwhile, a fellow worker was trying to guide the load and was electrocuted. In many of these cases, the operator of the equipment was safe because he or she was not the ground for the electric current to travel. Gender of Victims of Electrical Incidents Because the construction field is still very male dominated (e specially on the labor side of things), almost all of the victims of electrical contacts were ma les. Of the 1,437 cases where the gender of the worker was identifiable, only five ti mes was the victim a female. However, four of these female victims were the vi ctim of a powerline contact. Age of Victims of El ectrical Incidents The data c learly points out that the victims of electrical incidents were most likely to be between 21-40 years old. Of the 1,432 cases wher e the age was given, 106 were under the age of 21, 222 were between 41 -50, and 132 were over 50. The breakdown of data from electrical incidents involving powerlines was very similar where 71% of the victims were between the ages of 21-40, 7% were under 21, 12% were 41-40, and 9% were ove r 50. This breakdown is

PAGE 78

78 consistent with what was expected. Most of the workers in constructi on are in the 21-40 age groups. As the workers get older, they are less likely to be a vict im of an electr ical contact, and there are not as many workers under the age of 21. After the age of 30, the victims of electrical contacts from powerlines decrea sed as the age groups increased. OHSA Region of Electrical Incidents Regions 4, 5, and 6 (Dallas, Chicago, and Atlant a) lead the co untry in electrical incidents with 231, 233, and 399, respectively totaling 60% of the incidents. Philadelphia followed up with 154 incidents. When looking at electrical incidents, the tw o man regions were the Atlanta region and the Chicago region with 139 (27%) and 103 (21%), respectiv ely. Philadelphia was next with 73 (14%) incidents and Dallas follo wed with 60 (11%) incidents. Atlanta had the highest numbers of incidents because of the la rge area that the Atlanta region covers. The Atlanta region consists of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and North Carolina. OSHA Region vs. Month of the Year W ith the high population level and the warm wi nter months, the volume of work in the Atlanta region is probably the highest of all th e regions. In the Atla nta region, most of the incidents occurred in the cooler months. Because of the warmer climate, and threat of daily thunderstorms in the southeast during the summ er months, there actua lly was a decline in incidents during the summer. The Chicago region is very similar in size to the Atlanta region, but the harsh winters can slow down construction during the winter months. In the winter month in Chicago, there were one-half to two-thirds as many incident s as the spring and summer months.

PAGE 79

79 The Dallas region had a fairly consistent num ber of cases year round. The year round warm weather and dry summers allow work to con tinue through out the year in the Dallas region and the number of incidents was spread fairly equally among the months. The Denver region had the fewest incidents fr om powerlines because the region is subject to harsh winters and there are few metropolitan areas within the region. State of Electrical Incidents Florida led the country in power line incidents followed by Texas. It is not unforeseen that these states would have a high level of incidents considering they bot h have high populations, multiple m etropolitan area, mild to tropical winter s, and have both been growing fairly rapidly. Recommendations Preventing Incidents from Occurring Most of the electrical in cident s discussed have been incident s that could have easily been prevented. If the workers had been following pr ocedures set forth by OSHA, most of these incidents never would have occurred. One of th e best things any contractor can do for their employees is offer a quality safety program. Every general contractor should have a pr ogram for the general site, and every subcontractor on every job site should have a specific safety plan fo r that specific task. It should include a review of all hazards faced for each task that sub-contractor is to complete. For example if an underground pipe crew is placing sewer lines should includ ed a trenching plan identify other underground and overhead utilities, use of trench boxes if applicable, shoring, stockpile locations, etc. A pr e-cast concrete sub-contractor should review the locations of overhead utilities, crane safety, and tie-offs with their workers. A lack of communication also played a larg e role in the incidents occurring. When employees get so focused on the task he or she is working on, the can easily forget the possible

PAGE 80

80 safety issues that are all around them. If a cr ane operator is watching th e load he or she is moving into a tight area, it could be easy to fo rget about the powerline near the boom. But by forgetting about the boom, they have put themselves and their co-workers at risk. It also would help to require companies to use available technology. It may be less expensive to buy an old crane, but mandate that any purchased equipment must be up to current co de. Treat the selling of used equipment as a similar process of rem odeling an existing building. Before it can be occupied, it must meet the most recent code. The government also needs to start on re locating powerlines underground. Although there is a high cost associated with relocating them, it makes things a whole lot safer. Far fewer incidents occurred when the powerline was undergr ound. The lines are also safe from weather hazards. Drivers knocking down poles, and squirr els and other animals becoming grounded and causing power outages. In the underground cases, contractors need to be sure to use the 1-800DIG service in their area. This will prevent most of the underground incidents from occurring. However, with the few incidents that did occu r underground, perhaps the system is working as planned? Post Incident Reporting Currently when an incid ent occurs, the contractor must fill out the OSHA 300 and 301 Forms (see Appendix A and Appendix B). When th e forms are filled out and sent to the OSHA office, they are often incomplete and the data may not suffice to have a detailed report on record. To keep better records and to allow for better da ta analysis, the forms should be filled out online via a specified website. There should be several categories on the form that currently are not included such as:

PAGE 81

81 Occupation of the victim This category should include the tr ade that the victim worked under, the position level within the company, and the job specific tasks asked of the victim. Victims communication level To better train employees, it is important that he or she can understand their training. This category should include the victims primary language (and secondary language if app licable), as well as any hear ing or speaking impairments The task being worked on This area is al ready available on the form, however it is not utilized how it should be. This field shoul d require the competent person filling out the form to identify how many people were involved in the specific task, what the task was, the events leading up to the incident, the ev ents that took place immediately after the incident (work related not was called). Work experience of the victim How long has the victim worked in the specific field and how familiar is he or she with the task being worked on. Specific items What was the equipment he or she was working on/near, what was the job function (Civil, Commercial, Residential, Line Work, Farming, etc.), why did the incident happen (faulty tool, miscommunication, not following safety procedures, etc.) Although this form may require confidentiality, it would be important in safety studies an allow researchers to complete understand the case studies better. These forms should be followed up as well. Several of the cases delive red for this report contained information in a foreign language. This created problems in transl ating the event summary. If the forms are filed better and the data is electronically stored, it would be easier to find where safety problems are occurring so that the industry can identify specific trades, tasks, or other problems areas that could help save lives. Future Works This study exam ined powerline contacts. Ma ny other studies could be conducted with a focus on other types of accidents. For exampl e, the same raw data could be analyzed to determine the causation factor associated with accidents incl uding scaffolding, dump trucks, roofing, painting, etc. The protection of worker s against powerline contacts from cranes and from ladders has potential value. If a lightweight ladder that is a poor conductor can be

PAGE 82

82 developed for a low cost, it would be a very useful device in construction. While aluminum is lightweight, it poses a serious th reat when around electricity. The development of underground powerline safety also has real value. As the American society pushes deeper into the 21st century, burying powerlines should almost be as common as automatic ice makers. The technology is availa ble, but the cost of labor and material to transition to underground powerlines is not. However, when new service is connected, it can and should be mandated that the pow erlines be placed underground. Employees also need to be exposed to cro ss-trade training. It w ould never hurt for an electrician to be exposed to the safety traini ng of crane operators. The more dangers that workers are aware of, the safer he or she will be on jobsites.

PAGE 83

83Table 5.1 Trade of worker contacting powerlines vs. means in which he or she contacts them Type of Contact Crane/Boom Concrete Made with Electricity Electrician Plumber Operator Worker Painter Roofer HVAC Technician Carpenter Total Ladder 1 5 0018 40 0 1074 Trucks 7 4 13150 4 0 245 Other equipment 2 17 846 7 0 044 Material 7 9 021 15 2 743 Direct contact body 16 5 113 13 0 342 Crane 1 8 9110 3 0 436 Scaffold 0 1 100 4 0 410 Direct contact Head/neck 2 1001 0004 Total 36 50 323329 86 2 30298

PAGE 84

APPENDIX A OSHA 300 FORM

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87

PAGE 88

88

PAGE 89

89

PAGE 90

90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

92

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

APPENDIX B OSHA 301 FORM

PAGE 95

95

PAGE 96

96

PAGE 97

97

PAGE 98

98 LIST OF REFERENCES Burkart, Matthew J. (2004). Elevated work platforms and scaffo lding: job s ite safety manual. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Cawley, Jam es (2001). U.S. occupational electrical incidents, 1992-1998. J. Safety Resrch., 32 359. Cawley, James and Homce, Gerald (2003). Occ upational electrical injuries in the United States, 1992-1998, and recommendations for safety research. J. Safety Resrch ., 34(3) 241-248. Electrical safety (1995). Aberdeens Conc rete Construction, 40 249. Electrical Safety Authority (2006). Look out at home. Retrieved August 29, 2006 online. http://www.powerlinesaf ety.info/atHom e-001.php Electrical Safety Authority (2006). Look out at work. Retrieved August 29, 2006 online. http://www.powerlinesaf ety.info/atWork-001.php Electrical Safety Authority (2006). P owerline safety facts & myths Retrieved August 29, 2006 online. http://www.powerlinesafety.info/RightPanel-001.php Encyclopdia Britannica (2007). Electr ical shock Retrieved February 26, 2007, from Encyclopdia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com.lp.hscl .ufl.edu/eb/article-903229 3 Hinze, Jimmie and Bren, David (1996). Analysi s of fatalities and injuries due to powerline contacts. J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt ., ASCE, 122(2) 177-82. Karady, G.G.(1991). Efficiency of insulati ng ling for protection of crane workers. Transactions on Pwr Del ., IEEE, 6(1) 316-322. Korman, R and Winston, S (1997) Count of crane mishaps remain a mystery without one database. ENR, 239(11) 14. Laws, Jerry (2004). Danger overhead. Occup. Hlth and Safety 73(11) 28-31. Lehman, B J and Gage, Howard (1995). How much is safety really worth? countering a false hypothesis. Prof. Safety, 40(5) 37-41. Lipscomb, H, Dement, J, and Rodriguez-Acosta, R (2000). Deaths from external causes of injury among construction worker s in north carolina, 1988-1994. Applied Occup. and Env. Hygiene ,15(7) 569-580. MacCollum, David (1980). Critical hazard analysis of crane design. Prof. Safety, 24(1) 31-36. Moghtader, J.C., Himel, H.N., Demun, E.M., Bellia n, K.T., and Edlich, R.F. (1995). Electrical burn injuries of workers using portale alum inum ladders near overhead power lines. Burns 19(5) 441-443.

PAGE 99

99 National Institue for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH): fact sheet. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). ( DHHS (NIOSH)) Publication No. 2003-116). Cincinnati, OH. Paques, Joseph-Jean (1995). Protecting concre te pump operators ag ainst electr ocution. Professional Safety, 40(5) 41-44. Preventing deaths and injuries of adolescent workers. (199 5). DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 95108), NIOSHA Alert, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Nat. Inst. For Occupational Safety and Hea lth (NIOSH), Cincinnati, OH. Preventing electrocutio ns of crane operators and crew members working near overhead power lines. (1995). DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 95-108), NIOSHA Alert, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Nat. Inst. For Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Cincinnati, OH. Sacks, Kenneth; Cawley, James; Homce, Gerald ; and Yenchek, Michael (2001). Feasibility study to reduce injuries and fatalities caused by c ontact of cranes, drill rigs, and haul trucks with high-tension lines. IEEE Transactions on Indstry. Appl ., 37(3) 914-919. Suruda, Anthony (1988). Electrocution at work. Prof. Safety, 33(7) 27-32. The Center to Protect Workers Rights (2006). Electric safety in construction for nonelectricians (2006). Retrieved August 29, 2006 online. http://www.buildsafe.org/haza lerts/kfelectrocutions.pdf. Toscano, Guy and W indau, Janice (1996). National census of fatal occupational injuries, 1995. Compensation and Working Conditions, September 1996, 34-45. U.S. crane accidents claim 502 lives. (1998). Aberdeens Concrete Construction, 43(2) 243. Williamson, Ann and Feyer, Anne-Marie (1998). The causes of electrical fatalities at work. J. Safety Resrch ., 29(3) 187-96. Worker deaths by electrocution a summary of NIOSH surveillance and investigative findings. (1998). DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 98-131), NIOSHA Alert, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Nat. Inst. For Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Cincinnati, OH.

PAGE 100

100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH John Hale Dom eier, Jr. was born in Tampa, Florida to John a nd Denise Domeier. He has two older sisters; Shannon Sume rlin of Dallas, Texas, and Ja cklyn Mauldin of Jacksonville, Florida. To begin his educati on, John attended St. Pauls Ca tholic School in St. Petersburg, Florida and moved on to St. Petersburg Senior High School where he graduated in 1999. John began his collegiate career at the University of Florida and studied industrial and systems engineering. After graduating wi th a Bachelor of Science in E ngineering and a minor in sales engineering in December of 2004, John entered the M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction at the University of Florida in January 2005. Upon comple tion of his class work, he began working in project management for Hardin Construction Company in January of 2007 in Orlando, Florida. John first became aware of electrical hazards while interning for Florida Power and Light during the summer of 2004. Other internship and work e xperiences come from the likes of Jabil Circuit, St Petersburg, FL, P.J. Callahan, Clearwater, FL, and R.J. Bunbury, Clearwater, FL. After completing all the require ments of graduation and receiving a Master of Science in Building Construction in May 2007, he pl ans to continue his career development in project management with Hardin Construction in Orlando, Florida.