advanced search

The Case of the Live Neutral Conductor

Oct 1, 2004 12:00 PM, By Alexander Kusko, Sc.D, P.E., Exponent Failure Analysis Associates

A severe shock demonstrates that conductors should always be considered live until proven otherwise

If a construction worker is shocked or electrocuted during a project that requires heavy digging, it's usually the result of hitting a buried line. However, in the case of a contract worker who was shocked while helping to lay a sewer line along a paved road in a suburban area, the accident involved an overhead line. The project required the worker in question and the rest of his crew to use a trenching machine and a front-end loader to transport crushed stone to place under the sewer pipe and refill the trench. Things were going fine until low-hanging telephone and TV cables running parallel to the road became snagged on the side mirror of the front-end loader.

At first, the problem seemed easy to fix. The worker was instructed to raise the telephone and TV cables so that the project could proceed. The plan called for him to temporarily pull down the electric utility neutral conductor and tie it together with the telephone and TV cables using a rope, similar to a previously made tie as shown in the Photo at right. The crew agreed that the quickest way to reach the cables and perform this task was to use the front-end loader as an elevator and lift the worker off the ground and up to the cables and conductor.

However, before the worker completed tying a knot in the rope he received an electric shock from the neutral conductor. The shock first burned him and then threw him to the ground. His injuries included severe burns to his neck, leg, and arm. His hand and lower part of his arm had to be amputated.

The worker filed suit against the electric utility, the cable TV company, and the telephone company, and I was called in to serve as an expert witness on behalf of the injured worker.

Assessing the scene. A review of the scene revealed that a single, bare-stranded 7.96kV primary conductor was located at the top of the utility poles in the span in question. Below this single-phase conductor was a single, bare-wire neutral conductor. The neutral conductor was connected to grounding wires only at the utility poles that were equipped with overhead distribution transformers. The poles with transformers were typically spaced at a three-pole interval. This is a standard design configuration for most electric utility distribution lines. It was also noted that the telephone company owned the utility poles.

A post-accident inspection by OSHA personnel confirmed that the TV and telephone cables didn't meet the vertical clearance requirements stipulated in Table 232-1 of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). A mid-span vertical clearance measurement at the site of the accident was found to be approximately 11 feet. The clearance requirement as outlined in Table 232-1 of the NESC is 16 feet.

A review of safety procedures. Although these low-hanging cables created the conditions for the accident, they weren't the cause of the electric shock. It was first thought that the worker in the bucket of the front-end loader reached up and contacted the primary conductor with his hand. The typical OSHA rule on working clearances is that a worker must maintain a 10-foot clearance from energized conductors. Per OSHA 1926.403(j)(3)(iii), unguarded live parts above a working space shall be maintained at elevations not less than specified in Table K-3 (Table).

However, reports from witnesses and the worker himself revealed that the neutral conductor, telephone, and TV cables were level with his chest at the time of the accident. Therefore, I concluded that he received the shock from his contact with the bare neutral conductor.

But how could that have happened? The neutral conductor can become energized under several conditions. For example, if the neutral is broken or disconnected before it reaches the utility substation, the remaining portion of the neutral becomes energized by the connections of the primary windings of the distribution transformers between the primary conductor and the neutral.

In this case, analysis of the grounding system for the 13.8kV single-phase radial power line showed that several hundred volts could exist between the neutral and ground at several places along its length. To my knowledge, the electric utility didn't test the neutral or the grounds at the poles near the accident site.

This case was settled before it went to trial. The injured worker accepted an award of several million dollars in lieu of a lengthy court case. If it had gone to court, all of the defendants would most likely have been found liable for not maintaining their overhead cables at the required heights.

Kusko is vice president of Exponent Failure Analysis Associates in Natick, Mass.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue EC&M Magazine | April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters