advanced search

Digging Leads to Shocking Discovery

Apr 1, 2001 12:00 PM, By Paul E. Pritzker, P.E., C.S.P., Ph.D.

Always know the voltage of the system you plan to install, and review the applicable Code sections.

It seemed like just another rainy day for a laborer working alone on a small residential job. A homeowner had hired him to install a large flagpole on the property. However, this simple task quickly took a turn for the worse. As the worker began to dig a hole, his shovel cut through the insulation of a cable and contacted an energized power line 19 in. below the ground. Although the worker survived, he suffered shock injuries and debilitating burns. Luckily, a groundskeeper working nearby witnessed the incident and immediately went for help.

After the accident, the victim's attorney hired my forensic engineering firm to investigate the situation and decide who was at fault. We knew what happened — the wet shovel had served as a path for electricity to flow from the energized conductor, through the shovel, through the laborer's body, and then back to ground via his wet shoes. What we needed to uncover was how it happened, so our investigation would center on the buried cable installation.

Unfortunately, the documents sent to us by the attorney did not identify the voltage of the conductor. Without the knowledge of the precise voltage, we initally advised our client of sections of the National Electrical Code (NEC) applicable to various voltage levels. In the event the power line did not exceed 600V, Sec. 300-5 of the Code was the controlling factor. Cables installed in a trench, per Sec. 300-5(a) of the Code must have a “cover” of earth that varies in depth with the voltage of the line. To meet the requirements of this rule for a power line rated at less than 600V, the installer must cover the line with at least 18 in. of earth from the top of the cable.

In addition, the NEC states that the location of specific power lines (service-laterals) not encased in concrete and buried 18 in. or deeper must be identified by a warning ribbon placed in the trench at least 12 in. above the underground installation. However, an exception to Sec. 300-5 states: “Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage, the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or Schedule 80 rigid nonmetal conduit or equivalent.”

Our follow-up investigation revealed the cable's voltage actually exceeded 600V. We decided to check out the installation history. At the time the cable was placed in operation, the 1996 version of the NEC was in effect (with Art. 710 as the controlling factor). Table 710-4(b) outlines minimum cover requirements for underground cables rated 600V to 22kV. This requirement offers three separate burial criteria:

• Direct burial 30 in.
• Rigid nonmetallic conduit approved for direct burial 18 in.
• Rigid metal and intermediate metal conduit 6 in.

Although this rule offers various exceptions, none of them applied to this case. The line in question, which someone installed 19 in. below ground, violated the 30-in. minimum burial depth stated in Table 710-4 (b) by 11 in. The initial specification and schematic of the underground cable installation show the installer should have recognized this was a high-voltage line (over 600V). However, by installing the line at a depth of 19 in., he failed to follow the correct section of the Code.

In our report, we noted the installer had the opportunity to provide and install a warning ribbon 12 in. above the cable, as well as provide protection to the cable by placing it in pipe or Schedule 80 PVC. Unfortunately, he did neither.

During our investigation, we identified the contractor that installed the cable and passed this information along to the client. We also briefed the client on the pertinent sections of the 1996 and 1999 versions of the Code. Furthermore, we explained the contractor neither provided a warning ribbon nor encased the cable with appropriate protection.

Using our report, the attorneys resolved the issue through a settlement conference. Once they reviewed both sections of the Code, the respective parties recognized the installer also violated the mandated depth protection.

What's the most valuable lesson to learn from this case? Contractors should always make sure they know the voltage of the system they plan to install. The incident also illustrates the fact that a casual review of the Code can sometimes be misleading. Thorough examination of the Code is always recommended before beginning an installation project. In this case, a failure to recognize the system's voltage and subsequently applying the wrong section of the Code resulted in an error that caused serious injury to an innocent party.

Pritzker is a senior forensic engineer in Punta Gorda, Fla.

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 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