RESEARCH REPORT:

SAFETY INTERVENTIONS TOCONTROL HAZARDS RELATED TO

POWER LINE CONTACTS BYMOBILE CRANES AND OTHER

BOOMED EQUIPMENTFUNDED BY

THE CENTER TO PROTECT WORKERS’ RIGHTSSuite 1000

8484 Georgia Ave.Silver Springs, MD 20910

301.578.8500

DEVELOPED BY

THE HAZARD INFORMATION FOUNDATION, INC.(HIFI)

705 East Wilcox DriveSierra Vista, AZ 85635

520.458.6700besafe@hazardinfo.com

MARCH 2002

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abbreviations iv

Flow Sheet v

Abstract 1

Introduction 3

Method 10

Analysis 14

Timeline Analysis 14

Critical Analysis by Engineers and Scientists 79

Results 103

Case Studies Charts 104

Standards 110

Court Transcripts 111

Expert Analysis 112

Discussion 115

System Safety Engineering 115

Eliminating the Hazard 118

Guarding Against the Hazard 122

Warning of the Hazard 124

Recommendations 130

Organizational 131

Managerial 134

Technical 136

APPENDICESA. 50 Case Summaries and Explanatory Note 139

B. Resumes of Participating Engineers and Scientists/ Bibliography 189

C. List of Available Appliances 220

ii

PARTICIPATING ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

1. David V. MacCollum: Principal Investigator

2. Rowena I. Davis: Editorial Analyst

3. Jack Ainsworth: Electronic Engineer- Proximity Alarms

4. David Baker: Safety Director, Electric Utility

5. Bob Dey: Consultant, Construction Manager

6. George Karady: Electrical Engineer- Insulating Links

7. Ben Lehman: Retired Admiral, U.S. Navy

8. Melvin L. Myers: Consulting Engineer, Retired Captain, US Public Health Service

9. Jeff Speer: Safety Director, System Safety

10. John Van Arsdel: Consultant, Human Factors

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration I: Warning Label, including the proposed parameters for the mapping of the

Red Danger Zone 76

Illustration II: Danger Zone Diagram showing both overhead and lateral views 77

Illustration III: Aerial Basket Guard 78

AUTHORS

David V. MacCollum P.E., CSP: Hazard Research and Development

Rowena I. Davis: Editorial Analyst

Melvin L. Myers: Technical Review

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to the following parties for their assistance in making this study possible:

Center for the to Protect Workers’ Rights for the funding of the investigation.

Numerous discussions and insight of the participating engineers and scientists:

Jack Ainsworth,David Baker,Bob Dey,George Karady,Ben LehmanMel Myers,Jeff Speer,John van Arsdel

For over fifty years the research of the many concerned and qualified people whohave examined the syndrome of powerline contact has gone overlooked. However, theirwisdom has proved to be prophetic. Neil Chitwood, chief of the safety researchdepartment of the Portland District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the1950’s, was a profound mentor of the safety engineering profession as a visionary whorecognized that hazards had to be prevented. His logic was that reliance on personnel toovercome worksite hazards was nothing more than an eventual death sentence. He wasamong the early advocates of pre-construction safety planning to eliminate worksitehazards before the workers and equipment arrived at the worksite. Merril Ely, founder ofthe Portland Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) in 1940 andchief of the safety branch for the North Pacific Division, was a strong supporter ofChitwood’s doctrine. In those early years of safety engineering, Bob Jenkins, the safetydirector for Chief of Engineers in Washington was one who made the Army’s safetymanual EM 395-1-1 a respected reference for nearly fifty years. Without theseforerunners and others like them to advocate safe workplaces to preserve human life, thisstudy would have not been written.

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

A/E architect/engineerANSI American National Standards InstituteASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersASSE American Society of Safety EngineersCIMA Construction Industry Manufacturer’s AssociationEMI Equipment Manufacturers InstituteENG Electronic News GatheringFIEI Farm Industry Equipment Institute (Currently EMI)HIFI Hazard Information Foundation, Inc.HRPS Hazard Reduction Precedent SequenceMADDDC Mobile Aerial Devices & Digger Derricks CouncilMESA Mine Enforcement Safety AdministrationMSHA Mine Safety and Health AdministrationMOTACC Manufacturers of Telescoping and Articulating Crane CouncilNEC National Electric CodeNESC National Electric Safety CodeNIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and HealthNSC National Safety CouncilOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPPCP Prevention of Powerline Contact PlanPSCA Power Crane and Shovel Association (part of CIMA)SAE Society of Automotive EngineersUSACE US Army Corps of Engineers

v

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

CASES (APPENDIX A) TIMELINE

EXPERT REVIEW

RESULTS

CASESTUDIES

STANDARDS COURTTRANSCRIPTS

EXPERT ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION

SYSTEM SAFETYENGINEERING

ELIMINATINGTHE HAZARD

GUARDING THEHAZARD

WARNING OF THEHAZARD

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGERIAL TECHNICAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY/RESUMES (APPENDIXB)

APPLIANCE LIST (APPENDIX C)

1

ABSTRACT

The Hazard Information Foundation, Inc. (HIFI) has conducted an investigation to

develop a timeline of historical and current data on powerline contact by cranes and other

boomed equipment. The focus of this investigation is to identify the reasons why existing safety

requirements are not effective by looking beyond the behavior of the victim, job site operating

personnel, and the immediate employer. The study identifies the opportunities missed by the

management of contributing organizations to ensure for detailed safety planning and a safe

worksite before the work crew and equipment arrive for the job. It is the intention of this study to

compile hazard control data from a variety of sources to create an analysis that concludes with

reasonable, enforceable safeguards and guidelines for safe crane and boomed equipment

operation.

Equipment powerline contact has for more than five decades been a prominent source of

worker death as well as crippling injuries and maiming. Time and evolving work practices have

done nothing to reduce this hazard, and the problem of powerline contact today remains the same

is it did when cranes were widely introduced in the 1950’s. This issue is so serious that in

January, 2003, OSHA began to conduct meetings with other representatives from the

construction industry to discuss new standards and alternate solutions to this harrowing situation

(Timeline 04.01.15). At a time when the issue of boom powerline contact is so obviously

important, HIFI believes that the recommendations developed by this study will help to improve

the safety of the worker and the integrity of the employer and equipment.

A key issue in the study shows that the current reliance on the ten-foot “thin air”1

clearance next to, underneath, and above the powerline has proved to be a killer for more than 50

years. This current precautionary measure to avoid powerline contacts is ineffective and deters

other real safety measures from being implemented. The conclusion of this work identifies over

thirty alternative strategies and recommendations that have proved to prevent equipment

powerline contacts; however, their implementation requires industry-wide management

1 The term “thin air” is a phrase coined by the principal author of this study. “Thin air” is a term describing thenature of the current hazard restraint with deadly accuracy, because to date the only national regulation separatingequipment booms from powerlines is a mandated minimum of ten feet of thin air, with no other visual, physical, oraudible barriers.

2

involvement and cooperation. There exist some positive and hopeful expectations that the trend

may be starting to level out due to, increasingly available technology, government safety

surveillance2, and awareness that liability is the result of negligence. The ability to reduce

powerline contact is within reach, if only management adopts a philosophy of voluntary

acceptance and initiates measures of prevention. This study will illustrate that to achieve a safe

workplace free from the hazard of equipment powerline contact, safety planning needs to start at

the time of design to explicitly involve a Prevention of Powerline Contact Plan that includes

specifications to be initiated by all supporting organizations and is able to be easily monitored

with compliance assured by the project management.

2 Timeline 04.01.15 “ ‘Red Zones’ for Cranes Near Powerlines Discussed by OSHA Rulemaking Committee” News:Occupational Safety and Health, Vol. 34, No.3. Boom powerline contact is a subject that has been receivingincreasing government notice and is currently the subject of regulation discussions. See also Illustration I.

3

INTRODUCTION

Cranes are used to lift and lower loads, but they vary in configuration, capacity,

operation, and cost. They all use a boom to hoist the loads, and they include mobile cranes. For the

purpose of this study, mobile cranes include a wide variety of boomed vehicles that can be moved

under their own power. The category includes aerial lifts, pumpcrete machines, and news gathering

vans.

NIOSH investigated electrocution incidents that resulted in 244 occupational fatalities

during the period from November 1982 to December 1994. Based upon their analysis of these cases,

NIOSH found that 18% were associated with boomed vehicle contact with an energized power line.

Yenchek (2004) found that 5% of all occupational fatalities result from electrical contact, yet 14%

of construction-related deaths are associated with electrical contact. Of all electrical contact

incidents, one-fifth occur when high-reaching mobile equipment, such as cranes and boom trucks,

contact a power line.

About 150 to 160 people are killed or maimed by power-line contact with cranes each

year. These contacts occur whenever any metal part of a crane touches a bare, uninsulated, high-

voltage line. Most of these contacts occur when the crane’s hoist line, boom, or other parts touch an

energized power line while moving materials. Contact with electrical lines also occurs during the

transport of materials with cranes in “pick and carry” operations.

Some electrocutions occur among the construction workers or rescue workers when a

power line automatically re-energizes. In these incidents, the power lines re-energize at the

transformer after a de-energized ground fault break was “tripped” by contact with a power line.

Objectives

Electrical power line contacts continue to occur, and OSHA is re-examining safety

procedures for possible improvements. Objectives of this study are to:

1. Identify the various parties who could have exercised management authority to prevent theinjury.

2. Evaluate the potential role for electric utility companies to de-energize power lines, providetemporary insulation, relocate the power lines, and lock-out automatic re-closures at thetransformers to avoid re-energizing lines in the event of contact.

4

3. Identify opportunities for liaison between industries to delegate responsibility to ensure forminimum contact between equipment and energized powerlines.

4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the 10-foot clearance rule for operations from power lines.5. Evaluate the distance requirements for using ground marking tape or barricades to mark the

danger zone adjacent to power lines.6. Evaluate the actual effectiveness in the field or potential field use of alarms to warn of

proximity around a power line.7. Evaluate the use of and potential for insulated links to prevent electrical transmission in the

event of power line contact as a redundant back up to protect against high voltage exposure.8. Evaluate the actual field use of a range limiting devices for the boom as an operator aid.

Current “thin air” clearance standards have been ineffective in preventing electrical-

contact injuries regarding cranes, and solutions for preventing these injuries are needed. The

potential effectiveness of possible solutions—power source control, ground marking, proximity

alarms, insulation links, and range limiting devices—need to be evaluated with factual information

to raise the public awareness of the need for improved controls. This awareness should lead to

voluntary adoption of the interventions in consensus standards, national standards, and industry

regulations. Timing of this information is especially critical for use in the current OSHA negotiated

rulemaking for derricks and cranes.

The investigators expect to find that every electrocution case evaluated could have been

prevented by one or more of the aforementioned interventions. Moreover, the investigators expect

to find that crane operators, riggers, and other crew members working in the current organizational

structure cannot prevent power line contacts without specific changes in management priorities for

preparing the site prior to the initiation of work.

In addition, a specific entrenched belief regarding the unreliability of insulating materials,

proximity devices, and range limiting devices needs to be challenged. An example of old

information that this study addresses is the criticism that has been related to monitors for proximity

alarms that use magnetic sensors, which fail to sense energized power in lines that are not

transferring current. New research shows that proximity alarms with electrostatic sensors are

reliable in sensing voltage in energized lines, even when current is not flowing.

Research beyond this study can be expanded to other construction equipment in which

power line contacts have occurred. This equipment includes aerial lifts, backhoes, excavators, pump

concrete machines, and dump trucks.

5

Overview

The overall goal of this study is to identify the practical physical improvements and

operational requirements which increase the opportunity to remove the hazard of equipment

powerline contact before the personnel and equipment arrive at the worksite. It consists of five

phases, which are outlined in the Method section. The Timeline was developed as an aid for the

reader to enhance awareness of how historical sequences crafted current ideas and methodology

regarding equipment powerline contact. It contains case examples, lists of ANSI and OSHA

standards, excerpts from depositions, and articles regarding every aspect of powerline contact. It

also includes studies on safety appliances, worker behavior, and effects of electrical current. HIFI

has taken pains to present as much published literature as possible to provide an opportunity for the

reader to see whole issue surrounding the dangers of powerline contact. By revealing multiple

points of view, the timeline is able to provide context and explain why many different opinions and

erroneous myths concerning the prevention of powerline contact exist. The Results section provides

a broad overview of why current measures are inadequate. The Discussion outlines key points to act

as the basis for a successful powerline contact avoidance plan. It also assimilates and reviews data

presented in the Timeline and paves the way for the Recommendations. The Recommendations

section provides a list of step by step suggestions and actions for management to undertake to

significantly reduce or eliminate the hazard of powerline contact. The Observations section is a

peer review by several engineers and scientists to highlight how the suggestions in the timeline will

reduce human suffering while reducing costs. The three appendixes (fifty examples of powerline

contacts, resumes of peer reviewers, and a list of commercially available safety appliances for the

prevention of equipment powerline contact) all serve to enhance the available information on

powerline contact by providing background information on all facets of the hazard of powerline

contact.

Of the above-mentioned sections, the timeline is by far the more intricate. Information

contained in this section is direct text or text-based, and has been put together with the purpose of

illustrating how both workable and unworkable options have evolved, as well as the choices

available to prevent further carnage. The timeline also reveals the myths and misinformation, which

serve to obstruct, delay and discredit adoption of hazard prevention measures that could prevent

equipment powerline contacts.

6

A crucial part of the timeline of this study incorporates a list of fifty powerline contact

litigation cases. The proposal’s objective to evaluate hazard control depends upon this case file. The

file not only addresses the defect that led to the injury, but it also addresses the state of the art

(technology) for hazard control given the circumstances of the injury. Thus, the case addresses the

cause of the injury and how the injury could have been averted.

Case Studies

Although only fifty cases are presented in Appendix A, HIFI alone is aware of an estimated

1,500 instances of litigation involving equipment powerline contact. The number of actual injuries

and deaths caused by equipment powerline contact is much greater, because often they do not fall

within the reporting requirements of OSHA or MSHA, as many of the victims may be self-

employed and therefore exempt from the reporting requirements of the federal government and

various states’ workers’ compensation boards. (Current Federal reporting does not include injuries

and fatalities of public employees, self-employed workers, or employees under other jurisdiction

such as transportation.) In addition, not all injuries become involved as litigation.3

The listing of fifty occurrences is intended to show the diversity of equipment and hazards

that cause powerline contacts. The occurrences are listed chronologically with hazard prevention

concepts that arose simultaneously. It is important to start the study of cases in the late 1960’s in

order to show both knowledge of and need for various design improvements, a higher safety

standard, and measures taken. The timeline is crafted to reflect this evolution and show why some

design improvements were developed. Even though many cases that have been litigated date back

beyond five years, they are relevant to revisions of the OSHA standard regarding cranes. Including

older cases in the timeline shows the repetitious nature of occurrences and the habit of some

management to neglect powerline contact prevention over a span of nearly fifty years. The

investigators have observed and expect to find in this study that even with the current OSHA

standards, which are dated, that they fail to protect workers from electrical contact injury. The

sample to be used in this study will be drawn from the period that the current OSHA crane

standards have been in effect.

3 Excerpt from the document shown as “Timeline 97.10.00”, Pg. 4: “This study has two main limitations, based onthe use of OSHA data. First, the proportion of all crane-related deaths in construction which OSHA investigates isunknown and the detail available for analysis in the OSHA report summaries varies. Electronic reports weresometimes incomplete.”

7

The listing of incidents with older equipment is beneficial to this study for another reason:

the existing inventory of older equipment continues to present an ongoing hazard as dangerous

equipment that is still in use. Since the equipment is the same, (some cranes last for over fifty years)

and existing safety standards have shown little improvement from the requirements of the 1960’s to

the present4, the chronological link between older and present litigation becomes all the more

important. Three-fifths of the 50 example cases, however, occur after 1990, illustrating the severity

of the ongoing hazard as the population of crane and other boomed equipment in use has grown

dramatically.

The case file is a sample listing of real-life tragedies that have taken place over the years

evaluated in this study. These accounts represent a fraction of the cases on record. The cases chosen

here are not intended to represent proportionate percentages of injuries or deaths from specific

causes, but to include all types of equipment and scenarios. Though all these cases were chosen for

specific purposes and lessons, a reader of this study must not look upon this sample pool as a

microcosm of typical powerline contact instances. The following points must be taken into

consideration when assessing the cases:

♦ National statistics suggest that 20-28% of the total equipment powerline contact incidents

result in fatalities5. In the list presented in this study, 48% of the incidences resulted in death.

This decision was made in order to show the gruesome severity of any potential powerline

contact. It is also important to keep in mind that an average of 140 powerline contacts occur

every year.6 The total deaths by electrocution that will occur this year exceeds the total

number of death instances presented in this study.

♦ In his book Crane Hazards and Their Prevention, (ASSE, 1993) David V. MacCollum gives

the statistics that various types of cranes account for over 90% of all powerline contact

instances. While this is true, the occasional occurrence of contacts such as the one involving 4 Starting in the early 1980’s some safety appliances such as anti-twoblocking devices, load measuring systems,boom angle and boom length indicators began to be provided as standard equipment by the manufacturer eventhough the safety standards did not reflect such as requirement.5 Timeline 1967, “A Survey of Non-Employee Electrical Contacts” (Pamphlet), Research Committee, UtilitiesSection, NSC. See also Timeline 1971, “Electrical Work Injuries in California” Division of Industrial Safety, Stateof California Human Relations Agency, Department of Industrial Relations6 According to Crane Hazards and their Prevention (MacCollum, American Society of Safety Engineers) 150 to 160people are killed or crippled each year by powerline contact. According to OSHA data from 1992-2000,approximately 19 workers are killed every year from powerline contact. If the average ratio of deaths to totalaccidents is 20%, approximately 100 workers are injured every year. It is important to remember that 21 states have

8

the dump truck (see A-23) are all the more damaging because there has been no precaution

against them. All boomed and raised equipment must take precautions against powerline

contact.

♦ Aerial lift contacts, while disproportionately represented in this case list, nonetheless

illustrate a serious epidemic. Proper precaution and insulation for lifts is crucial because this

is the equipment used to execute live line work. In lifts not used by the electric utility, the

danger remains high because of the person’s proximity to powerlines and their nonexistent

escape options.

♦ The listing of all the recent occurrences of injuries and deaths resulting from powerline

contact with the mast of an electric news gathering (ENG) van was included to show that

corporate management should not leave the delegation of ENG van design safety to the

individual network station, as they do not have the expertise to establish design priorities.

The assemblers of ENG vans are installers of various pre-designed communication systems,

and they are too uninformed in the field of engineering safety. In each of the cases, highly

disfiguring or fatal injuries occurred. There is overwhelming evidence by the injureds’

counsel on how the electrostatic proximity detector can be installed to prevent the mast from

being raised when the ENG van is underneath or immediately adjacent to the overhead

powerline. In all cases, the presence of an electrostatic proximity detector would have been

effective in preventing the powerline contact. These cases are a clear example of where the

corporate management needs to provide voluntary leadership and possible funding to ensure

the safety of the TV newsgathering personnel. A relatively high proportion of cases of this

type is represented in the case index to show that this type of incident is an industry- wide,

recurring epidemic that must be addressed.

According to “NIOSH ALERT # 85-111: Preventing Electrocutions from Contact Between

Cranes and Powerlines”, there were approximately 2,300 lost workday occupational injuries in the

U.S. in 1981 which resulted from contact with electrical current by crane booms, cables, or loads,

resulting in 115 fatalities and 200 total permanent disabilities. The importance of these numbers lies

in the fact that one injury can cause the taxpayer thousands of dollars in social security. Though

their own reporting programs and do not report to OSHA, and of those that do, many accidents are not reported orare reported incorrectly, and final figures are not standardized to any one criterion.

9

silencing orders from many courts prohibit an accurate monetary breakdown of lost funds, a

statistical review of costs of standard implementation and safety devices would be far less than the

money which burdens the economy with medical bills, litigation, lost work time, and damaged

equipment.

Additional information from the case list (Appendix A) has been withheld and changed for

the purposes of the study. The names of the injured have been deleted to protect their privacy. The

identity of most defendants is omitted because this information detracts from the focus on the

appropriate hazard prevention measures that should have been initiated. By necessity, the specific

dollar amounts paid by various defendants to injured parties or their survivors are omitted from this

report, as settlement agreements generally prohibit disclosure of this information. 7

In addition to the prohibition of the mention of specific dollar amounts, information on the

damages awarded by verdict or settlement agreements, ranging from hundreds of thousands to

several million dollars, is not a valid index of the severity of any hazardous condition and serves to

develop biases that tend to compromise the voluntary acceptance of available design improvements,

use of safety appliances, and management priorities of safety. This issue will be discussed further in

the Results section of the study.

7 It is important to recognize that the prolific use of gag orders severely impedes the free flow of hazard informationand denies the basic right of freedom of speech to the public. Gag orders suppress public knowledge and discussionof the reasons for dangerous conditions and circumstances, allowing them to persist and endangering lives in thefuture. Associate General Council for ATLA James Rooks, in “Confidential Settlements Under Fire in 13 States”(Lawyers Weekly USA, April 30,2001)discourages gag order by saying “The first principle is one of open courts;there is no recognized right of privacy for corporations. Confidentiality plays a reasonable role in domestic relationsor juvenile cases, but beyond those no-brainers, there should be a presumption of openness. A lot of the requests forsecrecy in settlements are made to all corporations to continue to hide the information that other lawyersrepresenting clients would like to find.” He goes on to use examples like the secrecy over exploding gas tanks ofFord Pintos and defective Firestone tires, which could have saved many lives if truth about their products had cometo light earlier. For more information on gag orders see the article “Strictly Confidential” (Massachusetts LawyersWeekly, 1993, available in the Important Documents section of the Lawyers Weekly USA website.

10

METHOD

Phase I of this study screens some 1500 equipment powerline contacts that were in the HIFI

computer data bank and select fifty occurrences, which may have met most of the following

criteria:

! Cases that had been a subject of a detailed hazard analysis report.

! Cases with sufficient depositions of various defendants and other personnel who should

have acted to prevent powerline contact.

! Cases that showed the greatest diversity of equipment involved in a powerline contact.

! Cases that showed the greatest number of parties who had the responsibility to ensure a

safe workplace but did not prevent the hazard of equipment powerline contact.

! Those which involved serious crippling injuries or death.

! Those of historical importance to show industry knowledge of alternate methods or use of

appliances to prevent equipment powerline contact (usually revealed by litigation

discovery).

! Two fifths of the cases selected occurred in a twenty-two year period between 1968 and

1990 to include significant landmark cases establishing judicial safety precedents.

! Three fifths of the cases selected occurred after 1990 to illustrate current circumstances

that led to equipment powerline contacts.

Phase II of the study is the preparation of Appendix A, a detailed summary of each of the fifty

cases with the pertinent information that identifies:

! Court and case number

! Date of occurrence

! Equipment and facility involved

! Hazard

! Summary of the occurrence, which briefly describes the scenario, the type of powerline,

and various parties who were involved

! Available hazard prevention

11

! Disposition

! Notes that highlight the key issues

Phase III of the study is analysis process, which relies on the principles of safety engineering.

In today’s world the universal use of heavy equipment presents a continual potential to

come into contact with powerlines. The following tenet should become the basis for developing

alternate rules of management conduct: “Any potential circumstance of equipment usage that will

cause a powerline contact is always unreasonable and always unacceptable when reasonable

powerline contact prevention planning, design modification, or the use of hazard prevention

devices or appliances can be used to eliminate or minimize the possibility of powerline contact.”

This is not an arbitrary tenet for management to fulfill upon the realization that a hazard

is always present, for a hazard is always found in one of three modes8:

♦ Dormant: unable to cause harm

♦ Armed: able to cause harm

♦ Active: causing harm with little chance of escape

This definition has a universal application to all hazards and can be explained in terms that are

pertinent to equipment powerline contact.

An overhead powerline with a well-established clearance of 18 ft or more above the

ground seems not to present a hazard when a crane or other boomed or masted equipment that

can reach it is not present. However, though it is unreachable, the powerline silently carries

dangerous amounts of electricity. It is, however, potentially lethal. Even though there is no

chance of contact under ordinary circumstances, the potential of danger that an energized

powerline presents makes the hazard of powerline contact dormant.

An overhead powerline hazard becomes armed the moment a crane or other boomed or

masted equipment that can reach it is brought into the immediate vicinity. The storage of

materials or construction activity under the powerline arms the hazard and becomes a key factor,

8 This definition of a hazard is expressed by David MacCollum in affidavits and sworn court testimony. Heintroduced it to the field in the ASSE Glossary of Safety (1991) as well as in Crane Hazards and their Prevention(ASSE, 1993). This analysis has been widely accepted by safety engineers and is often used in the process of risk-hazard analysis.

12

as cranes are used to easily lift the materials in the function of either locating or removing

materials from under or adjacent to overhead powerlines. Even the filling of storage bins on

farms has resulted in raising equipment booms into a powerline and causing electrocution9.

Once the powerline has been contacted the hazard is in the active mode, and for anyone

in the ground fault path10, it is usually too late to escape injury. Powerline contact can most

effectively be prevented by not allowing the hazard to become armed in the first place. If

circumstances are such that it is impossible for crane or other equipment to be physically

separated from the powerlines, available technology in the form of various devices provides

alternatives that can substantially reduce the probability of actual contact by guarding with

insulation or warning of impending danger with an electrostatic proximity alarm. Such devices

should not be used as substitutes for a safe work location, but primarily as backup features that

provide an opportunity to revise the activity in a safer manner.

Phase IV of the study is the development of a historical timeline to place in chronological order

the fifty occurrences, juxtaposing them with publication standards, requirements, studies,

treatises, excerpts of sworn deposition testimony, and use and development of a variety of safety

devices and operational procedures. With this type of overview, both effective and ineffective

hazard prevention measures are identified.

Phase V of the study presents the comments of eight field experts. These comments, entitled

“Peer Reviews” provide specialty testimony and provide knowledgeable perspective to expand

and clarify ideas brought up in the text of the study. These comments are in turn incorporated

into the “Discussion” and “Results” section of the study.

Phase VI of the study utilizes the facts revealed in the timeline to create an evaluation of the

current methods and commonly held opinions regarding the continuing occurrence of boom

powerline contact. The “Discussion” section of the study pinpoints trends in legislation and

accountability that must be reshaped if the hazard of powerline contact is to be successfully

9 See Appendix A7, A810 Ground fault is the term for the path of grounding for an electric current. Current flows in the path of leastresistance until it is grounded and the energy dissipates. Ground fault path is the route the electric energy takes tobecome grounded. When the path is a human body, serious electrical damage or electrocution can occur.

13

overcome. The “Analysis” section offers sound and logical reasoning regarding the reliability of

commonly proposed safety measures and pinpoints specific situations to perform a situational

analysis.

Phase VII of the study develops a listing of recommendations that would serve as effective,

practical, and reasonable hazard prevention measures for management to initiate. These

recommendations are primarily actions for management to eliminate or minimize the hazards

before they become an issue for operating personnel.

Phase VIII provides a working copy to various professionals who provide a peer review, their

own conclusions and summaries consistent with their own expertise.

TIMELINE:

HISTORY AND ANALYSIS

14

TIMELINE ANALYSIS

The timeline developed for this study was compiled from primary sources and utilizesdirect quotes and documented information to convey an honest account of the progress towardsthe adoption of safety guidelines and safety appliances. This includes articles and test accountsthat advocate or prove the effectiveness and durability of such standards and appliances as wellas the accounts that attempt to disprove it. The negative accounts serve to illustrate the reasonswhy safety appliances such as insulated links and proximity alarms are today not fully acceptedby manufacturers, purveyors, rental agencies, and contractors. The text of this study may refutethese accounts in order to expose weakness of argument or logic, thus strengthening the case foradoption of these safe measures and appliances. The primary purpose of the timeline is toprovide a concrete basis for the analysis that leads to the Recommendations. Notes inside thetimeline are written in purple, and are interjections of the authors of this study for the purpose ofclarification and as summarized in the Discussion.

Though a bibliography is present in the study, many citations and footnotes in the textwill be cited directly from the timeline and will contain the date of the quote or article the way itis presented in the timeline for easy referral. Any additional citations appear in Appendix B inthe Bibliography.

Color Guide

♦ Red- Examples of litigation cases of 50 real-life powerline contacts, chronologicallyinterjected in order to illustrate the technological advancements and popular beliefsavailable at the time of the incident.

♦ Blue- Any standard that can be considered an enforceable mode of regulation; ANSIand ASCI are portrayed in blue, as well as National Safety Council (NSC) standardsand military-issued regulations pertaining to at least one organized group.

♦ Green- Excerpts from court transcripts and recorded depositions. In providing thecourt and case number the study is able to grant access into further research withoutbiasing the reader by listing plaintiffs or defendants. The authors of this study haveattempted to provide context enough to make the excerpts understandable whilereleasing the reader from irrelevant reading. Full transcripts of all depositions usedwill be provided upon request.

♦ Purple- Notes that have been interjected into the text boxes by the authors of thisstudy for the purpose of comment or clarification.

15

A TIMELINE HISTORY OF POWERLINE CONTACT

1951 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 2nd Edition: National SafetyCouncil (NSC); 12-16:

“Commercial warning devices are available which work by induction from apowerline, ringing a warning bell in the cab when the boom or cable approaches tooclose.”

Note: This is the first published mention of available safety devices that warn ofimpending crane powerline contact.

52.10.28 August Albrecht invented a detector for Electrical Powerline for Vehicles withExtended Booms, Patent # 2,615,969

1953 “Power Line Accidents Kill Men, Ruin Equipment, and Delay the Job” NationalSafety Council Memo reminds workers the proper precautions and steps to avoidpowerline contacts.

1954 Data Sheet # 287, Published by the National Safety Council (NSC), 444 N. MichiganAve, Chicago, IL

Pg. 2, P.5: “Various alarm devices have been developed to warn the operator whenthe boom approaches too closely to the powerlines.”

1955 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 3rd Edition, NSC; 14-12:OVERHEAD POWER LINES

“Overhead powerlines within the plant area create an electrocution hazard toworkmen when cranes, shovels, and draglines in the vicinity of excavation and otherconstruction work. An electronic safety device for warning crane operators ofproximity to powerlines should be installed on the construction crane equipment to beused.”

“Such a device will warn crane operators and workmen of proximity to powerlinesfrom a distance of 8 inches up to 400 feet from the lines, depending on the voltage inthe lines and the setting of the sensitivity control by the operator. It functions on ACor DC voltages, lines, and shows shallow-buried underground cables.”

“The device uses special circuits so that it does not depend upon the current beingdrawn through the lines to set off the alarm. The presence of voltage is all that isnecessary to cause the device to function at a safe distance. To set the device, theboom is swung within the desired safe distance from the transmission lines, and thecontrol is advanced until the horn sounds. The horn will sound again at any time theboom enters this pre-set danger zone.”

19-22: “Electronic devices are available which can be attached to the boom andwhich will sound an alarm if the boom comes within a predetermined distance from alive wire.”

16

1955 The incident of walking a latticework crane boom into a powerline powering aconcrete batch plant, causing a loss of power when mixing quick-set concrete,resulted in the requirement to dismantle and replace the two mixers that had becomefrozen with cured concrete. No injuries were involved, but the incident prompted thePortland District Army Corps of Engineers to initiate special conditions for threedams that would be under construction. The essence of the changes required thefollowing: All powerlines in the work area will be 90 feet above the ground and allcrane booms will be less than 80 feet long. During the next ten years during the entireconstruction cycle no powerline contacts occurred.

See item 58.08.00, where this provision would be in the Contractor’s accidentprevention plan.

56.01.10 James E. Auld invented the Automatic Control System for Hoisting Apparatus, Patent# 2,730,245

1957 Data Sheet # 448, NSC:

Insulated Hook; An electronic safety device for warning crane operators of proximityto powerlines is commercially available. Also commercially available are insulatedload-line hooks and insulated crane boom guard.” This reference containsillustrations of these devices.

57.04.16 Daniel R. Winters invents an “Automatic Approach Alarm”, Patent # 2,789,282

58.08.00 Safety Policy and Procedure Manual, North Pacific Division, US Army Corps ofEngineers, Portland, ORPg. 18: Part IV- Accident Prevention On Contract Work:“The accident prevention provisions are as much a part of the contract as any otherprovision set forth in the contract for the control of the work.”Section II: Planning 1. Contractor’s Accident Prevention Plan: “To insurecooperation, coordination, and complete understanding in the application of accidentprevention to contract work, District Engineers will address a letter to each contractorimmediately following the making of a contract award. This letter will include a briefoutline of the objectives of the Corps of Engineers in accident prevention and willstress the importance of the contractual safety obligations of the contract. It shouldinvite attention to the contractual requirement that a written accident prevention planwill be carefully reviewed by both operating and safety engineering personnel.Paragraph 2009.11 O&R, EM 385-1-25. Following this review and prior to theinitiation of work, the contractor will be requested to meet in conference withappropriate construction personnel to discuss his accident prevention plan and theinherent and specific hazards of his contemplated operations. The understandingsreached at this conference will be tabulated in writing. One copy will be furnished thecontractor and one copy will be filed in the official contract file.”

Note: This regulation was the first of its kind, and was soon found as a regulation ingeneral safety handbooks throughout the Corps of Engineers. It was the advent ofdesignating responsibility and authority to one overseer. The requirement for thecontractor’s accident prevention plan soon became the keystone of the Army Corps ofEngineers’ safety program. Variations of this regulation are repeated throughout thetimeline, as it has evolved into a key safety requirement.

58.10.00 Sheppard, Paul E. “Crane Contacts can Kill”, National Safety News, NSC:

Pg. 130: states “musts” are: crane boom protector, an insulated safety hook, and apowerline proximity warning device.

17

1959 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 4th Edition, NSC; 19-2:

“Electronic devices are available which can be attached to the boom and which willsound an alarm if the boom comes within predetermined distance from a live wire.”

“Boom guards of wood or of pipe mounted on 15-kv insulators provide mechanicalprotection against contact.”

“If a crane boom comes into contact with a conductor, the hazard is greatest to thehooker of others who may touch the load or the sling. To protect against this hazard aload hook with an insulated link, now commercially available, can be used.”

59.07.28 C.B. Ingram invents the Insulated Link, Patent # 2,897,257

59.09.00 Elkins, Sam S. “Crane Booms v. Powerlines”, National Safety News, NSC:

Pg. 121 lists several types of electronic warning devices, crane boom guards, andinsulated hooks.

1960’s The military transition of handling bulk supplies included the use of cranes. Untilolder WWI and WWII supply depots could bury or relocate powerlines, they hadconsiderable success in preventing powerline contacts with boom cages, insulatedlinks, and proximity alarms. These experiences prompted many of the followingmilitary orders for the use of safety appliances.

See 62.03.00, 64.02.00, 64.02.04, 65.10.01, 66.10.01, 67.01.00, 69.07.28, 69.10.01,70.04.20, 73.12.00, 74.01.00

1960 “Survey of Contacts with Overhead and Underground Electrical Lines (out of 95replies received): 1958 National Safety Council Newsletter # 112.03-07030

60.02.09 F.E. Barnes invents the Insulated Tension Link and Method of Making Same, Patent# 2,924,643

60.03.15 William C. Burnham invents the Electrically Insulated Link, # 2,928,893

60.08.23 Arthur J. Thomas invents the Crane Boom Guard Attachment, Patent # 2,950,016

61.06.20 Arthur J. Thomas invents another Crane Boom Guard Attachment, Patent # 2,989,194

62.03.00 U.S. Department of the Air Force, Dept of Defense, T.O. 36C-1-4: ElectroductionProtective Devices for Cranes and Shovels: Requires the use of di-electric boomshield and insulated link for all cranes dispatched for use in the vicinity of high-voltage powerlines.

63.08.00 Construction Safety Standards, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of theInterior; P 9.1.11C:

“An automatic warning device has been installed on the equipment and used togetherwith the utilization of a signalman to warn the operator when the equipmentapproaches the 10-foot clearance.”

63.08.13 Stuart A. Coffey invents the Crane Boom Life Guard, Patent # 3,100,575

18

1964 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 5th Edition, NSC: 18-24:

“Electronic Devices are available that can be attached to the boom and will sound analarm if the boom comes within a predetermined distance from a live wire.”

“Boom guards of wood or of pipe mounted on 15-kv insulators provide mechanicalprotection against contact.

If a crane boom contacts a conductor, the hazard is greatest to the hook-on man andothers who may touch the load or the sling. To protect these men, a commerciallyavailable load hook with an insulated link can be used.”

1964 W.E. Rossnagel, (Consulting Safety and Fire Protection Engineer) Handbook ofRigging for Construction & Industrial Operations,” 3rd Edition

Pg. 228: “There are on the market several types of electronic devices intended to bemounted on the top of the boom. Such devices will sound an alarm or stall an engineif brought within a pre-determined distance from an energized electrical conductor.”

64.02.00 Department of the Army, Cir, 385-1 Safety: Provide a di-electric boom shield andinsulated link in lifting line above the hook.

64.03.17 Daniel R. Winters invents the Proximity Alarm, Patent # 3,125,751

64.02.04 Cir 385-1 “Use of Cranes, Crane Shovels, Draglines, and Similar Equipment NearElectric Powerlines” Headquarters, Department of the Army

“3 a. The most feasible means of reducing the probability of electrocutions andinjuries as a result of crane booms and their loads contacting energized powerlines isto equip the crane booms with dielectric shields and to install insulated swivel links inlifting above the hooks.

4. Commanders will analyze Army crane operations, accident experience, and theelectrocution potential of the equipment involved and will apply such of thefollowing safeguards as are required to insure safe operations:

a. Provide a dielectric boom shield and an insulated link in the lifting lineabove the hook.

b. De-energize powerlines whenever equipment is working close to the lines.

c. Notify the operating utility when cranes are to be used in close proximity toenergized powerlines.

d. Ground the frames of cranes operating in close proximity to energized powerlines.”

65.02.02 H.W. Volberg invents another Proximity Alarm, Patent # 3,168,729

65.10.01 “Memorandum for Record” Directories of Research , Development, and Engineering,U.S. Army Military Equipment Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Discusses Ely Mechanical Boom Swing Limiting Devices and SigAlarm™: “[RangeLimiting Devices] provides a positive stop when the stop blocks are set and does notinterfere with operation when the stop blocks are removed from the ring.”“SigAlarm™- If properly set, this unit can provide warning upon approach to apowerline.”

66.07.12 H.J. Hirtzer invents the Insulated Connector and Method, Patent # 3,260,796

19

66.10.25 T.O. 36C-1-4: “Electrocution Protective Devices for Cranes and Crane Shovels”Published under the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force

2 a. “A dielectric boom shield and insulated link in the lifting line at the hook willprovide approximately 90% protection to personnel working with the equipment inclose proximity to high tension electric wires.”

3 c. "Only cranes and crane shovels equipped with the protective device will bedispatched to operate in the vicinity of high tension lines.”

1967 A Safety Handbook for Mobile Cranes, The Royal Society for the Prevention ofAccidents and Institute of Material Handling (Most respected and prestigious safetygroup in Great Britain)

“There are available on the market, proprietary devices designed to give a warningwhen the crane jib comes within a predetermined distance of the power cables. Thesedevices are attached to the head of the jib and in one case, the device actually cuts offthe crane power and prevents its further movement.”

67.01.00 Department of the Army, TB-385-101 Safety: Instructions to equip crane booms withdi-electric shields and links.

67.01.03 A. Stenger, Jr., et al receive a patent for the invention of “Voltage ResponsiveDevices and Methods of Voltage Detection”, first filed on June 24, 1963; Patent #3,296,494

67.03.00 EM-385-1-1, General Safety Requirements, Corps of Engineers, Department of theArmy, P 15.E.09: “Anytime it is necessary to operate a boom-type equipment wherethere is a capability of encroachment on specified clearances, the boom shall beequipped with an insulated cage guard and an insulating link shall be installed on theload line.”

1968 USAS B30.5, Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes, AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers, (American National Standards, now known asANSI)

5.3.4.5b: “Cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warning devicesmay be used on cranes.”

68.04.04 A latticework crane boom was pointed directly underneath a live 7,200 V powerlinethat the electric utility lineman failed to disconnect. A worker lost his right arm andsustained other mutilations when he released the lifting hook from a 60” culvert,causing the boom to raise three feet into a powerline. An insulated link could haveprevented injury. See Appendix A-1

This case was among the start of a trend that addressed a third party’s duty and abilityto ensure for a safe workplace by de-energizing a powerline to prevent a crane boomcontact when placing culvert pipe under a powerline.

68.05.20 “Contacting Overhead Electrical Powerlines”—Mobile Cranes Technical Bulletin #1(Study by Liberty Mutual)

Discussed Proximity indicators, boom enclosures, and insulated links as safetydevices.

20

1969 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 6th Edition, NSC:

Pg. 430: “Another device that reduces the hazards involved in crane contacts withelectric lines is a cage-like insulating guard that can be attached to the top side of theboom. Also available is an insulated safety link that can be installed between the loadhook and load attachment cables, or the line hook and sling, to provide protection tothe hookup men.”

Pg. 560: “Electric devices are available that can be attached to the boom and willsound an alarm if the boom comes within a predetermined distance from a live wire.This equipment is subject to failure and should be used only when it is absolutelyimpossible to maintain minimum clearances, barricade, or de-energize powerlines.”

“Boom guards of wood or of pipe mounted on 15-kv insulators provide mechanicalprotection against contact.

“If a crane boom contacts a conductor, the hazard is greatest to the hook-on man andothers who may touch the load or the sling. To protect these men, a commerciallyavailable load-hook with an insulated link can be used.”

Pg. 1566: “When a mobile crane must be operated near electric powerline, the powercompany should be consulted to determine whether the line can be de-energized.Many fatalities have resulted from contact with powerlines, and often the powercompanies’ service is seriously disrupted. Various states have enacted legislationdistances which booms and cables must be kept from powerlines. A minimum of tenfeet is often specified; however, the recommendations of the power company and thelegal requirements of the state should be observed.”

Pg. 1567: “No load may be lifted or moved without a signal. Where the entiremovement of the load cannot be seen by the operator, as in lowering a load into a pit,a signalman should be posted to guide him.”

1969 “Electrical Work Injuries in California” Division of Industrial Safety, State ofCalifornia Human Relations Agency, Department of Industrial Relations

This table reports the total number of accidents involving contact with overhead high-voltage lines through equipment from 1960-1969 at 572 in the state of California,with 160 of them fatal. However, we can extrapolate from disclaimers on otherstudies that this number represents the bare minimum of occurrences.

1969 “A Survey of Non-Employee Electrical Contacts” (Pamphlet), Research Committee,Utilities Section, NSC

Detailed Statistics: Fatal- Crane/Boom = 185, Well Drilling Rig = 25, OtherEquipment =186, Total =396 Fatalities; Non-fatal- Crane/Boom 826, Well DrillingRig = 110, Other Equipment = 593

Fatalities occurred in about 20% of all occurrences.

Fatalities: 396, Non-fatal: 1529, Total: 1925

69.07.28 Directorate of Research, Development, and Engineering, U.S. Army MobilityEquipment Command, Fort Belvoir, VA

Investigation of Dielectric Boom Shields , Hook Insulator Proximity Alarms,Grounding Shields, et al.

21

69.10.01 SMEPB-RDE-KM “Directorate of Research, Development and Engineering: U.S.Army Mobility Equipment Command, Fort Belvoir, VA”

5 b. SigAlarm™: “If properly set, this unit can provide warning upon approach to apowerline. The reliability of the system depends upon the electrical circuits, sincethere are no mechanical parts. The test circuit provides a quick check of the systemintegrity. The exterior howler alarm might prove difficult to hear in a constructionarea, however, it was audible to all personnel in the test area, with the crane enginerunning.”

1970 Though the city highway moving permit required the involvement of the electricutility companies while towing a house through city streets with a trailer, no electriccompany personnel appeared at the appointed time, and one of the men moving thehouse was electrocuted when he attempted to use a stick to improve clearance for thehouse. See A-2

This case illustrates the diversity of opportunities that involve powerline contact andthe need for communication and follow-up between contractors and the third partyparticipant. Cooperation is necessary to ensure for a safe workplace.

1970 Hauf, R., “Requirements For Grounding Practices and Standards- The Revision ofReport 479”

This is a detailed study that examines duration and intensity of electrical shock todetermine the effects of both factors on the human body. Though many factors, suchas where the shock occurred on the body and condition of the skin, yielded differingresults, the report states that frequencies as low as 50/60 Hz are enough to causefibrillation in some cases.

70.04.20 AMSME-Z: Dielectric Safety Shielding for Military Cranes and Booms,Commanding General, U.S. Army Material Command:

“The primary conclusion drawn from the investigation of crane electrocutionaccidents was that no “add-on” safety device can replace or minimize the need forproper action by crane operators, linemen, and supervisors.”

Note: This observation fails to include the experience of AMC in the 1950’s whenupdating their supply Depots, which required manual handling of their militarysupplies, to using cranes. At the time these warehousing streets were covered inpowerlines as thick as cobwebs, which seriously impeded he use of cranes. Until suchtime that powerlines could be relocated or buried, AMC successfully avoided cranepowerline contact injuries with boom cages and insulated links.

22

70.05.27 Research Laboratories: Ottawa, Canada, Division of Radio and ElectricalEngineering:

“Tests on Crane-Truck Mounted High Voltage Protection Devices”

(I) Miller 25 Ton Swivel Insulator Link & (II) Electrowarn overhead powerlinedetector.

Results: (I) “Water was poured over the link so as to wet the surface as much aspossible and the test was repeated. Corona was observed on some of the water dropsbut no breakdown occurred.

(II) “The warning device functions as described in the literature but its usefulness islimited by the fact that it only detects the proximity of a powerline to one point of thecrane.”

Note: This report overlooks the fact that the insulated links are a redundant back-upsafety device and the proximity alarm was developed just to warn of the presence of apowerline and was not designed to be a measuring device to identify the clearancefrom a powerline.

70.07.20 One worker was killed, one injured and one permanently disfigured with the loss ofthree limbs when their truck mounted crane struck a mid-span, 35,000 V powerlinewhile guiding a pipe over an eight foot cyclone fence. Both the property owner andthe electric utility company had keys to unlock the gate to the property, but did notcommunicate well enough with the construction crew. See A-3

In this case Robert Jenkins, retired chief of safety for the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, related his experience of extending the 6ft thin air clearance to 10ft, achange that did not reduce injuries from crane powerline contacts. He further testifiedthat the use of both links and a boom cage did reduce injuries from crane powerlinecontact by approximately 90 percent. See trial testimony of 1972.

1971 “Electrical Work Injuries in California” Division of Industrial Safety, State ofCalifornia Human Relations Agency, Department of Industrial Relations

This table reports the total number of accidents involving contact with overhead high-voltage lines through equipment from 1962-1971 at 594 in the state of California,with 150 of them fatal. It appears that approximately 25% of powerline contacts arefatal.

71.03.16 August C. Clark, Charles Christianson, Julius Kaminetsky, Edward P. Duffy inventanother Insulated Connector and Method, Patent # 3,571,492

71.02.00 Proposed Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Bureau of LaborStandards, U.S. Department of Labor, Construction Safety Act, Subpart N: Cranes,Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors, 1518.550, (v):

“Cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warning devices may be usedon cranes, but the use of such devices shall not alter the requirements of any otherregulation of this pare even if such device is required by law of regulation.”

71.05.00 Occupational Safety and Health Standards; National Consensus Standards andEstablished Federal Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety andHealth Act, 1910.180 (j) (2):

“Boom Guards. Cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warningdevices may be used on cranes, but the use of such devices shall not operate to alterthe requirements of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.”

23

1972 Court Transcript of Theodore M. Leigh (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: seeAppendix A-3)

Cross-examination by Mr. Ozmon, Pg. 354, Ln. 1649:

“My name is Theodore M. Leigh and I live in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have been anemployee of Link Belt a total of 29 years and presently am the manager of ProductSafety. I am both an electrical and mechanical engineer and was previously theAssistant Chief Engineer. Research and development is not in my department but isin the engineering department. As a staff member, I have direct communication withthat department. I am the Link-Belt man who makes recommendations on safetyprograms and fall within my particular job on behalf of Link Belt. I have been awarefor over 20 years of a problem relative to crane boom contacts with electricaltransmission lines, which often result in injury and death. I am aware that the cranesLink-Belt manufactures are to be used on some occasions in an area where there areoverhead energized electrical lines.

I’ve also been aware at least 10-20 years, in my position at Link-Belt, of devicesdeveloped in relation to this problem. The three major types of such devices are: Aform of cage which had dielectric properties for use on the upper end of the craneboom; a link, and a proximity device. I have never on behalf of Link Belt obtainedone of the cage-type de ices for testing and examining it myself. In the variouspositions I have held at Link-Belt, I have never obtained and brought there for testingand examination any of the types of devices known as a link or a proximity device. Ihave never personally seen a cage-type device, a boom or crane guard, nor a link, nora proximity device. I have never requested or caused any other type of testingorganization to test any boom guard, link, or proximity type device. When suchtesting is indicated, its initiation by either Link-Belt or an outside organization wouldfall within my province as Manager of Product Safety. It would not be a fairstatement at all to say that my research on behalf of Link-Belt into the problem ofcrane boom contact with energized lines has been limited to the accumulation ofliterature of the various manufacturers into a Link-Belt file. You would have to gomuch farther than adding ‘and possibly the looking into some of the specifications ofsome of the items’, before I would agree to that statement.”

Court transcript of Robert Jenkins; Recross examination by Mr. Davidson, Pg. 357,Ln 3382

“I sent this letter out on the date it bears, March 10, 1971, with copies to Mr. Strnad,the president of the company, Theodore Leigh, Cozad and many others in the usualcourse of company business. I expressed the view at that time there was a need forwarning the operators against electrical hazards. I stated that not putting on thesewarnings would only increase the possibility of additional accidents that might beavoided if due warning were given.”

Cross-examination by Mr. Ozmon, Pg. 368, Ln. 1732: “Plaintiff’s exhibit 91 forIdentification has the appearance of a dielectric link. This is the type of item Iinitiated testing on within the Corps of Engineers when I became aware of it in the2950’s. Those would be for tests of the manufacturer’s claims of the dielectric abilityof the particular substance which they were made of. There were also tests of itsstrength since it was going to be in the load line.”

Ln 1740: Mr. Ozmon: “Mr. Jenkins, as we recessed I was about to ask you toconsider your background and your experience, your knowledge as a safety man for agood number of years in relationship to some facts I would like to have you assume,and if you will just listen to these facts for a few moments and then I will ask you aquestion based on those facts. I would like to have you assume back in the year of1970, assume a crane in operation, a crane with a thirty-foot boom. Assume on aparticular morning in July that this crane was being operated in close proximity to anoverhead

24

continued energized 34.5 kV line. Assume that in this operation that there was required by thiscrane the picking up of certain metal, steel pipes, and that these pipes were beinglifted by means of a metal choker with hooks that went into the ends of each pipe andthen the choker lines back to the hook at the end of the load line. Assume that therewere three men on the ground holding this load, one man at the end of the metal pipeand two men at the other end of the metal pipe all with their hands on the loadguiding and directing as movement was being made by the operator, that in thecourse of this movement the boom swung and the boom either came in contact withthe 34.5 energized line or it came close enough that there was an arcing, and assumethe contact point is-looking at Plaintiff’s exhibit #24- here, here and here on this itemat the very head of the boom. Assume that is the contact point. Assume by thiscontact that there was transmission of current down the load line into the bodies ofthese three men handling the load. Now, assume one other fact. Assume as inPlaintiff’s Exhibit 86 that there had been within the design of that crane a boom cageor boom guard similar to that which appears within this Plaintiff’s exhibit 86, andassume that that cage had been in good operating order, and assume that it had goodoperating dielectric insulators. Do you have an opinion as a safety man in relationshipto the construction industry as to whether the presence of that boom cage within thedesign of the crane would or would not have prevented the transmission of the currentI referred to down the load line and into the bodies of the three men?

A: “Yes, sir, I do.Q: What is your opinion relative to that?A: “It would have prevented it.”

Q: “I would like to have you assume those same facts again up to the point as to whenI asked you to assume the presence of a boom cage in the design of the crane.Assume all the same facts and assume the contact, assume the transmission down theload line and into the bodies of the men. Now assume that there was present withinthe design of that crane a dielectric safety link within the load line, assume that if youwill. Do you have an opinion as to whether the presence of the dielectric safety linkwithin the design of the crane would or would not have prevented the transmission ofthe electric current down the load line and into the bodies of the three men?

A: Yes, sir, I do.Q: What is your opinion on that, Mr. Jenkins?A: It would have prevented it. There are four major categories if safety devices inrelation to this electric contact problem: the boom cage type, the safety link, the alarmtype and the line hose. Electro Alarm and SigAlarm are the two major manufacturersof the alarm type. The link and cage are designed to prevent transmission of electricalcurrent if there is a contact. The alarm is a warning type of system rather thanprevention. I am acquainted with the alarm of proximity type device. As Director ofSafety for the Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army, I have initiated tests of themanufacturers’ claims regarding this device.Pg. 379, Ln 1781“The proximity device requires a setting. This gets it into the area of human errorwhich I was talking about. The Corps of Engineers require the device I was talkingabout only when working in the vicinity of overhead energized wires. Wheneverpossible, one of the requirements was to de-energize the powerlines and another wasto notify the operating utility when cranes are to be so used. When working with thecontractors, we have the preliminary conference advising them to get in touch withthe power company. One of the insulating links rates up to 50,000 V. Fifty or sixtythousand is the highest. There are many power transmission lines in the country thatwill exceed that. You can’t tell by looking at a line whether it has that much voltageor not. If a man is operating a crane in the vicinity of a high powerline instead ofbeing 34 or 50 is 100,000 or 200,000 volts, the insulating line doesn’t provideprotection for the men holding the load. It only provides protection for the capacity it

25

Continued is designed for and would arc right over it. If a man working in the area of a highpower line with an insulated on there has got a long boom, if the line itself above thelink hits the wire, the wire is energized. The link takes care of what is belowassuming it is below those voltage limits. For the boom guard, the little cage, toprotect the underside of the boom, you have to get an underside section. Normally,it’s on the top if you want protection. If you have a long boom and are working upthere, you might hit it with the end or you might hit it underneath. Then everything isenergized if you don’t have the guard underneath.

Pg. 380, Ln 1786: “If you have an insulated link and the tip of the boom hits apowerline- let’s assume it’s a high power line under 50,000 V because we know if it’sup to 100,000 it will flip over anyway- and the men are holding a long load that isswinging around and touches the crane, the crane is metal of course and the load willbecome energized. The safety link isn’t provided for that purpose. You can get acontact by touching the crane or if you energize the load through any means.Recognizing that the crane operator has to operate it and do other things, thesignalman’s function in the vicinity of high power lines is to watch that the cranedoesn’t get that close. There are usually two signalmen on a job. One signals theoperator from the point of operation. He stands where he can observe the menhandling the load, or he may be handling it himself, but he is the one who tells theoperator when to lift and so forth. The other signalman is the watcher whose job andwhat he is paid for is to see they don’t get too close to the wires. The Corps ofEngineers could not justifiably see requiring a contractor to pay for something whereyou could get better protection not involving human factors for a couple of month’swages. A couple of month’s wages would protect the crane for the next eight years. Ifthe work is for a couple of days, it wouldn’t be worth his time to stand there andguide these men. It was partial protection. We have found there is a great reliabilityfactor. This is a man out there in a very boring situation with nothing else to do,looking up all the time with clouds going over, they get so dizzy they are incapable ofdoing it. When the crane isn’t moving, he goes under a tree and sits in the shade anddoesn’t do his job. The foreman on the job is another thing.

Cross Examination by Mr. Peterson Pg. 381, Ln 1790

“It’s very difficult for either a crane operator or a signalman to see the preciserelationship between the end of the boom and an energized overhead wire. That isone of the reasons I said an operator or a signalman is not as reliable as a sole meansof protection. I didn’t say earlier that the ANSI standards were inadequate. I wouldconsider any standard that relied solely on the operator or the signalman inadequatebased in my experience. I observed many times that power companies patrol theirlines when cranes are in close proximity and have taken this action whether notifiedor not because electricity can kill so quickly.”

1972 “Electrical Work Injuries in California” Division of Industrial Safety, State ofCalifornia Human Relations Agency, Department of Industrial Relations

This table reports the total number of accidents involving contact with overhead high-voltage lines through equipment from 1963-1972 at 587 in the state of California,with 141 of them fatal.

Note: Again it appears that 24% of powerline contacts are fatal.

72.04.04 James L. Grasby invents the Guard for Insulating Booms, Patent # 3,653,517

26

1973 A lineman lost several fingers in phase to phase contact when the uninsulated aerialbasket he was being lifted in approached a powerline. See A-4

This case addressed the use of insulation to ensure that equipment was safe for itsintended use.

73.03.00 “High Voltage Proximity Warning Systems—Colorado River Storage Project”Memo, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior: Found that proximityalarms provide an excellent alarm system.

73.05.15 H.W. Volberg invents the Proximity Detector and Alarm, Patent # 3,733,597

73.07.10 H.W. Volberg improves his original Proximity Alarm, Patent # 3,725,549

73.12.00 Military Specification MIL-T-62089A (AT), “Truck Maintenance; With RotatingHydraulic Derrick, Air Transportable, 34,500 pounds GVW, 6X4,” U.S. Army TankAutomotive Command, Department of Defense: 3.6.12:

“Proximity warning device. When specified (see 6.2), an automatic electronicwarning device that sounds an audible alarm as the derrick approaches energizedpowerlines shall be furnished..”

1974 The mid-span, 7,200 V powerline was in the blind zone of the large crane, and aworker was severely burned when the operator backed into a powerline while he wasattaching a load to a lifting beam. See A-5

This case shows both the diversity of equipment that can contact powerlines andinherent blind zones, and highlights the need for safety appliances such as aninsulated link between the headache ball and the hook so that the lifting beam issuspended. In addition, proximity alarms to provide warning of danger of powerlinecontact if removal of the powerlines from the work area cannot be accomplished.

1974 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 7th Edition, NSC; 691: “cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warning devices may be used oncranes, but the use of such devices should not operate to alter the requirements asspelled out above.”

“If a boom contacts a conductor, the hazard is greatest to the hook-on man and otherswho may touch the load or the sling. To protect these men, a commercially availableload hook with an insulated link can be used.”

74.01.00 T.O. 36C-1-4, Electrocution Protective and Proximity Warning Devices for Cranes,Crane Shovels, and Line Maintenance Derrick Trucks, U.S. Air Force, Department ofDefense: 2.SCOPE a.: “A dielectric boom shield and insulated link in the lifting lineat the hook will provide approximately 90% protection to personnel working with theequipment in close proximity to high-tension electric lines. Installation of the boomshield only, will provide approximately 60% to 70% protection against electricalaccidents. This insulated link at the hook provides approximately 30% protection,primarily to personnel handling the load being lifted…”

b: “A proximity warning device will also enhance optimum operator safety and maybe installed on referenced type equipment instead of the dielectric shield.”

27

74.01.02 Chart: “Powerline Contact Protection” and explanation of chart presented in a studyby Grove Manufacturing Company

Evaluates the effectiveness of appliances such as proximity warning devices,insulated links, insulated boom cages, combination cage and links and compares themwith methods such as de-energizing or relocating powerlines. The study finds anyappliance less effective than the practice of powerline relocation or de-energization.

Note: The results of this study are absolutely correct. There are no foolproofmeasures to avoid powerline contacts except relocation and de-energization.However, for times when these measures are impossible to achieve, safety appliancesprovide an extra measure of safety despite the fact that they are not rated as 100%failproof.

74.01.15 Melville M. Moffet invents the Electric Field Proximity Safety Alarm, Patent #3,786,468

74.08.06 SigAlarm™ Test: Included is a letter from the National Research Council Canada,saying that according to the wishes of the customer they have “blanked out allreference to his name”.

The tests revealed that water inserted in the reel would interfere with the function ofthe device. It is important to note that the reel had been improperly installed upsidedown by the testing agency, where it could collect water.

74.09.03 Alvin H. Wilkenson invents the Proximity Differential Control, Patent # 3,833,898

75.04.11 “Evaluation of Electrical Insulating and Warning Devices for Mobile Cranes”(Volume I) Report to Employers Insurance of Wausau by Packer Engineering

CONCLUSIONS: Insulated Link: “It has been demonstrated that the reliability of alink to insulate the hook and personnel from serious electrical injury is seriouslyabsent when only mild contamination is present.” Note that the manufacturer’sinstallation required the link to be kept clean. Note also that the test only showed theconductivity of unnatural contaminants not normal to the work environment.

Proximity Devices: “The proximity device tested exhibits some more favorableaspects that the devices previously mentioned and further development of thisconcept may ultimately have potential as a safety device for operating cranes. Thispotential should be enlarged upon.”

75.06.15 “Report of the Interaction Between Crane Mounted Proximity Detectors andEnergized Powerline Systems” prepared for Kirkland and Ellis by Jepperson andAssociates

“It can readily be seen that both the SigAlarm™ and Electro-Alarm supply goodprotection except when the boom is above the powerline.”

Note: The boom should never be raised over a powerline, as it intrudes into thedanger zone on each side of the powerline.

75.06.11-20

“Evaluation of Electrical Insulating and Warning Devices for Mobile Cranes” PackerEngineering

This study reveals that electromagnetic proximity warning devices are veryinefficient in warning of three phase conductors.Note: The study failed to show that the boom was raised underneath when parallel tothe powerline, which is an unsafe work location that should always be prohibited bycreating a danger zone, which is present on both sides of the powerline.

28

75.06.30 The hoist line of the crane struck a 7,200 V powerline in the danger zone, resulting inthe loss of a worker’s feet and hands. See A-6

This case was the first to introduce human factors considerations regarding theinability of workers to accurately visually estimate clearance from powerlines and asa basis for the use of safety appliances such as an insulated link to prevent injury andelectrostatic proximity alarm to warn of impending danger from a powerline contact.

75.09.10 “Reduction of Probability of Electrocution During the Operation of Dico MobileMaterial Handlers (Overview Document)” BEI Job Number BE-192-DCDM

“SigAlarm™ is unique in the art of power line monitoring. It is a proven devicewhich has been judged as the only reliable, stable, and acceptable device of its typeby the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation where itis required. The U.S. Air Force has written a Technical Order (T.O. 360-1-4, Jan 26,1974) pertaining to Electrocution Protective and Proximity Warning Devices forCranes, Crane Shovels, Line Machinery, and Derrick Trucks requiring its use whileworking adjacent to overhead powerlines. In addition, SigAlarm™ is cited by theU.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command as a proximity device in MIL-T (AT) datedDecember 15, 1973.”

75.08.22-

76.09.15

Preliminary Report, Harnsichfeger Corporation, Field Test Evaluation, FieldDemonstration of Harnischfeger Crane Style W-350 Equipped with SigAlarm™Proximity Indicator.

“The test procedures which are described in this report make it very apparent that inorder to utilize the proximity indicator, it is necessary for the operator to continuouslygive it his major attention and make readjustments in sensitivity with each newcircumstance brought about by changing the crane’s position or when mobileequipment of high electrical capacitance comes into the operating vicinity.”

Note: Their observation presumes that the proximity device is used to measure theclearance from the powerline. It should be used as a warning device to alert the usersthat they should revise the lifting operation in order to avoid the powerlines.

75.10.14 A worker delivering cattle feed to the farmer’s storage bins was electrocuted whenthe boom of the feed truck struck a powerline near the bins. See A-7

This case illustrates the wide variety of equipment capable of contacting a powerlineand the need for involvement of both electric utilities (cooperatives) for location ofthe powerlines away from the grain storage bins and the equipment manufacturer fora safe design of the feed truck.

1976 Reynolds, Richard L., Informational Report 1035- MESA Informational Report: FieldEvaluation of a Proximity Alarm Device, Mining Enforcement and SafetyAdministration, Department of the Interior

Page 5: “Field tests for a period of six months demonstrated that the device is ruggedenough for mine use and that it does, indeed, operate with a very good reliability.”

76.10.11 A portable auger conveyor violated the danger zone, and was raised into a 7,200powerline, resulting in the deaths of two workers and the serious injury of a third.See A-8

This case illustrated how a portable auger-type grain conveyor can reach overheadpowerlines and the need to remove powerlines from the work area and a non-conductive cover on the conveyor.

29

77.02.00 Wright, M.D. and Davis, J.H., M.D: “The Investigation of Electrical Deaths: AReport of 220 Fatalities” Presentation at the 29th Annual Meeting of the AmericanAcademy of Forensic Sciences, San Diego, CA. Accepted for publication onNovember 30, 1979. R.K.

“Fifty-eight percent of the high-voltage victims [of the domain of the study]contacted an overhead wire with a conductive device such as a crane or derrick.”

The value of this study lies in its detailed explanation of how electrocution occurs andthe measures of amperes at which damage occurs. The “effects” table is as follows:0.001 ampere- barely perceptible tingle0.016 ampere- “let go” current0.020 ampere- muscular paralysis0.100 ampere- ventricular fibrillation2.000 ampere- ventricular standstill20.000 ampere- common household fuse blows

Note: To cause fibrillation of the heart takes .100 amperes, and is well above the .005amperes that activate the ground fault detector.

77.03.11 Letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior to the Corporate Product SafetyCoordinator of Bucyrus-Erie Co., enclosing the results of a proximity alarm testconducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior. SigAlarm™ passed every test byresponding appropriately with audio and visual signals to every situation.

77.04.13 An Electric Utility Lineman was so badly burned by electric current that both armsand shoulders had to be removed. The non-conductive hydraulic hoses had beenreplaced with hoses reinforced with wire mesh. Maintenance instructions did notwarn of the danger of using substitute high-pressure conductive hydraulic hoses.See A-9

This case illustrates the need to ensure for safe maintainability in product designservice manual instructions and conspicuous warnings on the non-conductivehydraulic fluid hoses.

77.06.01 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1; General SafetyRequirements Manual

01.A.03 “Prior to commencement of work at a job site, an accident preventionprogram written by the prime contractor for the specific work and implementing indetail the pertinent requirements of this manual will be reviewed by designatedgovernment personnel. The prime contractor’s program will include work to beperformed by his subcontractors.”

This requirement first published in the North Pacific Division, which was pioneeredby the Portland, OR District Corps of Engineers and quickly spread throughout theregion. It is a breakthrough regulation in delegating specific authority to ensure forsafety and accountability. See 58.08.00

15.I.17 “When materials or equipment are stored under energized lines or nearenergized equipment, applicable clearance shall be maintained as stated in Table 15-1and extraordinary caution shall be exercised when mobbing materials near suchenergized equipment.

30

77.07.06 A latticework crane backed into highway powerlines parallel to the highway it wasworking on. The man guiding the gravel bucket with his hands was electrocuted whenhe was unable to see that the pinup lines of the boom were going to strike the 7,200 Vpowerline mid-span. Either an audible warning from a proximity alarm of thepresence of an insulated link would have prevented this injury. See A-10

This case indicated the beginning of a trend of defendants to present testimonyalleging lack of reliability of safety appliances such as proximity alarms and insulatedlinks.

77.09.12-15

George S. Allin, Jack T. Wilson, and Richard E. Zibolski, , “A Practical Review ofHigh Voltage Safety Devices for Mobile Cranes” Paper # 770778: Society ofAutomotive Engineers Off Highway Vehicle Meeting and Exhibition

This article provides data and test methods in evaluation on insulators and proximitywarning systems: “These devices are offered as a solution to the problem of cranebooms, loads and load lines accidentally contacting electric power lines. Thisdiscussion shows that insulator devices and electronic warning systems do not solvethe problem of preventing these accidents.”

When testing the insulating link, the testers first cleaned it with laboratory soap andallowed it to dry. “A hook cleaned and tried in this manner performs well even up to50,000 V, the maximum voltage for which it is specified.” When carefullycontaminated by grease, water, soil and salt, “It was shown that the salt and otherionizable contaminant produces a conducting surface which caused spark-over at avoltage of 22,000 V… A hook tested under these conditions broke down electricallyat voltages between 16,000 and 33,000 volts.”

In the tests conducted on proximity alarms: “The first demonstration used the cementtruck and concrete bucket. crane picked up the bucket and then was positioned so theboom was parallel to and a distance of thirty feet from the powerlines. The sensitivityadjustment was set so that if the boom was swung toward the powerline the signalwould rigger when the tip of the boom was ten feet from the line. When the truck wasalongside of the crane, the signal stopped sounding. When the boom was movedcloser to the powerline with the concrete truck remaining stationary, the signal didnot trigger until the sensitivity adjustment was advanced to the maximum setting.”

One of the conclusions stated that “Fields tests for a period of six monthsdemonstrated that the device is rugged enough for mine use and that it does, indeed,operate with very good reliability. If installed on equipment with masts and booms, itwill alert the operators of such equipment to the hazards of overhead lines and has thepotential to prevent contact electrocutions and save lives in the future.”

Note: There no cases in HIFI’s records or in the 50 chosen cases that in any wayresemble the scenario in Prox. Test number 1.

Note: Authored by employees of crane manufacturers, this paper attempted to erodeconfidence in the reliability of safety devices. Though it was written from a biasedpoint of view and based on tests designed to fail, it is still frequently cited as “proof”that safety appliances such as the proximity alarm are unreliable. At the time ofpublication, a number of legal complaints had been filed against various cranemanufacturers for failure to provide safety appliances such as the insulated links andproximity alarms. Because this paper was so widely read, it had the effect of cloudingthe acceptance of insulated links and proximity alarms with doubt.

31

77.09.21 Two workers were burned and one lost his life while guiding a load to be lifted on aconstruction site adjacent to and under energized 7,200 V mid-span powerlines.See A-11

This case indicates that the storage of materials under powerlines should beprohibited.

1978 National Electric Safety Code Interpretations (1961-1977) page 55; request of April11, 1974 clearly addresses the fact that the eighteen foot clearances of powerlines donot apply to construction activities where high-clearance equipment is used.

78.03.00 Morse, A.R. and Griffin, J.P.: “Test s of Mobile Crane High Voltage ProtectionDevices for Department of National Defense” National Research Council Canada

“The SigAlarm™ is no replacement for an alert operator” but “The tests showed thatthe SIGALARM™, when adjusted for a given crane position, was CAPABLE ofbeing adequately sensitive to any change in position of the boom.”

Note: The authors do not under stand that an alert operator is often distracted.

78.03.24 When the hoist line of a crane struck a 7,200 V powerline mid-span, the operator wasinstantly electrocuted because he was able to control the crane from the ground,creating a current path through him. See A-12

This case illustrates the need for operating controls for a crane to be located wherethey cannot be accessible to someone standing on the ground. There are norequirements in ANSI safety standards for overcoming this hazard.

78.05.17 Letter to Mr. Bernie Enfield, President, Construction Safety Training and AssociatesFrom D.E. Dickey, Manager, Research and Development Department, ConstructionSafety Association of Toronto, Canada, stating

“Grounding construction machinery is not an option because a human body is such agood conductor that it will always carry some percentage of the current.”

78.06.07 A maintenance man died when raising a 25-foot boom in the confined space of a coalstrip mine maintenance area and it contacted an overhead powerline. See A-13

This case illustrates the diversity of equipment vulnerable to powerline contact. Italso reinforces the need for design not to make the controls accessible for someonestanding on the ground.

78.10.00 Middendorf, Lorna: “Judging Clearance Distances in Overhead Powerlines”,presented and published in the proceedings of the Human Factors Society AnnualConference

In this study, subjects act as flagmen and try to determine the correct clearancedistance from powerlines from a crane operator’s position and a location whichwould be the flagman’s position. The subjects are all skilled safety professionals andequipment operators with good vision and a minimum of five years relevantexperience. A total of only 15% of critical target clearance judgments were accuratefrom the operator’s position, and only 20% were accurate from the flagman’sposition.

32

1979 Data Sheet # 1-287-79 (Revised) NSC:

“Various alarm devices are available to warn the operator when the boomapproaches too closely to the powerlines. The end of the boom can be enclosed by awooden frame or a pipe frame insulated from the boom to prevent the flow of currentin case of contact. When possible, power lines nearby should be de-energized. Theframes of the equipment should be grounded. The effectiveness of these varioussafety measures, however, vary according to the conditions present.

79.09.09 MacCollum, David V., “Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design” Proceedings ofthe Fourth International System Safety Conference

Reiteration of the breakthrough in system safety sparked by Robert Jenkins and a listof litigation of crane powerline contacts where similar testimony stating the necessityof prevention devices has succeeded in court. “Hopefully, this expertise will beapplied to industrial applications during the next decade to provide the insight whichwill substantially reduce the high incidence of severe injuries and death which isoccurring with increased use of production equipment.”

79.09.09 Wessels, Phillip S.: “Electrical and Mechanical Engineering” Proceedings of theFourth International System Safety Conference

New Technology: “A human contact with a distribution line need not be fatal.Modern solid-state switching and signature recognition techniques can be used toreduce the voltage to a lever that will limit the energy flow to a non-lethal level. Adevice could be designed that would save over 400 lives and 6,000 injuries withoutinterrupting the flow of power.”

79.09.00 Leigh, Theodore M.: “The Construction Machine: Power Line Hazard” ProfessionalSafety, The American Society of Safety Engineers Journal

This article presents an account of the deadly seriousness of the hazard of powerlinecontact, stating accurately: “It cannot be over-emphasized, though, that all electricallines must be considered energized and deadly, regardless of their voltage. The onlytrue safety when charged electrical conductors are involved is distance…. Give anyline whose voltage is unknown plenty of distance: 15-20 feet or more.” Therecommendations to avoid powerline contact presented in this article include strongemphasis on de-energization or relocation of powerlines and erection of physicalbarricades around energized lines to create a danger zone. He recommends the use ofpolypropylene taglines for their non-conductive properties. He condemns the act ofstoring materials underneath energized lines.

He does not believe that safety appliances such as insulated links, boom cages, orproximity alarms can contribute to the safety of the worker because “it is well knownthat any moisture, dust, dirt, soot or other foreign matter on the surfaces on suchinsulators will reduce their insulating properties, sometimes to a very marked degree”as well as the fact that “insulators are rated for certain maximum voltages. Sincepowerline voltages range up to 750,000 volts [570 kV], insulating devices may not beadequate for the voltages encountered.” He denies the effectiveness of proximitydevices by stating that “Passing vehicles, especially with large metal bodies, loadslifted, even the crane booms themselves cause major distortions of such fields. Thisthen requires readjustment of the devices for each position of the boom, load, vehicle,or other variable condition.*”

*This quotation of Leigh’s article is footnoted and attributed to SAE paper # 770778,found in the timeline as 77.09.12-15

33

79.09.18 Letter written on September 18, 1979 concerning the publication discussed in77.09.12-15 to CIMA and the Power Crane and Shovel Association from H.L. White,President of SigAlarm™, Inc. The letter is written in response to the knowledge thatthe members of the association had recently met for the sole purpose of “impeaching”the use of SigAlarm™, even though the company had “never been presented with anydata to support that contention [that SigAlarm™ was unreliable].” The letter submitsdata from third party tests that is favorable to the reliability of SigAlarm™ and offersto donate a unit and an engineer for the purposes of more testing.

79.10.10 Minutes: MADDDC all-member meeting, Des Plaines, IL

Section V A #6: Evaluate Proximity Warning Devices (as a result of Tozers’ reporton crane case in IV-B)

Test proposed 82.04.19 by J. Derald Morgan and Howard B. Hamilton andconducted 82.07.06-09 by the same persons.

1980’s National Electric Safety Code raised their clearances for Sailboats. The NESC is notretroactive; the electric utilities voluntarily raised their lines over sailboat waterwaysto prevent electrocution.

1980 Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 8th Edition; NSC

Pg. 166: “If cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warning devicesare used on cranes, such devices must not substitute for the requirements of aspecifically assigned signal person, even if such devices are required by law orregulation. In view of the complex, invisible, and lethal nature of the electrical hazardinvolved, and to lessen the potential of false security, limitations of the devices (ifused) shall be thoroughly understood by operating personnel and tested in the mannerand at intervals prescribed by the device manufacturer.”

80.01.00 MacCollum, David V., “Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design” ProfessionalSafety, American Society of Safety Engineers Journal

This is a groundbreaking article that introduces the idea of system safety inconstruction. This article compares the idea of “operator error” with the reality of“defective design” and takes steps to isolate and address a list of causes for craneaccidents. Many of these concepts are reprinted in the chapter Crane Design HazardAnalysis in the book Automotive Engineering and Litigation.

80.02.22 “Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices” Phase I Prepared for the U.S.Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines by the Southwest Research Institute,Page 10

“The SigAlarm™ proximity warning device had the greatest dynamic range ofdetectable powerline voltages, had very adequate overlapping sensitivity ranges, usesolid-state circuitry exclusively, operated well in temperatures from -60° Fahrenheitto +160° Fahrenheit, and provided capability for conveniently adjusting the signalline length as the crane boom length was changed.”

“The investigations performed during Phase I of this contract produces the conclusionthat of the three devices tested, the SigAlarm™ device was the most reliable andeffective unit.”

34

80.03.00 White, H.L., President, SigAlarm, Inc “A Critique of: ‘A Practical Review of HighVoltage Safety Devices for Mobile Cranes’ (Published by the Society of AutomotiveEngineers, in the 77.09.12-15 conference as Paper # 70778 by George S. Allin, JackT Wilson, and Richard E. Zibolski”)

“This critique, we believe, will focus on the areas of 770778 wherein objectivity wasabsent, where the results were misinterpreted, or wherein the test performed did notrelate to the ‘real world’.” These remarks contain clarifications and alternativereasoning behind some of the behavior of the SigAlarm™ product. This critique alsoexplains some of the properties of the SigAlarm™ in different words, giving theoriginal paper a more objective perspective.

80.03.21 Letter written to the president of the Society of Automotive Engineers from H.L.White, President of SigAlarm™, Inc.

The subject of the letter is Report # 770778, “A Practical Review of High VoltageSafety Devices for Mobile Cranes”, dated December 15, 1977 (see timeline). Mr.White states that though this report is frequently used as “proof” that proximitywarning devices are unreliable, the report itself is subjective and therefore cannot beused as “proof.” Further, White states that he has “spoken to attorneys who advisethat the authors of this report have had their depositions taken many times and in theopinion of those attorneys the report has been completely discredited as evidence.”

80.04.00 Guidance Note GS6 from the Health and Safety Executive: “Avoidance of Dangerfrom Overhead Electric Powerlines” Health and Safety Executive, Baynards House,1 Chepstow Place, London W2 4TF

1. This note has been jointly prepared by HM Factory Inspectorate of the Healthand Safety Executive and Electricity Boards of England, Wales, and Scotland. Itis a guide to compliance with the Construction (General Provisions) Regulation44 (2) of the Factories Act of 1961.

16. Pre-planning of safe working procedures is essential. In all situations, includingconstruction sites, specific advice will be necessary if vehicles, plant orequipment etc. should be allowed to approach or be worked in any positionwhere it is liable to be within 15 meters of overhead lines suspended from steeltowers or 9 meters in the case of wood poles unless the Electricity Board’srepresentative has been approached for advice. Where the ConstructionRegulations apply, if the lines are not diverted or made dead as indicated belowthen the contractor is required by law to take all practicable precautions byerecting barriers, etc. to comply with the regulations.

20. The precautions required to prevent accidents involving overhead lines which arenot diverted or made dead depend on the nature of the work at that site. There arethree broad categories of work on site:

a. sites where there will be no work or passage of plant under the lines. Herebarriers are required to prevent close approach.

b. Sites where plant will pass under the lines. Here defined passage-ways inthe barriers must be made.

c. Sites where work will be done beneath the line. Here further precautionsmust be taken in addition to the erection of barriers with passageways.

35

80.09.01 Hamilton, Howard B. and Morgan, J. Derald: “Evaluation of Mobile Crane SafetyDevices”

In the summary, the authors of the study utilize the refrain of to much fluctuation inthe electrostatic fields for the devices to be effective. It is true that fluctuation in thefields around powerlines does affect proximity sensing devices, but the repeateddegree to which it affects the tests performed in this instance suggests that the studywas carefully designed to exaggerate the weak points of the proximity alarms, leadingreaders of the study to perceive them as much less reliable than they have beenproven to be in other tests. The exact detail that the authors are careful to document inthe study is impressive to people who are not experts in electrostatic fields, but thedetail exposes the probability that the authors of the study were trying achieve theresults of inconsistency of the devices in order to achieve a pre-purported hypothesis.

Note: The authors had been retained a number of times by various cranemanufacturers as defense witnesses to allege that these devices were unreliable.

80.09.14 A backing forklift was lifting a metal scaffold that struck a 7,200 V powerline mid-span. The scaffold and the forklift were not insulated, and the forklift operator waskilled when he attempted to leave the forklift. See A-14

This case illustrates the myriad of construction methods that create an opportunity forpowerline contact. It also shows the general contractor’s responsibility to oversee thatthe sub-contractor’s equipment is safe for its intended use.

1981 The National Electric Safety Code interpretations (1978-1980) page 77 request of Oct17, 1980 supports that powerline eighteen foot clearance does not apply to oversizehaulage trucks.

Note: Since the clearance is reduced, this amendment enhances the danger ofpowerline contact by oversize trucks.

1981 The National Electric Safety Code ANSI C2 1981, which governs the design ofpowerlines from the generator to the user’s meter, deleted rule 210 and 211 whichread:

210: Design and Construction: All electric supply and communication lines andequipment shall be of suitable design and construction for the service and conditionsunder which they are to be operated.

211: Installation and Maintenance: All electric supply and communication lines andequipment shall be installed and maintained so as to reduce the hazards of life so faras practicable.

Note: This deletion removed an important safety philosophy.

36

81.02.00 Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices, Phase II, Prepared for the U.S.Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines by the Southwest Research Institute.

“The objective of the Phase II program was to develop a microprocessor-based dataacquisition system to collect and measure field strengths at distributed points aroundthe front boom. The developed equipment group (referred to as the DistributedSensor AC Electrometer) is designed to accurately measure the distributed fieldstrength about a crane boom with obvious error.”

“One of the devices, the SigAlarm, used a distributed sensor and displayed significantsensitivity variation with boom orientation. As the boom was rotated from a positionparallel to the powerline to a position normal to the powerline, the sensitivitydecreased severely. To minimize the sensitivity fluctuation with boom orientation,point sensors are recommended.”

82.01.00 Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B.: Final Report on an Evaluation ofMobile Crane Safety Devices to a major crane manufacturing company. This is thefollow-up to the preliminary testing performed in September, 1980.

Note: They were extremely negative against the use of safety appliances such as theinsulated link and the proximity alarm.

82.10.00 Hamilton, Howard B. and Morgan, J. Derald: “Evaluation of Links for SafetyApplications for Simon Ro Corporation, National Crane”

This test series performed on a variety of insulated links purports them to have toomuch leakage to be effective as safety devices. Doubtless, the unknown contaminantsput on the links for test purposes greatly affected their resistance to current. However,in all of the carefully reported test data, the testers make no mention of theingredients in the contaminants or the level of carbon in any of the contaminants, allof which would increase the ability of current to flow through the link.

37

82.10.04 Deposition of Cecil B. Hickman, (# 279080, 250th Judicial District Court of TravisCounty, TX) Hickman initiated the use of SigAlarm™ in order to prevent crane powerline contactthat may cause serious injury or death.Pg. 45, Ln 19- Q: “What types of units did you purchase at that time?A: I purchased a brand called SigAlarm™.Q: Then after you installed them in early 1970- is that what you said?A: We started installing them early 1970- yes sir.Q: How long was it before you actually had all ten units installed?A: Probably two or three months.Pg. 47, Ln 24- Q: Can you tell us how these units performed so far as you wereconcerned after they were installed?A: They done the job for me, sir.Pg. 48, Ln 10- A: We ultimately wound up with somewhere between twenty andtwenty-five units. In 1975 I made another search of the files to see if there had beenany crane contacts from 1970 up to 1975 looking at a ten-year span, five yearsprevious and five years after, and I found no contacts, so in my opinion, they done thejob for me.Pg. 51 Ln 3- Q: What was it that they indicated to you was the reason they had takenthese items off the crane?A: One of the complaints was that they were afraid the operating engineers operatingthe cranes might be lulled into a false sense of security, dependant upon a device that,in their opinion, may or may not work.”Q: Do you place on credence on that concern?A: No, sir.Note: If twenty cranes in Hickman’s fleet used the devices for five years apiece, 100crane years went by without a powerline contact.

82.12.31 Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices, Phase III Bureau of Mines open file report# 100(1)-83 by the Southwest Research Institute

“Analysis of the data indicate that the distances at which a single sensor alarm willactivate vary by a factor of three to 1, due primarily to variations in boom orientation.The results also indicate that in the case of multiple powerlines, a single electrostaticfield sensor cannot reliably be used to determine the distance from a powerline.”“Sensor placement was shown to have an influence on the undesirable sensitivity toboom orientation. In general, sensors located on either side of the boom were muchmore sensitive to crane boom azimuth that were sensors placed on top of the craneboom. In addition, sensors place near the tip of the boom were much more sensitiveto crane boom elevation that were sensors placed near the crane boom pivot point.”“The data analysis showed that under typical combinations of crane boom elevationand crane boom azimuth, a best case performance for a single sensor proximitywarning device would produce alarms for distances ranging from 20’-60’ to thepowerline depending on the combination of crane boom elevation and azimuth.”

Note: Even with a critical analysis the report was able to show that the SigAlarm™was able to detect the presence of powerlines. In an active crane use situation,workers are often distracted and powerlines are camouflaged by trees, not readilyvisible, and their clearance distance frequently misjudged.

38

1983 Bridges, J.E., “Potential Distributions in the Vicinity of the Hearts of PrimatesArising from 60Hz Limb-to-Limb Body Currents,” Ford, G.L.; Sherman, I,A.;Vainberg, M., editors: “Electrical Shock Safety Criteria” Proceedings of the FirstInternational Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria, Pergamon Press, NewYork

This paper expresses the relationship between body weight and current: the moremass on a body, the more current it takes to cause heart fibrillation. In dogs with amass of 5kg (12 lbs), heart fibrillation started at 40 milliamps. In dogs of 25 kg (55lbs) heart fibrillation started at 100 milliamps. Imagine the current necessary to causeheart fibrillation on a healthy, 150 lb man.

1983 A crane was being used to assemble warehouses next to a developing industrial park.On the day of the event, the south entrance, used by the construction crew, had anunconnected distribution line conspicuously displayed nearby. The electric utilitycompany did not inform the crew of any energized lines, though at other parts of thepark the powerlines were already energized. The construction crane contacted anewly energized 7,200 powerline mid-span and severely burned two workers. SeeA-15

This case highlights the need for safety communication between the electric utilitypersonnel and contractors when power distribution systems are being built and theenergized.

83.03.00 SigAlarm™ sales and endorsements: Even with the overwhelming publicizing againstthe use of proximity alarms, a few organizations did make their own workplaceevaluations and installed the SigAlarm™ on a number of their cranes. For a numberof years they all had good results in preventing powerline contact. A listing ofstatistics is available upon request.

83.06.21 A crane was working in an unmarked danger zone with a raised boom being used topick up materials stored under 7,200 V powerlines backed into a powerline. Theoperator, working alone, left the truck cab of the crane to investigate and was badlyburned. See A-16

This case reiterates the fact that storage of building materials under powerlines shouldbe prohibited and introduces the fact that small hydraulic cranes have the highestprobability of powerline contact. The use of appliances such as the electrostaticproximity alarm would enhance operator awareness of overhead powerlines.

39

83.09.23 Cunitz, Robert J. and Middendorf, Lorna: “Problems in the Perception of OverheadPowerlines” Paper Presented at the Sixth Annual International Symposium, SystemSafety Seminar:

This paper explicitly states the problems in accurately gauging and perceiving the dangerpresented by overhead powerlines, summarized as follows:

♦ Most laymen cannot accurately judge the magnitude of the hazard that powerlinespresent, so they do not have the mindset to proceed with the necessary caution

♦ Since people see detail best with their central foveal vision, and powerlines againstthe say or camouflaged by buildings and trees can be a small detail, the powerlinesare functionally impossible to see unless being directly looked at.

♦ In addition to seeing the powerlines, the worker is then asked to form a judgment ofa safe distance. Judging an object’s distance by its relationship to the individual isalso nearly impossible.

♦ Awareness of the proximity of the powerline must be maintained at all times if thehazard is to be managed safely. Usually, everyone involved in the project has othertasks to accomplish, shifting focus away from the danger presented by thepowerline.

♦ The paper included corroborating results from empirical studies and field tests.

1984 The National Electric Safety Code NESC Handbook by Allen Clapp, page 17,indicated the change of philosophy to remove the term “practicability” from the textin section 211, as he believed it led to the extreme requirement of “possibility”:

“The code subcommittees made every effort to emphasize that it is not merelyenough that installation be possible, it must be practical as well- to qualify as arequirement of the code.”

Rule 211 was deleted in the 1981 edition. It stated “reduce hazards to life as far aspractical” and now states: “it must be recognized that it is not only impractical but isabsolutely impossible to provide special clearances or other construction for everylocation where it is possible for a negligent or impaired human to contact a utilityinstallation with a vehicle or with a crane, antenna, metal ladder, extended paint-roller handle, irrigation pipe, portable conveyor, or any other special apparatus. Theoperators or erectors of such apparatus have a responsibility to take special care toavoid damaging, or otherwise interrupting the service of, utility installations or otherfacilities in the vicinity of their work or operations.”

Note: This change shows a blatant disregard for human safety and effectively deniesthe crucial role the electric utility must play in safe construction operations. Thispassage minimizes the responsibility of the electric utility (a deadly force that onlytrained specialists are qualified to handle) and places the responsibility on theoperator of the equipment, a person who has little to do with safety process orprocedure.

1984 “Effects of Current Passing Through the Human Body” Publication 479-1 (SecondEdition) International Electrotechnical Commission:

This study delves into physiological effects such as voluntary let-go and ventricularfibrillation as a function of current through the body. At approximately 50 milliampsfibrillation of the heart may occur.

40

1984 A crane was backing up in order to lower the boom so it could be “safely” drivenforward into an unmarked danger zone underneath the energized 7,200 V powerlinesat the entrance of the site. The operator did not see the powerline behind him whenthe crane struck it. See A-17

This case tells how testing after injury occurrences showed how the electrostaticproximity alarm would have warned all personnel that the crane was being backedinto a powerline. In this case an electrostatic proximity warning alarm was installedon a similar crane several months after the death of the operator and it was found thatthe device would have alerted the workers to the fact that the crane was being backedinto a powerline.

84.07.29 Deposition of Arthur C. Gregr (Case # CI-83-5060, Circuit Court for Orange County,Florida)Pg. 8, Ln 24; Q: Would you tell the jury- first of all, this SigAlarm™ device that youare talking about, is that the same thing as a proximity warning device?A: Yes. That was our trade name.Q: SigAlarm™ is a trade name for a proximity warning device?A: Yes.Q: Would you tell the jury basically what a proximity warning device is?A: A proximity warning device establishes the fact that the hazard exists. It helps youidentify the hazard and it helps you maintain a correct and legal distance away fromthe hazard my monitoring the electrostatic field that surrounds the powerline.Q: Now, what hazard are you talking about?A: The overhead powerlines

Q: What is the theory of how a proximity warning device works?A: Is senses the electrostatic field that surrounds the powerline.Pg. 16, Ln 20; Q: Did you ever see a crane with a proximity warning device beingoperated in a high humidity area?A: Yes, I have.Q: And where was that, sir?A: In Florida.Q: What part of Florida?A: Around the Lakeland area.Q: And did the device work acceptably in a high humidity area?A: Yes, it did.

41

Continued Q: Did you have any complaints from customers who used the proximity warningdevice in a high humidity area?A: No, sir.Q: Did you, in your experience with the company you worked for, ever observe acrane with a proximity warning device being operated in a high dust area?A: Yes. Very definitely.Q: And did you ever note any discrepancy in how the proximity warning deviceworked in a high dust area?A: No, there was no problems with working in that environment at all.Q: Did you ever receive any complaints from any customers who used the device ina high dust area?A: No, not as far as the dust and the dirt affecting the unit’s operation.Q: Have you ever used or seen a crane with a proximity warning device being usedwith other equipment such as trucks being operated between the crane and the high-tension wires?A: Yes.Q: Did the proximity warning device work as it was supposed to work in thatcondition?A: Yes, they did.Q: Did you ever receive any complaints from any customers, any users of theproximity warning device, that it would not work because of interference of a truck orother device.A: No.Q: Does the proximity warning device work effectively with the electrical system ofthe crane?A: You can get some errant interference. However, during your installation, that canbe taken care of with resistors and with other equipment such as that, shielding, as sothat it does not affect the operation of the SigAlarm™.Q: DO C.B. or radio frequency transmissions affect the operation of the SigAlarm™?A: No, sir.Q: Do you understand what the term null area means in relationship to the proximitywarning device?A: Yes, I do.Q: Would you tell the jury what a null area is?A: It is a phenomenon that happens with three-phase powerlines, and underneath,directly underneath or directly above the powerline, the electrical fields are negatedand so you have no electrostatic field directly beneath the powerline or directlyabove.Q: From the study that you company did concerning null areas, are those nullnumbers present in all electrical installations?A: No, they are not.

42

Continued Q: When the null areas do exist, can you tell me where they exist?A: They only exist directly beneath the power line and/or directly above thepowerline. Basically where the two outside wires or two outside insulators are. Itdoes not affect the operation of the power line monitoring system because, numberone, you are supposed to maintain a minimum of ten feet away from the powerline,so you would still be in the electrostatic field outside of the null area. And even if youwere inside the null area, a portion of the antenna would be there to warn you of theelectrostatic field.Q: Do that if a crane with a proximity warning device starts up outside the warningarea and moves to a null area, it will get a warning before it gets to the null area?A: Yes, it will. And, of course, it is considered unsafe crane practices to operate acrane directly beneath or directly above a powerline.Q: And that’s the only place a null area is?A: Yes, sir.Q: Have you ever received any complaints from people who actually used this devicein the field of null area problems?A: Not from customers that were using the units, no.

Pg. 29, Ln 3; Q: While you were in Shady Grove, did you discuss with anyone fromGrove Manufacturing the testing that they had done on the proximity warning device?A: Yes, we did.Q: What did those gentlemen tell you about the testing they had done on theproximity warning device?A: They said testing was favorable.Q: Did they have any complaints at all about the proximity warning device at thatmeeting?A: No, they did not.The next section of the deposition regards a letter written on September 18, 1979 (seetimeline) to CIMA and the Power Crane and Shovel Association from H.L. White,President of SigAlarm™, Inc. The letter is written in response to the knowledge thatthe members of the association had recently met for the sole purpose of “impeaching”the use of SigAlarm™, even though the company had “never been presented with anydata to support that contention [that SigAlarm™ was unreliable].

Pg. 45, Ln 13; Q: And could you tell us what the purpose of that letter was?A: Well, Mr. White, date of September 18, 1979, and the subject was theirparticipation in the studies to impeach the product SigAlarm™.Q: Your company was asking to be allowed to participate in the test?A: Yes, we were.Q: Were you ever allowed to participate?A: No, sir, we were not.Q: TO your knowledge, did you ever get a response to that letter?A: No.Pg. 50, Ln. 1; Q: Let’s move on, if we could, away from the Power Crane and ShovelAssociation Committee and talk about other evaluations that were done by peopleother than Bower Industries of this proximity warning device. Are you aware of otherevaluations that were done during the time frame that you were and employee ofBower Industries and prior to 1977?

43

Continued A: Yes. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conducted a test. U.S. Bureau of Mines, undertheir Mine Safety Enforcement authority, conducted tests. The U.S. Air ForceEvaluated SigAlarms™ and which caused all of their lime maintenance trucksworldwide to be equipped with SigAlarm™ Power Line Monitoring Systems.[see timeline 81.02.00]Q: Let’s take—A: Also, the state of Minnesota initiated a law requiring powerline monitoring systemson all cranes that operated within the railroad environment.Q: And these evaluations all occurred before 1977?A: Yes.

Pg. 57, Ln. 16; Q: The MESA report which you indicated earlier, is that the type ofreport which a person with your experience would rely on in evaluation a proximitywarning device?A: Yes.Q: Would you tell us whether the MESA report was favorable or unfavorable for theproximity warning device?A: It was favorable.Q: You mentioned that there was also a report done by the bureau of reclamation?A: Yes, sir.Q: What type of evaluation was that?A: It was a similar evaluation, and from that evaluation, they require SigAlarm™ orpower line monitoring systems to be installed on cranes in certain work conditions ontheir projects.Q: And can you tell me whether or not that evaluation was favorable or unfavorable forthe proximity warning device?A: It was favorable.Q: You mentioned that there was a technical order by the air force. Is that correct?A: Yes, sir.Q: Can you tell me how that technical safety order came about?A: It is a result of an evaluation done by the U.S. Air Force and for line Maintenancetrucks, and the result of it caused all the line maintenance trucks in the U.S. Air Force,worldwide, as a matter of fact, to have SigAlarm™ installed on them.Q: And then, finally, you mentioned a state law in Minnesota concerning railroads. Isthat right?A: Yes, sir.Q: Now, did that state law concern cranes?A: Yes, sir.Q: What type of cranes?A: All cranes working within the railroad environment. In other words, all cranes, andthat included both high rail cranes, the rails that- I mean, the cranes that worked in therails of the railroads and also cranes working in the vicinity of the rails.Q: Have various other state and governmental bodies accepted the proximity warningdevice as a safety device for cranes?A: Yes, we have approval for the installation and operation of power line monitoringwithin several of those states.Q: Can you tell the judge and jury some of the ones you have gotten approval for?A: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, to name several. Texas.

44

Continued Pg. 59, Ln 24; Q: When did Reynolds Electric in Nevada start to use the SigAlarm™device?A: In 1965.Q: Okay.A: They bought a unit for test and evaluation.Q: When did your sales occur?A: 1970, ’71.Q: Do they use the units now?A: No, sir.Q: Do you know when they stopped using the units?A: I believe it was 1977 when they removed the units from their cranes.Q: Do you know why the units were removed?A: Because it was the opinion of—it was their safety director—that they were notreliable.Q: When did you first learn that Reynolds Electric was having a problem with thesafety device?A: Several—well, I first heard about it in 1975.Q: Did you cause an investigation to occur?A: Yes, I did.Q: What investigation did you do?A: I went to Las Vegas, Nevada, and in the company of our dealer, AmericanEquipment in Las Vegas, want on the test site and visited with several people there.Q: What did your investigation reveal?A: Our investigation revealed that many of the units had been installed incorrectly ontheir cranes.Pg. 61, Ln 12 Q: And would you train the maintenance people?A: Yes, and I talked to the operators and discussed it with various people on the testsite, yes.Q: Was the initial use of the proximity warning device as expected by your company?A: Yes.Q: Were the results favorable to the use of the device?A: Yes.

84.12.14 Deposition of Collin W. Dunnam (Case # 88-043, Twenty-seventh Judicial DistrictCourt, Parish of Landry, State of Louisiana)Dunnam is the contractor’s safety director for the Mercury Atomic Test Site, agovernment facility in Nevada, which performs many tests on atomic weapons. Thesetests usually required the use of cranes that had to be driven (walked under their ownpower) along roadway test sites. Distribution powerlines infrequently crossed theroadways. Powerline contacts occurred when the crane operator failed to see thepowerline in time to lower the boom.Pg. 55, Ln 20- Q: “Did REECo, during its testing of the proximity warning device andits evaluation, discover any particular hazards that may confront a crane operator that’soperating a crane with a proximity warning device on it?” A: “We felt that the operator might have a false sense of security and rely on themechanical device that we felt was not reliable to keep him out of trouble.”Pg. 59, Ln 6- Q: “Have you ever had any contacts with overhead powerlines since youremoved the proximity warning devices off your … cranes?”A: “ Yes sir.”Q: “How many, would you tell me, please.”A: “Two.”

45

84.10.00 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1; General SafetyRequirements Manual 01.A.03

01.A.03: “Prior to commencement of work at a job site, an acceptable accidentprevention plan written by the prime contractor for the specific work andimplementing in detail the pertinent requirements of this manual, will be reviewed bydesignated government personnel. On contract operations, the contractor’s plan willbe job specific and will include work to be performed by subcontractors, andmeasures to be taken by the contractor to control hazards associated with materials,services, or equipment provided by suppliers.”

15.I.17: “When materials or equipment are stored under energized lines or nearenergized equipment, clearance shall be maintained [as in Table 15-1] andextraordinary caution shall be exercised when moving materials near such energizedequipment.

1985 Jack Ainsworth, a U.S. Army Senior Electronics Engineer designed and hadassembled under his supervision some twenty 4-wheel drive surveillance vehicles forthe U.S. Immigration Service. These vehicles transported a night vision system unitthat could be raised on a pneumatic mast capable of reaching overhead powerlines.The surveillance was done at night, and the driver and operator in the cab of thevehicles often functioned without headlights to conceal their presence. TheSigAlarm™, an electrostatic detector, was installed and wired to prohibit the mastfrom raising when the van was parked under or adjacent to a powerline. This programhas had 18 years of successful use with zero powerline contacts.

Note: This is approximately 360 equipment years of the safe use of SigAlarm™.

1985 MacCollum, David V., “Crane Design Hazard Analysis”, Automotive Engineeringand Litigation, edited by George A. Peters, J.D., P.E., and Barbara J.Peters, J.D.,Garland Law Publishing, New York and London

This chapter presents a detailed summary of possible reasons for the continuation ofcrane hazards and lists 20 common equipment failure modes, explaining each indetail and using human factors as evidence. The section on powerline presents chartsdocumenting the alarmingly high death rate of over 150/year of workers by powerlinecontact and reviews the availability of preventive devices such as links and proximitywarning devices.

85.05.28 The operator of a leased crane lost both arms while removing a locomotive motorfrom a train wreck site and contacted a 7,200 V mid-span powerline in the vicinity.The leased crane offered no safety options such as insulated link or proximity device.See A-18

This case clearly illustrates an unequal protection from the hazard of powerlinecontacts, as the railroad companies often equip their cranes with an electrostaticproximity alarm when their contractor’s cranes are unequipped with appliances forwork adjacent to and underneath powerlines. The use of the alarm would createamong operating personnel a strong incentive to call the electric utility company andhave the powerlines temporarily de-energized.

85.07.00 NIOSH ALERT # 85-111: Preventing Electrocutions from Contact Between Cranesand Powerlines

According to data gathered for this paper., there were approximately 2,300 lostworkday occupational injuries in the U.S. in 1981 which resulted form contact withelectrical current by crane booms, cables, or loads, resulting in 115 fatalities and 200total permanent disabilities. This data indicates that 36% of powerline contact injuriesare fatal.

46

85.10.05 The worker guiding a load of pre-cast concrete was injured when the hoist line strucka 7,200 V powerline in an unmarked danger zone. See A-19

This case is a second example of straddle crane powerline contact and the clear needto remove powerlines from the loading area.

1986 A label is developed with explicit warnings of electrocution and an illustration of thedanger zone by David V. MacCollum (See Illustration I)

86.03.16 Deposition of Collin W. Dunnam (Case # A 246122, Eighth Judicial District Courtfor the State of Nevada, County of Clark)

This is an excerpt of deposition by a crane manufacturer’s expert being questioned bythe injured’s attorney.Pg. 82, Ln 14- Q: Did any of these people that you talked to feel that the system shouldnot have been abandoned?A: There was one department manager who had two cranes under his supervision atthat time that felt that the proximity device was a good warning device.Pg. 85, Ln 14- Q: Were the results of your investigation and testing published in anational Journal?A: No,Q: How was it that all of a sudden lawyers from all over the country started calling youabout the results of that test, do you know how the word got out?A: Yes, because, as I explained previously, I was asked to give a presentation aboutour experience with proximity warning devices to a group of attorneys in Chicago.Q: And you believe that’s what started the process?A: I believe it is, yes.Pg. 88, Ln 15-Q: During this eight-year period, when did you become aware that therewere problems with the SigAlarm System?A: As I indicated, the case where we had a contact is one that first started causing me toquestion the effectiveness. Then the --, well, I believe that occurred in March 1977.Then I think in September 1977 is when the representatives from our engineering andoperations equipment departments came to me and asked permission to remove them.Note: These maintenance personnel work closely with manufacturers for the purchaseof spare parts and maintenance services. In such situations it appears that themanufacturers’ service reps could have an opportunity to suggest removal of safetydevices.

86.09.00 Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B., “Field Test of Rayco Detek-Thor”Report Prepared for Grove Manufacturing

“The Rayco Company ‘Detek Thor’ powerline proximity warning device wasrecently introduced commercially. It operates on the principle of measuringcapacitive current (inversely proportional to distance from powerline) rather than theprinciple used by SigAlarm™ and others.”

47

86.09.00 Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B.: “Field Test of Tinsley OverheadPowerline Detector” Report prepared for Grove Manufacturing; Appendix 1& 2

The test results detail the same system flaws for the Tinsley electrostatic fielddetecting device than it does for all other safety appliances: positions of the boomdirectly under the powerlines and over the powerlines do not trigger a constantlysounding signal, and there is a sensitivity discrepancy in certain parts of thepowerline when a power pole crossarms carries lines of different voltages in closevicinity to each other. The study also mentioned that the Tinsley device was not aseasy to program as the SigAlarm™.

This device detects the electrostatic field in which the field strength is proportional tothe flow; the lower the voltage the weaker the field.

Note: These studies, performed by the same people for the same crane manufacturersare contained in the timeline in order to show the regularity and increasing lack ofvalidity of their observations against appliances of this type.

87.10.00 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General SafetyRequirements Manual 01.A.0301.A.03: “Prior to commencement of work at a job site, an acceptable accidentprevention plan written by the prime contractor for the specific work and implementingin detail the pertinent requirements of this manual, will be reviewed by designatedgovernment personnel. On contract operations, the contractor’s plan will be job specificand will include work to be performed by subcontractors, and measures to be taken bythe contractor to control hazards associated with materials, services, or equipmentprovided by suppliers.”15.I.16: No materials or equipment shall be stored under energized bus, energized lines,or near energized equipment, if it is possible to store them elsewhere.15.I. 17: When materials or equipment are stored under energized lines or nearenergized equipment, clearance shall be maintained [as in Table 15.1] andextraordinary caution shall be exercised when moving material near such energizedequipment.15.E.02: All electric power or distribution lines shall be placed underground in areaswhere there is extensive use of equipment having the capability of encroachment on theclear distances specified in 15.E.08

48

87.10.27 Excerpt from the deposition of Collin W. Dunnam (Case # 60483, Iowa District Courtfor Black Hawk County)

This testimony is an example of more false claims and allegations by the defensewitness for a crane manufacturer.

Pg. 35, Ln 14- Q: Okay. Am I also correct that you had a number of powerline contactincidents prior to the time that this evaluation of proximity alarms was made?

A: Between 1965 and 1970, yes, sir.

Q: And how many powerline contact incidents were there during that 5-year period?

A: About ten.

Q: And after the proximity warning devices were put on the crane, How manypowerline contact incidents did you have?

A: Only One.

Q : Am I --, did that involve a crane?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Did the boom come into actual contact with the powerline?

A: I don’t know. It either came into contact or close enough to cause an arc.

Q: Was the proximity warning or alarm on at the time that this incident occurred?

A: The operator wasn’t sure whether it was on or not.

Q: Since the time that the proximity alarms were taken off the crane, have you hadsome powerline contact incidents since that time, or have you not?

A: Yes, sir, we have.

Q: How many have you had?

A: Two involving cranes.

Q: And have you had some other powerline contacts involving other pieces ofequipment other than cranes?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What types of equipment would this be?

A: Forklift and drill rigs.

88.07.00 Suruda, Anthony “Electrocution at Work” Professional Safety (The American Societyof Safety Engineers Journal)

“The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reports approximately 1,000electrocutions of all types each year in the U.S.”

However, there is a fair amount of ambiguity of both the sources and the reliability ofthe statistics. According to the article, heavy equipment was involved in a greaternumber of inadvertent powerline contacts than any other group.

1989 ASME/ANSI Mobile and Locomotive Cranes B30.5:

Includes an illustration of Fig. 17: Radial Distance from Powerlines, which infers thatit is safe for a crane boom to work under or above a powerline. Mentions the use ofcage-type boom guards, insulating links, and proximity alarms as not a substitute forthe 10 foot clearance of 50 kV.

49

1989 “Boom Buoy” 3 Dimensional Range Limiting Device, Rayco System, Ltd.

Brochure on implementation and operation of a high-tech range limiting device. Thisdevice allows the operator to program the envelope in which the boom can bemaneuvered to prevent it from being slued or raised into a powerline.

1989 Price, Dennis L.: “Machinery Operational Safety Near Overhead Powerlines”,published in Hazard Prevention, the journal of the System Safety Society

This article is an in-depth discussion of bodily mechanisms that indicate balance andallow fine-tuned perception. The author goes into great detail regarding the ability ofmost people with normal vision to perceive and recognize overhead powerlines, withsome account of human error. This article also primes the way for a study regardingperception of powerlines, the results of which are released in a later paper.

1989 Paques, Joseph-Jean (IRSST), Michaud, Pierre (Centre de recherche industrielle duQuébec) van Dike, Pierre (Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec)“Development of a Range-Limiting Device for Mobile Cranes”

This piece details development for a more efficient, reliable range limiting device.

1989 Morgan, J. Derald: “Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices for Cranes” NationalAcademy of Forensic Engineers Journal

This is a negative evaluation based on previous research made available for variouscrane manufacturers.

89.07.00 Price, Dennis L.: “The Detection of Overhead Powerlines” Proceedings of the NinthInternational System Safety Conference

Two studies to determine perceptive ability to overhead powerlines were conductedfor this report. One study required the subjects walking toward the powerline at 90°,and 65° while looking at the powerline, and observing powerlines directly overhead.The next study was conducted with a backing truck with a makeshift boom. Thesubjects would act as observers and tell the drivers of the truck where to stop.According to the study, all the trucks stopped before they had crossed underneath thepowerline, leading to the conclusion: “Observers, who are attentive to the presence ofoverhead powerlines can detect the line location sufficiently to remain clear.”

Note: He fails to mention that crane operators and signalmen can be “distracted” byperforming the job at hand. It is impossible to focus on a task and keep constant viewof the powerlines. In addition, even in the study, though nobody crossed under apowerline, as it is known that many violate the ten foot “thin air” clearance requiredby law while working in the vicinity of powerlines.

89.07.24 An operator was seriously maimed when he slued the boom of the flatbed crane into a7,200 V powerline. The controls were attached to the crane with an electric tether,allowing him to operate while standing in a dangerous position on the ground. Themanufacturer of the crane had faced similar lawsuits for malfunctioning control boxesthat disobeyed the commands of the crane operator, often resulting in serious injuryor death. See A-20

This case summarizes a number of similar occurrences with the use of remotecontrolled controls on a wire tether. These controls should be outlawed, as the craneand the operator are in direct jeopardy in the boom strikes a powerline.

1990’s The manufacturers of sailboats began installing insulating plugs in their masts toprevent electrocution.

50

1990 Karady ,G.G., “Efficiency of Insulating Link For Protection of Crane Workers” ,published by the International Society of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)90 SM 338-4 PWRD:

“The paper concludes that in spite of the shortcomings, the insulator link increasesthe safety of the crane operation. Furthermore, the developed model and calculationmethod can be used for the evaluation of new crane insulator systems.”

Note: The paper concludes that in spite of minor milliamp current leakage orflashover at high voltages, there are none at 7200 volts, which constitutes 90% ofpowerlines. The shortcomings, the insulator link increases the safety of the craneoperation. Furthermore, the developed model and calculation method can be used forthe evaluation of new crane insulator systems.

90.02.23 A seasoned foreman was using a flatbed truck mounted crane to unload steel formsfor concrete paving for a new freeway with powerlines running parallel along oneside. He did not suspect the presence of a single- phase 7,200 V powerline crossingthe road, and died of electrocution when the crane boom contacted it mid-span. Afterthe incident, Mr. Andrews, the contractor Fred Weber, Inc.’s vice-president of safety,immediately purchased a proximity warning device for every crane in his fleet. In anaffidavit given on December 29, 1999 (for the case listed in A-27), the same Mr.Andrews talks about the usefulness and life-saving properties of proximity devices.See A-21

This case illustrates a reliable and successful use of the electrostatic proximity deviceas a warning system.

90.04.00 Pritzker, Paul E., P.E.: “Stopping Construction Sites from Becoming Killing Fields”Electrical System Design

While researching the death by electrocution of a crane signalman, consultingengineer Paul Pritzker also finds himself researching lifesaving devices such as linksand proximity warning devices. In the article, he mentions information such as thefact that every crane moved onto a navy base must be equipped with proximityalarms, and the fact that there has never been a reported accident on a crane with aproximity alarm installed. He states definitively that an insulated link on the crane hestudied would have saved the flagman’s life, and likens the disuse of such devices tothe absence of life vests in a boat. “While some safety devices are not 100 percent failsafe, it does not mean that they should not be used.”

90.04.09 A gruesome death resulted after five minutes of continuous serious burns when thehoist line of a crane became entangled in a newly energized powerline. See A-22

This case is an example of where the deceased, working alone, was unaware thatutility had energized the powerline. Warning with an electrostatic proximity alarmwould have alerted the operator even though there was no current flow.

51

90.05.22 Testimony of Donald A. Pittenger, Acting Chief of Safety and Occupational Health,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on H.R. 4652: The Construction Safety, Health, andEducation Improvement Act of 1990, Before Subcommittee on Health and Safety,Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives

Pg. 2: “The first Corps of Engineers safety and health requirements manual waspublished in 1941… I also point out that our safety and health requirements manualformed the basis of OSHA’s construction safety and health requirements. Today, withover fifty years of experience backing us, the Corps’ safety and health program is amodel in the construction industry. In 1988, the most recent year for which theBureau of Labor Statistics records are available, Corps contractors (working withinthe United States) had a lost-time accident frequent rate of 1.5- the industry average,6.8, was over four times higher.”*

A key requirement in the aforementioned manual is the implementation of a Pre-jobConstruction Safety Plan. This plan is incorporated into the timeline at 77.06.01,84.10.00, 87.10.00, and 92.10.00 under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety andHealth Requirements Manual.

*These statistics would no longer be considered accurate due to new statisticalprocessing methods.

90.06.13 A workman died while hosing down his dump truck in an area designated forcleaning them. The area contained a 21-foot high 4,600 V powerline in the vicinity.See A-23

This case illustrates the landowner’s responsibility to designate a safe site forwashing any high-clearance equipment. HIFI has on record some 48 otheroccurrences of dump beds raised into a powerline, and undoubtedly there are more.

52

90.11.05 Deposition Excerpt of John H. Crowley (U.S. District Court, State of Kansas, # 90-2159-0) who was employed by the Equipment Manufacturers’ Institute (EMI),formerly known as the Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute (FIEI) as the director ofsafetyRecord deposition on the matter of MACCC/EMIPg 19, Ln 7- Q: To your knowledge, did the MADDDC engineering and technicalcommittee ever develop a reference library for constituent members of MADDDC tohave access to at EMI?A: No, no.Q: Are you aware of whether or not that was ever a recommended project?A: I am not aware. I don’t know that that was.Q: Is there any type of repository for papers, standards, studies, texts, technicalbulletins, and periodicals pertaining to aerial devices that’s ever been put together foruse of the member companies of MADDDC?A: Yes.Q: What is that composition of material identified as?A: Well, I am not sure exactly what the content is or that it contains everything that youmentioned, but there is a repository of information for MADDDC members and thatis—I think it’s called a—syllabus is the word that’s used. It’s a syllabus. If the questionis limited to EMI, then the answer is that nothing was prepared at EMI.Q: Was anything prepared, to your knowledge, for MADDDC that is the equivalent ofa repository of papers, standards, studies, texts, et cetera, relative to the thingspertaining to aerial devices?A: Yes.Q: What type of information is contained in that repository?A: My understanding is that is contains standards like ANSI A92 type standards. Itcontains records of closed cases involving aerial devices and digger derricks, I believe.That’s as much as I know it contains.

53

continued Q: When you say it contains records of closed cases, what type of cases are you makingreference to?A: Product liability type cases.Q: Do you know what the period of time that’s included in this record of closed casesis?A: No, I don’t know.Q: Have you personally ever looked at any records?A: No. The Standards part, yes, but not the closed cases.Q: Do you know where these records of closed cases are maintained?A: Yes.Q: Where is that?A: In the office of Lord, Bissell, & Brook, a law firm in Chicago.Q: Would that include the standards that you earlier referenced?A: Yes.Q: Those standards—A: To the best of my knowledge, that’s correct.[Defense council: I object. Mr. Crowley has indicated, except for the standards, he’snever seen this material. I believe he’s now speculating about what might be there andwhere it might be, and I object on that basis because it calls for speculation.]Q: Do you know where at Lord, Bissell, & Brook these documents are contained?A: You mean physically where?Q: Yes, physically.A: No, I don’t.Q: Do you know which lawyer with that firm is responsible for administering thesedocuments?A: At the present time?Q: Yes, at the present time.A: Yes, I do.Pg 23, Ln 1- Q: Are you familiar with any of the various periodicals that may becontained within this repository of reference materials that we earlier referenced ormade reference to in this deposition?A: I don’t know what kinds of periodicals are contained in this syllabus, if any.Q: Does EMI maintain any type of library of publications for use by its constituentmembers? I guess it would be better stated for use by members of its constituentmember councils.[Defense council: That’s been asked and answered, and he said no.]A: That’s true for all of EMI as well as for MADDDC; we have nothing—we are not arepository for information.Pg 31, Ln 20- Q: Maybe I didn’t ask it right. Do you personally know why this separaterepository is maintained at Lord, Bissell, & Brook?A: Well, the membership of MADDDC told us they wanted to do it that way.Q: Did they tell you why they wanted to do it that way?[Defense council: I object to that, and to the extent that this question might call forattorney/client privileged communications, I instruct the witness not to answer.A: I decline to answer on the advice of councilQ: To your knowledge, was their reason related to some advice of council?[Defense council: I am going to object to the question as calling for speculation orconjecture on the part of the witness.]

54

continued A: I decline to answer on the advice of council.Q: As I understand it, your council advised you not to respond to an earlier question asit related to any communications that council may have made to a MADDDC memberthat you would be restating based on my inquiry. My question is now whether or notthe reasons that this information is stored at Lord, Bissell & Brook is the product ofsome attorney recommendation, if you know that.Pg 33, Ln 11- Q: I would like for you to look at what’s been identified as Plaintiff’sexhibit No 11 and identify this document for me please?[Defense council: Before doing that, is that something that was produced at thisdeposition?]Mr. Cherry [plaintiff’s attorney]: Yes.Defense: By Mr. Crowley?Mr. Cherry: That’s correct. Crowley: There are two documents here.Q: [Cherry] Would you identify them by the color of the document?A: One is light brown, and it’s called “Initial Report of Suit” and it’s a form—it showsMADDDC on the top, and it’s a reporting form.Q: Is it a reporting form for accidents and the suits that are produced as a result of theaccident; is that your understanding of what the document is?[defense council: objection]Q: Do you know what the document is?A: Yes, I do.Q: Have you seen the document or something similar to that document before?A: Yes, I have.Q: Is it used by MADDDC constituent members in reporting accidents to somecommittee for MADDDC?[defense council: objection][defense council: objection]A: It’s not used to report any data to any committee of EMI.Q: Do you know what its purpose is?A: Yes, I do.Q: What is that?A: It’s to report information about accidents in which a lawsuit is involved to Lord,Bissell, & Brook.Q: And who is to make that report, if you know[defense council: objection]A: I can only say what our role is as it has to do with this form, and that is to send theform to member companies of MADDDC.Q: That’s what EMI does?A: That’s what we do, and that’s the extent of it. What we do is simply provide a pad ofthese forms to MADDDC members.Pg 37, Ln 1- A [Crowley]: That the MADDDC members use this to report informationthat they know of when there’s a suit.Q; And based on your personal knowledge of this document and where it is to besubmitted, to whom is this document once it is completed to be submitted to?A: To John Haarlow of Lord, Bissell, & Brook.Pg 40, Ln 5- A [Crowley]: The document speaks for itself: Initial report of suit.

55

continued Pg. 42, Ln 6- A [Crowley]: This is a reporting form, and it’s entitled “Report of ClosedCase”, and it’s a blank form with a number of different questions, same as the browndocument we just discussed.Q: And what is your understanding as to the purpose of that document?[defense council: objection]A: I only know what I see here, that it’s to be addressed to John Haarlow, Lord, Bissell,& Brook, which is clearly stated on the first page of the document. I know nothingmore than that.Pg. 42, Ln 17- Q: Are you familiar with the fact that there was accident reporting toLord, Bissell, & Brook prior to the use of this form?[defense council: objection]A: I don’t know.Q: it is my understanding that you began to work in 1978 with EMI?A: Yes.Q: At the time that you first began your position at EMI, did you know whether or notthere was an ongoing accident reporting mechanism for MADDDC constituentmembers to Lord, Bissell & Brook?A: I know that there was a relationship between MADDDC members and Lord, Bissell,& Brook when I first joined FIEI in 1978, but I don’t know specifically whether or notit involved reporting of accidents.

91.01.11 Letter to Mr. Norman C. Hargreaves, Koehering Cranes and Excavators, Inc. fromMr. Timothy J. Pizatella, Chief, Surveillance and Field Investigations Branch,Division of Safety Research, NIOSH

“Based on the NTOF data, it is clear that crane contact with overhead powerlines is aproblem demanding the attention of crane users, crane manufacturers, federal andstate agencies and others interested in preventing work-related electrocutions.”

91.02.00 “Mobile Cranes and Power Lines” National Safety Council Data Sheet I-743 New 90Safety and Health

“The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations…in 29 CFR, 1926.550(a)(15)-…. Mentions the use of cage boom type guards,insulating links and proximity warning devices…”

“The important thing is to call the electric utility company early during the prebidplanning stage. At that stage you will know (1) if the powerline can be de-energized,or (2) if other precautions will be needed during the job.”

“When construction is to start, there should be a meeting of property owners, generalcontractors, subcontractors, the supervisor of crane operations and any otherresponsible entities and the electric utility. They need to discuss possible hazards andagree on measures necessary to ensure that equipment will not be exposed toaccidental contact with energized powerlines. When any crane lift or other operationis to be done near energized powerlines, the crane operator or job supervisor shouldadvise the electric utility and should take whatever steps are necessary to ensuresafety throughout the project. Storage under powerlines of any equipment or materialthat might be lifted by a crane should be prohibited. A job safety analysis can beconducted for the anticipated crane operations.”

“The operator may be unable to maintain the required clearance by visual meansbecause the human eye is not capable of judging with any degree of accuracy thedistance to a smooth horizontal wire in space.”

56

91.02-03.00

“Do Insulated Links Help?” Lift Equipment: Yes- Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Plaintiff’sattorney; No- J. Derald Morgan, defense witness

Yes: A link must be able to reduce the current traveling through it to less than 50milliamps. (Heart fibrillation starts at 50-75 milliamps; severe tissue damage occursat about 500.) “Tests performed by Harnischfeger and American Hoist and DerrickCo. show that contaminated links restricted current to no less than eight milliamps,which would cause a mild shock with no permanent physical injury.” The grandmajority of tested links met or exceeded these criteria.

No: “A further refinement of the criteria [for considered success] was to adopt theposition that any current flow over the link, while possibly limited to non-lethallevels, which could be felt by an unsuspecting worker that would cause involuntaryshock reactions or reflex actions that could cause a serious accident involving thereacting worker or their co-workers is considered unsafe. To this end, a maximumleakage current level of one milliamp was adopted as the acceptable maximum limitunder any test conditions.”

91.03.00 MacCollum, David V., “Hunting Down Crane Hazards” Lift Equipment

This article presents human factors as evidence that crane powerline contacts are notpreventable solely through worker awareness, and stresses management pre-jobplanning as the first place to start to overcome the hazard of powerline contact. (SeeIllustration II on how to map the danger zone)

91.06.18 Three men were injured when laying pipeline across an electric utility encasement.The pipeline company had previously contacted the electric company with a requestto temporarily turn off the power, and the request was ignored. See A-24

This shows that the diversity of boomed equipment includes side-mounted booms oncrawler tractors used in pipelines, and all can easily reach powerlines.

91.09.00 Paques, Joseph-Jean “Cranes and Overhead Powerlines” Published at the 13th

International Convention ISSA for Construction, Bruxelles

This paper looks closely at crane powerline contacts and suggests many measures toprevent them, including communication with the electric utility companies to cut offpower or relocate or bury the lines, grounding the machinery, proximity devices andground markings. He also suggests many methods of insulation, including insulatingcontrols between the control panel and the machinery.

91.09.10 Letter containing incidents of electrocution involving boomed equipment from 1980-1988. To: Ms. Suzanna E. Ellefson (Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster) from Ms.Suzanne Kisner, Statistician, Injury Surveillance Section, Division of SafetyResearch, NIOSH

Total recorded deaths by electrocution: 34.8*, % construction incidents: 46.6

* “Cases of work-related fatal injuries may be missed……For this reason, the datapresented should be regarded as the absolute minimum number of events.”

57

92.01.28 Last update: Safety Code for the Construction Industry, Quebec, Canada S-2.1, r.6

5.2.1: The employer shall ensure that no one performs work liable to bring any part,load, machine component or person closer to an electrical line than the minimumapproach distance.

5.2.2: The employer who wishes to carry out work liable to bring any part, load,machine component or person closer to an electrical line than the minimum approachdistance specified in section 5.2.1, may proceed to such work provided that one of thefollowing conditions is complied with:

c) extensible construction equipment, such as a backhoe, a power shovel, a crane or adump truck shall be equipped with a device that has two functions: i) to warn theoperator or to stop the equipment from operating, so that the minimum approachdistance specified in section 5.2.1 is respected: ii) to stop the equipment fromoperating, should the device fail to perform its first function.

92.02.10 Murray, Charles J.: “Remote Control System Reduces Crane Accidents” DesignNews

This article informs the public about a new preventive device for cranes. A remotecontrol system “prevents electrocution by eliminating the conductive path between ahigh voltage wire and an operator.” This device allows the operator to limit the rangethe boom can be positioned by using a computer system.

New technology to improve safety is appearing all the time. This device presents yetanother option on ways to help eliminate boom powerline contacts.

92.07.00 MacCollum, David V.: “Designing Out Electrical Hazards” CraneWorks

This article places equipment safety first and foremost in the hands of the projectmanagement team. During prejob planning it is key to carefully survey the area forany hidden hazards and map the Danger Zone on the ground so it is clearly visible toall personnel. Planners must also work closely with the Electric Utility company, incompliance with OSHA. It is also a good idea to post the telephone number of theUtility company on the side of the crane as an added reminder for who to call in theevent that the crane boom needs to be extended into the danger zone under thepowerline. See illustration I

92.09.21 A worker lost both arms during new freeway construction when the hoist linecontacted a powerline mid-span. None of the construction plans included an attemptto bury or relocate the powerlines, even through the budget allowed for it. SeeA-25

This case included testimony that an insulated link would have prevented thecrippling injuries.

58

92.10.00 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General SafetyRequirements Manual 01.A.03

01.A.07: “Prior to initiation of work at a job site, an accident prevention plan-written by the prime contractor for the specific work and hazards of the contract andimplementing in detail the pertinent requirements of this manual- will be reviewedand found acceptable by designated government personnel.”

Pg. 3: Guidelines for the Preparation of Accident Prevention Plans:

B. Administrative responsibilities for implementing the accident prevention plan;identification and accountability of personnel responsible for accident prevention.C. Means for coordinating and controlling work activities of contractors,subcontractors, and suppliers; responsibilities of subcontractors in effecting therequirements of the accident prevention plan.D. Plans for safety indoctrination and continued safety training.

11.E.01(b): All electric power or distribution lines shall be placed underground inareas where there is extensive use of equipment having the capability to encroach onthe clear distances specified in 11.E.04 (0-50 kV-10’, 51-100 kV-12’)

11E.02: Work activity adjacent to overhead lines shall not be initiated until a surveyhas been made to ascertain the safe distance from energized lines.

11.H.11(b): Materials and equipment shall net be stored under energized bus,energized lines, or near energized equipment if it is possible to store them elsewhere.If materials or equipment must be stored under energized lines or near energizedequipment, clearance shall be maintained and extraordinary caution shall be exercisedin maintaining these clearances when operating equipment or moving materials nearsuch energized equipment.

59

1993 MacCollum, David V.: Crane Hazards and Their Prevention, Book published by theAmerican Society of Safety Engineers, Des Plaines, IL

Chapter 4: Powerline contact- “Cranes and powerlines are not compatible and shouldnot occupy the same workspace. Powerline contact presents the highest risk in craneoperations. It is probably the most devastating, continually reoccurring type ofpersonal injury and property damage. A single contact can result in multiple deathsand/or crippling injuries. From my review of OSHA and MSHA injury data andinjury data available from litigation experience, my best estimate shows that eachyear approximately 150 to 160 people are killed or crippled by powerline contact andabout three times that number are seriously injured. On an average, eight out of ten ofthose injured were guiding the load at the time of contact.”

Types of cranes involved in 400 powerline contacts were:

1. Truck Carrier, Latticework Boom: 26%2. Truck Carrier, Hydraulic Boom: 24%3. Mobile Hydraulic Boom, Rough Terrain 19%4. Flatbed, Hydraulic Boom 16%5. Flatbed, Trolley Boom, Remote Control 11%6. Crawler Carrier, Latticework Boom 4%

The personnel were injured or killed when:

1. Guiding the load 71%2. Getting on or off crane and/or touching crane 21%3. Other activity 8%(See Illustration II)

1993 Paques, Joseph-Jean: “Crane Accidents by Contact with Powerlines”, Safety Science,16

Studies powerline contacts in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, and the USA. Breaksdown information by type of vehicle or equipment used, and the features of thosepieces of equipment. Recommendations suggest that further precautions can be madebased on type of equipment.

Paques also continues to investigate and improve the usefulness of the range limitingdevice.

1993 AS 2550.1 Australian Standard: Cranes- Safe Use

(e) “Where necessary, provide ground barriers to warn operators.”

Note: These barriers are labeled as “Personal Protection Barriers”. The use of thesedevices makes the danger zone visible and immutable to all personnel; they are morelikely to be aware of the danger and cannot physically penetrate into the danger zone.

(f) “Use non-conducting taglines when these are required.”

(g) “Do not allow any person, other than the crane operator, to be in contact with anypart of the crane or the load, except with a non-conducting tagline, once the lift hascommenced.”

60

93.02.01 A worker using a non-insulated aerial lift on a movie set raised it into a 7,200 Vpowerline while working within the danger zone, sustaining head and shoulder burnsso serious and disfiguring that he had to wear a sack over his head for three years soas not to frighten his family while he underwent skin grafts. See A-26

This case highlights the many occurrences and also illustrates why uninsulated aeriallifts cannot be used safely in the vicinity of powerlines. Moreover, this case showsthat the movie lot owner has a duty to provide a safe workplace for any workers whoare employees of movie producers that lease the facility. A safe place for aerial liftswould most likely entail buried powerlines in the area behind the sets.

93.05.00 MacCollum, David V.: “Cranes and Power Lines make Fatal Combination”Construction Newsletter

This article reiterates the supreme importance of prejob construction planning,especially creating, accurately mapping, and remaining aware of a danger zonesurrounding powerlines. The ground must be marked, preferably with barricades, andoperators or managers are encouraged to call the electric utility company if a line orboom penetrates the danger zone. In ideal situations, power would be turned off orlines relocated or buried before the job starts.

93.06.26 Excerpt from the deposition of J. Derald Morgan, (Case # CJ92-549-92791 DistrictCounty, Grand Forks County, North Dakota)

Q: Well, what is excessive leakage of current in the field? What we’re talkingabout is human lives now.

A: Any current over one milliamp.Note: As illustrated earlier in the debate between Morgan and Mongeluzzi (91.02-03)and other amperage measures, one milliamp of current can barely be detected by thehuman body. There are no documented cases of one milliamp being sufficient to causedeath or damage to human tissue.

93.10.08 A company’s refusal to buy an insulated basket for a crane being used as an aerial liftresulted in the amputation of a worker’s arm due to a shock sustained when he wasloading materials stored under a 7,200 V powerline onto a truck. See A-27

This case re-iterates the need to prohibit storage of materials under powerlines, as itonly invites the use of cranes in a dangerous location.

93.11.01 “Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry” (29 CFRPart 1926), newly amended

Subpart N, 1926.550 (15)(iv) “A person shall be designated to observe clearance ofthe equipment and give timely warning for all operations where it is difficult for theoperator to maintain the desired clearance by visual means.”

(15) (v) “Cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity devices may be usedon cranes, but the use of suck devices shall not alter the requirements of any otherregulation of this part even if such device is required by law or regulation”

93.11.09 A crane’s boom was rotated in an arc towards a 7,200 V powerline while working inthe danger zone, severely burning the worker guiding the load. Had the crane beenrotated in an arc 180 degrees away from the powerline the contact would not haveoccurred. See A-28

This case illustrates one of the many situations where marking the Danger Zone withground tape aids the operator in avoiding powerlines, as shown in Illustration II.

61

1994 ASME B.30.5a: (Mobile and Locomotive Cranes) Operating Near ElectricPowerlines

Figure 17a (Danger Zone for Cranes and Lifted Loads Operating Near ElectricalTransmission Lines) amends the danger zone to extend to the ground ten feet in eitherdirection under powerlines. However, Figure 17b nullifies this instruction byallowing longer cranes to slue their booms into the danger zone ten feet below thepowerlines.

Note: Has no requirements prohibiting the use of crane controls accessible to operatorwhen standing on the ground or using remote controls on an electric cable tether.

94.02.22 A host of news gathering vans from various networks had assembled for the breakingof a major news story. The news changed when a news worker sitting on the side ofthe van with an open door with his feet on the ground raised the antenna of his vaninto trees concealing an overhead 7,200 V powerline. He was instantly electrocuted,and his gory death was filmed by another news station. Yet the occurrence remainedburied, and the news networks did nothing to circulate news of the danger ofpowerline contact or increase safety by insisting on available safety devices asdeveloped in 1985 by Jack Ainsworth for the immigration service (see pg. 15).See A-29

This case is the first in a series of Electronic News Gathering Van (ENG) suits thatinvolved raising a pneumatic mast and antenna into powerlines. It was known that theU.S. immigration service used electrostatic proximity alarms on their immigrationsurveillance vehicles. They were installed to prevent the pneumatic mast from beingraised when immediately adjacent to powerlines.

1994 Q2 MacCollum, David V.: “System Safety Analysis of Workplace Equipment andFacilities” Hazard Prevention (the System Safety Society Journal)

Included in this piece on equipment safety is a convincing cost-benefit analysis infavor of implementing system safety. System safety on cranes can be easilyaccomplished by installing insulated links and proximity warning detectors to helpprevent powerline contact, saving the manufacturers money through the prevention ofpossible litigation.

94.07.05 Inappropriate tools were provided to an electric utility lineman, making it necessaryto raise the boom in order for him to continue working. The raised boom contacted a7,200 V powerline and the lineman was killed. See A-30

This case illustrates the need for all boomed equipment used near or adjacent topowerlines should use the insulated models.

94.08.09 Working fast to cover a news breaking story, the mast of a newsgathering van wasraised into an unseen 7,200 V powerline, causing amputation of a worker’s foot.See A-31

This is the second news gathering van serious injury that HIFI has chosen to report on.

94.11.08 MacCollum, David V.: “Planning Safe Crane Use”, 13th Crane InspectionCertification Bureau (CICB) Crane Conference, Tropicana Resort and Casino, LasVegas, NV, Session 10:

This presentation stresses the importance of sound construction planning and suggestsways employers can plan to prevent powerline contact. The presentation alsobroaches the idea that thorough planning eliminates liability because of theirprevention of injuries often requires more stringent measures than current safetycodes require.

62

94.12.28 The boom of a shingle conveyor was rotated into an unseen 7,200 powerline neardusk one December day. The untrained eighteen-year old worker placing tools intostorage in the side of the truck was electrocuted and died. See A-32

This case resulted in the manufacturer redesigning his boom conveyor to be non-conductive, and then initiating a recall to retrofit his conveyors, preventing countlesspossible powerline contacts.

1995 MacCollum, David V.: Construction Safety Planning, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 6053rd Ave, New York, NY, 10158-0012

Pg. 17: Powerline contacts used as an example of manufacturers burying informationafter litigation and keeping the hazard open, instead of using the safety information tomake a positive change in the industry and improve safety for all.

Pg. 81: “OSHA requirement 1926.550(a)(15)(v) refers to the much-debated efficacyof insulated links and proximity alarms. Tests have consistently demonstrated thatany leakage of amperage on insulated links deliberately contaminated for the test isapproximately the same as that acceptable for triggering ground-fault interrupters(GFI) and well below the paralysis threshold established by the InternationalElectrotechnical Commission (IEC). An insulated link is capable of protecting arigger guiding a load if the boom or hoist line should come into contact with apowerline. …..No known personal in jury litigation has arisen because of a failure ofan insulated link or proximity alarm when used in accordance with themanufacturer’s instructions.”

Pg. 88: “Construction planning must include consideration of the power sourcesneeded on the project. Almost all operations rely upon electric power and itsdistribution system…… Because powerlines do not mix with boomed and high-clearance equipment, the location of existing power distribution systems andproposed permanent or temporary powerlines on or adjacent to the job site must bereviewed before any work is commenced.”

“One of the first priorities of the construction manager is to notify the electric utilityso that it can participate; if possible, in project safety planning, the prebid safetyconference, and the pre-notice-to-proceed conference, to create a clear understandingand firm agreement in the separation of cranes and powerlines.”

Powerline safety plans must be incorporated into any Construction Safety Plan as apriority sub-plan.

95.04.24 Row houses in a historical community were being restored. Cranes were used to liftplasterboard through an upstairs front window, though the electric utility had not shutoff nearby powerlines. A crane with a knuckle boom was being operated by anoperator standing on the ground using an umbilical remote control. When the boomcontacted the 13,200 V powerline mid-span the current flowing through the operatorinto the ground caused him to lose both hands and sustain other severe burns. SeeA-33

This case shows the diversity the various types of crane booms, which is an articulateknuckle with three or four sections that can be folded up, rather than being retractedby telescoping. This is also another case of a conductive remote control tether, whichis inherently dangerous in the event of a powerline contact. The architect of thehistorical restoration project should have incorporated buried electric utilities into therestoration project plan; that would have enabled him to portray the buildings as theywere when they were built and would have afforded as safe work site, as the streetwas the only access to the area.

63

95.04-05 Petit, Ted: “Insulated Links: The Next Generation” Lift Equipment

This article focuses on the benefits of insulated links, especially links made withpolyurethane, a substance very effective in stopping the flow of current. The articlealso retells a real-life scenario where a worker guiding the tagline of a load lost hislife when a crane contacted a powerline, and states “At a subsequent civil trial, aleading opponent of insulated links was discredited. Under cross examination, itbecame apparent that in an effort to cause insulated links to fail, the expert subjectedlinks to a high humidity environment…. [that] far exceeds normal use conditions.”

95.05.00 NIOSH ALERT # 95-108: Preventing Electrocutions of Crane Operators and CrewMembers Working Near Overhead Powerlines

NIOSH describes six electrocutions occurring from crane powerline contact andstates the OSHA recommendations such as de-energizing powerlines, usingindependent, insulated barriers, maintaining the minimum clearance between thecrane and the powerline, use a signalman where operator visibility may becompromised, and using additional safety equipment such as boom guards, insulatedlinks, as a secondary means of safety while maintaining all other regulations.

95.05.23 While constructing a bridge, the electric utility company agreed to relocate thepowerlines, but they were moved far enough to finish only half the job safely. Whenwork began on the other side of the bridge, the boom contacted a “newly relocated”7,200 V powerline mid-span, severely shocking a worker. See A-34

This case provides an additional occurrence among many that the pinup guys on the“A Frame” supporting the latticework boom are high enough to reach the powerlines,resulting in severe injury or death.

95.06.00 MacCollum, David V., “Planning for Safe Crane Use” Presentation #927 at theAmerican Society of Safety Engineers Professional Development Conference andExposition, Orlando, FL

This is a checklist for safe crane use, presented by David V. MacCollum, whichincludes assessing the site, the load, and the crane itself, including checking insulatedlinks and proximity alarms. Section IV is dedicated to the responsibilities of themanagement personnel involved.

95.07.13 The conductive load, a steel “I” beam, severely burned a worker guiding it when theboom of the crane lifting it contacted a 7,200 powerline. See A-35

This case provides illustration of the reality of the amount of space powerlines in anarea can take up. The load below the hook rotated into a powerline, proving that thereis never too much powerline clearance. The use of a non-conductive tagline wouldhave prevented this injury.

64

96.01.17 The ladder of a fire truck contacted a 7,200 V powerline mid-span, injuring a firemanwho was connecting a snorkel hose to the fire truck. See A-36

This case again shows that all boomed equipment is vulnerable to powerline contact.At a later date, fire truck standards required a platform for firemen to stand on toisolate them from the ground, stating in Paragraph 7.9.2 of NFPA’s standard 1904 forAerial Ladder and Elevating Platform Fire Apparatus:

“Provisions shall be made so the pump operator is not in contact with the ground.Signs shall be places to warn the pump operator of the electrocution hazard.”

However, this standard gave no clue that the design should include a non-conductiveplatform and handholds for firefighters who had the task of connecting water hoses tothe aerial ladder and elevating platform apparatus.

1996 Another death resulting from a news gathering van contacting a 7,200 V powerline.See A-37

(See A-27). The multiple occurrences of this nature show that this is a criminalsituation. Many states, most notably California, held a public forum and decided notto mandate utilization of the electrostatic proximity alarm, which had proven itsability to prevent powerline contacts by the U.S. Immigration service in 1985, to savelives by preventing the news van mast from being raised into a powerline.

96.07.00 “Focus: Equipment Powerline Contact” Hazard Information Newsletter, Volume 1,Issue 4

This informative article gives a brief list of reasons as to WHY powerlines occur,mainly as the result of limits of human perception. The list of ways to preventpowerline contacts includes planning and extensively mapping the danger areas andguarding cranes with proximity devices and insulated links. This newsletter alsodebases myths regarding the reliability of available safety devices.

A helpful list breaks down powerline contact by types of equipment:

Aerial lifts, Antenna installation vehicles, Booms (all types), Conveyors, Cranes (alltypes), Crawler tractors (side boom), Delivery trucks with elevating beds, Draglines,Drilling Rigs (portable), Dump Trucks, Excavators, Feed trucks with boom), Firetrucks (snorkel units, water towers, and aerial ladders), Flagpole instillation devices,Forklifts, Grain Elevators (portable), House moving equipment, Kite/model planewith umbilical cord controls, Power shovels, Pumpcrete trucks, Railroad equipment(track mounted cranes, salvage cranes), Sailboats, Satellite-link vehicles withpneumatic masts (ENG vans), Scaffolds (mobile & self propelled), Sign instillationdevices, Tree-trimming equipment (See illustration I and II, figures 1 & 2.)

65

96.09.03 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General SafetyRequirements Manual

01.A.07: Before initiation of work at the job site, an accident prevention plan-writtenby the prime contractor for the specific work and hazards of the contract andimplementing in detail the pertinent requirements of this manual- will be reviewedand found acceptable by designated Government personnel.a. The plan will be developed by qualified personnel and will be signed by a

competent person and a representative of the prime contractor’s projectmanagement team.

b. On contract operations the contractor’s plan will be job-specific and will includework to be performed by subcontractors and measures to be taken by thecontractor to control hazards associated with materials, services, or equipmentprovided by suppliers.

11.E.01 (b) All electric power of distribution lines shall be placed underground inareas where there is extensive use of equipment having the capacity to encroach onthe clear distances specified in 11.E.04 (0-50 kV- 3m, 51-200 kV- 4.5m)11.H.12 (b) Materials and equipment shall not be stored under energized bus,energized lines, or near energized equipment if it is possible to store them elsewhere.If materials or equipment must be stored under energized lines or near energizedequipment, clearance shall be maintained [as in Table 11-5] and extraordinary cautionshall be exercised in maintaining these clearances when operating equipment ormoving materials near such energized equipment. (c) Taglines shall be of non-conducting type when used near energized lines.

96.10-11 CraneWorks advertisement section: promotional highlights for range limiting devicesand proximity warning alarms state “Keep in mind that alarms are designed toprovide an early warning that powerlines are in the vicinity. They should not be usedas a measuring device to allow lifting close to powerlines.

96.10.11 The electric utility company, contacted to bury powerlines at a job site, did not havethe trenching equipment available and instead decided to move the powerline to rightabove an outside doorway. The tip of a crane hauling sheet steel contacted the 7,200V powerline in an unmarked danger zone, and one victim needed all four of his limbsamputated while the other lost fingers. See A-38

This again illustrates that the electric utility is a crucial part of safe crane operation.In this case, if the utility company did not have the equipment available to bury thepowerline, the utility should have given the landowner the option of digging a propertrench to bury the powerlines and make for a safe workplace.

97.01.21 The signalman, positioned a hundred feet away, failed to maintain safe clearance ofthe transmission lines running between two utility poles. The electric utility hadprovided an uninsulated basket to lift fiber-optic cable to a delicate position betweenthe poles. The aerial lift itself was situated in a precarious position on the slope of theeasement, and the operator sustained serious burns to his hands, resulting in theamputation of several fingers. See A-39

This case illustrates that aerial lifts should not be designed with alternate controls thatare accessible by someone standing on the ground. To date, there are no requirementsthat prohibit the design of these controls accessible to someone standing on theground.

66

97.10.00 Suruda, Anthony, M.D. M.P.H., Egger, Marlene PhD., Liu, Diane, M. Stat., “CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry”, Rocky Mountain Center forOccupational and Environmental Health

“For the 11 years 1984-94, 502 deaths occurred in 479 incidents involving cranes inthe construction industry. … Electrocution by powerline contact was the mostcommon type of incident, with 198 deaths (39%) reported.” Though this studycarefully gathered and assimilated statistical information, it did not mention any ofthe most rudimentary causes of crane fatalities and the needed hazard preventionmeasures.

97.09.03 A journalism novice attempted to rescue her co-worker when he raised the antenna ofhis news gathering van into a 7,200 V powerline and was severely shocked herself,resulting in injuries to her head and feet. See A-40

Here we are again with the same preventable very serious injury as a result of a totallack of safety oversight by the major news networks.

97.11.06 Edwards, Robert and Krasny Alex, “Report on Tests Conducted on SigAlarm™Proximity Warning Device Mounted on a Concrete Pump Placing Boom”, written byan employer’s trade association of pumpcrete machine users.

Of the five people who participated in the test, four worked for or represented thecrane manufacturer Schwing America, Inc. The duration of the test was three hours.In the twenty-five tests performed in that time, the device failed significantly on twotests. The first time it failed, the boom was fully extended ten feet underneath apowerline, the next time it failed the boom was fully extended up and over thepowerline, both tests attempting to pour concrete on the other side of the powerline.These actions violate every safety regulation currently associated with crane use. It isa blatant disregard of a known danger zone, and no pumpcrete operator should everattempt to maneuver a machine into either of these positions, as they are bothdangerous and foolhardy.

The first conclusion stated that “these tests demonstrated that the SigAlarm™ PWDwill not protect the workers on or near a concrete pump of the operator relies on it tobe his eyes and attention,” as well as “It cannot be considered a substitute for anattentive operator.” Safety rules in construction are set up to avoid powerlines firstand foremost.

Note: authors of this analysis never considered that the device was never intended toreplace the importance of pre-job safety planning and on-the-job awareness, but as alife-saving warning of powerlines and the need to initiate some other safer methodsof concrete placement is required.

1998 A water-well service truck rig contained its boom controls in the back, makingvisibility very difficult. It was being used to move a pump engine a short distance andtraveled with the boom raised. The repositioning of the truck caused the boom to belowered onto its travel-mode position it contacted a 7,200 V powerline mid-span,killing the equipment owner and seriously maiming another worker. See A-41

Besides illustrating the infinite variety of equipment at risk of powerline contacts, thisis a classic example of how the landlord, who was overseeing the work, made noeffort to be responsible by contacting the electric utility and requested that thepowerline, which powered only his irrigation wells, be de-energized while work wasin progress next to the powerlines.

67

98.03.00 Morgan, J. Derald Ph.D., “Review of ‘Report on Tests Conducted on SigAlarm™Proximity Warning Device Mounted on a Concrete Pump Placing Boom’ by RobertEdwards and Alax Krasny of Schwing America, Inc” Note: Edwards and Kransyconducted the study for the Pumpcrete Trade Association

In this report review, Morgan praises the report for it’s attention to minute technicaldetail and its clear reporting of performed tests. He states that “..detection ofpowerlines as purposed by SigAlarm™ when working in the proximity of powerlinesis based on a flawed concept and will not work in many circumstances.” The reviewof this report corroborates his own findings of fifteen years ago when he ran similartests for two other crane manufacturers. It says nothing regarding the evidence of thereliance of SigAlarm™ in tests run by the Bureau of mines for the U.S. Departmentof Interior. All of Mr. Morgan’s reports were for clients who were defendants inlitigation for the failure to provide these safety appliances.

98.05.00 NIOSH Bulletin: Worker Deaths by Electrocution- A Summary of SurveillanceFindings and Investigative Case Reports, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices

Part of this booklet presents a list called FACE (Fatality Assessment ControlEvaluation) Electrocution Cases for Monograph, and documents a number ofelectrocution deaths over the past sixteen years. However, the data they supply onthese 220 cases (of which two involved crane powerline contact and four involveddump truck powerline contact) is insufficient, as adequate information on both thecircumstances of the accident and listing of the management groups who should haveselected a safe location are not provided. The list fails to show any accountability.

98.05.07 An operator in an uninsulated aerial lift unsafe for such tasks was attempting to installtelevision cable where overgrown oak trees blocked the view of the 7,200 Vpowerline. With his obstructed view, he did not see the mid-span powerline, and diedwhen the lift contacted it. See A-42

This is an example of the electric-cooperative failing to clear the powerline of brushbefore leasing their poles to a cable company creates a condition inherentlydangerous for any use.

98.06.22 In a very cramped construction site, a crane operator was rotating raised cable strapsin an unmarked danger zone near a powerline to avoid hitting other equipment. Thecrane cables contacted the 7,200 V powerline and the electricity transferred from thecrane to the wire-encased hose of a drill rig that was dropped over one of the crane’soutriggers. The drill operator was killed and another worker was injured. See A-43

This case is an example of where an insulated link could have saved a life. As afurther preventative, the area could have been mapped on the ground with barriers orwith tape to identify that it was a dangerous area that a crane should not be rotatedinto.

68

98.12.00 MacCollum David V., “More on the Nature of Safe Design Profits” HazardInformation Newsletter, Vol. 3, Issue 9

This article performs a sample cost-benefit analysis on an unidentified product hazardin order to create an illustrative model of the real cost of a hazard. According to themodel, the cost of lawsuits, recalls, and legal fees of an unchecked hazard couldquadruple the initial cost per unit of the entire production of the particular product,resulting in a loss of money for the manufacturer and anyone else responsible for thehazard. The cost of fixing a hazard is substantially cheaper and much more prudentthan assuming that the unsafe product can be defended in court for a lesser amount.The responsible manufacturer is rewarded by increased reliability, higher profit, and aproduct record.

1999 ANSI/SIA A92.6 (for Self-propelled elevating work platforms)

4.6.2: “Lower controls shall be readily accessible from the ground level and shall: 1)override upper controls for powered functions. 2) Be provided for all type ofpowered functions except drive and steering. 3) Be of the type that automaticallyreturn to the “off” or neutral position when released. 4) Be protected againstactivation other than that initiated by the operator. 5)Be clearly marked.”

Note: Conspicuously absent in these standards is a clause to prevent the groundoperator from receiving a shock from a ground fault current if one tries to control thelift while it is contacting a powerline. To prevent shocking a ground operator, groundcontrols should be located so the operator can not reach them when standing on theground.

99.12.27 A worker lost three limbs when guiding a concrete bucket to pour concrete into awastewater channel that ran in easements along the path under powerlines. Mostlikely, this job could have been accomplished without the use of boomed equipmentsuch as a front-end loader, thus eliminating the constant danger of live linesoverhead. See A-44

This case exemplifies first how the design of the waterway was in an unsafe location,and how a lack of construction safety planning places the workman in serious harm’sway. A plan detailing alternate methods of concrete placement should have been inthe specifications. There is no excuse to tempt danger with boomed equipment in thevicinity of powerlines when the job could be easily accomplished without boomedequipment. Planning is the key to any successful job endeavor.

99.12.29 Affidavit of James R. Andrews, State of Illinois, County of St. Clair

Nine years after the death of the worker listed in the case in Appendix A-21, formeremployee of Fred Weber, Inc (a freeway construction contractor) states that his beliefin the safety provided by proximity warning devices continues to increase. As theretired Vice President Safety and Health of Fred Weber, Inc., James Andrews wasresponsible for the installation of the safety devices, and positively testified to theusefulness and necessity of these appliances for the case listed in Appendix A-27.

Note: At the time of this study there have been no powerline contacts at his companysince the devices were installed on 15 cranes in 1990. To date this approximatesalmost 210 crane years of preventing powerline contacts with audible warningdevices.

69

2000 ANSI/ASME B30.5: Mobile and Locomotive Cranes

This issue, In section 5-1.6 Controls, and all prior issues have no design suggestionsto limit the hazard of electrical current flow through the body. Standards shouldconform to reduce this aspect of powerline contact by prohibiting:

♦ Controls that are accessible to the operator standing on the ground.

♦ Remote controls using an electric cable tether that allows the operator to stand onthe ground,

Section 5-3.4.5.3 suggests the use of non-conductive taglines to further isolate theindividuals guiding the load from the flow of electric current through them in theevent of powerline contact.

Figure 17(a) of section 5-3.4.5.3(c) is an excellent description of where all cranesshould be located in relationship to powerlines. It clearly illustrates placement of thecrane where it cannot reach the danger zone (see Illustration I).

00.04.11 Excerpt of the deposition of John H. Crowley (Circuit Court of Buchanan County,State of Missouri, division 4, # CV 398-2925 CC)Pg. 59, Ln 8- A [Crowley]: The syllabus, to my knowledge, secondhand knowledge,included information related to closed cases.Q: Now—and we know about the reports of – the accident reports were sent directly toLord, Bissell & Brook?A: YesQ: Do you know personally why a separate repository is maintained at Lord, Bissell, &Brook?[defense council: objection]A: I don’t know all the reasons why that is the case.Q: Is it true that the membership of MADDDC told you they wanted it that way?A: YesQ: Did the membership tell you why they wanted it that way?A: No.Q: In your work with the technical and safety committee of MADDDC, did Lord,Bissell, & Brook ever provide you with any reports or summaries of accidents orincidents on aerial devices and digger derricks to share with the membership?[defense council: objection]A: I was never provided with any direct information for me to give to MADDDCengineering technical safety committee.

Note: Until the committee’s council shares their hazard data the development ofhazard prevention design features or the use of safety appliances will continue to bedangerously hindered and continue to expose workers to unequal protection.

00.05.02 After dark, a news van raised its antenna in a parking lot after doing a spot check foroverhead wires. The area surrounding the van was lit and created a glare that made itvirtually impossible to see the 7,200 V wires that the mast contacted, seriouslyinjuring two people. See A-45

As exemplified from the previous cases, mast powerline contact on ENG vans is agrowing, serious epidemic. The tragedy of this fact is that passing simple legislationto use the technology that has already been available for at least 20 years could easilyrectify it.

70

00.05.19 Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, Jefferson Parish, L: ConstructionSolicitation and Specifications IFB # DACW29-00-B-0069

3l) Cranes: The Contractor shall have cage boom guards, insulating links, orproximity warning devices on cranes that will be working adjacent to powerlines.These devices shall not alter the requirements of any other regulation of this part-even if law or other regulation requires such a device.

00.05.17 Expert Witness Report: Dr. George G. Karady (District Court, Jefferson County, 13th

district, Texas, #D-157188)

Dr. Karady illustrates how and why safety devices such as insulated links installed oncranes are invaluable in preventing injuries.

00.05.22 The slight slope of a driveway caused the mast of a news van to tip just to contact the3,200 V powerline. The plastic antenna dish caught fire and melted, causing a groundfault. A anchor news casting lady lost one arm, one leg, the other foot and fingers onher hand when she was told the van was on fire and attempted to escape See A-46

The only pattern to present here is that this is a category of injuries and deaths thatshould not have happened. This is the fifth preventable ENG van mast raised into apowerline causing the loss of parts of all four limbs listed in the timeline.

00.06.01 A worker was electrocuted when he used a crane to move necessary constructionequipment stored mid-span under a 7,200 powerline. Further investigation revealedthat the electric utility company was aware of the practice of storing constructionmaterials underneath live lines but made no attempt to move the equipment orrelocate the powerlines. The worker had been given no instruction on how to identifyor map a danger zone, and was most likely unaware of the danger. See A-47

This case again illustrates how materials should not be stored under powerlines, andutility easements should prohibit this practice.

00.06.17 The city had recently received a grant to restore an old building. An eighteen year oldworker was provided an uninsulated lift to retouch the mortar when the lift touched a7,200 V powerline located three feet from the wall. Because the city did not turn offthe power from the municipal electric company that it owned, the boy is aquadriplegic who breathes through a ventilator. The grant architect should haveincluded a requirement to bury the powerlines. See A-48

This case shows the complete absence of a concern for safety by the city managementteam who oversaw this project. The employer who rented the boomed equipmentprocured equipment unsafe and unfit for the project, and they completely disregardedthe ten foot clearance rule. The aerial lift company, who was aware of where it wasintended to be used, should have refused rental to an incompetent employer. Thepowerlines should have been buried before anyone thought about painting the erodedmortar between bricks.

00.07.14 While building a flood-control pond out of concrete, a concrete finisher was killedwhen the boom of a pumpcrete truck contacted a 7,200 V powerline mid-span. Thetruck was positioned behind a tree, obscuring the view of the powerlines, and thedeceased was forced to work in a position with his back to the boom while directingthe flow of concrete. See A-49

First, this case shows a complete disregard for the lives and safety of others, when thesettling pond was designed underneath powerlines that should have been relocated.This case also fully illustrates that the use of pumpcrete machines must be positionedwhere the radius of the boom is always outside the danger zone created by the powercompany (see illustration of 1986 of the Danger Zone).

71

2001 Nietzel, Richard L.; Siexas, Noah S.; Ren, Kyle K., “A Review of Crane Safety inthe Construction Industry” Applied Occupational and Industrial Hygiene, Vol.16(12): 1106-1117

This article provides an oversight and statistical review of crane safety hazards andmethods that can counter them. It recognizes crane hazards as among the most severein the construction industry: “Although the majority (87%) of crane-related deathsoccur among workers other than crane operators, the number of operator fatalities-while low when considered in terms of absolute numbers- is tremendous when therelatively small population of operators is considered… The 1996 OSHA study of502 crane fatalities identified the leading causes of death as electrocution (39%)...”

On anti-current devices: “Testing has shown these [insulated] links to be highlyeffective, even when contaminated with mud and other substances, althoughcontamination does cause some breakdown in their insulating properties.

Proximity alarms can be very effective in pick-and-carry operations… While thesedevices provide a secondary means of preventing cranes from becoming energized,and should be used wherever feasible, they must not be used as a primary method foravoiding powerlines.”

2001 Homace, G.T.; Crawley, J.C. (Senior Member, IEEE); Yenchek, M.R. (SeniorMember, IEEE); Sacks, H.K. (Member, IEEE), “An Alarm to Warn of OverheadPower Line Contact by Mobile Equipment” Paper presented to NIOSH

This article focuses on the development of an alarm that sounds during equipmentpowerline contact in the mining industry, stating that “Even when excluding injuriesthat occur during electrical maintenance work, over one fourth of electrical fatalitiesin the mining industry are due to accidental overhead line contacts, and for eachfatality nearly two serious non-fatal injuries occur due to such contacts. In incidentsinvolving high-reaching mobile equipment, many of the victims touched theequipment after the fact, unaware that the machine frame had become energized bythe line contact. MSHA data for accidents involving overhead powerline contacts inthe mining industry between 1980 and 1997 reveal that in 57% of the cases personnelwere unaware of the accidental line contact until one or more workers touched theequipment or a hoisted load and were injured. ...This suggests that a device that alertsworkers when a powerline has been contacted could help prevent many of theseinjuries.”

Note: While injuries may be prevented with this device, it is totally ineffective in theprevention of powerline contact. Incident prevention is the only way to assure fewerinjuries and decreased liability. However, a similar article appears at 02.04.01 of thistimeline in order to offer more information and allow the reader to reach individualconclusions.

2001 ANSI/SIA 92.2 (Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices)

4.3.3: “Lower controls shall be readily accessible and shall provide for overriding theboom positioning upper controls provided the upper control system is intact. Theoverride mode shall maintain its function while unattended.”

Note: In 2001 the standards were still not revised to incorporate a non-conductiveground control system. It is especially important to have isolated non-conductiveparts on the total parts of all aerial equipment.

72

2001 Q1 MacCollum, David V., “Hazard Prevention Engineering” Journal of System Safety

Among other points, this article urges people to closely examine the cost-benefitanalysis of system safety. This article contains many strong arguments regarding thefinancial soundness of hazard prevention engineering, including the benefit to thetaxpayer in the loss of workers’ compensation claims. Powerline contacts are anexample of hazards recounted.

01.09.10 The hoist line of a crane killed the worker guiding the load around cars in a pick andcarry operation. The employer took no real safety precautions, as he assumed the1,200 V powerlines were easy to avoid. See A-50

This case clearly shows that the exclusive remedy of the workers’ compensationlaws, removes the active participation of the employer in ensuring for a safeworkplace.

01.11.30 “Hazard Analysis of Unintentional Raising of a Pneumatic Mast of an ElectronicNews Gathering Van into Powerlines” The Hazard Information Foundation, Inc.study (forwarded to the state of California Industrial Safety Board)

The study gives a brief history of boomed equipment powerline contact and itssuccessful preventative measures, including the failure of the thin air clearance andthe U.S. Immigration and Naturalization service’s utilization of proximity warningdevices on their trucks in 1983. It also provides a list of ENG van manufacturers whooffer equipment with a proximity alarm and a list of television stations that haveinstalled alarms on their van fleet. It also uses extensive appendixes, including a listof ENG Van Mast powerline contacts. (see timeline)

Recommendations “to prevent serious injury or death from unintentional raising ofpneumatic masts on ENG vans into overhead powerlines and reliable control thishazard” are as follows:

1. “ Provide and install an electric (electrostatic) field detector to prevent the mastfrom being raised when the ENG van is parked under or immediately adjacent tooverhead powerlines. Such detector should also prevent the mast from beingraised until the van is positioned at least thirty feet lateral distance from thepowerline. Further, the manufacturer shall certify installation is calibrated andlocked into adjustment for that particular van to ensure that the mast cannot beactivated when the ENG van is parked under powerline or immediately adjacentto them.”

2. “For failsafe redundancy, insulating materials should be incorporated in thedesign of accessories that are mounted on the top of the pneumatic mast toprevent current flow in excess of five (5) milliamps when contact is made with7,500-volt powerlines.”

3. “Training needs to include (a) a summary of previous injuries due to inadvertentraising of pneumatic masts on ENG vans into powerlines, (b) the propensity forerror-provocative circumstances during the use of ENG vans and (c) the need forproven safety accessories on ENG vans as standard equipment.”

Note: On May 10, 2002, this information was Package submitted to Jere W. Ingram:Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board for the State ofCalifornia, regarding the discussion on whether to change Title 8 of the CaliforniaCode for republications concerning Electronic News Gathering Vans. By providingthe State of California a copy of this study, HIFI hoped the rules to provide equal lifesaving protection for users of ENG vans would be adopted. .

73

02.02.05 Contracting firm H.B. Zachry (San Antonio, TX) informed Doyle Peeks ofCraneaccidents.com that they are installing SigAlarm™ on over 200 of their cranes.

Note: To date, Zachry has completed 400 accident-free crane years since the safetyappliances were installed.

02.04.01 Homace, Gerald T.; Crawley, James C.; Sacks, H. Kenneth; Yenchek, Michael R.;“Heavy Equipment Near Overhead Power Lines?” Engineering and Mining Journal

This article focuses on solutions to the hazard of powerline contact, stating that“Earlier studies point out that while training solutions are often suggested forelectrical hazards, the intervention effort must shift toward engineering controlsolutions ‘to reduce the hazard at its source.’ Subsequent studies suggest that achange in the attitude of behavioral scientists is slowly occurring, placing greateremphasis on engineering control solutions.” The article then advocates thedevelopment of a device that sounds an alarm when the equipment or vehicle contactsa powerline, warning personnel to stay in the vehicle or move away. Use of thisdevice, the article states, will reduce injuries by powerline contact.

Note: A reason for industry rejection of an insulated link stated in the above articlewas the fact that not all workers are protected by it. Likewise, few workers wouldhave the opportunity to be protected by this device, either. It appears to the authors ofthis study that this device nullifies the concept of powerline contact prevention, as itprovides no opportunities to prevent such incidents from occurring.

03.09.01 “Crane Accident Kills Three”

A mere highlight on a page mentions the incident that cost three more constructionworkers their lives. The crane operator was backing up on an incline and becameentangled in a powerline, was thrown or fell from the crane, and two other workers,not knowing the crane was electrified, died when they rushed to his aid. This reportgives no details on the crane manufacturer or other specifics, prohibiting the readerfrom accurately gauging the identity of the real culprit.

03.10-11 “Readers’ Choice Award” Lift Applications and Equipment

InsulatUS™ Load Insulator was mentioned in the awards for its resistance to extremetemperatures and black box system that acts like a computer and self-tests the link,records any contacts and their external conditions, and emits audible warnings if theunit is not working properly.

74

03.11.03 Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General SafetyRequirements Manual

01.A.11: Before initiation of work at the job site, an APP with appropriate appendiceswritten in English by the Prime Contractor for the specific work and hazards of thecontract and implementing in detail the pertinent requirements for this manual- willbe reviewed and found acceptable by the GDA.

(a) The plan will be developed by qualified personnel and will be signed inaccordance with Appendix A.1. The contractor shall be responsible for documentingthe qualified person’s credentials.

(b) On contract operations, the Contractor’s plan will be job-specific and will includework to be performed by subcontractors and measures to be taken by the Contractorto control hazards associated with materials, services, or equipment provided bysuppliers.

-11.E.01 (b): All electric power or distribution lines shall be placed underground inareas where there is extensive use of equipment having the capability to encroach onthe clear distances specified in 11.E.04 (0-50kV- 3m, 51-200kV-4.5m)

11.H.12 (b): Materials and equipment shall not be stored under energized bus,energized lines, or near energized equipment if it is possible to store them elsewhere.If materials or equipment must be stored under energized lines or near energizedequipment, clearance shall be maintained [as in Table 11-3] and extraordinary cautionshall be exercised in maintaining these clearances when operating equipment ormoving materials near such energized equipment.

(c): Tag lines shall be of a non-conducting type when used near energized lines.

03.11.05 Associated Press, www.mlive.com

Two workers were killed and a third injured in St Clair Shores, MI when a cranetouched a powerline on a house construction site.

03.11.26 Bugbee, John, Evening Sun,www.eveningsun.com/cda/article/print/o,1674,140%7E9956%7E1792523,00.html

A worker in South Grove, VA was electrocuted while preparing to sandblast andpaint a cement plant. The worker was using the ground controls to position an aeriallift when it contacted a nearby powerline. This incident directly echoes case A-39 inthe timeline and reinforces the idea that emergency lift controls are dangerous whenthey are positioned in a place accessible to a worker standing on the ground.

03.11.28 Husty, Denes III, dhusty@news-press.com, “Construction Accident Kills Worker”news-press.com

A construction worker belonging to a crew moving cement pipes to be installed alonga road was electrocuted when a backhoe contacted a power pole, causing live lines tofall. The accident happened in North Naples at 8am.

75

04.01.15 “ ‘Red Zones’ for Cranes Near Powerlines Discussed by OSHA RulemakingCommittee” News: Occupational Safety and Health, Vol. 34, No.3

This article relates the details of meetings that have taken place to amend the nationalconstruction safety rules to try to reduce crane injuries.

“As discussed by the committee, employers would be required to follow strict safetyrequirements in a so-called red zone when the crane or is load were within a certainnumber of feet from a powerline….. The committee, which includes employers, unionrepresentatives, and crane manufacturers, set out strategies for what safety precautionswould be required and got agreement on them.”

“Noah Connell, the OSHA representative on the committee, said Jan. 12 that under theproposal discussed, and employer would be required to do certain things if the cranesload or load line were within a certain specific distance from a powerline, althoughthere was no final agreement on what that distance ought to be.”

The committee also discussed creating a yellow zone, an area where the crane or part ofa load might intrude into the red zone:

“Committee members discussed what would be required of crane operators andemployees in the various zones. Suggestions included requiring an insulating link tostop the flow of electricity, a proximity warning device that sounds an alarm when neara power line, or a dedicated spotter using visual aid. The committee supported the ideaof requiring insulating links in the red zone

“Connell said that requiring the use of some kind of visual aid is related to the fact thatit is difficult for the human eye to judge the distance between a power lie at height anda crane boom. Visual aids could include a line on the ground to represent a certaindistance from the power line, or a rope with flags on it to indicate to the crane operatorand workers when the crane is getting close to the power line.”

Note: This discussion is current, as crane and construction safety continues to be anissue of importance.

04.11.00 MacCollum, David V., “Crane Safety on Construction Sites”, Chapter 18,Construction Safety Management and Engineering, American Society of SafetyEngineers

This paper discusses the ineffectiveness of “Thin Air” clearances and how thehazards of powerline contact should be removed before the workmen and crane arriveon the work site.

76

ILLUSTRATION I: WARNING LABEL

77

ILLUSTRATION II:DANGER ZONE DIAGRAM

78

ILLUSTRATION III:AERIAL BASKET GUARD

EXPERTCOMMENTS:

PARTICIPATING ENGINEERSAND SCIENTISTS

1. Jack Ainsworth

2. David Baker

3. Robert Dey

4. George Karady

5. Ben Lehman

6. Melvin Myers

7. Jeff Speer

8. John van Arsdel

January 2, 2004

79

Memorandum For: David MacCollum

From: Jack D. Ainsworth

Subject: Peer Review Comments on HIFI Report: Safety Interventions to Control HazardsRelated to Power Line Contacts by Mobile Cranes and Other Boomed Equipment, December2003.

My comments on subject report stem from experience throughout a 35+ year career as anengineer, and manager of engineering efforts in the military environments. Not only has thatexperience dealt with designing safe electronic systems and safe working environments forsubordinate engineers, it dealt with providing a secure environment for sensitive information in ahighly technical information technology world. My comments introduce the concept ofproviding several layers of safety, overlapping sometimes, but integrated to provide an evenhigher degree of overall safety, a concept I have chosen to call “Safety in Depth,” thenculminating with a specific application of one of those layers of safety from which I havepersonal knowledge and involvement.

Safety in Depth

As with most situations in today’s environment, establishing and maintaining a safe workingenvironment for industrial workers is a complex issue. Typically no one measure will addressand ensure worker safety. The information technology (IT) industry discovered that protectinginformation as it is being recorded, as it is being transported, as it is being stored for future use,cannot be accomplished through only one initiative. IT coined a phrase, “Security in Depth,” asa way to acknowledge the complexity of the information security problem. Information isprotected from disclosure, unauthorized manipulation, unauthorized modification, through morethan one capability. In effect protection of the information is provided much like layering of anonion – each layer providing is own unique protection. Worker safety is improved when severalinitiatives are employed. Initiatives come from several different sources, such as: Management;Training; Contract Terms; Equipment. Contract Terms is addressed in the report annex by Mr.Robert Dey. The other aspects I address below.

Management

A .Management’s perspective and focus about a safe work environment sets the tone for all.When management takes a positive, proactive position about safety, employees at all levelsnotice that perspective and they reflect a corresponding respect for safe work practices also. Ifmanagement is lax and portrays no interest in safe work practices, workers at all levels follow alax attitude also. Some of the initiatives management can endorse for providing a safe workenvironment include providing safe equipment, providing safety equipment, providing trainingon proper, safe operation of equipment whether is be new to the inventory or existing, and

80

providing a continuing safety training program to remind and refocus workers upon the safework objective.

Training

A. Employees at all levels of an organization should be provided training on safety. Theyshould be acquainted with safety through classes which teach safe work habits. Safework habits include the proper and respected operation of equipment and tools used at thejob site. Training on safe work habits will be reflected through the practice of safe workhabits on and around the work site. The training may require reinforcement by on-sitemanagers and supervisors who correct unsafe situations and compliment safe conduct. Asound training program will also teach the proper utilization of safety equipmentprovided by employer.

Equipment

A number of physical capabilities are available in the market place to enhance the safe workingconditions of equipment. Some of these are listed and discussed below.

A. Insulated tag lines – Tag lines are typically used to stabilize a payload from rotationwhen it is being moved one location to another by a lifting crane of similar piece ofequipment. Since the ends of the tag lines are held by workers who are making contactwith earth, an electrical ground, the tag lines offer an opportunity to complete anelectrical circuit whenever the boom or the lifting cable of the crane, or the payloadmakes contact with overhead power lines. The consequence is usually electrocution ofthe workers holding the tag lines. As a safety measure, insulated tag lines break theelectrical circuit and provide the workers safety from the electrocution hazard.

B. Insulated Boom Sections – In a similar manner, nonconductive sections of the liftingboom can be employed to serve as an insulating link in the hazard of the electrical circuitprovided contact is made such that the insulating properties are employed as intended. Ifcontact occurs in the region of the lifting cable however, workers on the ground holdingtag lines quite possibly will not be protected. Both insulated boom sections and insulatedtag lines would be necessary to provide the essential protection from electrocution – anexample of “Safety in Depth.”

C. Insulated Links – By electrically separating the boom section and lifting cable from thepayload, tag lines, and ground workers, a safe work environment can be established toprotect ground workers from hazardous contact of the crane with overhead power lines.

D. Insulated Sleeves – Under most conditions, electrical power lines should be de-energizedbefore work begins wherein contact with the lines by service equipment such as a liftingcrane or boom truck is possible. In such situations, installing insulating sleeves is a

81

practice which offers protecting from the possible accidental contact with serviceequipment and the completion of an electrical circuit. Installation of insulating sleevesmust follow very careful procedures to protect the installers from possible electrocution.The use of insulated work platforms such a fiberglass buckets (see next) adds to thesafety of such practices.

E. Insulated Work Platforms (Bucket) – Bucket trucks permit workers to elevate to aposition to service established overhead power lines. The work platform is made offiberglass, a material which is non-conductive to electrical current, thereby providing theworkers with a safe work environment. Contact of the bucket or the workers withenergized power lines does not complete an electrical circuit, and present theelectrocution hazard. Buckets must be carefully maintained to preserve thenonconductive properties of the fiberglass.

F. Slew Limiters – Limiting the amount of rotation possible by the boom can also add tothe in-depth aspect of a safe work environment. In this case, the extent a the boom canrotate can be limited by limit switches so that the boom is prevented from entering thehazardous zone of the energized power lines. This will require a pre-work safety zonesurvey to define where the limits are to be established.

G. . Proximity Sensors – Electrical sensing equipment is available in the marketplace tosense the presence of energized power lines. This equipment takes advantage of thephysics applicable to electricity to determine when an energized power line is in theoperating proximity. These sensors provide visual and audible alerts to notify theoperator of a crane or boom truck of the close proximity of an electrical hazard. Whenfully integrated into the control system of a crane or boom truck, a proximity sensor cancause the halt of moving the boom or crane into the hazard zone.

H. Installation of SIGALARM

In the mid-1980’s, while managing and supervising an engineering evaluation facility for theUS Army, I was asked to develop a prototype Border Patrol Night Surveillance Vehicle.Attributes of the vehicle were to be able to deploy in a high aerial position, payloads whichcould detect the presence of humans entering the borders of the United States on foot, but notthrough one of the controlled entry positions. The concept of operation was to raise a sensingdevice such as an infrared camera or a closed-circuit television camera to a height of about 40to 50 feet and permit agents in the vehicle to monitor an area for presence of suspectindividuals. All equipment, devices and capabilities must be from commercially availablesources if at all possible.

A. Design considerations included stabilizing the vehicle in uneven terrain to prevent possibleroll-over, interchangeability of the payload, overall weight of the vehicle. Since the vehiclewas to usually be deployed during night time hours, protection of the equipped vehicle and

82

operators from accidental contact with aerial power lines must be accommodated. It is thislast mentioned attribute which is of significance in this discussion.

B. The operational concept for the vehicle was: a.) Outriggers were deployed from each of thefour corners of the vehicle to stabilize and level the operating platform; b.) The pneumaticmast, stored in a horizontal position inside the vehicle during transport, was rotated into avertical position; and c.) The pneumatic mast was pressurized to raise the surveillancepayload to the fully deployed position.

C. As system engineers concerned with all aspects of the development, we quickly recognized ahazard potential that the mast and payload could be deployed into energized overhead powerlines, especially since normal operation was under nighttime conditions.

Research of the marketplace identified a device manufactured by SIGALARMTM which detectedthe electrostatic presence of electrical hazards such as overhead power lines. Since the devicedetected the presence of electrostatic source, a beneficial by-product was the ability to detect thepossibility of a lightning strike, a condition not uncommon in the southwest United States duringparts of the year.

The SIGALARMTM was fully integrated into the control system of the surveillance vehicle tothat the detection of an electrostatic source in the area would either prevent erection of thepneumatic mast to deploy the payload to its operating position, or if erection was initiated, theprocess would be terminated and the mast returned to the vertical resting position.

83

POWERLINE CONTACTS BY MOBILE CRANES

There are several measures that if implemented would reduce overhead powerline contacts from

mobile cranes and other equipment possessing the capability to reach energized powerlines.

Some of these are pro-active actions and some are regulatory reactions. In any case the results of

any effort to reduce these contacts will be directly related to the effort, or lack of, from the

various management entities involved. This includes both the business operating the exposed

equipment and the local electrical utility.

Regulatory statutes and enforceable standards are usually established as a last resort. If all else

fails, get the government involved. That has been the past practice. This is not to say that these

agencies are bad. OSHA and in many cases the state corporation or public utility commissions

have had a positive effect on reducing overhead powerline contacts. The problem is that in order

for someone to follow the rules they must know the rules. Arizona has an “Overhear Powerline

Law” and all electrical contacts with energized overhead powerlines must be reported to the

Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). The ACC then requires the offending company to

send its exposed employees to an “Electrical Safety Class” given by the electrical utility that

experienced the contact. The thought process is that this will eliminate future contacts from the

same company. It does have some effect on those employees who may stay with that company

for a period of time. But, the key is to educate as many exposed individuals as possible prior to

any unfortunate and potentially deadly contact.

Most electrical utilities currently do, or in the past have, conducted electrical safety programs

within their respective school systems. These proactive programs are usually directed at fourth

or fifth grade classes. The students are intrigued by the potential for disaster and damage an

electrical contact can produce. The message to “Stay Away” is usually learned. In regard to the

adult worker this same approach can be effective if the “Electrical Safety Classes” are designed

84

to cover three general areas; how to prevent an overhead contact, what to do if you experience an

overhead contact, what outcome can you expect from an overhead contact. As with any learning

exercise the use of real scenarios is encouraged. The phrase “Don’t do this or else!” is only

effective when you utilize the “or else” to emphasize the key points.

The ability to properly educate the exposed workers is, as stated earlier, a function of

management. The equipment operators must seek assistance and the local electrical utilities

must actively pursue those who are exposed. One of the more effective methods of mating the

two groups is through trade associations. Most of these associations are renowned for offering

safety classes for either no or a nominal fee. Companies like this economic approach.

Participation in these associations also provides a conduit for the electrical utilities to reach a

large audience of potential energized powerline contactors.

“Safety Days” or similar annual programs are held by a variety of groups. Some are unique to a

particular company while others may be conducted by local government agencies and once again

the trade associations. These activities offer ample opportunities to reach exposed workers and

other individuals. The state “One-Call” centers, Blue-Stake in Arizona, usually offer free

training for everyone. As a stake holder in these centers the local electric utilities can easily

become involved in these exercises. Some communities hold shows for construction equipment.

These are a prime candidate for educational classes. It is easy to convince smaller companies to

hold annual Christmas or Holiday functions with an Electrical Safety program included in the

festivities.

All regulatory required clearance distances, all no entry zones, all company safe work

procedures, all corporate safety manuals, all insulating devices, all warning devices, and any

other method of controlling contact with energized electrical powerlines are of no use unless the

personnel who are exposed to these energized sources are also educated in the proper application

85

and use of the safety methods listed. Although education is key, the management of each

company is still responsible for insuring that their employees adhere to these protections. From

the electric utility perspective, involvement in educational activities that help to reduce the

potential for loss of life, human pain and suffering, damage to others property, damage to

company equipment, customer outages, and adverse public opinion can only be positive.

David B. BakerSafety Supervisor, Tucson Electric PowerRisk and Business ServicesMail Stop SC214P.O. Box 711Tucson, AZ 85702dbaker@tucsonelectric.com

86

December 10, 2003

Memo for Dave MacCollum

From: Robert Dey

Subject: Peer Review Comments on HIFI Report: Safety Interventions to Control HazardsRelated to Power Line Contacts by Mobile Cranes and Other Boomed Equipment, December2003.

My comments are based upon experience throughout a period of 45 years as a manager ofconstruction in both military and commercial environments, representing the interests of both anowner and a general contractor at different times. I have contracted for engineering design andconstruction services, and have supervised both design and construction throughout my career.

In my reading of the subject report, I focused primarily on the Voluntary Goals and Guidelines(Hazard Prevention Options, Part II). I found these specific suggested practices to be sensibleand competent, and their adoption and use would serve to eliminate accidents related topowerline contacts. Having said that, there is a major issue unresolved regarding majorconstruction projects, namely, how to assure such safe practices actually are used on a project.To resolve this issue requires an examination of the contractual processes that control aconstruction site, how such contracts evolve, and who is empowered to enforce the contractprovisions. Without an effective implementation strategy, the best goals and guidelines will belost in the normal process of project development, and the deaths and injuries will continue.

As background, we must consider the normal process of planning, designing, and constructing aproject. Importantly, an owner may (and normally does) contract with different business entitiesfor the three separate phases of this process. An Architect Engineer accomplishes the initialplanning, defining the concepts, constraints and scope of design needed to satisfy the owner'srequirement. The detailed design work then proceeds to produce drawings, specifications, andestimates of cost and time required to construct the facility, including the documents needed toprocure construction services ("contract documents"). This detailed design may be completed bythe originating A/E firm, or, (increasingly) it may be re-competed and performed by anotherengineering design firm. In either case, the designer then either hands over the contractdocuments to the owner for them to contract directly with a constructor, or the engineering firmor a construction management firm performs this as a professional service for the owner.

An important concept must be raised at this point. While many engineers and contractors are selfmotivated to work safely and prevent accidents, many are not. We cannot assume safety, or relyon sound safety practices occurring during the design or construction phases of a project unless itis covered in the contracts between the owner and the firms providing services. Even then, we

87

cannot rely on a contract being enforced unless there is incentive to do so. This is the real worldof the construction industry.

Now to combine the concepts discussed above, I want to go back to the process by whichcontracts are produced. The terms of a contract between an owner and A/E, designer, orcontractor are normally drafted and proffered by the engineering professionals. In other words,the A/E firm will offer a contract form for use by an owner in obtaining planning and designservices. Likewise, the final designer will develop contract provisions and specifications for usein procuring (contracting for) construction. These contracts tend to be "cut and paste"throughout the industry, with time- and court-tested versions passed around for use in contractsworldwide. These versions generally are not adequate to assure a safe jobsite. Here's why.

Unfortunately, unless an owner intervenes and insists on emphasizing certain aspects such assafety, he will tend to get the standard "plain vanilla version" of a contract, including a safetyprogram for his project. Furthermore, as engineers and architects act in their own self interest,the safety burden will generally get dumped on the constructor, ignoring the preventive designand planning responsibilities of the engineering firms involved. Most specs developed byengineering firms will simply require the constructor to submit a safety plan as a deliverable.There may be no standards for such a plan, and no realistic requirement to implement it. Further,quite often there is no requirement for the plan to define responsibilities for control of jobsitesafety (who's in charge?). In this type of project scenario, the chance of HIFI's guidelines foravoiding power line contact being incorporated into the design and construction contracts arevery slim.

In order to avoid financial penalties from death and injury, and to prevent such tragedy from thestandpoint of simple respect for the lives of our countrymen, I submit that ALL the partiesinvolved in the design/construct process must do the following:

" Start the job safety plan from the beginning by insisting it be a requirement in the very firstcontract between the Owner and the A/E for concept planning. The intent is to pass this plan onas a requirement to the designer, who will further develop it during design with special attentionto designing and planning the job in such a way as to eliminate hazards so the constructor willnot have to deal with them. Here is a sample spec I developed for use by a client owner for theinitial planning work on a major rail project:

Design for Safety. Consultant will consider designs and processes that enable the elimination orcontrol of hazards to persons and property during the construction and operation of the plannedfacilities. Consultant will submit a plan to the Contracting officer within 45 days of NTP thatdescribes Consultant’s process of integrating professional safety engineering, constructionsafety, and rail operations advice into the design process. Documentation of the results of thisplan will be a required deliverable to assure continuity of safe design into the final designprocess (PS&E).

88

• Assure this initial safety plan is fully developed in turn by the final designer such that it canbe incorporated directly into the contract documents that form the basis for contracting with theconstructor. This project safety plan will pass on to the contractor two very important things.First, it will detail the planner's and the designer's safety considerations that have beenincorporated into the design, especially those that involve a construction process that contains orhas eliminated a hazard. Secondly, the plan will set standards for the required constructor'ssafety plan, including such standards as those described by HIFI for avoiding powerline contact.In other words, it will require that the constructor deal with safety issues such as subcontractorsafety, responsibility on the jobsite, hazard elimination, and other known issues. Such a safetyplan will be an enforceable part of the contract, empowering the construction manager to actdecisively to enforce the sound safety standards that are set out in the plan. A strongunambiguous contract is a must for good safety. Once a construction manager and/or contractoris saddled with a weak contract, he is almost powerless to deal effectively with safety or anyother issue on the job.

Without starting a safety plan during the design, and assuring that proper safety standards such asthose suggested by HIFI are set and enforced, there is virtually no chance that the constructionprocess will consistently and reliably police itself to avoid death and injury. Owner managementis key to preventing injury, damage, and loss of life, and it is clearly in their financial andhumane interests to do so. The other parties to the process (professional engineering andplanning, and constructor management) can also be enlisted to support a continuum of effectivesafety planning and execution for a project, however the likelihood of their doing so withoutowner support is small. Labor and safety advocates must help create this environment byworking in concert with engineers and constructors to carry this message throughout theindustry. The payoff in terms of lives and dollars saved is enormous, and it's… "the right thingto do".

89

Insulating LinkGeorge G KaradyThe most frequent accident scenario is when a crane works dangerously close to a high voltageline and the crane load line touches the high voltage conductor and produces a short circuit. Theshort circuit current electrocutes workers handling the load. Fig 1 shows the typical accidentscenario.

Craneline

contact Arrows showtypical current

path

Tiers flashover

Fig 1 typical crane accident scenario

This type of accident can be prevented by using insulating link.

Insulating link descriptionFig 2 shows the concept of insulating link application on a crane. The insulating link is a glassfiber rod, which is inserted in the load line just above the hook. In case of a contact between theline and the crane the insulating link insulates the worker from the energized crane and preventsthe accident.

90

BoomCage

InsulatorLink

Figure 2. Concept of crane protection

Figure 3 shows an insulating link made by Hirtzer in California. The link has metallic hardwareused to insert the link into the crane line. The metallic hardware parts are insulated by fiberglassand other insulating material. The outer surface has water repellent coating. The manufacturerspecifying the rated voltage of the link and tests each links about twice of this voltage. Also thepermitted mechanical working load is specified for the link.

he

Figure 3. Typical example for insulator link (Hirtzer)

Flashover probabilitySeveral measurements performed by different laboratories on insulator links were reviewed [2, 3,4, 5, and 6]. The author of this report also performed tests on commercially available links atArizona State University.Tests performed by Morgan, Ontario Hydro, and others show that the flashover voltage of thepresently available insulated links is dramatically reduced when heavily contaminated. The

91

same tests also indicate that the dry and wet flashover voltage remains high. As an example thereport of Mr. Morgan [1] shows that the tested Miller and Hirtzer links withstand more than 57kV in dry condition and more than 21 kV in wet conditions. The minimum flashover voltageunder salt spray was 25 kV.Contamination caused insulator flashover is described in literature and is well understood. Drycontamination is usually non-conducting; therefore it has no effect on the flashover voltage. Theinsulator contamination causes flashover only when drizzling rain and fog slowly wet theinsulator. A flashover in contaminated conditions requires the simultaneous occurrence of thefollowing:1. Contamination deposit on the link surface in the form of a thin layer (dust layer, mud or tar

like deposit from roads, etc.)

2. The insulated link wetted slowly by fog or drizzling light rain. Normal or heavy rain washesdown the contaminant and eliminates the danger of flashover.

3. The insulated link energized by an accident.

The simultaneous occurrence of these three events is rare.The contamination on a utility insulator surface is due to airborne deposit. The wind drives dust,cement powder, industrial exhaust, salt water and other pollutants to the insulator surface. Theamount of pollution depends on the local atmospheric and other conditions. Relatively fewplaces in the USA experience the heavy pollution used to test insulator links. Fig 4 exhibits theresults of an industrial survey showing the distribution of insulator use at different contaminationlevels.

7%14%

36%47%

Figure 4. Distribution of insulator use at different contamination levels

This figure indicates that only 7% of the insulators are operating in heavily contaminatedconditions. Cranes are operating all over the USA. Therefore, it is prudent to assume that only7-10% of the links are subjected to heavy pollution. Furthermore, the manufacturers require thatthe insulated links be regularly cleaned and maintained by the operator. Therefore, the build upof heavy contamination is unlikely. The most probable scenario is negligent dragging of the linkin dust or mud. Experiments performed by ASU show that the rolling of an insulated link in dustor mud results in medium to light contamination. However, for the sake of argument, let usassume that 10% of the insulated links are heavily contaminated.

92

The second criterion is the wetting of the insulators, which requires fog or light rain. A survey ofan US meteorological report shows that the number of days with light rain or fog is about 8-90per year. This number depends on the location. In Arizona, the number of foggy or light rainydays is significantly less than in Wyoming. Using the maximum (90 days) and minimum (8days) values, the probability that the link will be wetted is between 8/365 = 2.19% to 90/365 =24.6%.The probability that the link is heavily polluted and wetted simultaneously is 10% x 24.6% =2.46% or less than 3%. This means that, the link will fail to provide protection only less than 3times out of hundred (100) accidents. Crane to power line contacts, in the USA, cause about 300fatal accidents yearly. The use of insulated links would reduce this number to 8-10.The results of this risk analysis re-enforces the conclusion that the insulating link improves cranesafety and that failing to use insulating link, when a crane is working in the vicinity of a powerline is negligent.Leakage currentThe wet insulating link conducts leakage current for a short period of time when the carnetouches a high voltage line. The accident triggers the line protection, which typically switch ofthe within 4-10 cycles, which corresponds to a time 83-167 milliseconds. The worst case theprotection operation is delayed when the line is de-energized less than 0.5 second.The clean or wet insulating links conduct less than 5 mA current when energized withoutflashover. ASU measured the leakage current of polluted insulating links [10]. The leakagecurrent of a Hirtzer link 5T, 50kV, was 0,3 mA at 15kV and in wet and polluted condition theleakage current was 3.325mA at 1.5kV and 44.9mA at 30 kV. It can be concluded that theleakage current is less than 50mA below 30kV at light pollution.The international standard 479 IEC 1994 provides data on current effects on humans. Thestandard specifies four zones; AC 1, AC 2, AC 3 and AC 4. The first three zones the sinusoidal,60Hz current has only transient temporally effects. Fig 5 and explanation is word by word copyof the IEC 479.“AC 1 Usually no reactionAC 2 Usually no harmful physiological effectAC 3 Usually no organic damage is expected. Like hood of cramp like muscular

contractions and difficulty of breathing for duration of current flows more than 2s.Reversible disturbances of formation and conduction of impulses in the heart,including arterial fibrillation and transient cardiac arrest without ventricularfibrillation increasing with current and time.

AC 4 Increasing with magnitude and time dangerous pahtophysiological effects such ascardiac arrest, berthing arrest and sever burns may occur in addition to the effects ofzone AC 3.

AC 4.1 Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing up to about 5%.AC 4.2 Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing up to about 50%.AC 4.3 Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing above 50%.

93

Fig 5 Current effects on human being (copy from 479 IEC 1994)The measurement indicated less than 0.5 mA pollution at dry condition, when the link isenergized to 15 kV voltage, this is in AC 1 zone, no harmful effect.The polluted link current was less than 50mA, when the link is energized to 30 kV voltage forless than 0.5 second, this is in AC 3, “Reversible disturbances of formation and conduction ofimpulses in the heart, including arterial fibrillation and transient cardiac arrest withoutventricular fibrillation increasing with current and time”.At 15 kV the leakage current is about the half value, which practically eliminates the danger ofdeadly electrocution at distribution level.

ReferencesH. B. Hamilton, J.D. Morgan, “Final Report on Evaluation of Mobile Crane Safety Devices”, a

report to Bucyus Eric Inc., 1982.

J. Derald Morgan, Howard B. Hamilton, “Evaluation of Link for Safety Applications”, a reportto R.O. Corporation and National Crane Company, 1982.

J. Derald Morgan, “Evaluation of Insulated Links for Cranes”, unpublished test data prepared forGrove Manufacturing Inc. 1985, (Not reviewed).

Martin N. Kaplan, “Test of Insulating Links Used on Cranes Under Field Conditions”, 1990.

J. Derald Morgan, Howard B. Hamilton, “Insulating Devices for Cranes. Test Results”,manuscript containing the summary of tests performed in [1, 2, 3].

J. Derald Morgan, “Insulated Link and Standoff Evaluation for Grove Manufacturing Inc.”, A.B.Chance Test Laboratories, Centralia, Missouri, 1990.

J. Derald Morgan, “Insulated Link Test Using IEC 507 Artificial Pollution Methods”, A.B.Chance Company, Centralia, Missouri, 1992.

Ontario Hydro Report No. ET91-94-P, “Electrical Tests on Insulating Crane Links”, August 13,1991.

94

George G. Karady, “Efficiency of Insulating Links for Protection of Crane Workers”, IEEETransactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No 1, Jan. pp. 316-323, 1991.

George G. Karady, “Test of Insulator Links”, report, Arizona State University, 1993.

George G. Karady, Minesh Shah, D. Dumora, “Probabilistic Method to Assess Insulating LinkPerformance for Protection of Crane Workers”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,Vol. I 1, No 1, Jan. pp. 212 -323, 1996.

95

Ben J. Lehman

Rear Admiral [Engineering] US Navy Ret.

Professional Engineer - President, MechElexTex Inc.David V. MacCollum, ChairmanHazard Information Foundation, Inc.P.O. BOX 3962Sierra Vista, AZ 85636Dear Mr. MacCollum:

I have read your outline for a study of electrical power line contacts with great interest.As an expert consultant and witness in at least fifty electrical power line matters since1976, I have found them to involve many types of equipment. One equipment withwhose hazard of electrical injury I was very familiar was a type of recreational boat.

The passengers in this type of boat could have been protected by known andeconomical

means from the time of its original design. However, the argument against the use ofprotective devices included the "false sense of security theory" and apparently it hadsome influence. The use of the word "theory" is misleading. The argument is simply thehypothesis that persons who believe themselves to be protected by any device whichdecreases the probability of injury to themselves are more likely to expose themselvesto situations involving that risk. I spent many hours in libraries trying to find reports ofincidents in which this hypothesis was correct: I did not find any. On the contrary, I didfind papers reporting psychologist’s efforts to validate the hypothesis: all concluded thatit was incorrect.

Both the major manufacturer of the type of sailboat involved in these mishaps and thestandards and regulatory bodies concerned have taken action to reduced this risk ofinjury. As a result, so far as I know, there has been no litigation at all involving thisproduct since the manufacturer’s last actions about 10 years ago

Briefly, the use of a small catamaran boat having a higher aluminum mast than existedon previous boats of that size permitted contact between the mast and power lines inlocations where such incidents had not occurred previously. The standards andregulations for the minimum height of electrical power lines over lakes, bodies of water,and launching sites did not require sufficient elevation.

First, the standard was changed. While not legally required to, most power companiesquickly raised their lines over water. Second, the manufacturer instituted an aggressivecampaign to notify and educate the owners of existing boats about the hazard. Third,the manufacturer changed his design to include a protective device.

96

These three actions have apparently eliminated injuries from this hazard. Similar actionsby crane manufacturers and electric power utilities would be very likely to accomplishthe same result.

Original Signed

Ben J. Lehman

97

Melvin L. Myers, MPA1293 Berkeley Road

Avondale Estates, Georgia 30002-1517

February 23, 2004

David V. MacCollumChairman, Board of GovernorHazard Information Foundation, Inc. (HIFI)P.O. Box 3902Sierra Vista, AZ 85636-3962

Dear Mr. MacCollum:

Powerline contact is a significant cause of death among construction as well as other workers,and I have had an opportunity to review a draft of your report entitled, Safety Interventions toControl Hazards Related to Power Line Contacts by Mobile Cranes and Other BoomedEquipment. I am in full agreement with the need and necessity for a “Prevention of PowerlineContact Plan” as presented in the report.

The elimination of the hazard is possible and should be required on construction sites. Indeed,many sites such as industrial parks and housing develops are burying their electric lines, whicheliminates the hazards. Likewise, this approach for burying (or relocating) power lines hasbecome a recognized practice in industrial construction, such as by Jacobs Construction on theirjoint venture in the Spallation Neutron Source Project at Oakridge, Tennessee. The HIFI reportaddresses the improved technology (boring equipment) and approaches (underground mappingand pre-dig programs) that augment placing electrical lines underground.

The elimination of the hazard as a first priority is consistent with engineering safety and publichealth approaches for controlling hazards. Fundamentally, this priority is to control the problemat the source as a first line of protection. In safety engineering, this means get rid of thepossibility of electrical contact, and in industrial hygiene, it is to substitute the technology withsomething less dangerous.

The second priority in engineering safety and public health is to place a barrier between thesource of the hazard and the person at risk. In the report, distance is a barrier by relocating theoverhead power line. Another barrier is the use of insulating guards to obstruct the path ofcurrent flow in case of an overhead power contact. This secondary line of protection must beused in anticipation of a power line contact that may arise during the transport of equipment orwhere lines are obscured by overcast days or other circumstances.

The third line of protection in engineering safety and public health is to warn of the hazard. Theuse of the “Powerline Danger Zone” to mark the ground near overhead power lines is a

98

recognized warning procedure, and the use of proximity warning devises is another approach toalert the crane operator to the nearby hazard of power lines.

Every worker has a right to safe and healthful working conditions, and the duty to provide aworksite free of recognized hazards such as overhead power lines is placed upon the employer.However, the duty chain traces back to the sources of the hazard and its prevention: the plannersof the project, the manufacturers and purveyors of the equipment used, and the utilities that placethe power lines.

No matter the line of protection provided, those planning and engaged in working with or nearmobile-boomed equipment need training related to eliminating, guarding against, and warning ofelectrical power line contact. The use of a “Prevention of Powerline Contact Plan,” especially asrelated to controlling the problem at the source, is a necessary step in assuring that the worksitebe free of the possibility of power line contact.

Melvin L. Myers

99

Jeff Speer25 February 2004P. O. Box 685Sierra Vista, AZ 85636

Hazard Information Foundation IncorporatedP.O. Box 3962Sierra Vista, AZ 85636-3962

SUBJECT: Review of Safety Interventions to Control Hazards Related to Power LineContracts by Mobile Cranes

This review of the “Safety Interventions to Control Hazards Related to Power Line Contractsby Mobile Cranes and Other Boomed Equipment” by Hazard Information FoundationIncorporated (HIFI) incorporates a system safety perspective at time facility and equipmentdesign. The system safety process involves the application of engineering and managementprinciples, criteria and techniques to identify and eliminate hazards, recommend risk reductiontechniques and document system hazards, which assist in optimizing all aspects of safety withinthe constraints of cost, schedule and design requirements throughout all phases of the system lifecycle. The very nature of construction project activities can be considered a system since itinvolves a composite of people, procedures, materials, tools, equipment, facilities, software anddesign being used together in an environment to perform a given task or achieve a specificproduction, support, or project requirement. Incorporating the system safety process intoconstruction project management and mobile crane operations will assist in maximizing thecreation of a safer work environment and lessen the potential for power line contracts.

The HIFI study uses both an extensive timeline with selected case studies to provide a systematicevaluation of the powerline contact hazard and control of the hazard. These design activitiesfollow the Hazard Reduction Precedence Sequence (HRPS) used within system safety. There isan order of precedence that HRPS follows to satisfy system safety requirements and resolvingidentified hazards: design to eliminate hazard, design to reduce hazard, provide safety devices,provide warning devices, and provide special procedures and training. The most effectiveinvolves design to eliminate the hazard. Throughout the study, HIFI has shown the powerlinecontracts occurrence happen due to poor preplanning and reliance on “thin air clearances”(procedural control). In the ‘Recommendations’, the combination of ‘Organizational’ and‘Managerial’ categories identified by HIFI reflect an understanding of how the principles ofHRPS incorporated into effective Construction Safety Plan will eliminate the powerline hazardcontact. .

Elimination of overhead powerlines is the most effective means for reducing powerline contactsavailable to management to use. A key element identified in the HIFI study is the role played byvarious management levels, summarized in the ‘Recommendations’ under the category of‘Managerial’. The incorporation of system safety principles within construction and facilities

100

maintenance management programs allows examination of the interrelationship of allcomponents within these programs, identified hazards and resolution, made available themanagement review process for automatic consideration in a total program or projectperspective. It provides management with an effective means of identifying what hazardelements exist and means of implementing solutions to eliminate or control the hazard prior torequiring crane operations.

Another key element within system safety is the performance of hazard analyses, both duringdesign but especially during the operational phases. As HIFI timeline illustrated, an evolutionof a variety of engineering design elements, such as the insulated link and the electrostaticproximity alarm has occurred within the crane industry to increase operational safety.Accomplishment of hazard analyses allows identification of hazards, which will requireresolution. HIFI has identified several elements, which need to become integral parts of aneffective safety program, i.e. Powerline Contact Prevention Plan, providing a safe environmentfor crane operations. A planned and implemented safety program must integrate safety analyseswith other factors to influence management decisions to ensure a safe work environment prior tothe arrival of equipment and personnel.

An important element within any safety program is feedback. Feedback allows for theverification of the implementation and effectiveness of hazard control and it can be iterative untilthe prevention of an incident or accident event successfully occurs. The HIFI study providescritical knowledge allowing the reader to learn from the various elements presented and totranslate and implement this knowledge to any activities requiring crane operations to support orcomplete required tasks without an incident or accident occurrence. This study represents asystem safety process and recommends implementation of a number of corrective actions beforethe task (crane operations) may proceed.

Original signed

Jeff SpeerSystem Safety Engineer

101

Human Factors Perspective

The research study, with its Thirty (30) recommendations, addresses the frailties of theten foot clearance rule, which is the current OSHA guideline for operating personnel. The keyissue lies in gaining the involvement and cooperation of all management; working together toremove all possible proximity to power lines before the use of equipment commences. If thiscannot be achieved, it becomes the responsibility of management to provide available safetyaccessories and to enforce the integrity of the danger zone. The paper focuses upon the hazardsof power lines to various types of equipment and operators, as well as pleasure craft andoperators, all of which are operated by human personnel.

The many facets of electrified overhead power lines, and the hazards to operators ofequipment of several applications and configurations, has been carefully addressed andeffectively presented in the study.

A clearance zone no matter how high, under any power line where operating equipmentor pleasure craft of any description may be moved or operated, is never enough! Variousregulations, rules, and directives that have been developed to date in the matter of power lineshave failed to provide appropriate protection for human beings in their pursuit of humanactivities!

I have heard it said, “You cannot legislate morality; it must be learned through betterteaching (whether in the home or in the school)!”

A similar observation may be made about “common sense”!That is, “Common sense” really means: The application of appropriate methods and

operational procedures performed with ability and proper tools to accomplish a given task safelyand effectively under identified conditions! This is achieved only through fully cooperativeeffort from management level, through all levels of the operational hierarchy, to the workinglevel of skilled tradesmen. This also means training at every level in the operationalorganization. Every level of management, down through the ranks, to the machine operatorlevel, must be trained in his own particular area of proficiency. Every person, at every level inan organization, must have the training to become more efficient in providing safe operatingconditions at the worker level! This is especially true when the hazard condition involves powerlines.

Review of the study timeline clearly illustrates the reliance by all parties upon theineffective ten-foot clearance decree. During the last fifty years, there is evidence of a consistentabsence of management concern to take effective measures such as relocation or de-energizationof power lines, in order to protect workers. This action should be a top priority and, if it is not anoption, the emphasis must be placed on providing boomed equipment with all availablesafeguards, such as, insulating materials, proximity detectors, range limiting devices, and non-conductive taglines.

Check sheets that remind management personnel of the appropriate provisions areidentified in the Hazard Prevention Options Part II; the above suggestions are an effective aidthat an organization can use to ensure effective compliance of all the necessary safety measures.Every pilot that flies an aircraft safely uses a check sheet before he/she embarks on a flight!

102

Specific focus on Appendix A shows that in nearly every case during the last fifty years, theprimary tendency has been to hold the operating personnel responsible for maintaining a ten-footthin air clearance!

This approach has not been successful and is not feasible. Extensive tests wereconducted and carefully documented; it has been well demonstrated, in all validly conductedtests, that human beings are not able to make the proximity judgments that are required.

A fundamental and primary need is the collective cooperation of managementpersonnel of the electric utilities, equipment suppliers, and construction management toremove the powerlines from the worksite before the arrival of the equipment and crew.

Backup equipment, in the form of functional safety appliances, must be included inthe check lists of all required safety measures and actions; this will provide and ensureoptimal effectiveness in the prevention of power line contact.

John H. Van Arsdel, PhDHuman Factors ScientistConsultant

FINDINGS

AND

CONCLUSIONS

103

1. Identify the various parties who could have exercised management authority to preventthe injury.

This objective is most clearly illustrated in Table 4, and is used in context to contribute tothe creation of the “Organizational” and “Managerial” sections of the Recommendations.

2. Evaluate the potential role for electric utility companies to de-energize power lines,provide temporary insulation, relocate the power lines, and lock-out automatic re-closures at the transformers to avoid re-energizing lines in the event of contact.

This objective is also illustrated in Table 4. It is expanded by David Baker’s expertcomments (See pgs. 79-81).

3. Identify opportunities for liaison between industries to delegate responsibility to ensurefor minimum contact between equipment and energized powerlines.

A comprehensive list of cross-industry delegation of responsibility is found in Table 5.4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the 10-foot clearance rule for operations from power lines.

The “Standards” subset in the “Results” section discusses the failure of the USACE planto prevent more powerline contacts by raising the minimum clearance distance from sixfeet to ten feet. It is clearly detailed in the Timeline

5. Evaluate the distance requirements for using ground marking tape or barricades tomark the danger zone adjacent to power lines.

This is discussed in “Standards” under “Results”. See MacCollum’s 1986 label andsubsequent articles on how to mark the danger zone. The Australian Standard (Timeline,1993) also covers this issue.

6. Evaluate the actual effectiveness in the field or potential field use of alarms to warn ofproximity around a power line.

The “Warning” subset of the “Discussion” section evaluate the effectiveness of proximityalarms. Jack Ainsworth’s expert comments (pgs. 75-78) answer any other questions.

7. Evaluate the use of and potential for insulated links to prevent electrical transmission inthe event of power line contact as a redundant back up to protect against high voltageexposure.

The “Guarding” subset of the “Discussion” section goes into detail about the use ofinsulated links. George Karady’s expert comments (pgs. 85-90) provide additionalinsight.

8. Evaluate the actual field use of a range limiting devices for the boom as an operator aid.Range Limiting devices are required in Canada (see Timeline). Additional informationcan be found in information on LMI’s as they are usually included in the design.

104

RESULTS

1. Case Studies ChartsFor the purposes of discovering trends and similarities in the case file,

information in this section is presented in table format and key points are summarized atthe end of each table.

Table 1 Equipment Capable of Powerline Contact

TYPES OF EQUIPMENT CASES TOTAL

Cranes: Total number of cranes 21

Mobile Hydraulic Telescoping Booms:

These by far are the most frequent types of crane to make contact withpowerlines.

A6, A11, A15,A18, A20, A25,A28, A35, A38,A44, A47, A50

12

Latticework booms

This is the fourth most frequent type of crane to make contact withpowerlines.

A1, A3, A10,A17

4

Flat-bed mounted pedestal hydraulic telescoping booms

This is the second most frequent crane to make contact with powerlines.

A12, A16, A22 3

Straddle A5, A19, A34 3

Knuckle Booms A33 1

Electronic News Gathering Vans (pneumatic masts) A29, A31, A37,A40, A45, A46

6

Aerial Lifts: Insulated

(These deaths are the result of phase to phase contact, resulting in gaps ininsulation)

A4, A9 2

Uninsulated

Many lifts use hydraulic telescoping booms. Since this is by far the mostfrequent type of boom to contact powerlines insulation of this type of liftbecomes a dire necessity.

A26, A27, A39,A42, A48

5

House moved on trailer truck A2 1

Shingle Conveyors A49 1

105

Forklifts A14 1

Drill Rigs A13, A41, A43 3

Fire truck A36 1

Dump truck A23 1

Agricultural Grain/ feed conveyors A7, A8 2

Pumpcrete booms A49 1

Table 1: No type of boomed equipment is safe from the hazard of powerline contact. Whilehydraulic equipment with a telescoping boom is the most susceptible to powerline contacts inthis study, an alarming number of powerline contact occurrences happen without the use of acrane with a long boom. A more wary relationship with overhead powerlines must be establishedfor every activity involving masted or boomed equipment. In construction sites, the first pre-jobplanning is to eliminate the danger of powerline contact by relocating or burying the powerlines.As the cases illustrate, the hazard of powerline contact could be dramatically reduced in longterm, on-site jobs with the proper coordination with the owner, leasor or contractor and theelectric utility. However, many aerial lift occurrences involving electric utility linemen, virtuallyall fire truck occurrences and portable conveyors and every single ENG van mast powerlinecontact take place in environments that provide little opportunity for preventative measures (SeeTable 4) such as disconnecting electric power or relocating lines. In these situations electrostaticwarning devices and insulated features are crucial in the avoidance of powerline contacts.

106

Table 2 Types of Equipment Contact With Powerlines

MODE OF EQUIPMENT CONTACT CASES TOTAL

Phase to phase (aerial lift) A4, A9 2

Contacted hoist line of crane A6, A11, A12,A15, A19, A22,A25, A28, A44,A47, A50

10

Point of powerline contact was mid-span of powerline, and the groundpersonnel were momentarily unaware of closing distance from the powerline

A1, A3, A5,A10, A11, A12,A14, A15, A18,A21, A22, A23,A24, A25, A27,A28, A32, A33,A36, A39, A41,A42, A44, A47,A48, A49, A50

27

Work was performed in a confined work area, constituting a violation of thedanger zone and ten-foot clearance.

A6, A7, A8,A16, A17, A19,A20, A23, A24,A25, A26, A27,A34, A35, A38,A39, A43, A44,A47, A48, A49

21

Load contacted powerline A35 1

Contacted back of equipment A5, A10, A16,A17

4

Moving raised boom directly into powerline A13, A21, A24 3

Sluing (rotating) boom into powerline A20, A32, A34,A39, A43

5

Raising or lowering boom or mast into powerline A1, A3, A23,A26, A29, A30,A31, A36, A37,A39, A41, A45,A46

13

Inadequate clearance underneath powerline A2, A14 2

107

Table 2: Several modes of operation that can lead to powerline contact. Though hoist linecontact is the most common, raising or lowering a boom or mast into a powerline happens often.In over half of the cases the point of contact was mid-span of the powerline where visibility islow and perception is especially difficult. This statistic proves that the ten-foot of thin airclearance law is not effective. Workers cannot stay ten feet away from a line that they do notmomentarily see. Further, twenty-one of the cases were caused by work performed within theboundaries of the danger zone. Some work, such as pick and carry operations along highwayeasements, is necessary to be performed within a confined and dangerous space. When workersare exposed to extremely hazardous conditions such as these, they must be adequately protected.

In the cases of ENG vans, the situation of a possible powerline directly overhead arises.In this case (which should have been eliminated by other means in any planned site) humanperception of these lines is especially fallible. Proximity warning devices must be utilized as a“third eye”, equipped with a feature that prevents the mast being raised at all in the vicinity of apowerline.

108

Table 3 Mode of Victim Contact with Electricity

TYPE OF OCCURRENCE CASES TOTAL

Victim using a tethered electrical umbilical remote control. A7, A8, A12,A13, A20, A29,A31, A33, A39,A41,

7

Equipment stored in appropriate place, such as under a powerline in the dangerzone.

A11, A16, A27,A47

4

Victim was guiding the load or the hoist line A1, A3, A5,A6, A10, A11,A15, A18, A19,A21, A22, A25,A28, A34, A35,A43, A44, A50

14

Victim touching equipment A2, A17, A23,A42,

4

Victim on equipment A14, A26, A46 3

Cases involving the use of an insulated link or a proximity warning device. N/A 0

Table 3: Shows the most common situations of powerline contacts. In our case pool, controlsaccessible to an operator standing on the ground, storage of materials under powerlines, andhoistline/guyline contact accounted for 50% of all powerline contact incidents. However, in areview of all litigated cases the average is approximately 70%.

Each of these three problems can be eliminated by any one of three actions:

♦ Prohibit the storage of material under powerlines by mandating a clear mapping of a 30’wide danger zone as an “off limits” area around every live powerline.

♦ Installing insulated links and advocating their use would obstruct current to flow to the load.That could save the lives of many workers.

♦ Eliminate use of cranes with ground-accessible controls by prohibiting their use in the ANSIstandards and government regulations, and design out the hazard by retrofitting cranes withdifferently located controls.

These controls are easy to implement, and if they had been taken, half of the cases HIFI haschosen to study would have been prevented.

109

Table 4 The Role of Various Parties in Contribution to Powerline Contact Occurrences

PARTY and SITUATION CASES TOTAL

The immediate employer, usually a subcontractor, was found by the court to beincompetent, as it condoned a dangerous workplace and a lack of safety oversight.However, state workers’ compensation laws provide immunity from litigation.

A1, A5, A10,A11, A13,A14, A16, A17,A19, A25, A27,A33, A44, A48,A49

15

The crane rental firm rented equipment to a court-declared incompetent contractorand was aware that it would be used in a dangerous location.

A10, A11, A17,A18, A25, A26,A43, A47

8

The equipment manufacturer failed to offer or provide a crane safe for its intendeduse, including foreseeable use near powerlines, and did not endorse or suggest theuse of safety appliances or preventative design.

A4, A7, A12,A20, A26, A32

6

The electric utility failed to advise, consult, or prohibit hazardous operations to beconducted on their easement in their danger zone underneath their powerlines.

A1, A2, A3,A6, A7, A8,A15, A21, A22,A24, A25, A34,A40, A42, A48

15

The construction management failed to oversee the work of the various contractorsto ensure that boomed equipment would not penetrate the danger zone.

A5, A6, A10,A11, A16, A21,A34

7

The landowner failed to ensure the relocation or de-energization of powerlinesbefore work began at the worksite or acted otherwise irresponsibly.

A3, A7, A8,A23, A41, A48

6

The designer of the facility made no effective effort to relocate or bury thepowerlines.

A13, A25, A33,A38

4

The crane or equipment operator was incompetent, poorly trained, and did notexercise authority to refuse to operate the equipment within the danger zone or inother dangerous situations.

A9, A28, A32,A47, A48

5

Table 4: Shows the various ways that every party contributes to the epidemic of powerline contactinjuries. Many cases in this table appear in two or more different categories, illustrating neglect from notjust one source but of the industry as a whole. If one landowner had showed more concern, an electricutility cooperated, management made a bit more of an attempt to “contact proof” the designated workarea, most of these cases could have been prevented. The good news that this table reveals is that thereare many junctures at which management and other involved parties have an opportunity to initiatemeasures to prevent powerline contact. The sad news is that the industry has such a lackadaisicalapproach to this deadly epidemic that all controls had been neglected, leading to a tragic end for theworkers involved.

110

2. Standards

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army, 1958) have more rigorous standards than

any other body examined in this study. Consequently, they have had markedly fewer injuries and

lost-work hours; about one fourth the national average in 1988 (90.05.22). Starting in 1977, (EM

385:1-1, 01.A.03) these standards include a written pre-construction plan with a “prime

contractor” responsible for all safety operations, including sub-contractors working for him.

The same manual mentioned the danger of storing materials under powerlines in section

15.I.17 and prohibits the practice unless absolutely necessary11. By 1987 (87.10.00)

requirements included 15.E.02: All electric power or distribution lines shall be placed

underground in areas where there is extensive use of equipment having the capability of

encroachment on the clear distances specified. 1996 standards (96.10.01) mandated the use of

non conductive taglines in appropriate situations in section 11.H.12(c).

Because of the stringent guidelines and lower injury rate that is maintained by USACE to this

day, many recommendations are based on standards already implemented in these manuals.

The National Safety Council’s (NSC) first mention of safety devices that warn of potential

powerline contact was published in 1951 (NSC, 1951). In 1955, the National Safety Council

warned of the electrocution hazard from electrical contact with powerlines and recommended

that powerline proximity alarms be installed on construction cranes (NSC, 1955). However,

though the NSC continues to recommend safety appliances, they are not yet mandatory. Indeed,

many standards are set at a baseline, and as history has proven, must be exceeded in order to

offer any measure of ensured safety.

ANSI standards must be regarded in the same light. The 1989 B30.5 standard features a

drawing that shows that booms may be extended horizontally into the 10’ prohibited area as long

as they maintain a ten foot clearance around the powerlines. Since human perception is highly

flawed and expert reports have been written about the perception of powerlines (78.10.00 and

83.09.23) this clause voids any purported protection by relying on visual estimates of a safe

clearance.

111

Another problem encountered in ANSI standards can be found in 92.6 (ANSI 1999). The

standard states that emergency controls must be accessible from the ground. However, unless all

parts of the boom are properly insulated or guarded, controls handled by an operator on the

ground can create a electrocuting ground fault circuit in the event of powerline contact. This

clause is also found in ASME standard B30.5a (1994).

By far the most serious violation of public welfare, however, is found in ANSI’s National

Electric Safety Code (NESC). In 1984, the wording of a stringent requirement was altered,

diminishing the responsibility of the electric utility to ensure for public safety. The word

“practicability” was changed, as was the law regarding it. 1977’s NESC handbook rule 211 read

“All electric supply and communication lines and equipment shall be installed and maintained so

as to reduce hazards to life as far as is practical.” By 1984 the rule was eliminated completely,

and placed the responsibility for electric safety during construction on the operator of the

equipment instead of the designs and rules governing the electric utility powerlines(NESC,

1984).

3. Court transcripts

Court transcripts were included in this study because of their link to prominent individuals in

many fields and their value as sworn testimony. Listing these views depicts the beliefs and

biases that shaped the evolution of rejection or acceptance of many safety devices. For instance,

Theodore Leigh (1972) served in the capacity of the head of safety for Link-Belt, a major crane

manufacturer, but had never investigated or inquired about safety appliances. In a later article, he

stresses the importance of burying or relocating powerlines during construction work, but

refused to consider safety appliances as a redundant safeguard (79.09.00). However, Robert

Jenkins, the director of safety of the US Army Corps of Engineers, definitively stated that an

insulated link would have saved the lives and prevented mutilations if it had been employed

during the instance he was questioned about (1972). When asked about the monetary efficiency

of safety appliances as opposed to extra signalmen, he replied “The USACE could not justifiably

11 Perhaps the OSHA accident rate would be reduced further if they prohibited this practice.

112

see requiring a contractor to pay for something where you could get better protection not

involving human factors12 for a couple of months wages.” Though appliances are not currently

required in any national standard, the USACE has maintained a stellar record of safety by

drafting their own requirements above and beyond mere compliance13. States Jenkins: “I would

consider any standard that relied solely on the operator or the signalman inadequate based on my

experience.”14

In another instance, Cecil B. Hickman (87.10.27) was in charge of a fleet of cranes that

had been fitted with 25 SigAlarm™ devices. In the five years they were used, not a single

powerline contact occurred. Then they were taken off in order to avoid operators being lulled

into a false sense of security. The “false security” reason mirrors the one given by Collin

Dunnam, as he states that safety appliances decrease the alertness of the operator (82.12.04). In

spite of the supposed heightened awareness of crane operators with no safety devices, the

operators in his jurisdiction sustained two powerline contacts after he removed the devices.

Court transcripts also uncover the intent of some industry guilds to squash knowledge of

hazard encounters and keep them secret from litigators and the public. In depositions taken by

John Crowley in 1990 and again ten years later (90.11.05 and 00.04.11) he reports the existence

of a closed case file, including accident reports and lists of litigations, locked into a room in a

law firm in Chicago. If these documents were made accessible to the public they would help

define the seriousness of construction injuries, raising awareness and motive improve the

situation.

4. Expert Analysis

The following results summarize the comments of the scientists and engineers that

provided a critical analysis for this study. Ainsworth in a tiered approach stressed the need to

assure that employees at all levels of the organization be trained in safety including the proper

use of safety equipment. Similarly, Baker recommends education as key to crane safety methods

12 Italics added13 See “Standards” section above.14 Testimony of Rebert Jenkins, Illinois Appellate Court, #59549, page 381, Line 1785.

113

including clearance distances, no entry zones, safe work procedures, safety manuals, insulating

devices, and warning devices. Likewise, Van Arsdel emphasized the need to train all

management and each person at every level in crane safety, and Myers emphasized the need to

train any person involved in the planning or use of cranes in the elimination of, guarding against,

and warning of possible powerline contact.

Speer addressed the system safety process as a planning tool by using the Hazard

Reduction Procedure Sequence (HRPS) to eliminate or minimize the hazard at the time of

design. The HRPS is the fundamental building block of system safety engineering, as its

philosophy and implementation are based around elimination of the hazard. Design to eliminate

the hazard is the first concern, followed by design to guard against the hazard and, finally, warn

against the hazard. This aggressive approach to safety is a philosophy HIFI feels would be

effective in elimination of powerline contacts, and Speer writes “Incorporating the system safety

process into construction project management and mobile crane operations will assist in

maximizing the creation of a safer work environment and lessen the potential of powerline

contacts.”

Dey agreed with the recommendations of this report but stressed the need to cover crane

safety in contracts and enforce the conditions of the contracts with owner management as the key

factor. He emphasized the need to insist in the concept planning contract between the owner and

A/E in which designing and planning for elimination of the hazards was paramount. This safety

plan must be incorporated directly into contract documents for the job. It details the safety

considerations for eliminating or containing the hazard. Moreover, it must deal with

subcontractor safety, jobsite responsibility, and hazard elimination as well as other issues that

include the recommendations of this report. Van Arsdel also emphasizes the need to eliminate

the possibility for powerline contact prior to the use of cranes or other boomed equipment. He

also stressed that clearance zones are ineffective in preventing powerline contact and that

regulations requiring clearance zones have failed. He recommends the relocation of or

deenergiztion of powerlines with relocation as the first choice. There should be no option, he

stresses, to this intervention. Myers stressed that the first line of protection is to eliminate the

hazard by burying the powerline.

114

With eliminating possible exposure to energized power lines as the first priority, Van Arsdel

recommended as a second priority by various guarding devices such as insulating materials,

proximity alarms, range limiting devices, and non-conductive taglines. Ainsworth suggested a

concept of “Safety in Depth” that, in addition to training, includes several guards against

electrical hazard that result form powerline contact. These guards include insulated taglines,

boom sections, links, sleeves, and work platforms. In addition, he suggested slew limiters (range

limiting devices) to keep the boom of crane from moving into the proximity of a powerline.

Karady addressed insulating links as an intervention to prevent electrocution when a crane load

line touches a high voltage conductor. He reported that about 7% of links are used when heavily

contaminated. Nonetheless, his tests show that even with contamination and the resulting current

leakage, the amperage and duration of current flow are so low that they would have no harmful

physiological effect. Lehman referred to the success of a protective device in aluminum masts on

a particular type of sailboat as effective in preventing injuries from powerline contact. Myers

identified the second line for preventing powerline contact was to relocate the line and use

insulating devices.

Ainsworth also suggested warning systems. These included proximity alarms, which

sounds an audible and visual alarm when the crane boom moves near an electrical hazard. He

identified a product, SigAlarm, which detects the proximity of an electrical contact hazard by

sensing an electrostatic source. Myers identified the third line of defense as the use of proximity

warning devices and the mapping and identification of powerline danger zones.

115

DISCUSSION

The following discussion is formatted according to the steps outlined in the HRPS in

order to illustrate how legislation, standards, and industry, have failed to achieve a successful

system safety program in the past and outline the steps it must take as a group in order to achieve

it in the future.

1. System Safety Engineering

Necessity and Overview

Powerlines present an inherent electrical hazard on construction sites and during transport

operations to and from the site. Powerlines present a high likelihood of electrical contact on

construction sites and during lifting or “pick and carry” operations to and from the site. The

injury consequence as a result of contact is serious including electrocution, heart failure, and

severe burns. The combination of the inherent hazard, potential for powerline contact, and

serious injury consequence combine for to present a danger to life and limb for crane operators,

co-workers, and those transporting the crane. The only way to reduce this hazard is to adhere to

the principles of safety engineering and strive to eliminate the chance for powerline contact

through planning and design.

The concept behind system safety engineering creates a system of operations that

decreases the opportunity for close proximity between powerlines and boomed mobile

equipment. From the beginning of a project, A/E staff, construction managers, and other high

authority is responsible for designing out the possibility of powerline contact by creating project

plans and methods that ensure that equipment and workers do not share space with a live

powerline. For instance, planning of crane and other boomed equipment operations should

prohibit storing materials underneath or immediately adjacent to overhead powerlines, as that

situation only becomes an invitation to use cranes in a dangerous and prohibited area. Many

workers have been electrocuted by using boomed equipment to retrieve these dangerously

located materials.

116

However, no requirements are drafted to prevent this deadly situation, and such a clause

is rarely found in electric utility easement agreements. Planners must embrace the concept of

safety engineering in the design phase and anticipate ways to avert common situations that lead

to the mixing of powerlines and boomed equipment.

Legislation and Incentive

An important era of minimal and outdated safety legislation was the 1940’s, when the

newly improved crane was increasingly accepted by the construction industry as an ingenious

and invaluable tool. Its cost-effectiveness lay in its efficiency, and despite malfunctions

(sometimes deadly malfunctions) they were still more efficient than using other heavy

construction equipment. The cases listed in Appendix A1 and A3 were landmark litigations, as

they were construction third party lawsuits for the hazard of crane powerline contact injuries.

The case labeled Appendix A3 identified the responsibility for the crane manufacturers to

provide, or at least endorse, the use of the insulated link and proximity alarm. A3 was also the

case where Robert Jenkins, Chief of Safety for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, testified that

he had raised the mandatory clearance around powerlines from six feet to ten feet, but this action

had been met with little success until the use of proximity alarms. These cases set a precedent for

the safety duty of electric utility and upper management to not place the cause of the powerline

contact on the fault of the personnel on the job site.

The discovery process involved at the liability litigation is a far more intensive fact-

finding process than are conventional investigations, which generally pursue an analysis of the

actions of one party. This process can be allegorically compared to an onion: one must eliminate

many outer layers to identify all the core issues by all parties who could have made a difference.

The first layer to peel away is immunity granted by various state laws in the form of workers’

compensation funds acting as an exclusive remedy for management negligence. The current laws

are so lenient that they offer little incentive to the employer to ensure that cranes and other

boomed equipment are effectively isolated from powerlines so workers are protected.

The second layer is the legal precedents that set limits on disclosure of previous

occurrences. These limits hinder disclosure of errors of the various parties and highlight the

117

behavior of the victim, instead of focusing on the factors contributing to an unsafe workplace.15

The discovery process attempts to identify what incentives placed the injured in jeopardy or

concealed the danger, which the victim had few chances to overcome.

The combination of these two factors can be largely blamed for the continuation of

unsafe practices and management neglect, as both of these laws excuse the employer from

liability when the harmful incident was the result of gross negligence. The balance between

industry and public welfare has been a constant conundrum since the mid-1700’s, when Adam

Smith theorized that the living standards (which include workplace safety) would improve with a

marketplace unfettered by regulation. However, whenever any party is relieved of accountability

a free marketplace does not exist. For the most part, employee’s safety is a paramount

responsibility, but there is a small minority who, through ignorance, incompetence, and greed,

fail to ensure for the welfare of their workers, skew the marketplace with overwhelming costs of

serious injury, death, and property damage.

A solution to overcome the obvious handicaps created by the current workers’

compensation laws is to improve the system when progressive and wise legislators of various

states give their attorney generals a practical and realistic interpretation of gross negligence,

forcing business to be accountable for their gross misconduct and allowing the civil and criminal

justice system to provide a balance of enterprise and the welfare of the people. Active

participation by various states’ attorney generals to hold the small minority of offending

employers at fault in such circumstances would result in substantially reducing workers’

compensation premiums paid by all employers. Prosecution on a criminal level for the most

negligent offenders would create an undeniable precedent to illustrate the consequences of

irresponsible and negligent behavior that claims the lives of workers. This approach would

reduce the cost of workers’ compensation premiums as the small, offending minority of business

who violates the public trust with grossly negligent conduct would be driven to change their

policies or go out of business.

Government can acknowledge standards, but is unable to monitor every workplace all the

time; therefore it is the free marketplace that must rely upon the justice system to ensure for a

15 See Introduction, Pg. 2

118

level economic playing field for all employers who uphold the public trust by making safety a

priority. With a system of business accountability, the ignorant, incompetent, and greedy become

liable and are thereby eliminated from the marketplace, as they would have to stand trial for

comparative negligence with all the other defendants in liability litigation. A truly free

marketplace would reward responsible employers with lower premiums, less lost work time, and

fewer costs of lost equipment and medical bills, as there would be fewer injuries and deaths due

to violations such as equipment powerline contact, and little cause for lawsuits. Additionally, the

social security funds would have fewer disability and death claims due to fewer powerline

contacts.

The good news is that public priorities now demand that housing developments and

industrial parks be designed with underground electric power distribution systems. The state-of-

the-art underground insulating materials have been constantly improving since the 1960’s. The

“Blue Stake” underground mapping and pre-dig programs have minimized excavation hazards

and interruptions. Another bit of good news is that modern horizontal direction boring equipment

eliminates the need to dig trenches under roadways. The practicality of buried powerlines is no

longer an issue because the initial added cost eliminates the hazard, lowering cost of insurance,

lost production time, and damage to life and property. Advances in safety engineering such as

those mentioned above are able to utilize technological advances and a priority shift towards

safety to create a workplace free from the hazard of powerline contact.

2. Eliminating the Hazard

Pre-Construction Planning

The ten-foot rule, as well as even greater distances, has proven to be ineffective, as thin air

does not prevent, nor give any warning of, powerline contact. Sole reliance of the work crew on

the job site to ensure for the success of thin air clearance is a dangerous, speculative assumption

that presents a recipe for disaster and has never been a valid method of preventing powerline

contact. A detailed and comprehensive examination of all the facts concerning each equipment

powerline contact reveals that:

119

♦ There are usually a variety of parties who were involved in creating hazardous conditions

leading to equipment powerline contact16.

♦ There was ample opportunity for each of these parties to have independently and voluntarily

acted in a responsible manner to initiate controls that would have substantially reduced the

hazardous conditions and the probability of an equipment powerline contact.

♦ These same parties must overcome their inherent professional and trade isolation from each

other and collectively develop a liaison by their safety staffs to ensure that all reasonable

controls are initiated to achieve optimum reduction of equipment powerline contact.

Pre-construction planning starting at the time of design with the active participation of

all parties who oversee the worksite is the primary remedy for prevention of powerline

contacts. The cases listed in Appendix A present a forty-year history of repetitious occurrences

that could have been prevented by careful planning (discussed in the following

Recommendations).

Management of various defendants have attempted to find and rely upon a single silver

bullet of thin air to prevent a wide variety of equipment under a myriad of differing

circumstances from contacting powerlines. There is no such single cure-all that allows

management to delegate the responsibility of avoiding equipment powerline contacts down to the

lowest operating level. The first priority of workers and crane operators at the worksite is to

complete the task in a timely fashion. Management of all the various parties must develop

liaisons to eliminate the danger before the crew arrives at the worksite, and when this cannot be

done, worksite operating personnel must be provided all the tools: appliances, written guidelines,

training and authority to cease operations until management can provide safer alternatives that do

not involve bringing boomed equipment within the danger zone which surrounds all powerlines.

Most importantly, a clear delegation of safety management must be enforced by the site

manager, whether it be the construction manager or the controlling contractor. Owner and

contractor Robert Dey states that “To resolve this [safety] issue requires an examination of the

contractual processes that control a construction site, how such contracts evolve, and who is

16 “Conclusion” Table 4 recaps the immediate negligent action of parties who contributed to the circumstances thatled to powerline contact. In many cases, such as A1 and A26, more than one party engaged in negligent action.

120

empowered to enforce the contract provisions. Without an effective implementation strategy, the

best goals and guidelines will be lost in the normal process of project development, and the

deaths and injuries will continue”.17 This person must have the authority to stop all work in an

unsafe area and perform any other tasks that ensure for the safety of the worker. It is this person

who has the last clear opportunity to bring together each party at a pre-job worksite planning

meeting to discuss and execute all available safety measures for the job. Any person so

delegated would also be directly accountable for any transgressions or violations of safety

protocol, and this direct accountability will make each workplace a more safety-conscious area.

After delegating such a person in the construction done by the Army Corps of Engineers,

statistics for 1988 showed that their lost-time injury rate was one fourth the national average. The

USACE also uses Activity Hazard Analysis to identify potential hazards and their sources. The

“Organizational” section of the “Recommendations” presented in the study focuses on

implementation and designation of authority, accountability, and pre-planning to ensure for

optimum safety before the arrival of any crew.

Equipment powerline contacts are generally a failure of all the parties involved in the

planning of the activity. Manufacturers who produce cranes with unsafe design or a failure to

endorse or produce safety devices are as responsible for the continuation of powerline contacts as

the firm that owns or leases the cranes to incompetent or semi-competent operators. The electric

utility has a responsibility to be a source of expertise to landowners, users, and contractors for

the safe location or de-energization of powerlines. Some utilities are developing communication

with contractors and crane rental firms regarding ways the powerlines can be relocated before

work commences. Lastly, the contracted company is responsible for not making safety more of a

priority.

17 Robert Dey focuses on the subject in further detail in the “Peer Reviews” section of the study.

121

Communication

The major cause of contact occurrences is the reluctance of third party executive

management to communicate and collaborate to ensure that cranes and other boomed equipment

do not occupy the same work space. This neglect is a fundamental problem and is shared by the

following groups:

" Landowners and developers who retain the architects, design engineers, and construction

managers.

" Contractors with their sub-contractors, suppliers, and service providers.

" Electric utilities, telephone and TV cable and other systems utilizing power poles.

" Equipment manufacturers and their distribution chain of dealers and rental agencies.

" Various federal, state, and local agencies with administration of applicable safety-related

laws and standards.

In many of the cases in Appendix A, several parties failed to take steps to prevent

powerline contact combined with a practice of delegating responsibility downward to the

worksite personnel, who do not have the authority to improve the layout of the worksite or

secure the applicable safety appliances. In A7, for example, neither the equipment manufacturer,

electric utility company, nor landowner take the proper steps to ensure for complete worker

safety. This fact is further illustrated in Table 4, which gives a breakdown of parties contributing

to powerline contact instances. An obvious solution to this problem is to involve all parties in a

system of written and signed communication with each other. Written contact would not only

verify the time and subject of communication. It would be easy to store in a safety file to serve as

documentation and protection from liability. This file, in turn, would hold management of

electric utilities, construction managers, and other communicants all accountable for their orders

and actions.

The “Managerial” section of the “Recommendations” focuses on enhanced

communication and cooperation, promoting a cross-industry concern and responsibility for a safe

work site.

122

2. Guarding Against the Hazard

Standards and Design Mechanics

Many people are familiar with the horrible conditions found in many factories in America

during the turn of the last century18 as well as the lack of labor legislation to protect workers’

rights. By the 1950’s, many improvements had been legislated and complied with, but there were

still many holes in the overall safety system, such as safer machine design.

Many incomplete standards still apply today, and some of the Recommendations are

created as an effort to fortify the patchy protection provided by current legislation. In the early

1890’s, with the enactment of the Railroad Safety Appliance Act, the introduction of self-

couplers and air brakes became mandatory. The enactment of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act provided little leeway to require “safety appliances”, but focused primarily upon

worker safety rules that the employer should administer for compliance. Simple compliance with

standards that fail to address the hazards that lead to worker entrapment is worthless when it

comes to the prevention of equipment powerline contacts.

Industry practices allowing the use of insulated aerial lifts must be closely monitored to

ensure that equipment standards and work routines provide forgiveness of foreseeable human

error. It goes without saying that all work near powerlines such as TV cable and telephone

systems should never use all-metal uninsulated aerial lifts, as they are inherently dangerous for

such use. How many more lives will be taken before management realizes that further safety

measures such as proper insulation or isolation of all possible parts must be voluntarily included

in equipment design? The current and outdated regulations regarding insulation prove that

compliance with legislation is not sufficient to maintain safe workplace operations.

Examination of standards concerning the design of cranes and aerial lifts (self-propelled

elevating work platforms) and even those aerial lifts used by linemen (vehicle mounted elevating

and rotating aerial devices) have no requirements that controls shall not be accessible for an

operator standing on the ground. Appendix A-12, A-29 & A-31 (pneumatic mast) A-41, shows 18 One classic example of unsanitary conditions is Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Though it focuses on conditions ofmeat packing plants, the work conveys a strong idea of the expendability of employees and the blatantly hazardousconditions of industry 100 years ago.

123

that this faulty design idea has been at least one source of serious injury or death when the boom

of the equipment accidentally contacts a powerline, as the unfortunate operator provides a direct

path for a ground fault current. Further, cranes mounted on a flat bed with a remote control make

no mention that the operational control shall be of a design that is non-conductive. Again, this is

a substantial source of operator injury or electrocution (see Appendix A-20, A-33).

Insulation

Insulation on key parts of the various equipment is a form of guarding and is an effective,

life-saving material. Too many injuries and instances of death continue to occur because of a

manufacturer’s failure to properly insulate. Industries such as electric utilities have long used

insulated aerial lifts. In some cases lack of insulation created design defects that endangered the

lineman; many were identified in litigation, and later insulation was incorporated into with life-

saving results. 19

The vast majority of injuries and death, totaling 70% of all powerline contacts, occurs when

a crane boom or hoist line contacts a powerline and those on the ground guiding the load become

victims. In such instances, an insulated link and non-conductive taglines generally have the ability

to interrupt the flow of current, as most powerlines carry voltages of 7,200 volts to ground. It is

interesting to note that the use of insulated plugs in the masts of sailboats and non-conductive

conveyor booms were not the result of standards. After being identified in litigation as safer design,

real application was found to be able to prevent injury and save lives. Similarly, safety appliances

for boomed equipment have also been proven to save lives, as there have been no reported

powerline contacts with equipment utilizing either a proximity alarm or an insulated link. Such

devices are strong prevention aids and should be used without the mandate of a standard.

Personnel on the ground who are in contact with the crane directly or indirectly account for

approximately another 8% of the victims. It is true that the 8% who touch the crane are not

protected by the insulated link if the powerline contact is made above the link. Yet it is better to

19 The “Technical” section of “Recommendations ” lists broader and more effective uses for insulation.

124

protect 70% of the victims of powerline contact rather than to discard the link because the 8% are

not protected.

The argument that insulated links should be rejected because they are easily contaminated

and do not block sufficient current can be quickly unraveled. While it is true that conductive

contaminants affect a link’s ability to block current, most contaminants found on a construction site

are not strong enough to significantly increase current leakage, and proper daily maintenance to

wipe the link clean will provide insulation to block current to well below the harmful level

(Timeline 91.02-03 and Timeline 82.10.00). Tests conducted by Harnischfeger and American Hoist

and Derrick Co. recorded current leakage that created a mild shock with no permanent

consequences, about eight milliamps. However, critics of the insulated link maintain that any

current leakage above one milliamp could be considered dangerous (Timeline 91.02-03 and

Timeline 93.06.26). The registered amount of harmful current, however, is gauged between 25

milliamps for the beginning of muscular paralysis to 100 milliamps for ventricular fibrillation

(Timeline 1983 [Bridges, J.E.]).

There is also an argument that links cannot block all current flow of 69,000 volt

transmission lines. The truth is that the number of lines carrying power over just 30,000 volts is so

small that it is almost insignificant. The vast majority of powerlines contacted are 7,200 volts to the

ground are less. These facts enhance the value of these safety appliances to the point where they

should be considered indispensable.

3. Warning of the Hazard

Safety Appliance Reliability: Proximity Alarm

However, when courts began to direct responsibility towards upper management and

proper safety planning, crane manufacturers and construction management started to isolate

themselves from safety. The crane manufacturers at this time began to question the reliability of

safety appliances such as the insulated link and proximity alarm. This group undertook to promote

or fund tests and studies to reveal inherent dangerous shortcomings that may exist with the use of

the insulated link and proximity alarms. The minutes of the crane subcommittee of the PCSA

125

technical committee of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association meetings from 1973 to

1975 denoted an “important” agenda to repeatedly and rigorously test crane safety appliances

through the sponsorship of crane and other equipment manufacturers. One letter to the deputy

director of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association (CIMA) states “[a member of]

Packer Engineering Associates, Inc., and I have joined together to completely test and analyze

various types of alleged safety devices which are supposed to prevent injury in the event of

overhead electrical distribution line contact. We believe we can produce films, photos and facts that

these devices cannot be considered fail-safe, and in fact, can produce an increase rather than a

decrease of contact accidents… At present we have the tentative interest and support of three

manufacturers…20”

These tests overlook the comparison of speculation of the reliability of safety appliances to the

known absence of human reliability, which is the result of work priorities, distractions, absence of

training or supervision, or unsafe workplace equipment. The U.S. 60 cycle powerlines are easily

detectable, as they create both an electrostatic field and a magnetic field. The electrostatic field

strength remains constant with the voltage on line, while the magnetic field varies with current flow

(the less current flow, the weaker the field). In either case, with multiple phase wires the primary

function of the proximity detector is to identify the powerline at a horizontal distance parallel to the

powerline. A common complaint is the fact that proximity alarms do not always sound when

parallel to or directly between the phase lines of a powerline. However, a boom in either of these

positions would be in a strictly prohibited area and would constitute a gross violation of the danger

zone. The argument to reject proximity alarms because of their ability to detect only alternating

current becomes nullified when one considers the fact that direct current transmission lines

constitute only a small fraction of one percent of the powerlines in America.

There is also the speculation to limit the use of proximity alarms because the presence of

immediately overhead powerlines may blur detection, as the electrostatic fields can cancel each

other. But one must remember that the existing rule of a ten foot clearance allows work only in 20 Letter: Bernie Enfield, Safety and Training Associates, 1 S. 646 Fairview, Lombard, Il 60148 to H.T. Larmore,Deputy Director, Construction Industry Manufacturers Assn, 111 E. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, July 7,1973.

126

areas where live powerlines are sufficiently separated to not interfere with each others’ electrostatic

fields. A forest of power poles is a proven visual warning of a strictly prohibited zone. In

circumstances similar to those encountered in ENG vans, the prevention of raising the mast into

overhead powerlines requires the proximity detectors’ probes (antennas) to be configured in a

manner that is at right angles to the powerlines. This overcomes the cancellation of parallel force

fields inherent to three-phase transmission lines. The vast majority of powerline contacts occur

somewhere in the mid-span of the powerline suspended between the supporting poles where

visibility is the lowest. Only in rare circumstances are there any other powerlines positioned at right

angles or parallel to those that were the point of contact.

Many safety appliance studies are funded by industry guilds and crane manufacturers (Timeline

74.01.02, 75.06.01, 75.08.22). This fact helps to explain the difference of results between seemingly

similar studies. Note the difference in the language of the National Research Council Canada study:

“The SigAlarm™ is no replacement for an alert operator” but “The tests showed that the

SIGALARM™, when adjusted for a given crane position, was CAPABLE of being adequately

sensitive to any change in position of the boom” (Timeline 78.03.00). and the language of “The test

procedures which are described in this report make it very apparent that in order to utilize the

proximity indicator, it is necessary for the operator to continuously give it his major attention and

make readjustments in sensitivity with each new circumstance brought about by changing the

crane’s position or when mobile equipment of high electrical capacitance comes into the operating

vicinity” (Timeline 75.08.22). The Southwest Research Institute puts it yet another way: “One of

the devices, the SigAlarm, used a distributed sensor and displayed significant sensitivity variation

with boom orientation. As the boom was rotated from a position parallel to the powerline to a

position normal to the powerline, the sensitivity decreased severely. To minimize the sensitivity

fluctuation with boom orientation, point sensors are recommended” (Timeline 81.02.00).

These three studies all cover the issue of the sensitivity of the SigAlarm™. The first one

says the device is capable of adequate sensitivity to a change in boom position. The Southwest

Research Institute study says SigAlarm™ “displayed significant sensitivity variation with boom

127

orientation.” The study by the Harnschfeger Corp. says this fact makes it “necessary for the operator

to continuously give it his major attention and make readjustments in sensitivity with each new

circumstance”, portraying the amount of device sensitivity in different lights. Throughout the

timeline, there is no study that says SigAlarm™ is failsafe. No device is failsafe. But the continuous

presentation of negative information published by some studies creates the image of a device much

more finicky than exists in reality or on the construction job.

For instance, the 1977 SAE study “A Practical Review of High Voltage Safety Devices

for Mobile Cranes” (Timeline 77.09.12) had the effect of eroding the concept of reliability for

proximity alarms, insulating links, and range limiting devices due to its negative presentation of

fact. Its appearance as an SAE paper hindered the acceptance of safety appliances, as this paper is

frequently cited by litigation as a reason for not adopting equipment safety appliances. The fact that

the SAE paper was authored by employees and associates of crane manufacturers does not make its

data false; however, manufacturer- sponsored or associated documents frequently convey a pre-

arranged point of view. Another example of this conundrum can be found in the Exxon-funded

studies on jury settlements. Thirteen recent papers on the unreliability of jury behavior have been

published in books and journals by prominent psychologists and sociologists. Many of them were

used as new evidence in the appeal of the $5.3 billion Exxon Valdez verdict, arguing that “these

articles present recent social science research demonstrating that jurors are generally incapable of

performing the tasks the law assigns to them in punitive damage cases”21. Exxon refrained to

mention that it was the principal sponsor of the research. However, the studies had their desired

effect. In 2001, the court ruled in Exxon’s favor and lowered the award. Since 1999, judges in ten

cases have invoked studies by Exxon, shaping an aspect of courtroom culture. This newspaper

article illustrates the fact who funds the research can be a factor in the results of the research.

No research has denied that there have been no reported powerline contact incidents

when proximity alarms have been in use, and no recorded injuries during the use of an insulated

link. This study is aware of 1070 crane years (one crane year being the use of one crane for one

year; 200 crane days is the use of 200 cranes for one day) (Timeline 82.10.04, 1985 (Jack

21 Quoted directly from “Funding Studies to Suit Need”, LA Times, December 3, 2003 by Alan Zarembo.

128

Ainsworth), 99.12.29, 02.02.05) that have passed without a contact incident during the use of

proximity alarms. See Table 3. Records of actual absence of powerline contact over a long period of

time with the use of safety appliances is a better measure of safety effectiveness that speculation

based upon unlikely or improper circumstances22.

For many responsible construction managers and workers, safety appliances such as the

proximity alarm, insulated link, non-conductive taglines, and range limiting devices have earned a

reputation in a myriad of work circumstances for being good back-up devices, proven by their use

in the field over a number of years. They are extremely useful in situations such as one-time lifts or

pick and carry activities; as well as other circumstances when the crane will be used near a live

powerline. It has been found that when these appliances are made available the crew seems to

develop greater awareness of the danger of powerline contact, as there is no record of any kind of

injury or failure when these appliances were provided. The “Technical” section of

“Recommendations” addresses the issue of safety appliances in further detail. However, the use of

safety appliances must never replace construction safety planning. Their use must be purely

secondary, as no safety appliance may substitute for competent operators and complete planning.

Cost-Benefit Example

This fact is clearly illustrated by a general breakdown of individual dollar amounts: The cost

of a small, 30-ton, five year-old crane ranges from $115,000 to $150,00023. If powerline contact

occurs, the crane is likely to be severely damaged. If third-party injury liability is filed, defense is

likely range into the tens of thousands, with a verdict of hundreds of thousands to millions of

dollars. The cost to install an insulated link on one crane ranges from $3,000 to $6,00024, depending

on the size of the crane. The cost of installing a SigAlarm™ ranges from $3,000 to $4,00025.

Maximum machine protection through safety appliances costs less than $10,000, or less than one

tenth the initial cost of the crane, and could result in the conservation of hundreds of thousands of

22 In a Study entitled “Report on Tests Conducted on SigAlarm™ Proximity Warning Device Mounted on aConcrete Pump Placing Boom”, with tests performed by Robert Edwards and Alex Krasny, the SigAlarm™ devicefailed when positioned directly over and beneath live powerlines. Both of these positions violate the primaryprinciple of avoidance of a danger zone. See Timeline 97.11.06.23 Prices from Crane Hotline, Vol 6, Iss.3, March 200224 List prices, Hirtzer™, InsulatUS™25 SigAlarm™ List Price

129

dollars. H.B. Zachry recently equipped 200 cranes with SigAlarm™ (Timeline 02.02.15). The total

estimated cost for this endeavor was probably in the range of $700,000. For about the cost of one

powerline contact incident, this construction firm now has major protection from liability, time lost,

destruction of property, and the invaluable loss of a worker’s well-being. In short, safety appliances

are a sound method of investment protection on many different levels. When an unsafe condition or

circumstance is first identified as the basis of a personal injury liability claim, when the exposure of

hundreds or thousands of similar conditions or circumstances exist, it is a foolhardy business

practice to ignore the installation of the design improvement or the use of a safety appliance, as the

same legal complaint will be made again, repeating itself and growing to result in a monetary tidal

wave of jury verdicts and costly settlements.

These concepts, coupled with the recounting of these tragic occurrences, illustrate the need

for management to voluntarily adopt policies that will foster the elimination of or dramatically

minimize the hazard of equipment powerline contact before the equipment or personnel is exposed

to the hazard. When juxtaposed with information available at the times of litigation, a pattern of

denial and neglect from manufacturers, equipment dealers, rental agencies, landowners, architects,

prime contractors, construction managers, sub-contractors, and others emerges, and the need and

reasonability for a system safety approach becomes obvious.

The lesson apparent in the study is that everybody in the business has a key role to play to

prevent needless deaths and injuries. There is no one solution or “quick fix” to eliminating this

hazard. To prevent equipment powerline contact all parties need to be accountable for their failure

to initiate preventative measures within their span of control. As the following charts will show,

there are many situations that can lead to powerline contact. No one action or design improvement

will eliminate this danger. Yet when management is willing to follow all suggested requirements

and realizes that different measures apply to different situations, substantial progress can be made

towards saving lives, time and money by reducing equipment powerline contact.

The following recommendations list different preventive measures to be taken at different

phases of planning and operation to ensure for a complete system of preventive safety. When

instituted voluntarily by the appropriate parties, these guidelines have the power to make equipment

powerline contacts a thing of the past.

130

RECOMMENDATIONS

Construction Safety Plans for the prevention of powerline contacts with cranes and various types

of boomed equipment must be a cooperative effort formed by all pertinent parties of the industry.

These plans should always include representatives of power companies, landowners, architects,

design engineers, building permit agencies, construction managers, and owner/leasors of the

crane or boomed equipment, by designated persons with authority to implement the measures

necessary to eliminate the hazard of electrocution by equipment powerline contact. The plans

must ensure that the operating conditions are such that a crane or boomed equipment will be

positioned only where it cannot be raised, lowered, rotated, intruded underneath or driven into an

area within a ten foot lateral distance of any energized powerline. Additionally, liaison should be

established whereby the worksite personnel are appraised of the measures to be initiated and why

they must be in place before work commences. An Activity Hazard Analysis can clarify

communication between parties and pinpoint specific risks of specific tasks.

Because a comprehensive and effective plan requires attention on many levels from many

arenas, the following suggestions are broken down into three categories: Organizational,

Managerial, and Technical. Organizational guidelines and pre-planning are crucial to reduction

of powerline contacts because they address the hazard in the pre-planning stage, eliminating

many unsafe conditions before they endanger people with hazardous circumstances. Managerial

guidelines are an extension of the plans drafted in the Organizational phase When Organizational

and Managerial plans are implemented correctly, the hazard of powerline contact is practically

eliminated. Technical guidelines directly pertain to on-site activity, and are the practical physical

implementations of pre-planning and construction site safety. They enhance site safety and

ensure an extra margin of safety to compensate for the inevitable human error. Because many

parties are often responsible for safety implementations outside a specific arena, the guidelines

are color-coded to highlight specific responsibility of various industry groups. Green designates

construction management and related activities. Blue designates architectural and design

activities. Black designates governmental administration and oversight. Red designates electric

utility and related communication systems. Purple designates crane manufacturers, dealers, rental

131

agencies, inspection services, and operator certification groups. To achieve the maximum effects

from these voluntary guidelines, the following measures should be included into a national

standard or widely adopted by area rulemaking committees and safety overseers and always

incorporated into all worksite Powerline Contact Prevention Plans:

ORGANIZATIONAL:

1. A safety plan drafted by the architect, primary contractor, or construction manager shall

incorporate a clear chain of command and accountable person whose authority affords

constant oversight throughout the length of the construction project.

2. At the time of design a system safety plan should be developed whereby the coordination

with the construction manager to ensure that either the design concept and build or the design

and bid to build provides and opportunity to identify powerline hazards and develop a

construction safety plan that incorporates all of the necessary requirements that may be

applicable. Requirements should include stringent conditions in the contract that affords the

construction manager unquestionable authority to pursue this intent.

3. Architects and engineers shall not design facilities to be located underneath powerlines, and

their plans and drawings shall detail how the powerlines will be relocated or buried to

eliminate the hazard of powerline contact during construction or maintenance. Consistent

with the various states’ Professional Licensing, these drawings shall be stamped and signed

to ensure for the safety of the public.

4. In the event of a change of circumstances requiring a stop-work order, the construction

manager shall reconvene with the project committee if the changes need the participation of

other managers.

5. Contract provisions for highway construction for federal, state, county, and municipal

projects shall include specific requirement for the relocation or burial of powerlines from the

work area whenever it is anticipated that cranes or other boomed equipment will be used. The

132

proper government overseer will ensure that powerlines have been relocated before

construction commences by written contact with the controlling contractor or construction

manager.

6. The contract drawing shall identify the “Red Danger Zone26” created by an energized

powerline shall be measured at a minimum of 15 feet on each side of the powerline pole to

create an identifiable Prohibited Operating Area 30 feet wide (see Illustration I & II). This

area shall be identified as a prohibited area for entry with any part of a crane or boomed

equipment. Instructions on the drawings will require marking on the ground by ground

markings, engineer tapes, hazard cones or barricades so that all personnel can easily see the

Danger Zone. For transmission towers, the Danger Zone shall extend 10 feet beyond the

measured vertical clearance from the outmost wires plus the additional clearance of 0.4

inches for every kV over 50 kV, including 345kV, and 16-foot clearance for voltages up to

and including 750kV. This is in accordance to section 1926.550 (a): 15 (i, ii, iii) of the

Federal Code of Regulations (OSHA) for cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, and conveyors.

See illustration I.

7. Powerlines supplying or adjacent to construction sites shall have the ground fault circuit

recloser devices deactivated by the electric company during the construction period as set

forth in subpart V 1926.995 (e) 5 of OSHA. This measure provides equal protection to

construction workers as provided for Electric Company linemen.

8. The purpose of incorporating these provisions in the contract and the project drawing is to

ensure that the Prevention of Powerline Contact Plan shall be initiated so there will be

sufficient time to implement the agreed upon provisions before either the crane or boomed

equipment or work crew arrives at the work site.

9. The project construction manager or controlling contractor shall be responsible for providing

ANSI B30.5 (Mobile and Locomotive Cranes), A10-33 (Construction and Demolition

Operations- Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects) or the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM 385-1-1 Health and Safety Requirements Manual criteria

26 The Powerline Danger Zone, as developed in Illustration I in 1986 by David MacCollum is here termed the “Red”Danger Zone to echo the terminology used by the OSHA rulemaking committee.

133

as a basis for the controlling contractor or construction manager for developing a “Prevention

of Powerline Contact Plan” that is consistent with developing a Job Hazard Analysis.

10. Power Companies should, as far as reasonably practicable, advise their subscribers who are

contractors, owners, and users of cranes and other boomed equipment that their operating

facilities and construction sites must comply with the provisions outlined above. The power

companies’ safety director would be the appropriate coordinator and counselor of such

programs, and would provide all other management personnel with guidelines to ensure for

prompt support. Their easement agreement should prohibit the storage of materials under a

powerline immediately, and include instructions to notify them when boomed equipment is

going to be used at least ten days in advance.

11. Municipalities and other agencies involved in the approval of building permits should

incorporate pertinent provisions requiring that a Powerline Contact Prevention Plan, as

outlined, and be a condition for approval in any construction plans where the use of a crane

or boomed equipment is anticipated.

12. The National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators is considered to be the largest

and most authoritative crane operator licensing organization within the United States. They

should include in their written examination questions pertaining to items 1 through 30. In this

way, every certified operator has a full understanding of how to map the Red Danger Zone

and a clear responsibility to uphold the prohibition of entering the Red Danger Zone with a

crane or other boomed equipment.

13. Training needs to be developed for executive management of electric utilities (including

power, telephone, and cable companies), industrial landowners, architects, and developers of

their own responsibility to ensure within their span of reasonable control that cranes and all

boomed equipment shall be, by design and planning, isolated from energized powerlines.

Executive management must be aware of all options available to the various parties in order

to ensure for the prevention of equipment powerline contacts. This knowledge will further

ensure for a coordinated effort by all parties engaged in planning to incorporate all necessary

measures to prevent equipment powerline contacts.

134

MANAGERIAL:

14. Every effort must be made to bury powerlines or relocate them away from the job site.

However, if relocation of powerlines cannot be accomplished, the construction manager

should develop alternate construction methods that do not require the use of boomed

equipment for activities conducted in the danger zone or adjacent to powerlines.

15. Construction utilizing a crane or a boomed vehicle in the Red Danger Zone is prohibited, and

the powerlines shall be relocated or buried before use of the crane or boomed vehicle is

allowed to begin. The construction manager is responsible to ensure for the successful

relocation of powerlines.

16. In the event that work schedule changes arise, the project manager shall be immediately

alerted if dangerous proximity to a powerline exists, and crane operations must immediately

cease until the danger is removed or another method of operation with safe distance can be

established.

17. Only a written permit, co-signed by the project manager and the district manager of the

power company, witnessed on site by a designated individual, will allow a de-energized

powerline to suffice for a compliance with the intent of a Powerline Contact Prevention Plan.

The powerline shall not be re-energized until written authorization stating that all powerlines

are undamaged and all cranes and boomed equipment are located outside the Red Danger

Zone is gained from the power company.

18. The construction site manager and crane operator shall be instructed and tested to be

proficient in the skill of mapping the Danger Zone with the proper identifying markers or

barricades, in the event that a Powerline Contact Prevention Plan was not prepared or

implemented before the crew’s arrival at the work site.

19. Before any crane or boomed equipment commences work, the Prevention of Powerline

Contact Plan shall require that a designated individual responsible and in charge of the work

shall secure from the electric power company a written certificate stating that the automatic

reclosing feature of the circuit interrupting devices has been made inoperative for all

135

powerlines adjacent to or servicing the project. This guideline is consistent with section

1926.955, (e) live line barehanded work: 5 of OSHA federal codes and regulations.

20. The Prevention of Powerline Contact Plan shall require that any sub-contractor, leasor, or

other party providing a crane or other boomed equipment will include accurate written

instructions on how to map a powerline Danger Zone (as written in 13 above) in the rental

contract. The contract shall further include a clause wherein the designated crane or boomed

equipment operator agrees to position the equipment in a location as to be impossible in any

boom or mast configuration, extension, angle or rotation to penetrate the Red Danger Zone at

any time. See illustration II

21. When cranes or other boomed equipment are to be used in activities that involve the travel of

the crane with the boom extended on public roads, (e.g. “pick and carry” operations), or any

other situation rendering guidelines 1-18 inapplicable, the use of non-conductive tag lines,

electrostatic proximity warning devices, insulated links or range-limiting devices shall be

written into the project contract by the project engineer and enforced by the controlling

contractor or construction manager to ensure for worker safety. This can be reinforced by

requiring the use of a Job Safety Analysis.

22. When electric utilities lease space on their powerline poles to telephone, TV cable, or other

service or communication companies, to reduce their exposure to liability the following

considerations should be part of such agreements:

♦ Before any lines are to be installed by these parties, notice shall be provided 30 days

in advance so the electric utility can ensure that overgrown vegetation is removed

prior to installation of service communication lines (see appendix A42).

♦ Any party in contact with the power pole or the lines themselves (including those

leasing pole space for service lines, tree-trimmers and maintenance workers, and

installers of utility or communication systems) shall use only properly insulated aerial

lifts with emergency controls not accessible from the ground (see appendix A12,

A39). Further instruction in this clause is found in Guideline # 29. See illustration

III

23. Manufacturers of boomed equipment should adopt system safety as a pro-active method of

identifying all types of circumstances which may arise to afford an opportunity for powerline

136

contact. The provision for design modification and or safety appliances is the most

practicable method of preventing injury or death from foreseeable powerline contact.

24. The manufacturers, in order to assist crane and boomed equipment operators and users, shall

prepare and implement a Powerline Contact Prevention Plan to incorporate mapping

instruction and pertinent provisions, as outlined in items 1 through 22 above, in their new

operating manuals, as well as providing a revised supplement for their existing manuals.

TECHNICAL

25. Practical and specific methodology for the placement of concrete needs to be developed and

provided whenever the work is done underneath powerlines. This method will be a working

substitute for either cranes or pumpcrete machines that are prohibited entry into the Red

Danger Zone described in Paragraph 5 (see appendix A44, A49).

26. No materials, supplies, or equipment shall be placed or stored anywhere in the Red Danger

Zone at any time (see appendix A11, A16, A27, A47).

27. Any worker guiding a load shall use a non-conductive tagline attached to the load instead of

touching the load itself (see appendix A3, A6, A11, A15, A19, A25, A50).

28. Crane manufacturers or rental firms have the responsibility to provide range limiting devices,

proximity alarms and insulated links to the crane owners and users as safeguards against

powerline contact every time a crane will be used in the vicinity of powerlines. If the hazard

of powerline contact cannot be eliminated by the assistance of the electric utility company,

workers are entitled to be provided the option of every safety appliance available.

29. Insulated aerial lifts consistent with ANSI standards A92.2 2001- (Vehicle-Mounted

Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices) have proven to provide reasonable safe work

platforms for trained electrical linemen. These same equipment requirements shall be

extended to personnel doing tree-trimming, workers installing or maintaining telephone and

television cables and those who work with any other systems attached to electric powerline

poles. Aerial lifts used adjacent to powerlines to install, service or maintain advertising signs

and bill boards shall meet ANSI standard A92.2 2001 and shall be equipped with a non-

conductive framework barrier to isolate the individual in the basket from contact with a

powerline. See illustration III See also Guideline # 20.

137

30. Aerial lifts which raise the utility lineman or tree-trimmers where they are within touching

distance between phase wires of a powerline shall incorporate sufficient insulation between

and around all metal parts to prevent a phase to phase contact. (See appendix A4, A9).

31. Further equipment used in support of powerline construction and maintenance such as digger

derricks and other similar equipment should be evaluated for foreseeable operating misuse

and provided insulated coverings on boom sections that can be raised into powerlines. Write

specific instructions for the use of short Kelly bars to eliminate the need to raise the boom to

elevations that will reach powerlines (see appendix A30).

32. No boomed or elevating mast equipment shall have controls that are accessible to an operator

while standing on the ground, as it provides a path through the operator for a ground fault

circuit in the event of a powerline contact, which could result in electrocution (see A7, A8,

A12).

33. No boomed or elevating mast equipment shall be controlled with a conductive remote control

on a tether or umbilical cord, as it provides a path through the operator for a ground fault

circuit in the event of a powerline contact. There are remote controlled options which are

non-conductive, such as fiber optic, pneumatic and radio (see appendix A20, A33).

34. Specialized equipment such as news gathering vans or portable lighting mobile

communication systems, which are equipped with a telescoping pneumatic mast to raise

antennas and other communication receptors or floodlights, shall be equipped with an

electrostatic proximity detector attached to the antenna system so that the mast cannot be

raised when the van is located underneath or immediately adjacent to a powerline. The

manufacturers’ authorized installer shall ensure that the electrostatic powerline detector is

properly installed, adjusted, and the probe (antenna) is configured to operate correctly via

individual vehicle inspections and operating certificates. Further, as a redundant safeguard,

the antenna systems or any other devices mounted on top of the telescoping mast shall be

guarded with non-conductive framework, as is necessary to physically prevent a ground fault

in the event of powerline contact (see appendix A29, A31, A40).

138

Table 5 Duty of a variety of entities for electrical safety involving cranesEntity Organizational Managerial TechnicalOwner Require relocation or burial

of powerlines away fromabove the work area,

Receive executive trainingon the removal ofpowerline contact hazards

Provide means tosuccessfully implement

PPCP, such as budgetingfor stop-work time and on-

site meetings to avoidunexpected problems.

A/E Safety plan,Identify powerline hazards,Design relocation or burialof powerlines,Identify “Red DangerZones” on drawings,Receive executive trainingon the removal ofpowerline contact hazards

Hiring of competentoverseers (primarycontractor, constructionmanager) dedicated tosafety engineeringprinciples, assure enoughauthority to enforce thesegoals

Primarycontractor

Safety plan,Identify powerline hazards,Re-evaluate hazards undereach stop-order

Implementation of PPCP,Availability of proper

materials: barricades, etc.Assure for writtencommunication betweenparties

Enforce use of safetyappliances and insulation

as necessary, holdmeetings when any

unexpected problems arise

Constructionmanager

Safety plan Hold enough authority tostop work when possibility

of hazard arises

Enforce use of safetyappliances and insulation

as necessary, holdmeetings when any

unexpected problems ariseElectric utility

companies (alsotelephone and

cablecompanies)

Deactivate ground faultcircuit recloser devices,

Advise subscribers ofpowerline relocation orburial necessity and of theneed for a Prevention ofPowerline Contract Plan(PPCP)Receive executive trainingon the removal ofpowerline contact hazards.

Assure for writtencommunication between

parties

Attend meetings, stipulateproper and maximum

insulation requirements

Building codeauthorities

Require a PPCP

Crane operatorcertifier

Require knowledge ofmapping the Red Danger

Zone

APPENDIX A:

CASE FILES

139

APPENDIX A-1

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, Maricopa County, AZ, #228130

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 4, 1968

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1970

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A crawler latticework crane used to lower four-foot diameterconcrete culvert sections in order to construct a surface water drainage systemdown the center of a highway.

HAZARD: Inadequate clearance for top of the boom from a 7200 V overhead powerlinewhich was mid-span in the center of the highway and provided no visual clues onthe ground to warn of an overhead powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Pre-job planning overlooked the presence of a single-phase powerline that extended across the highway to power a well. Duringconstruction, the district service linemen for the utility passed the constructionactivity four times a day and was aware of the danger, even gave one oral warningan hour prior to the contact, but did not temporarily disconnect the power for theperiod that the crane would be used under the powerline. The injured worker was inthe trench releasing the lifting hook from a culvert section and the boom, whichwas nearly parallel to the ground, was raised approximately three feet into thepowerline upon the release of tension. The injured sustained a loss of his right armand other mutilations.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION: The pre-job planning with the investor-ownedutility failed to identify this powerline crossing for removal and provide anunderground conduit, which was a pay item for the other powerlines. The utilitydistrict service lineman had not been instructed to de-energize the powerlinewhenever a powerline contact was imminent. The contractor was unaware of theavailability of insulated links. As an employer, he was immune to liability.

DISPOSITION: On June 13, 1973, a trial was held by agreement before a judge without ajury. As workers' compensation benefits were inadequate to support the disabledand the injured’s family, the judge ruled in behalf of the injured because the utilityhad failed to de-energize the powerlines while aware of imminent danger.

NOTES: This case has become a landmark, as it was one of the very few first litigationsthat addressed liability of third parties as a defendant who could have eliminatedthe hazard. The issue of the adequacy of workers’ compensation benefits and socialsecurity is identified here to show that injury litigation arises to approportion toother parties who had the ability to prevent injury yet failed to act. This informationgenerally applies to the other case studies in this appendix.

140

APPENDIX A-2

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U. S. Court, Oklahoma City, OK, # CJ-70-2177

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1970

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1970

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A house moving activity requiring it being placed on an extra-wide lowboy trailer towed by a tow truck through the city streets

HAZARD: Inadequate clearance from the house rooftop to powerlines

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A city moving permit required assistance of the electricutility companies to raise the powerlines when clearance was inadequate. Theutility personnel failed to appear as agreed. The deceased was electrocuted when hepositioned himself on the roof and attempted to raise the powerline several incheswith a stick to allow passage of the house underneath.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The utility company failed to arrive at the worksite at the agreed time. Clearly, a

stronger communication and commitment is needed by both the employer and theutility.

♦ The electric utility company should have lifted the powerlines for this circumstance.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 1976 for the deceased.

NOTES: This case was listed as representative of other occurrences, as well as to show thewide diversity of foreseeable construction activities which result in contacts withpowerlines. It also shows the vital importance of good communication andunderstanding between house moving construction company and the electric utility.

141

APPENDIX A-3

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Illinois Appellate Court # 59549

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 20, 1970

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1974: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A 50-foot latticework boom crane mounted on a truck, working adjacent to a34,500 volt powerline 35 feet above the ground.

HAZARD: Crane boom was raised directly into an overhead powerline, which was mid-span between powerpoles with no ground clues to alert workers to the danger zone created by the powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: On July 20, 1970, at approximately 9:00 am, a pipefitter was killed andtwo others permanently injured. One worker, after eight days in the hospital, lost his right hand andforearm through the necessity of amputation. By the first week of August, both legs were alsoamputated. In addition, the injury caused by electric shock required four operations to removecataracts from each eye, leaving him industrially blind. A year after the accident, all of his teeth hadto be removed because of the poor dental hygiene while hospitalized for skin grafts. The incidentoccurred while the victim was guiding a pipe over an eight-foot cyclone fence in order to reload thepipe on another truck. The boom struck the powerline as it was being raised from a 40-degree angleto a 70-degree angle. Both landowner and power company had keys to the gate of the enclosed area,rendering the lift unnecessary. If the keys had been utilized, the entire cause of the powerline contactwould have been eliminated.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The landowner should have ensured access to the worksite to avoid unloading and reloading of the pipe

over a fence, under a powerline.♦ The power company was aware of 12 previous crane powerline contacts and should have avoided this

unsafe loading process and made safety planning a priority.♦ The crane manufacturer was aware of insulated links and boom cages (a wrap-around insulated frame

that prevents direct contact of powerline to a boom) as well as electrostatic proximity alarms. They hadnot tested any of them, nor made an attempt to advise crane users of their availability.

♦ It was agreed by both the Power Company and the crane manufacturer that it is difficult to preciselyjudge the distance between the boom tip and wires from any vantage point when looking into the sun.Therefore, the above listed devices could have prevented the boom powerline contact and resulting deathand maiming injuries.

DISPOSITION: The trial court issued a directed verdict in behalf of the plaintiff, which was affirmed in 1978by the Illinois Appellate Court.

NOTES: This case includes the trial testimony of Bob Jenkins, who retired in 1964 as Chief of Safety for theentire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after some 30 years with the agency. In his career, he wasaware of a history of some seven hundred crane powerline contacts, experienced worldwide byArmy Corps of Engineers on their construction projects. His testimony included that the originalclearance of six feet did not appear adequate, so he raised the Corps standard to ten feet and foundthat this additional clearance (of thin air) did not reduce the occurrence of crane boom powerlinecontact. Additionally, he also developed requirements in the Corps of Engineers for the use of linkand boom cages, all of which are included in this study’s Timeline.

This historical information revealed a pattern of circumstances that is consistent withpowerline contacts. The pattern needs to be broken by examining the specific causes that invite thecrane operating personnel to be entrapped by a dangerous worksite.(Refer to the 1978 Commerce Clearinghouse, Inc., court reporting service, section 8175).

142

APPENDIX A-4

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson City, # CV75-0950

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1973

DATE CASE FILED: 1975

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: An insulated utility lineman’s aerial lift as defined inANSI A92.2: Vehicle Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices, withspecifications for “Insulating devices” was being used with a small metal jib boomattached to the lineman’s basket, which was not isolated by insulation from anuninsulated control handle.

HAZARD: A phase to phase fault path for the operator in the lineman’s bucket whenundertaking live hot line work. The boom of the equipment touches a live wire,which energizes the vehicle but does not allow for a ground fault circuit. When theutility lineman contacts a different wire, the current energizing the vehicle flowsthrough him from the first wire into the second, seriously burning him in theprocess.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The lineman lost several fingers when the boom waspresumed insulated and it brushed against one of three conductors on a power polecrossarms. The operator was using the boom to lift a transformer and made a faultcurrent from the phase to phase when he brushed against a powerline with theboom when using the uninsulated control handle.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Absent was complete insulation in a non-conductive boom jib and insulated control

handle.♦ No warnings of the hazard or advising use of rubber gloves when positioning the aerial

lifts.

DISPOSITION: Settled on February 7, 1978, in behalf of the plaintiff.

NOTES: This was the first of a number of such instances in which the jury was presentedwith expert testimony by the defense witness that the use of insulation is not areasonable safeguard, as it promotes operator inattention. Several years later thiscompany initiated a retrofit program to provide insulation on older models andstarted to include insulation as standard on newer machines. No design standardsaddress this hazard.

143

APPENDIX A-5

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, El Paso County, CO, 80CV2309

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1974

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1981

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A straddle crane approximately 20 feet tall with dimensions of30 by 40 feet.

HAZARD: Straddle crane of sufficient height to reach the 7200 V powerlines and blindzones; the operator is unable to see overhead obstructions when traveling, and thepoint of contact was mid-span, offering no clear view of either supporting powerpole to warn of imminent danger.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured was severely burned when while holding ashackle to attach a load to the lifting beam, the operator backed the straddle craneinto a powerline that crossed the work area of an outdoor plant.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION: The removal of overhead powerlines from areaswhere high clearance equipment is used. (See National Electric Codeinterpretations), which provides no safe clearance for high clearance equipment. Aninsulated non-conductive lifting beam assembly and the use of an electrostaticproximity alarm to warn when powerlines are being approached. There needs to bea closer inter-dependence of communication between utility companies andindustrial work sites.

DISPOSITION: Settlement in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: This was the first of several occurrences where high-clearance overhead straddlecranes struck overhead powerlines.

144

APPENDIX A-6

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Henry County, IN # 77-C-470

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 30, 1975

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1976

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A mobile rough terrain, 18-ton hydraulic crane with atelescoping boom, being used to construct a water treatment plant. Powerlines hadnot been removed from the work area.

HAZARD: Crane hoist line contact with 7,200 V powerline, as the work area for the craneviolated the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The foreman lost feet and hands while guidingmaterials being unloaded from a truck and the hoist line struck a 13,800 Vpowerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Remove the powerlines from the construction area before work commences.♦ Use of insulated link and electrostatic proximity alarm as a backup safeguard.♦ Provide users with instructions on how to map the danger zone created by the

powerline.

DISPOSITION: A jury verdict was decided in behalf of the injured. Case appealed andupheld by Appellate Court.

NOTES: Dr. Middendorf was the first psychologist to present testimony of inaccuracies ofvisual estimates of crane boom or hoist clearances from powerlines.

145

APPENDIX A-7

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Merced, CA

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 14, 1975

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1976

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Auger/Agricultural feed truck with a boom used to fill a feedbin at a dairy farm.

HAZARD: Powerlines were strung immediately next to the feed bin, where weeklydeliveries are made and operator is required to stand on the ground operating boomcontrols. The bin should have been located outside the danger zone created by thepowerlines.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Feed-truck delivery man electrocuted while positioninga conductive auger boom to load the feed bin and struck a powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Electric utility improvement district should have coordinated a relocation of the

powerlines with the landowner (farmer), to provide for safe feed-bin loading.♦ The controls for controlling the feed truck boom should be totally non-conductive to

prevent a ground fault current flow.♦ The boom of the feed truck should consist of non-conductive materials

DISPOSITION: Case was settled for the injured in 1975.

NOTES: This case was listed to show the variety of equipment which is capable of makingpowerline contact and the need for a greater coordination of hazard identificationbetween the electric utility and the property owners. Further, the operator’s stationshould be designed so the operator cannot operate the controls when standing onthe ground.

146

APPENDIX A-8

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: McAllan, TX

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 11, 1976

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1978

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A portable (wheel mounted) small Auger conveyor used toload round, 20 foot tall, corrugated grain storage bins. These portable small Augerscan be rolled from one area to another to load grain dumped on the ground. Thework area included a 7,200 V powerline.

HAZARD: This upraised conveyor could be rolled into an overhead powerline. Thepowerlines and grain bins instantly create a hazard when they are close to eachother, regardless of the use of boomed equipment. No equipment should penetratethe powerline danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Two men were electrocuted and one seriously injuredwhile they were moving the elevating auger to position in order to load another bin.They misjudged the clearance and the boom struck the powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The rural Electric Cooperative should have coordinated powerline location with the

farmer to ensure that it did not pose a danger of conflict with portable auger elevators.♦ Design of these augers should incorporate an insulating plastic sleeve on the upper

portion of the portable elevator to prevent injury in the event of powerline contact.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 1985 with ample lifetime provision for the two widows.

NOTES: This case was included because it addresses a dire need for electric cooperativesto work with their member owners to eliminate hazardous powerline locations. It isalso a reminder that no elevating vehicle is exempt from the hazard of powerlinecontact.

147

APPENDIX A-9

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, King County, Seattle, WA # 827915

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 13, 1977

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1982

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A utility lineman’s mounted rotating aerial insulated lift, usedto work on energized powerlines.

HAZARD: A phase to phase contact, which often involves utility linemen in aerial liftswith uninsulated parts.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The Electric Utility Lineman lost both arms, which hadto be surgically removed at the shoulders as the aerial lift insulation had beencompromised when insulated hydraulic hoses were replaced with steel re-enforcedconductive hoses in order to overcome the frequent rupture of non-conductivehoses. Maintenance personnel were not provided adequate information in themaintenance manual nor specific warnings for the type of authorizedmanufacturer’s hoses that were to be used.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Parts and components specifically designed to overcome a specific hazard should

include a permanent warning label to ensure that maintenance personnel are aware ofthe inherent hazards and danger of the use of unauthorized components.

♦ The manufacturers should identify critical parts with a warning system for designreview to ensure for product safe maintainability.

DISPOSITION: 1978 verdict in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: These lineman’s aerial lifts were the subject of previous litigation concerning lackof design insulation (see A-4), and this case serves to reveal yet another lack ofinsulation failure mode.

148

APPENDIX A-10

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Cook County, Chicago, IL # 78L 15211

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 6, 1977

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: July 31, 1978

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental crane with a latticework boom being used to placegravel along a freeway.

HAZARD: The presence of 7,200 volt powerlines parallel to the work area. The point ofcontact was mid-span between the power poles.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The rental crane was backing into the powerline andthe pinup guylines that support the latticework boom contacted the powerline. Theworkman who was in front of the crane guiding the gravel bucket was electrocuted.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Pre-job planning to identify adequate space to position the crane with its back to the

powerline.♦ Use of an insulated link on the hoist line would have interrupted the flow of current to

the worker.♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have provided warning the powerline

was being approached from the rear of the crane.

DISPOSITION: Case settled in behalf of the family of the deceased.

NOTES: The crane rental firm was aware of the location close to powerlines where thecrane was intended to be used and did not offer or provide an insulated link orproximity device. During litigation, the crane manufacturer and rental councilpresented several witnesses who speculated that the insulated link and electrostaticproximity alarm could not have prevented the death of the worker.

149

APPENDIX A-11

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 250th Judicial District, Travis City, TX # 279080

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 21, 1977

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1980

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental mobile hydraulic crane with a telescoping boomworking at a construction site adjacent to 7,200 V powerlines.

HAZARD: Hoist line struck the powerline somewhere mid-span between the supportingpower poles.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: One man was killed and two seriously burned whenguiding a load to be lifted. The hoist line struck the powerline when it cleared theground. The crane rental firm was aware that the crane would be used in closeproximity to powerlines, but did not offer to equip the crane with safety appliancesnor deny use of the crane to the construction firm.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The storage area of construction materials underneath the powerline was unsafe.♦ Pre-construction planning would have identified an unsafe construction operating area

for cranes, therefore the “Danger Zone” would be breached only with special caution.♦ An insulated link would have interrupted the flow of current, preventing the loss of life

and the injuries of two men.♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have certainly ensured for greater

worker awareness of a serious life-taking hazard.♦ The crane rental company should have denied rental of the crane to be used in such a

dangerous location or equipped the crane with an insulated link and proximity alarm.

DISPOSITION: Settlement in behalf of the deceased and injured.

NOTES: This case introduces the need to prohibit storage of construction material under oradjacent to powerlines. This is also a case where defense presented severalwitnesses who speculated that the use of insulated links and proximity alarms couldnot have prevented the death and injuries.

150

APPENDIX A-12

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. Federal Court, Eastern District, Philadelphia, PA# 79-989

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: March 24, 1978

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1979

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A truck mounted pedestal crane with the controls accessible toan operator standing on the ground, used in a construction site.

HAZARD: In the event of a powerline contact the current goes directly through theoperator, who is made the primary ground-fault circuit, as the truck has rubber tiresand its outriggers are on dry wooden pads.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The operator was instantly electrocuted when the hoistline struck the 7,200 V powerline at a point mid-span between the power poles.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ This type of crane, with controls accessible to an operator standing on the ground, is

inherently unsafe.♦ A system safety analysis should have been performed at the time of the design.

DISPOSITION: Case settled in behalf of the plaintiff.

NOTES: This type of control arrangement was discontinued, as the various manufacturersof this type of flat bed mounted pedestal cranes recognized that they wereinherently dangerous. Crane safety standards do not address this hazard nor requirethe controls to be located where they cannot be operated by someone standing onthe ground.

151

APPENDIX A-13

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Law Division, Cook County, Chicago, IL# 78L 2395

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 7, 1978

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1978

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Rotating Auger drill rig with a 25-foot mast, used at a coalmining operation service center located under powerlines.

HAZARD: The mast contacted an overhead powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The maintenance man was electrocuted when he raisedthe mast of the drill rig in a confined service area and it struck an overheadpowerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ A raised operator’s platform would isolate the operator from a ground fault circuit.♦ A Proximity alarm would warn of the overhead danger.♦ Removal of the powerlines from the strip mining operations is the most effective way

to eliminate the hazard.

DISPOSITION: On September 19, 1978, the case was settled in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: Some of the newer machines of this type had an enclosed operator’s cab, whichremoved the operator from this hazard. However, this type of contact was not anisolated occurrence, as in strip mining activities powerlines often cross the miningarea.

152

APPENDIX A-14

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, 11th Judicial District, Dade County, FL# 81-12663-CA-30

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 4, 1980

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1981

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A forklift used to create a mobile staging for assembling ametal building.

HAZARD: A mid-span contact between 7,200 V powerline and staging.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Forklift operator, when backing the forklift carrying ametal scaffold under a powerline, struck the powerline with the scaffold. Thecurrent traveled through the metal scaffold and energized the forklift. Apparentlythe operator was electrocuted when he attempted to leave the forklift.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Construction safety planning would have identified the limited space for operating a

forklift supporting a scaffold.♦ The scaffold could have been constructed of non-conductive materials.♦ Remove or relocate powerlines away from construction work area.

DISPOSITION: The case was settled in 1984 on behalf of the widow.

NOTES: This case was included to illustrate the fact that the use of a forklift can involve apowerline contact, and stresses the need to relocate or otherwise remove thepowerlines when any equipment with a high clearance is used.

153

APPENDIX A-15

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 131st Judicial District, Bexar County, San Antonio TX, #84-CI-04130

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1983

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1984

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A mobile hydraulic crane with a telescoping boom was being used tohelp develop an industrial park. Initially, there were many unenergized powerlines in thealleyways.

HAZARD: Hoist line of crane struck a previously de-energized municipal powerline mid-spanbetween the poles. It had been re-energized with 7,200 V of power.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Two workmen were seriously injured: one lost both legs onearm while the other had badly burned feet and hands. They were guiding materials toassemble a roof. The crane was being used by various contractors to assemble tilt-upwarehouses. When the work commenced no powerlines had been strung in the alleyways.As the development progressed, the powerlines being erected were not available forservice, and contractors were required to use their own portable generators. The industrialpark had two roads from the main highway. The south entry was used by the workmen atthis project, and the pole at this entry had a large coil of distribution line conspicuouslyhanging on the cross arms, preparing to connect across the highway to the transmissionline. Unseen by the workers, a half-mile to the north road, the powerlines were attached tothe main transmission line. The municipal electric company did not inform the variouscontractors that the powerlines had been energized. The utility lineman’s logic stated thatsuch a warning was unnecessary, as everyone should consider every powerline to beenergized.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The industrial park should have been designed with underground electric utilities.♦ He municipal utilities should have advised all the contractors when they energized the

powerlines.♦ An insulated link would have prevented the injuries.♦ An electrostatic proximity alarm would have alerted the crane operator that the powerlines had

been energized.

DISPOSITION: In December 1984 the utility company settled in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: The defendants presented an expert witness who said it was normal to energize thepowerline when the service was not being provided. The National Electric Safety Codespecifically requires that powerlines not immediately used or abandoned should not beenergized. This case also stresses the vital nature of workplace communication, especiallybetween independent contractors using cranes. Paragraphs 210 and 211 of NESC 1977state that all practical measures must be taken to ensure worker safety, and even NESC1984 tries to promote communication between construction and electric utility. The electricutility has no excuse for a situation like this.

154

APPENDIX A-16

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, Columbia Division, SC # 3:84-3141 &3044-0

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 21, 1983

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1984

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A truck-mounted pedestal hydraulic telescoping boom craneused in construction.

HAZARD: Backing with a raised boom into the unmarked danger zone of a powerline onthe worksite.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured, working alone, (loading materials storedunder powerlines) received serious 3rd degree burns from a 7,200 V powerlinewhen he exited the truck to investigate what had just happened.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have warned the injured that he was

backing into a powerline.♦ Do not store construction materials under powerlines.♦ A signalman to guide the operator and map the Danger Zone should have been

provided to work with the operator.

DISPOSITION: The case was settled in June, 1987.

NOTES: A flatbed truck-mounted pedestal hydraulic vehicle has a great deal of utility forpicking up small loads for delivery on the worksite where workmen need buildingmaterials, and because of its versatility should be equipped with an appliance suchas an electrostatic proximity alarm.

155

APPENDIX A-17

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, Oklahoma County; Oklahoma City, OK# CJ-84-52

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1984

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1984

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A large truck-mounted latticework boom rental crane, beingused to remodel an electric utility substation.

HAZARD: Powerline contact in an unmarked danger zone, with a frame and pinup guysthat support the boom.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The crane was leased with an operator by the contractorremodeling the substation. The work was completed and crane needed to be backedto have room to lower the boom so that the crane could be driven off the premisesunder the powerlines over the entryway. In so doing, the signalman was unawarethat the crane was being backed into the 7,200 volt powerline to the rear of thecrane. The operator jumped out of the crane to see what was wrong- it is presumedhe believed the circuit breaker had momentarily de-energized the line, and whenattempting to get on the truck to move it forward was electrocuted. At the time ofthe occurrence his co-workers were calling a warning not to board the truck untilthe arcing had stopped

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Use of an electrostatic proximity alarm would have warned all of the personnel that the

crane was approaching the powerline to the rear of the crane.♦ The work area should have been mapped with cranes or other marks to show on the

ground the safe limits of movement of the crane before the crane was to be positionedin order to cover the boom.

DISPOSITION: The subcontractor settled on behalf of the deceased, but the cranemanufacturer and crane rental firm were found blameless for not providing anelectrostatic proximity alarm.

NOTES: The same model of crane was brought to the work site and an electrostaticproximity alarm was installed with a sensing antenna inside of the boom. Thislocation was unique, as there were other powerlines in the immediate vicinity.When the crane was positioned in the same location the proximity alarm workedperfectly to warn that the crane was being backed into the powerline to the rear.Tests were recorded on video and still available. The judge would not allow thejury to see the tape or hear testimony that the proximity alarm was a lifesavingdevice, as the tests were done after the fatality occurred.

156

APPENDIX A-18

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Cook County, IL # 85-L-15975

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: May 28, 1985

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1985

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental truck mounted hydraulic crane leased by the railroadfor work on a train wreck site.

HAZARD: Hoist line struck a 7,200 V powerline mid-span.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured worker lost both arms while removing amotor from a locomotive for the railroad, and clearance from the powerline wasmisjudged.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ An insulated link would have saved the worker from loss of both arms.♦ The electric cooperative should have been contacted to de-energize the powerlines.♦ The use of electrostatic proximity alarm could have alerted the railroad workers to the

fact that the boom and the hoist line were too close to the powerlines.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 1989 in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: Railroad cases do not appear in OSHA reporting. This makes the hazard all themore dangerous because all such occurrences are not recorded. Fortunately, severalof the larger railroads install the electrostatic proximity alarm on their own cranes.A number of railroads have installed proximity alarms on equipment that they own,and have succeeded in avoiding all powerline contacts. In this case the railroadleased a crane with an operator with no requirements for a link or proximity alarm.

157

APPENDIX A-19

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 79th Judicial District, Wells County, TX # 24 978

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 5, 1985

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1986

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A large straddle crane used to lift pre-cast concrete beam forloading on trucks at a pre-cast concrete plant.

HAZARD: 7,200 V powerline contact in an unmarked danger zone in the work area.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The truck driver was electrocuted while guiding theload for placement on his truck’s trailer and the straddle crane struck a powerlinespanning the work area.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Remove the powerlines from the work area.♦ Map the Danger Zone where movement of the straddle crane is prohibited.

DISPOSITION: Jury verdict against the planer owner for a dangerous truck-loadinglocation.

NOTES: This case example also shows the diversity of types of equipment which contactspowerlines, and illustrates that this type of equipment has had multiple powerlinecontacts (see Appendix A-5).

158

APPENDIX A-20

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, St. Louis, MO; Division 1# 902-01524

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 24, 1989

DATE CASE FILED: 1990

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: Hydraulic raised flatbed mounted cable trolley boomcontrolled with an electric tether.

HAZARD: Powerline contact from boom raised approximately 30 degrees and rotatedinto the 7,200 V powerline. The boom was controlled by an electric cable remotecontrol held by an operator who was standing on the ground. The crane was beingused in an unmarked danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured lost both hands and feet while using thetethered cable control as he rotated the boom that brushed against overheadpowerlines. The boom truck was located adjacent to the powerline, requiring theblock to be unloaded from the bed of the truck that the crane was mounted on. Thetask required that a pallet of concrete block be rotated under the powerline andplaced on the staging where a building wall was being erected.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Relocation of the powerline prior to the commencement of construction♦ Insulated boom♦ A non-conductive control system of either fiber optics, radio, or pneumatic

DISPOSITION: settled on behalf of the injured.

NOTES: This incident was part of a cluster of some 32 occurrences involving umbilicalbooms made by the same manufacturer. It was also found that some of the relayswere unreliable due to low quality and had caused the control system to notperform correctly, such as an instance when the control system directed the boomto lover but the boom continued to raise. When working in the vicinity ofpowerlines, this sort of malfunction often resulted in serious burns to the operator.The crane safety standards have no requirements for remote controls to be non-conductive.

159

APPENDIX A-21

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, City of Saint Louis, MO # 912-09826

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: February 23, 1990

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1992

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A flat bed, truck mounted pedestal hydraulic crane with atelescoping boom used to unload highway curb forms along a highway constructionproject.

HAZARD: Powerline contact mid-span across a freeway being constructed resulted fromraising boom into powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The deceased was a longtime foreman who wasassisting the laying out of curb forms for concrete paving of a new freeway. He andthe truck driver would drive a few feet ahead, stop the truck, unload a curb form,then move on ahead to repeat the task. They visually were aware of a transmissionpowerline and avoided raising the crane boom. A half-mile down the highwayunder construction, a single-phase 7,200 V powerline (single wire) crossed theroadway. When picking up the first steel form to be unloaded from the flat bed andslued the boom to the side and towards the front of the truck, the hoist line struckthe powerline and the foreman who was standing on the ground guiding a curbform to where it should be placed. Neither he nor the crane operator (the truckdriver) was aware of the powerline crossing the road.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Provide an electrostatic proximity alarm.♦ Provide an insulated link.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 1994 on behalf of the widow.

NOTES: The contractor immediately purchased an electrostatic proximity alarm and aninsulated link and used both of them for a month with an opportunity for each oftheir crane operators and crew to use the devices. They then purchased fifteen ofthe proximity alarms and installed one on each of their cranes and a pumpcretemachine. They have used them continuously for the last decade and have had NOpowerline contacts. Each of the crane operators considers the proximity alarmessential for their safe operations. See timeline for Mr. Andrew’s affidavit onDecember 12, 1999.

160

APPENDIX A-22

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Hale County, Alabama # CV- 90- 75

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 9, 1990

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1990

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: An 8-ton flatbed mounted pedestal crane used to conduct aone-time off-load aeration machinery for the catfish ponds being constructed.

HAZARD: Contact mid-span with newly installed powerlines presumed not to beenergized, as the facility was still under construction.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Deceased was electrocuted when the crane’s hoist linebecame entangled with the powerline. The deceased fell down onto the outriggersand received serious burns for five minutes before the hoist was disengaged fromthe powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Coordination between the electric utility and the construction company.♦ An electrostatic proximity alarm would have warned the crane operator and workers

that the powerline was now energized, even if no one else had.♦ An insulated link would have prevented a fatal flow of current.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 1992 in behalf of the widow.

NOTES: This case example is a reminder of the importance of communication between theelectric utility companies and any site or situation where there could be boomedequipment. The electrostatic proximity alarm is a reminder that one must alwaysrespect the presence of powerlines.

161

APPENDIX A-23

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Muskegon County, MI, # 90-27050- NO

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 13, 1990

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1990

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Sixth wheel semi dump truck bed which could be raised 24 feetin the air, which was being cleaned at a location designated for cleaning.

HAZARD: The bed was raised somewhere mid-span into a 4,600 V powerline only 21feet high. The powerline was in a designated work area that was inside a dangerzone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A workman was electrocuted when hosing down thesemi truck bed when it struck a powerline. Workers were unaware that the dumpbed could reach the powerlines.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Locate a work area designated for cleaning away from any powerlines.♦ Provide insulation on the upper rims of the dump bed.♦ An electrostatic proximity warning device could detect the overhead powerline and be

interlocked to prevent raising the dump bed when under powerlines.

DISPOSITION: Settled in June 1992 in behalf of the widow.

NOTES: This case was selected to be part of the 50 case samples to illustrate the diversityof types of equipment that comes into contact with powerlines. Though a dumptruck seems an unlikely vehicle to contact powerlines, incidences happen much toooften to be considered a rare occurrence. Records indicate at least fifty cases ofdump beds raised into powerlines, resulting in death and serious injury. Typical ofother occurrences is the delivery of gravel to a residential site and the dump bed israised into a powerline. Usually someone is touching the truck (for instance, to paythe driver) when the bed raises into the powerline.

Presumption that this type of an occurrence is a “freak accident” onlyintensifies the need to develop managerial acceptance that the hazard of powerlinecontact is their responsibility. The workforce cannot be assumed to be responsibleto avoid the hazard when provided a location under powerlines to wash their trucks.

162

APPENDIX A-24

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, San Bernardino County, CA,# HBCV008492

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 18, 1991

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1992

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A side mounted tractor boom laying oil pipeline under atransmission line.

HAZARD: The boom contacted a powerline mid-span in a workplace that was within adanger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Pipeline company requested permission for layingpipeline across an electric utilities transmission line easement; the utility companyignored the request and offered no coordination on how the task could becompleted safely. The work proceeded without clearance and three men sustainedserious electrical burns when they were in contact with the pipe when it was beingmaneuvered into the trench under the sagging transmission powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ This case shows the dire need for utility and construction management to ensure for

safety coordination in pre-construction safety planning.♦ Tractor side-mounted booms should have a warning chart showing the boom elevation

at various angles.

DISPOSITION: Settled in behalf of the injured on April 4, 1995.

NOTES: This case was included to show the diversity of equipment involved in powerlinecontact and the importance of management involvement in construction pre-jobsafety planning. The tractor manufacturer began providing warning labels for theirtractor pipe laying side booms.

163

APPENDIX A-25

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Montgomery County, MD, # 117274-V

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 21, 1992

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: November 12, 1996

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rental mobile hydraulic crane with a telescoping boom usedto place concrete on a freeway overpass and interchange.

HAZARD: The crane hoist struck the powerline mid-span in a workplace that entered intothe danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A worker, when standing on a partially completedelevated access ramp underneath another access ramp, was guiding a concretebucket to pour paving at ground level, two stories below. An overhead powerlinehad not been relocated, as the general contractor believed that the interchangeconstruction could complete the work without relocating the powerline. Evenhighway construction funds authorized such an expense. The electric utilitycompany at the construction planning meeting made no effort to recommendburying the powerline before construction commenced. The State HighwayDepartment did not include powerline relocation as part of the design. Additionally,the crane rental firm, when monitoring the use of the crane for maintenancepurposes, was fully aware that the crane was being used dangerously close to thepowerlines, but made no effort to intercede. The worker lost both of his arms.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Preplanning at the time of design would have included relocating the powerlines♦ Relocating the powerlines at the time of construction would have been a funded change

order.♦ The crane rental firm had authority to remove the crane from a dangerous location.♦ Provision for an insulated link would have prevented the injury.

DISPOSITION: Settled in August 1997 in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: Dr. George Karady presented his test data in deposition that the use of aninsulated link would have prevented the injury.

164

APPENDIX A-26

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: State of North Carolina, General Court of Justice, County ofNew Hanover # 94-CVS-997

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: February 1, 1993

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1994

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Non-insulated aerial lift used in a movie lot to construct and remodelsets from the service area, which contained overhead powerlines that supplied power to allthe movie sets.

HAZARD: Operator of the aerial lift made contact with a 7,200 volt powerline in a work area thatwas in the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The aerial lift operator sustained serious head, shoulder and armburns when he raised the lift into an overhead powerline while working on remodeling amovie set from the service area at the rear of the set. The injured party’s burns were sodisfiguring that he had to wear a sack over his head for three years so he would not frightenhis wife and children while undergoing numerous skin graft operations. The injured did notsee the powerline, as he was blinded when looking into the sun.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The hazard could have been eliminated at the time of construction by simply following the

suggestions of the power company to bury the powerlines.♦ The aerial lift should have been equipped with a non-conductive boom with an insulated

basket. An insulated basket with a non-conductive frame of plastic piping would have guardedthe operator from contacts with the powerline.

DISPOSITION: The jury verdict in July, 1999 ruled in favor of the injured. The insurer of the lotappealed the judgment to the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the verdict in behalf ofthe injured was upheld. The aerial lift manufacturer and rental agency settled prior to trial.

NOTES: This is an excellent example where the involvement of the landowner was needed toensure for buried powerlines, so the movie lot would have been safe for its intended use.Further, the crane manufacturer and its dealer/rental agency had an aerial lift model with anon-conductive boom, which was suitable for use. The aerial lift manufacturer’s salesliterature and operating manual showed an illustration of the aerial lift in use under apowerline. They also made another model of the same lift that incorporated non-conductivebooms, as used by electric utility linemen. Had a crane such as this been used, thepowerline contact would not have caused injury, as the injured would not have beengrounded.

165

APPENDIX A-27

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, 212th Judicial District, Galveston Co,TX #94-CV-1233

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 8, 1993

DATE CASE FILED: 1994

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: A telescoping pedestal hydraulic crane mounted on aflat-bed truck equipped with a makeshift uninsulated basket.

HAZARD: Mid-span 7,200 V powerline contact with the uninsulated man basket in thedanger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The injured sustained the loss of his right arm, whichhad to be amputated from a high-voltage shock. He was attempting to hook thehoist to the lifting straps of a load to be lifted onto the bed of the boom truck. Thematerials to be lifted were stored under a powerline. The crane manufactureroffered for sale an insulated man basket for their crane, but the victim’s employerhad chosen not to purchase it.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Materials should not be stored under powerlines.♦ The use of the manufacturer’s insulated man basket would have prevented contact and

therefore injury.♦ The use of an insulated link would have prevented the injury♦ A range limiting device would have prevented the boom from being raised into the

powerline.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 2000 just prior to trial in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: Again, the storage of material under powerlines only invites workers to use acrane. The practice of storing material under powerlines should be prohibited.

Years later, the plaintiff’s attorney who inherited this case at the time of theoriginal attorney’s retirement contacted Mr. Andrews (from Case A-21) andsecured an affidavit taken on 99.12.29 (listed in the timeline) attesting to thebenefits of safety appliances.

166

APPENDIX A-28

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Saint Louis, MO, # 942-08925

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: November 9, 1993

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1995

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rough terrain mobile hydraulic rental crane with atelescoping boom being used on a construction site.

HAZARD: Hoist line contact with a mid-span powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The crane operator chose to rotate the boom 180degrees East to West on the side towards the powerlines when there was ampleroom to rotate the boom 180 degrees on the side away from the 7,200 V powerline.The worker guiding the load was severely burned.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The crane operator/supervisor should have mapped the Danger Zone created by the

powerline and had the area clearly marked, requiring the crane operator to rotatethe crane away from the powerline.

DISPOSITION: The injured settled for a small amount rather than risk a trial and theinherent harassment by the defense counsel.

NOTES: This is a case where human factors play a large roll. The crane was swung in theimproper direction, but it most likely would not have been if the Danger Zone hadbeen properly marked. The most obvious warnings that show the location of theDanger Zone on the ground save the most lives.

167

APPENDIX A-29

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Federal Court, District of Colombia, Washington, D.C.,# 000142 b-95

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: February 22, 1994

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1995

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: An Electronic News Gathering Van with a pneumatic mast, owned andmaintained by a major television network.

HAZARD: Raising a pneumatic mast of a News Gathering Van into a 7,200 V powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Pending the TV reporting of an important news story, all of themajor network news gathering vans had assembled on the same site. One van pulled into aparking spot immediately behind another station’s van, whose mast and antenna wasalready raised. While sitting on the floor of the van with the side door open, the deceasedraised the pneumatic mast of his van into the parkway shade trees and was apparentlyunaware of the overhead powerlines. He was immediately electrocuted, and the terribleoccurrence was videotaped by several of the other TV networks while aid was being rushedto the victim.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Some five years prior to this occurrence, the U.S. Army developed border surveillance SUV’s

with pneumatic masts, but had equipped these vehicles with electrostatic powerline proximitydetectors wired so that the mast could not be raised when parked under or near a powerline.The reason for this safeguard on some 25 vehicles used along the Mexican border was becausethe surveillance was done at night with a quick set-up, with little time to look for powerlines.The manufacturer of the pneumatic mast had been notified by the army of this safetydevelopment, but had yet to act on it.

♦ The van’s antenna system should have incorporated some type of insulation framework toprevent the antenna from touching the powerline.

♦ Mast raising controls should be located in the van in such a way that they cannot bemanipulated unless the operator is standing safely inside the van and cannot operate them whenstanding on the ground.

DISPOSITION: Some of the parties settled. Others proceeded to a jury verdict in behalf of thedeceased’s dependants.

NOTES: All of the news media is quick to make public the misfortune of other organizations, yetheld information back when an incident struck so close to them. The management of themajor networks had a wonderful opportunity to inform their local stations and subscribersof the life-saving need for use of the electrostatic proximity warning device, and assist infunding these necessary appliances. Instead, they kept silent, shirking their responsibility toensure for own industry’s workplace safety, which led to additional wrongful injuries ofthe same nature (see Appendix A-31, A-37, etc).

168

APPENDIX A-30

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. District Court, Southern District, IA, #3-96-CV-70065

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 5, 1994

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: May 23, 1995

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A digger derrick on a telescoping boom truck, multiple purposevehicle used by electric utility linemen.

HAZARD: The truck’s boom contacted a 7,200 V powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The deceased utility lineman was instantly electrocutedwhen the boom tip struck the powerline while he was using a long Kelly bar torotate a screw anchor. He was not provided a short Kelly bar, which would haveprevented the need for raising the boom to begin placing a screw anchor for aguyline anchor underneath a powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Provide a short Kelly bar for installing guy line screw anchors to avoid the need to

raise the boom close to the powerline.♦ Provide a non-conductive boom tip and a plastic shield for digger derricks as it is

foreseeable that these digger derricks will be operated under powerlines to install screwanchors and excavate holes for setting new power poles.

DISPOSITION: Case was settled in 1998

NOTES: Previous to the incident, plastic shielding was developed and installed on vehiclemounted aerial lifts used by linemen to prevent phase to phase injuries to linemen.The same use of insulation would have redundant backup protection of workmenfrom powerline contact by equipment known to be used near powerlines.

169

APPENDIX A-31

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District of South Carolina, Charleston Division# 2:96-2106-1

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: August 9, 1994

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1995

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: An Electronic News Gathering Van with a pneumatic mast.

HAZARD: Injured unintentionally raised mast into unseen 7,200 V powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The operator, when covering a news breaking story,was unaware of the overhead powerline and raised the antenna while standing onthe ground and reaching into the van to raise the mast and received burns thatrequired his foot to be amputated.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Since their debut in the Army surveillance unit, proximity warning devices for

pneumatic-masted vehicles have been met with overwhelming popularity as effectivetools against powerline contact. The manufacturer of the van and owner of the newsnetwork should have acquired this appliance for the van.

♦ The van’s antenna system should have incorporated a type of insulation.♦ Mast raising controls should be located in the van in such a way that they cannot be

manipulated unless the operator is standing safely inside the van.

DISPOSITION: Settled in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: This case was included in the Appendix to show how the management of even arelatively tight knit, specialized industry is unable to provide a retrofit throughoutthe whole industry.

170

APPENDIX A-32

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Superior Court, State of Washington, County of King,# 94-2-32501-9 SEA

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: December 28, 1994, 5:00 PM

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1994

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Truck equipped with a boomed shingle conveyor wasbeing used in a residential area with overhead 7,200 V powerlines.

HAZARD: Conveyor boom truck curb-side mid-span powerline contact where visibilitywas impaired by a cloudy dusk background.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Worker was instantly electrocuted when a truckmounted shingle conveyor contacted a powerline after they had loaded the shinglesonto the roof of the residence and were preparing to leave. The untrained employeewas a recent high school graduate and was placing tools in the storage cabinet onthe side of the conveyor truck. He was unaware that the conveyor boom was beingrotated into the powerline. The boom operator misjudged the clearance of theboom, as it was approaching nightfall on a cloudy late afternoon in December. Apowerline contact, and the ending of a life, occurred as the operator rotated theboom back to travel position. The truck was equipped with no safeguards such asin insulated non-conductive boom or electrostatic proximity warning alarm.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The feasibility of designing a non-conductive boom and conveyor was well within the

state-of-the-art at the time of manufacture.♦ Provide an electrostatic proximity warning device to alert the operator that the boom

was being rotated into a powerline, so he would have the opportunity to avoid thedangerous collision. Such a device could also have warned the deceased if he hadbeen trained about the hazards of powerline contact.

DISPOSITION: Settled in favor of Plaintiff on May 17, 1996.

NOTES: One year after settling the case, the defendant conveyor company designed andinstalled a non-conductive boom on all new equipment manufactured. They alsoinitiated a retrofit program to enhance the safety of all of their existing equipment.The development of a non-conductive conveyor boom was a progressive andproactive approach to electrical safety, and corroborates the notion that the mostimportant route to safe workplaces is achieved by design.

171

APPENDIX A-33

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, PAApril Term 1997 # 2386

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: April 24, 1995

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1996

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Knuckle-boom crane equipped with a hardwire remote controlelectrical umbilical cord. Adjacent row houses were being restored in a historic partof Philadelphia, where overhead powerlines had been installed rather than buried.

HAZARD: A knuckle-boom contact with a 13,200 V mid-span powerline – the conductivewire remote control system created a ground-fault path to the crane operator.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The worker sustained severe disabling injuries including theloss of both hands, and burns on the legs and stomach. He was holding an electricalhardwire remote control to a truck-mounted knuckle boom underneath a 13,200 voltpowerline to off-load twelve foot long sheet rock into the upstairs of a row house.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Buried electric utilities have been feasible for years, and would have eliminated the

hazard of powerline contact, making safer the foreseeable use of cranes in restorationprojects. In addition, the historical ambiance of the neighborhood would be vastlyenhanced, as there were no powerlines in the early 1800’s when the row houses werebuilt.

♦ Handheld radio remote controls are safer than hardwire remote controls.

DISPOSITION: Settled in favor of plaintiff in January 1999.

NOTES: Historic district restoration planning should address the issue of buried utilitiesfor both safety and aesthetic purposes. Safety standards should includerequirements for non-conductive remote controls, as this hazard is the source ofmany injuries and deaths.

172

APPENDIX A-34

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: State of Indiana, County of Lake # 45DO5-9704-651

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: May 23, 1995

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: August 9, 1995

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A large truck mounted crane with a latticework boom, used forpile driving for a bridge building project.

HAZARD: Contact with relocated 7,200 V powerlines that were in the work area dangerzone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: When attaching the sling to the hoist line hook to lift apiling into the dragline leads, the workman sustained injuries from severe shock.The crane was being rotated to position the hook near the pile to be lifted and the“A” Frame to the rear of the crane cab, which supports the boom’s pinup guys,brushed against the relocated powerlines. At the time the electric utility had madeplans to relocate the powerlines, but there was no coordination between the utilityand power company and the contractor. The relocation of the lines only providedsafe clearance of the crane from the powerlines when the pilings for the bridgefootings would be driven on the south side of the river. No consideration was givento the need for safe clearance when driving pilings on the north side of the River.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ When the power company is notified by a contractor, a safety planning meeting must

be established between the power company and the contractor. It should encompass theequipment and area that the crane will be using for the entire project, rather than thedecisions made by the utility line personnel, who arrive on the job site when it isinactive and make a judgment that is inadequate for the jobsite’s needs, such as theone to relocate the powerlines on the North side of the river because of the assumptionthat the crane will remain, and be safe on the South side.

♦ Warning could have been achieved with an electrostatic proximity alarm.♦ An insulated link would have prevented hazardous current flow to the rigger who was

attaching a sting to the hook.

DISPOSITION: The case was settled in March 2002.

NOTES: Construction safety planning to avoid crane powerline contact requiresmanagement involvement of both the contractor and the electric utility safetydirector and the contractor’s safety director to ensure that the powerlines will berelocated out of harm’s way is time well spent.

173

APPENDIX A-35

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, AndoverDivision # C.A. 8-96-1064-20

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 13, 1995

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1996

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A 35 ton truck-mounted hydraulic crane with telescoping boomworking adjacent to a powerline, next to a facility under construction.

HAZARD: Unwieldy, conductive steel “I” Beam contacted 7,200 V powerline, and therewas nothing to block the flow of current. The crane was being used within thedanger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: While lifting a steel “I” beam next to a powerline, theworker sustained serious burns to hands and feet, requiring seven surgeries,including amputation of toes and fingers, tracheotomy, and skin grafts.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Use of non-conductive taglines would have prevented this injury.♦ Pre-construction powerline safety planning must involve the general contractor, sub-

contractor, and electric utility company in order to relocate powerlines beforeconstruction commences.

♦ An insulated link would have been able to stop the flow of current down the crane, thuspreventing this injury.

♦ An electrostatic proximity alarm would have created awareness of the crane operatorand operating crews. They would have realized that this operation put the crane withintoo close a proximity to powerlines, and that other arrangements needed to be takenbefore the lifting could proceed.

DISPOSITION: A verdict for the injured was established on December 11, 1996

NOTES: The total area in which to lift large beams was inherently unsafe, too close topowerlines. The powerlines should have been removed before the work started. Theuse of the electrostatic proximity alarm provides the worker an opportunity torequest management for a change to safer methods as well as heightening operatorawareness.

174

APPENDIX A-36

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, PA# 98-CIV-147

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: January 17, 1996

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1998

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A fire ladder tank and pumper truck with a snorkel hose, being used tofight a warehouse fire where people were believed to be living in a converted loft space.

HAZARD: The elbow-style ladder was lowered into a 7,200 V powerline while a fireman on theground was trying to make a hose connection. The current traveled through the ladder andhose and caused severe burns to the fireman. The contact was made somewhere in the mid-span area.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The fire fighting crew arrived at the burning warehouse withintent to use the snorkel hose to douse the roof fire with water. The snorkel nozzle wasmounted on the personnel basket, which was mounted on the ladder lip, making it possiblefor firemen to enter the building to look for occupants presumed to be inside. Thisprocedure requires the use of water in the tank of the ladder truck until the pumper isattached to a city fire hydrant. While the snorkel is using water in the truck’s tank, a hoseconnection was hurriedly being made when the ladder boom struck an energizedpowerline. The fireman making the hose connection while standing on the groundsustained serious burns. Simultaneous to the construction of this particular fire truck wasthe revision of fire truck safety standards. The revised standard included the requirement ofan insulated platform to isolate the fireman from the ground when operating or makinghose connections.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ An electrostatic proximity alarm would have warned the fireman that the powerline was still

energized, as in the event of fire had not turned the power off.♦ Provide of a non-conductive platform as now required by the standards, for the firemen to

stand safely on.♦ Insulation on the lower side of the fire truck ladder would prevent a powerline contact from

causing flow when the ladder is lowered into a powerline.♦ Develop an automatic call system to alert the electric utility when a fire occurs and establish a

code to identify the location where automatic reclosures could be disconnected.

DISPOSITION: Settled in 2000.

NOTES: Product manufacturers should ensure for a system safety analysis of their products at thetime of design to incorporate the latest available safety standards and technology.Paragraph 7.9.2 of NFPA’s standard 1904 for Aerial Ladder and Elevating Platform FireApparatus states only: “Provisions shall be made so the pump operator is not in contactwith the ground. Signs shall be places to warn the pump operator of the electrocutionhazard.” However, this standard gave no clue that the design should include a non-conductive platform and handholds for firefighters who had the task of connecting waterhoses to the aerial ladder and elevating platform apparatus.

175

APPENDIX A-37

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Washington County, MS, # C120-0139

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1996

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 2002

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: News Gathering Van with a pneumatic mast.

HAZARD: The mast of the van was raised into a 7,200 V powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Deceased was unaware of the overhead powerline, andraised the mast and antennas into it.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Electrostatic Proximity Warning Sensor wired to prevent raising the mast when under

or adjacent to a powerline.♦ The van’s antenna system should have incorporated a type of insulation♦ Mast raising controls should be located in the van in such a way that they cannot be

manipulated unless the operator is standing safely inside the van.

DISPOSITION: unknown

NOTES: There is a conspicuous absence of involvement of the television industry toensure for safe equipment using known safeguards and old technology. The U.S.Army adopted similar methods in 1985, yet an unknown number of ENG vans,mostly in urban areas, are without this protection.

176

APPENDIX A-38

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, Jefferson County, 13th District, TX,# D-157188

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 11, 1996

DATE CASE FILED: 1997

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: A hydraulic crane.

HAZARD: Contact with a 7,200 V powerline as a result of a work area that was within thedanger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: One man guiding a sheet of steel eight feet wide andforty feet long sustained severe burns, requiring amputation on parts of all fourlimbs. A co-worker suffered severe burns on one hand, requiring amputation ofseveral fingers. The workplace had undergone several previous expansions wherethe utility company had been requested to bury the powerlines in order to affordaccess to cranes to carry materials. The same request was made to bury powerlinesin front of the doorway into a new fabricating shop where the victims wereattempting to guide the sheet of steel when the crane boom tip contacted apowerline. The powerline had been raised by the doorway rather than being buriedbecause the electric utility company installing the new powerlines did not have atrench ditcher immediately available and would have to delay the powerlineinstillation. The landowner was not given the option to dig the trench necessary tobury the powerline so to immediately provide power to the new facility. Thepowerlines were not buried. The electric utility company, seeking no one’spermission, just raised the powerlines in front of the new facility doorway. Thecrane was not equipped with an insulated link, nor did the manufacturerrecommend the use of any safety devices.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ When working with conductive materials it is especially important to bury nearby

powerlines.♦ An insulated link would have stopped the flow of current and protected the workers

guiding the load.

DISPOSITION: Settled October 2000.

NOTES: This is an incredible instance of the lack of communication that regularly existsbetween construction and the utility company. Policy and procedure must bestreamlined to improve efficiency while showing a greater concern for the roleelectric utility companies play in construction safety.

177

APPENDIX A-39

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Court of Common Pleas, Luzenne County, PA,# 326 of 1999

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: January 21, 1997

DATE CASE FILED: 1999

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: An uninsulated aerial lift

HAZARD: 69,000 V transmission powerline contact was made mid-span in a work areathat was in the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The operator sustained serious electrical burns whileoperating the aerial lift when he was standing on the ground using the alternateemergency control located at the rear of the truck-mounted aerial lift. His task wasto raise the boom, which was raising fiber-optics cable that was supported on thebasket of the aerial lift. The fiber-optics cable was being installed between two69,000 V transmission lines. Due to its frail nature and the rough terrain the cablewas being lifted in the middle of its span between supporting poles. The electricutility had selected this uninsulated aerial lift to be used in their narrow easementspace between the two high-voltage transmission lines. The operator had to rely ona coworker positioned over a hundred feet away who was acting as a signalman tomaintain safe clearance. The signalman failed to estimate safe clearance as theaerial lift’s telescoping boom was being rotated in the process of aligning the cablein the center of the narrow easement. The uninsulated boom struck the powerline,injuring the operator.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ An uninsulated aerial lift is not intended to be used in locations where it can be raised

or rotated within excess of 10 feet of powerlines as required by OSHA.♦ The design of insulated aerial lifts for utility linemen by the same manufacturer

provided the alternate controls in a location where they cannot be operated bysomeone standing on the ground.

DISPOSITION: Settled in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: Any boomed equipment capable of reaching powerline should not be designedwith controls accessible to someone standing on the ground.

178

APPENDIX A-40

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa,# 4-98-CV-80131

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 3, 1997

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1998

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: News Gathering Van with a pneumatic mast at a news storylocation.

HAZARD: The mast of the van contacted a 7,200 V powerline and an uninterrupted flowof current caused mass injuries.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A lady news reporter, a recent graduate with a degreein journalism and new to the job, attempted to rescue a co-worker who wasoperating the mast-raising control from outside of the van. The lady journalistreceived a severe burn to her skull that caused a lengthy coma and loss of toes.Recovery required months of painful surgery and skin grafting. Her coworkersustained serious burns to his arms.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ In the hazard of possible electrocution, the only prevention measures are necessary

measures that should be immediately taken. Electrostatic Proximity Warning Devices,available since 1985, as well as controls that can only be used when the operator isstanding inside the van, are the only way to eliminate this deadly hazard.

♦ Insulation on antenna equipment would also lessen the incidence of electrocution.

DISPOSITION: Settlement in behalf of the injured.

NOTES: This case is included because it clearly illustrates the major networks’ lack of topmanagement awareness, exhibited by their complete lack of action to ensure that allvans are equipped with an electrostatic proximity system, insulation, and controlsnot accessible when standing on the ground. Abdication of the responsibility anddependence of the local channels poses a compromise of civil rights for those whowork in the TV reporting industry. By this time some 10 to 15 percent of the vansequipped with pneumatic masts are, according to the manufacturer of theelectrostatic proximity detectors, wired so the mast cannot be raised when parkedunder a powerline.

179

APPENDIX A-41

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 3rd Judicial District, Las Cruces, NM, # CV-99-1135

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1998

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1999

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A water well service truck rig raising a submerged pump had aboom that, in the travel mode, laid flat over the truck bed and cab. The controls toraise the boom were at the rear of the truck where the operator stood on the groundand blocked the view of the boom while being raised or lowered.

HAZARD: Contact of a 7,200 V powerline at the mid-span point while lowering the boom.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The equipment owner was electrocuted and a co-worker lost an arm and a leg while the boom was being lowered. The crew wasusing the boom in a near-vertical position to load a pump engine onto a trailer. Asthey had to move the engine several feet lateral distance, they would pick the motorup and move the truck forward so the engine could be lowered onto a trailer. Whenthey lowered the boom, the new position of the truck did not allow it to clear thepowerline as it did when raised.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The land owner should have requested the electric cooperative to turn the power off.♦ The well service unit needed the controls located where there was a view of the arc any

time the boom was raised or lowered.♦ Boomed equipment should have the controls located so the operator cannot stand on

the ground.

DISPOSITION: The case was settled in behalf of the widow and the injured.

NOTES: This case was included to show the diversity of equipment that can reachpowerlines and the need for uniform design standards stating that the controlsshould not be reached by an operator when standing on the ground.

180

APPENDIX A-42

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: 277th District Court, Williamson City, TX,# 00-210-277

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: May 7, 1998

DATE CASE FILED: 1999

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY/ETC: A non-insulated aerial lift used to install TV cablesupported by electric utility powerlines.

HAZARD: Mid-span 7,200 V powerline contact.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: An aerial lift operator was electrocuted whileattempting to install a TV cable where heavily overgrown oak trees blocked theview of the powerline. Almost immediately, the lift brushed the operator against anunseen powerline, killing the operator.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The electric utility should have cleared the powerline easement through the overgrown

oak trees before leasing space on their poles to install TV cable.♦ The uninsulated aerial lift should not be used to install TV cable underneath

powerlines.

DISPOSITION: Unknown

NOTES: This case reminds us of the importance of simple maintenance. The oak treesshould always be trimmed to make all powerlines visible.

181

APPENDIX A-43

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Circuit Court, Perry County, AL, # CV-99-125

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 22, 1998

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 1999

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A large hydraulic rental crane with a telescoping boom used ata bridge construction site.

HAZARD: When the boom was rotated by the 7,200 V powerlines, one contacted steelcable straps hanging from the hook, causing current to be sent through the entirecrane. The work area was in the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The construction site was very confining, withconstruction equipment making maneuvers difficult. When the operator wasrotating the raised cable straps by the powerlines to avoid striking other equipment,the steel straps brushed against the powerline causing the crane to becomemomentarily electrified. A pneumatic drilling rig was supplied: compressed airwith a hose encased in a wire web sheath to prevent wear. Due to the crampedconditions, This hose was dropped over one of the crane’s outriggers, and one drilloperator was electrocuted and another was injured.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Pre job construction planning to require relocation of the powerlines away from the

bridge construction project.♦ An insulated link would have prevented death an injury.♦ An electrostatic proximity alarm would have created a greater job site awareness that

powerlines were too close and should have been relocated.

DISPOSITION: On July 7, 2003 the case was settled in behalf of the widow and injured.

NOTES: This case provides an excellent example of the many ways insulated links canprevent injury and death by preventing the crane from becoming electrified. Dr.Karady’s deposition presented testimony that an insulated link would haveprevented death an injury.

182

APPENDIX A-44

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: This case has not been filed.

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: December 27, 1999

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: N/A

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A rough terrain hydraulic crane with a telescoping boom usedon a construction project to build a concrete-lined wastewater channel in the St.Louis area.

HAZARD: The hoist line of the crane contacted a 7,200 V powerline at mid-span in awork area in the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: A workman lost three limbs when guiding a concretebucket to pour concrete in a concrete-lined wastewater channel. The design of thischannel ran directly underneath a transmission line and along its easement. Theconstruction contract contained no worker provisions requiring the concrete to beplaced without the use of boomed equipment, and require the use of a front endloader to transport concrete into the Danger Zone under the powerlines.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ A pre-construction planning meeting to plan alternate methods of moving the concrete

to avoid the use of a crane in this location.♦ The concrete should have been poured into the bucket of a front-end loader that would

transport it the short distance from the ready-mix truck to the wastewater channel.♦ An insulated link would have prevented these injuries.♦ The electrostatic proximity alarm would have provided worker awareness that it was

unsafe to attempt to place concrete underneath powerlines.♦ The crane operator needed training on how to map the danger zone and should have

been given the authority to decline use of the crane in this inevitably unsafe location.

DISPOSITION: Pending.

NOTES: A key issue in the construction contract should had specific requirements on howthe concrete would be placed without the use of boomed equipment underpowerlines.

183

APPENDIX A-45

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: U.S. District Court, District of Colombia, C.A. 1:01CV01114

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: May 2, 2000

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 2000

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A news gathering van with a sixty-one foot pneumatic mastlocated at a national guard parking lot at night where a 7,200 V transmission linewas located. The line had only 49 feet of clearance from the ground.

HAZARD: The mast of the van contacted the powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Two people were seriously injured. The operatormade a visual spot check and did not see overhead powerlines. A human factorspsychologist duplicated the setup at night and found that the area lighting producedby the van created a glare whereby overhead powerlines could not be seen. Acamera man was also injured, as the cable tether supplying power to the TV cameraconveyed the fault current.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ In the hazard of possible electrocution, the only prevention measures are necessary

measures that should be immediately taken. Electrostatic Proximity Sensing Devices,available since 1985, as well as controls that can only be used when the operator isstanding inside the van, are the only way to eliminate this deadly hazard and preventthe mast from being raised under a powerline.

♦ Insulation on antenna equipment would also lessen the incidence of electrocution.

DISPOSITION: Pending

NOTES: This case was chosen to express the near impossibility of accurately judgingdistances in a dark environment. Human eyes, which can make faulty distancejudgments in optimum lighting conditions, cannot possibly be relied upon in thedarkness as the only means of preventing a deadly hazard. By this time some 10 to20 percent of theses vans are equipped to prevent the mast from being raised intopowerlines and no standard exists to provide this safeguard to all vans in theindustry.

184

APPENDIX A-46

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Unaware of the present status.

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: May 22, 2000

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: Not yet applicable

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A news gathering van with a mast of 40 feet located on a citystreet at a business driveway to prepare for a TV news story. The site was beneath atree containing powerlines of different voltages.

HAZARD: The mast of the van contacted a powerline.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The driveway was at a slight slope, which caused themast, while being raised, to tilt into the second layer of powerlines. The dishantenna mounted at the top of the mast touched a 3,200 V powerline. It took a fewmoments for the plastic antenna dish to melt down, thus catching on fire andcausing a ground fault. The injured, an anchor reporter for the TV station, was inthe front of the van at her “desk” preparing her interview notes when alerted thatthe van was on fire. When she attempted to escape, the electric current causedburns that resulted in the loss of a leg, a foot on the other leg, one arm, and thefingers on the hand of the other arm.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Electrostatic proximity warning device to prevent the mast from being raised beneath a

powerline.♦ Insulation on mast

DISPOSITION: Not yet applicable

NOTES: With a limited population of some 1600 masts on newsgathering vans with some10 to 20 percent of them already equipped with electrostatic proximity warningdevices, it seems almost a discriminatory violation of civil rights that some workershave protection and some don not. Due to network absence of safety management,a majority of newsgathering van users are denied a safe place to work.

185

APPENDIX A-47COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, 7th Judicial District, Natrona County, WY #80

696-B

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 1, 2000

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 2000

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A flat bed truck mounted hydraulic rental crane and operator with atelescoping boom, being used at an equipment supply yard for oil well drilling rigs.

HAZARD: The crane hoist line contacted an overhead 7,200 V powerline mid-span, where thestored materials were in the danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: On Memorial Day holiday the deceased was at the equipmentdepot to load out equipment to be used at a well drilling site. A leased crane and operatorwas at the work site and the shipment was ready to leave for delivery. Two short pieces ofpipe, approximately 6 feet long, too heavy to be lifted by hand, were needed. They werestored in a big steel box, about 6’x 6’x 6’, underneath a powerline. The entire area underthe powerline was designated for heavy equipment storage and the box with the pipe wasbehind another box of similar size. The storage yard had a forklift available for moving theboxes away from the powerline; however, it was presumed that the deceased believed hecould quickly remove the pipe with the crane. He then climbed onto a box and placed achoker around the pipe and was motioning the crane operator to bring the lifting devicescloser. While reaching for the hook and attempting to put the eye of the choker in the hook,the hoist line struck the powerline. The deceased became comatose and was flown to SaltLake City, where he died the next day. It was found that the electric utility was well awareof the use of cranes for handling the equipment stored under the powerline. Examination ofthe records showed that the power company had not negotiated for locating the powerlinesover the storage yards properly. The crane operator had received no training from hisemployer on how to identify a Danger Zone, and no instructions not to lift any materialswithin that Danger Zone created by powerlines.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The well drilling supply company needed requirements prohibiting storage of equipment in the

danger zone created by powerlines.♦ The electric utility company needed a program to ensure for easements for their powerlines.

Where such powerlines would be over stored materials, buried powerlines would be required.♦ An insulated link would have saved the well drilling supply company’s employee’s life.♦ A proximity alarm could have developed a greater awareness of their immediate hazard of

powerline contact.♦ The rental company provided an incompetent operator who knowingly extended the boom into

the danger zone. If operators are provided with the equipment it is up to the client renting fromthe firm to discover whether the operators are acceptably trained.

DISPOSITION: Settled

NOTES: This case illustrates the need for specific requirements prohibiting storing materials underpowerlines.

186

APPENDIX A-48

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, OH# 02CV113622

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: June 17, 2000

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 2002

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A steel conductive telescoping boom aerial lift was being usedto lift a workman so he could retouch the mortar on a brick wall of an 1816building that had 7,200 V powerlines located three feet from the wall.

HAZARD: The lift inevitably touched the mid-span powerline in a danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: An eighteen-year-old apprentice working alone wasprovided the above described aerial lift with no prior training from his employer.The city, which owned the municipal utility company, was administering a federalgrant for restoring the 1816 building. The supervising architect/engineer made norequirements for the powerline to be buried as a condition of the grant. The injuredis now a quadriplegic who requires a ventilator to breathe.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The project planning needed to remove the powerlines before the contract for the repair

of the brick walls was negotiated.♦ The rental firm should not have provided the lift that was unsafe for this use.

DISPOSITION: The disposition of this case is pending.

NOTES: The absence of safety planning to eliminate this work circumstance isreprehensible. Not only the immediate job supervisor, who allowed an untrainedhand to work in a dangerous situation, but the city planners and grant engineershowed a gross disregard for worker safety, and are all responsible for thecondition of this young, 19-year old apprentice.

187

APPENDIX A-49

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: District Court, Hidalgo County, TX 322 District# C-0130-00-F

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 14, 2000

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 2000

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: Pumpcrete machine with a 28-ft boom being used in the construction of aconcrete flood-control holding pond underneath a powerline.

HAZARD: Pumpcrete boom mid-span 7,200 V powerline contact in a danger zone.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: Self-employed concrete finisher was electrocuted as he was handling thehose at the end of a pumpcrete truck boom while pouring wet concrete for the lining of a floodcontrol improvement district at a construction site in Kingsland, TX. The general contractor at thesite had previously subcontracted with a pumpcrete company to furnish a pumpcrete truck with anoperator, so that the truck’s articulated boom could be used to transfer the wet concrete from groundlevel into the excavation site, where the deceased and his finishing crew were working. Three otherworkers were also injured when the operator of the pumpcrete truck manipulated the truck’s 28-footboom into contact with the powerline. The design of this pond was under a 7200 V powerline madeby an architect/engineer for an improvement district.

The general contractor allowed that the pumpcrete machine would be positioned behind atree where the operator was unable to view the position of the boom and its relationship to thepowerline. The deceased was relied upon to act as a signalman while busy directing the flow ofconcrete. Because he had to stoop over so his shoulder could push the hose and direct the flow ofconcrete, it was necessary for the deceased to have his back to the operator in order to maneuver theheavy six-inch diameter hose full of concrete. Therefore, he was unable to look up and estimate theclearance of the pumpcrete machine’s boom from the powerline.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ The architect/engineer should have relocated the powerline around the flood control area on the property

owned by the landowner. There was a clear need for the project designer to include in the contractdrawing and specifications the relocation of the powerlines on the site of the facility, away from thesettling pond.

♦ The General Contractor should have provided a construction safety plan that designated a positioning ofthe pumpcrete machine where the operator would have clear view of the work area.

♦ The pumpcrete subcontractor should have had specific written procedures for the operator to precludeoperation of the boom inside of the powerline danger zone.

♦ The pumpcrete machine should have been equipped with an electrostatic proximity warning alarm, suchas those provided on equipment used by a large pumpcrete firm in California and a construction firm inthe St. Louis area.

DISPOSITION: This case we settled in behalf of the deceased.

NOTES: Safety standards should prohibit the placement of concrete underneath a powerline by boomedequipment.

188

APPENDIX A-50

COURT AND CASE NUMBER: The case has not been filed.

DATE OF OCCURRENCE: September 10, 2001

DATE COMPLAINT FILED: N/A

EQUIPMENT/FACILITY: A forty ton mobile hydraulic rough terrain crane with atelescoping boom at a construction site engaging in a pick and carry activity.

HAZARD: The hoist line contacted the 1,200 V powerline mid-span.

SUMMARY OF OCCURRENCE: The deceased was guiding a load to prevent the loadfrom striking parked vehicles in a pick and carry activity when the hoist linecontacted a 7,200 V powerline which crossed the line of travel. This activity wasconducted under the direction of the employer, who assumed that powerlines couldbe avoided.

AVAILABLE HAZARD PREVENTION:♦ Construction safety planning by the employer (who was a construction contractor) not

to engage in pick and carry operations in the vicinity of powerlines.♦ Use of an insulated link would have prevented this death.♦ Use of a proximity alarm would have alerted the crane operator and deceased that they

were approaching a powerline, even when they were distracted by the task of guidingthe load.

DISPOSITION: Case was not filed, as the manufacturer at the time of the accident nolonger exists.

NOTES: The workers’ compensation provided the employer immunity from liability, evenin the case of gross negligence

APPENDIX B:

BIBLIOGRAPHYAND

RESUMES

189

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allin, George S, Wilson, Jack T., and. Zibolski, Richard E, “A Practical Review of High Voltage SafetyDevices for Mobile Cranes” Paper # 770778: Society of Automotive Engineers Off HighwayVehicle Meeting and Exhibition, Sep 12-15, 1977

Andrews, James R., ( Case #94-CV-1233 State of Illinois, County of St. Clair: District Court, 212th JudicialDistrict, Galveston County, TX), Affidavit Dec 29 1999

ANSI/ USAS B30.5, Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes, American Society ofMechanical Engineers, 1968

ASME/ANSI Mobile and Locomotive Cranes B30.5: 1989

ASME B30.5 (a) Mobile and Locomotive Cranes 1994

ANSI/ASME B30.5: Mobile and Locomotive Cranes, 2000

ANSI/SIA A92.6 (for Self-propelled elevating work platforms), 1999

ANSI/SIA 92.2 (Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Aerial Devices): 2001

AS 2550.1 Australian Standard: Cranes- Safe Use, 1993

Associated Press, www.mlive.com Nov 25, 2003

BEI Job Number BE-192-DCDM, “Reduction of Probability of Electrocution During the Operation of DicoMobile Material Handlers (Overview Document)”, September 10, 1975

Bridges, J.E., “Potential Distributions in the Vicinity of the Hearts of Primates Arising from 60Hz Limb-to-Limb Body Currents,” Ford, G.L.; Sherman, I,A.; Vainberg, M., editors: “Electrical Shock SafetyCriteria” Proceedings of the First International, 1983

Bugbee, John, Evening Sun,www.eveningsun.com/cda/article/print/o,1674,140%7E9956%7E1792523,00.html Nov 26, 2006

Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Construction Safety Act, Proposed Safety and HealthRegulations for Construction, February, 1971

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; Construction Safety Standards, P 9.1.11C, August,1963

Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior: “High Voltage Proximity Warning Systems—ColoradoRiver Storage Project” Memo, March, 1973

Clapp, Allen, The National Electric Safety Code NESC Handbook, 1984

www.Craneaccidents.com

CraneWorks, Oct-Nov, 1996, Advertisement

Crawley, John, (Case #90-2159-0, U.S. District Court, Kansas), Deposition, November 5, 1990

Crawley, John, (Case # CV 398-2925- CC, Buchanan County, Division 4, State of Missouri) Deposition,April 11, 2000

190

Cunitz, Robert J. and Middendorf, Lorna: “Problems in the Perception of Overhead Powerlines” PaperPresented at the Sixth Annual International Symposium, System Safety Seminar: September 23,1983

Department of the Air Force, Dept of Defense, T.O. 36C-1-4: March, 1962

Secretary of the Air Force, T.O. 36C-1-4: “Electrocution Protective Devices for Cranes and Crane Shovels”Published under the authority of the October 10, 1966

Department of the Army Cir 385-1 “Use of Cranes, Crane Shovels, Draglines, and Similar Equipment NearElectric Powerlines” Headquarters, Feb 4, 1964

U.S. Army Military Equipment Command, “Memorandum for Record” Directories of Research ,Development, and Engineering, Fort Belvoir, Virginia October 1, 1965

Department of the Army, TB-385-101 Safety: January, 1967

U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Command, Fort Belvoir, VA” SMEPB-RDE-KM “Directorate of Research,Development and Engineering: October 1, 1969

U.S. Army Material Command: AMSME-Z: Dielectric Safety Shielding for Military Cranes and Booms,Commanding General, April 20, 1970

U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command, Department of Defense: 3.6.12: Military Specification MIL-T-62089A (AT), “Truck Maintenance; With Rotating Hydraulic Derrick, Air Transportable, 34,500pounds GVW, 6X4,” December, 1973

Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1; General Safety Requirements Manual 01.A.03,October, 1984

Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General Safety Requirements Manual01.A.03, October 1987

Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General Safety Requirements Manual01.A.03 October 1992

Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1 (Rev); General Safety Requirements Manual01.A.07, September 3, 1996

Department of the Army- Corps of Engineers, EM 385-1-1; General Safety Requirements Manual 01.A.03,November, 2003

Department of the Interior: Letter to the Corporate Product Safety Coordinator of Bucyrus-Erie Co.,enclosing the results of a proximity alarm test conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior,March 11, 1973

Dickey, D.E., Manager, Research and Development Department, Construction Safety Association ofToronto, Canada: Letter to Mr. Bernie Enfield, President, Construction Safety Training andAssociates May 17, 1978

Division of Industrial Safety, State of California Human Relations Agency, Department of IndustrialRelations: “Electrical Work Injuries in California” 1969, 1971, 1972

Division of Radio and Electrical Engineering: “Tests on Crane-Truck Mounted High Voltage ProtectionDevices” Research Laboratories: Ottawa, Canada, May 27, 1997

191

Dunnam, Collin W., (Case # 88-043, Twenty-seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Landry, State ofLouisiana) Deposition, Dec 14, 1984

Dunnam, Collin W., (Case # A 246122, Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County ofClark) Deposition, March 16, 1986

Dunnam, Collin W., (Case # 60483, Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County) Deposition, Oct 27, 1987

Edwards, Robert and Krasny, Alex “Report on Tests Conducted on SigAlarm™ Proximity Warning DeviceMounted on a Concrete Pump Placing Boom”, Nov. 11, 1997

Elkins, Sam S. “Crane Booms v. Powerlines”, National Safety News, NSC, September, 1959

Enfield, Bernie, Safety and Training Associates, 1 S. 646 Fairview, Lombard, IL 60148:Letter to H.T. Larmore, Deputy Director, Construction Industry Manufacturers Assn, 111 E.Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, July 7, 1973

Gregr, Arthur C., (Case # CI-83-5060, Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida) Deposition, July 7, 1984

Grove Manufacturing Company, Chart: “Powerline Contact Protection” and explanation of chart presented ina Study, January 2, 1974

Harnsichfeger Corporation, Preliminary Report, Field Test Evaluation, Field Demonstration of HarnischfegerCrane Style W-350 Equipped with SigAlarm™ Proximity Indicator. August 22, 1975 to September15, 1976

Hauf , R., “Requirements For Grounding Practices and Standards- The Revision of Report 479”, 1970

Hazard Information Foundation, Inc. Study: “Hazard Analysis of Unintentional Raising of a Pneumatic Mastof an Electronic News Gathering Van into Powerlines” November 30, 2001

Health and Safety Executive, Guidance Note GS6 from the Health and Safety Executive: “Avoidance ofDanger from Overhead Electric Powerlines” Baynards House, 1 Chepstow Place, London W2 4TF:April, 1980

Hickman, Cecil B., (# 279080, 250th Judicial District Court of Travis County, TX), Deposition, October 10,1982

Homace, G.T.; Crawley, J.C. (Senior Member, IEEE); Yenchek, M.R. (Senior Member, IEEE); Sacks, H.K.(Member, IEEE), “An Alarm to Warn of Overhead Power Line Contact by Mobile Equipment”Paper presented to NIOSH, 2001

Homace, Gerald T.; Crawley, James C.; Sacks, H. Kenneth; Yenchek, Michael R.; “Heavy Equipment NearOverhead Power Lines?” Engineering and Mining Journal April 1, 2002

Husty, Denes III, dhusty@news-press.com, “Construction Accident Kills Worker” news-press.com Nov 28,2003

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. National Electric Safety Code Interpretations (1961-1977) page 55; request of April 11, 1974

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. National Electric Safety Code Interpretations (1978-1980) page 77: Oct 17, 1980

International Electrotechnical Commission: “Effects of Current Passing Through the Human Body”Publication 479-1 (Second Edition), 1984

192

Karady ,G.G., “Efficiency of Insulating Link For Protection of Crane Workers” , published by theInternational Society of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 90 SM 338-4 PWRD: 1990

Karady: George G., Ph.D, (Case #D-157188, District Court, Jefferson County, 13th district, Texas) ExpertWitness Report, May 17, 2000

Kisner, Suzanne, Statistician, Injury Surveillance Section, Division of Safety Research, NIOSH:Letter to Ms. Suzanna E. Ellefson (Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster), containing incidents of electrocution

involving boomed equipment from 1980-1988. September 10, 1991

Leigh, Theodore M. (Illinois Appellate Court # 59549, after Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,)Deposition, 1972

Leigh, Theodore M.: “The Construction Machine: Power Line Hazard” Professional Safety, The AmericanSociety of Safety Engineers Journal September, 1979

Liberty Mutual: Study, “Contacting Overhead Electrical Powerlines”—Mobile Cranes Technical Bulletin #1May 20, 1968

Lift Applications and Equipment “Readers’ Choice Award”, October, November, 2003

MacCollum, David V., “Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design” Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalSystem Safety Conference, September 9, 1979

MacCollum, David V., “Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design” Professional Safety, American Societyof Safety Engineers Journal, January, 1980

MacCollum, David V., “Crane Design Hazard Analysis”, Automotive Engineering and Litigation, Edited byGeorge A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland Law publishing, New York and London, 1984

MacCollum, David V., “Designing Out Electrical Hazards” CraneWorks, July, 1992

MacCollum, David V.: Crane Hazards and Their Prevention, Book published by the American Society ofSafety Engineers, Des Plaines, IL, 1993.

MacCollum, David V.: “System Safety Analysis of Workplace Equipment and Facilities” Hazard Prevention(the System Safety Society Journal) 1994 Q2

MacCollum, David V.: “Planning Safe Crane Use”, 13th Crane Inspection Certification Bureau (CICB)Crane Conference, Tropicana Resort and Casino, Las Vegas, NV, Session 10: Nov. 8, 1994

MacCollum, David V., Construction Safety Planning, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 605 3rd Ave, New York,NY, 10158-0012, 1995

MacCollum, David V., “Planning for Safe Crane Use” Presentation #927 at the American Society of SafetyEngineers Professional Development Conference and Exposition, Orlando, FL, June 1995.

MacCollum, David, “Focus: Equipment Powerline Contact” Hazard Information Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue4, July 1996.

MacCollum, David V., “More on the Nature of Safe Design Profits” Hazard Information Newsletter, Vol. 3,Issue 9, December, 1998

MacCollum, David: “Cranes and Power Lines make Fatal Combination” Construction Newsletter May, ’93

MacCollum, David V., “Hazard Prevention Engineering” Journal of System Safety, 2001 Q1

193

MacCollum, David V., “Crane Safety on Construction Sites”, Chapter 18, Construction Safety Managementand Engineering, American Society of Safety Engineers, 2004.

“A Survey of Non-Employee Electrical Contacts” (Pamphlet), Research Committee, Utilities Section, NSC,1969

Middendorf, Lorna: “Judging Clearance Distances in Overhead Powerlines”, presented and published in theproceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Conference, October 1978

Mongeluzzi, Robert J. & Morgan, Derald J. “Do Insulated Links Help?” Lift Equipment: Mongeluzzi,Plaintiff’s attorney, Yes; Morgan, defense witness, No; Feb-March, 1991

Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B.: “Evaluation of Mobile Crane Safety Devices” September 1, ‘80

Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B.: “Evaluation of Links for Safety Applications for Simon RoCorporation, National Crane” October, 1982

Morgan, J. Derald and Hamilton, Howard B.: “Field Test of Tinsley Overhead Powerline Detector” Reportprepared for Grove Manufacturing; Appendix 1& 2, September, 1986

Morgan, J. Derald: “Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices for Cranes” National Academy of ForensicEngineers Journal 1989

Morgan, J. Derald (Case # CJ92-549-92791 District County, Grand Forks County, North Dakota) Deposition,June 26, 1993

Morgan, J. Derald Ph.D., “Review of ‘Report on Tests Conducted on SigAlarm™ Proximity WarningDevice Mounted on a Concrete Pump Placing Boom’ by Robert Edwards and Alax Krasny ofSchwing America, Inc” March, 1998

Morse, A.R. and Griffin, J.P.: “Test s of Mobile Crane High Voltage Protection Devices for Department ofNational Defense” National Research Council Canada, March, 1978

Murray, Charles J.: “Remote Control System Reduces Crane Accidents” Design News Feb. 10, 1992

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 2nd Edition: National Safety Council (NSC); 1951

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 3rd Edition, NSC; 1955

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 4th Edition, NSC, 1959

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 5th Edition, NSC: 18-24: 1964

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 6th Edition, NSC: 1969

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 7th Edition, NSC, 1974

Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 8th Edition; NSC, 1980

Data Sheet # 287, Published by the National Safety Council (NSC), 1954

Data Sheet # 448, NSC, 1957

Data Sheet # 1-287-79 (Revised) NSC, 1979

National Safety Council Data Sheet # I-743 New 90 “Mobile Cranes and Power Lines” Safety and Health,Feb. 1991

194

National Safety Council Memo: “Power Line Accidents Kill Men, Ruin Equipment, and Delay the Job”, ‘53

National Safety Council Newsletter # 112.03-07030, “Survey of Contacts with Overhead and UndergroundElectrical Lines (out of 95 replies received), 1960

News: Occupational Safety and Health, Vol. 34, No.3: “ ‘Red Zones’ for Cranes Near Powerlines Discussedby OSHA Rulemaking Committee” Jan 15, 2004

Nietzel, Richard L.; Siexas, Noah S.; Ren, Kyle K., “A Review of Crane Safety in the ConstructionIndustry” Applied Occupational and Industrial Hygiene, Vol. 16(12): 1106-1117, 2001

NIOSH ALERT # 85-111: Preventing Electrocutions from Contact Between Cranes and Powerlines July,1987

NIOSH ALERT # 95-108: Preventing Electrocutions of Crane Operators and Crew Members Working NearOverhead Powerlines, May 1995.

NIOSH ALERT # 95-108: Preventing Electrocutions of Crane Operators and Crew Members Working NearOverhead Powerlines May, 1995

NIOSH Bulletin: Worker Deaths by Electrocution- A Summary of Surveillance Findings and InvestigativeCase Reports, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998

Occupational Safety and Health Standards; National Consensus Standards and Established Federal Standards,U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1910.180, May, 1971

Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry (29 CFR Part 1926), newly amendedNov. 1, 1993.

Packer Engineering, “Evaluation of Electrical Insulating and Warning Devices for Mobile Cranes” (VolumeI) Report to Employers Insurance of Wausau, April 11, 1975

Packer Engineering, “Evaluation of Electrical Insulating and Warning Devices for Mobile Cranes” June 11-20, 1975

Paques, Joseph-Jean (IRSST), Michaud, Pierre (Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec) van Dike, Pierre(Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec) “Development of a Range-Limiting Device for MobileCranes”, 1989

Paques, Joseph-Jean “Cranes and Overhead Powerlines” Published at the 13th International ConventionISSA for Construction, Bruxelles, September 1991.

Paques, Joseph-Jean: “Crane Accidents by Contact with Powerlines”, Safety Science, #16, 1993.

Petit, Ted: “Insulated Links: The Next Generation” Lift Equipment, April-May 1995

Pittenger, Donald A: Acting Chief of Safety and Occupational Health, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers onH.R. 4652: The Construction Safety, Health, and Education Improvement Act of 1990, BeforeSubcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House ofRepresentatives, Court Testimony May 22, 1990

Pizatella, Timothy J., Chief, Surveillance and Field Investigations Branch, Division of Safety Research,NIOSH: Letter to Mr. Norman C. Hargreaves, Koehering Cranes and Excavators, Inc. Jan. 11, 1991.

Price, Dennis L.: “Machinery Operational Safety Near Overhead Powerlines”, Hazard Prevention, thejournal of the System Safety Society, 1989

195

Price, Dennis L.: “The Detection of Overhead Powerlines” Proceedings of the Ninth International SystemSafety Conference July 1989

Pritzker, Paul E., P.E.: “Stopping Construction Sites from Becoming Killing Fields” Electrical SystemDesign April 1990

Reynolds, Richard L., Informational Report 1035- MESA Informational Report: Field Evaluation of aProximity Alarm Device, Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, Department of theInterior, 1976

Rossnagel, W.E. (Consulting Safety and Fire Protection Engineer) Handbook of Rigging for Construction& Industrial Operations,” 3rd Edition, 1964

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Institute of Material Handling (Most respected andprestigious safety group in Great Britain), A Safety Handbook for Mobile Cranes, 1967

Safety Code for the Construction Industry, Quebec, Canada S-2.1 r.6, January 28, 1992

Sheppard, Paul E. “Crane Contacts can Kill”, National Safety News, NSC, October, 1958

SigAlarm™ Test, March 1983

Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, Jefferson Parish, L: Construction Solicitation andSpecifications IFB # DACW29-00-B-0069, May 19, 2000

Southwest Research Institute, “Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices” Phase I Prepared for the U.S.Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines, Feb. 22, 1980

Southwest Research Institute: Evaluation of Proximity Warning Devices, Phase II, Prepared for the U.S.Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines. February, 1981

Suruda, Anthony “Electrocution at Work” Professional Safety (The American Society of Safety EngineersJournal) July 1988

Suruda, Anthony, M.D. M.P.H., Egger, Marlene PhD., Liu, Diane, M. Stat., “Crane Related Deaths in theU.S. Construction Industry”, Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health,October 1997

Source Unknown, “Crane Accident Kills Three” September 1, 2003

Wessels, Phillip S.: “Electrical and Mechanical Engineering” Proceedings of the Fourth International SystemSafety Conference Sep 9, 1979

White, H.L., President of SigAlarm™, Inc.:Letter to CIMA and the Power Crane and Shovel Association, September 18, 1979

White, H.L.: President, SigAlarm, Inc “A Critique of: ‘A Practical Review of High Voltage Safety Devicesfor Mobile Cranes’ (Published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, in the 77.09.12-15conference as Paper # 70778 by George S. Allin, Jack T Wilson, and Richard E. Zibolski”) March,1980

Wright, M.D. and Davis, J.H., M.D: “The Investigation of Electrical Deaths: A Report of 220 Fatalities”Presentation at the 29th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Diego,CA. Accepted for publication on November 30, 1979. R.K. February, 1977

Zarembo, Alan; “Funding Studies to Suit Need” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2003;http://www.latimes.com/la/me-exxon3dec03,1,7170586.story

196

PARTICIPATING ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

1. David V. MacCollum: Principal Investigator

2. Rowena I. Davis: Editorial Analyst

3. Jack Ainsworth: Electronic Engineer- Proximity Alarms

4. David Baker: Safety Director, Electric Utility

5. Bob Dey: Consultant, Construction Manager

6. George Karady: Electrical Engineer- Insulating Links

7. Ben Lehman: Retired Admiral, U.S. Navy

8. Melvin L. Myers: Consulting Engineer, Retired Captain, US Public Health Service

9. Jeff Speer: Safety Director, System Safety

10. John Van Arsdel: Consultant, Human Factors

197

DAVID V. MACCOLLUM1515 Hummingbird Lane

Sierra Vista, AZ 85635(520) 458-4100 Fax (520) 458-4093

E-mail : MacCollum@theriver.com

Since 1972, a consultant specializing in safety research and technicalassistance for high-risk hazards, including hazard analysis andevaluation by referencing applicable safety standards, literature, andavailable technology.

1951, B.S. degree, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Specialeducation: System Safety, University of Washington; SafetyManagement, New York University; Radiological Safety, Ft.McClellan, Alabama; and has attended numerous other Army serviceschools.

He is a Registered Professional Engineer (Industrial), AZ; a RegisteredProfessional Engineer (Safety), CA; and a Certified Safety Professional(CSP).

1975-76, National President, American Society of Safety Engineers(ASSE). 1961, President, Portland, OR Chapter, ASSE.1968, President, Cochise Chapter, AZ, Society of ProfessionalEngineers.

Member of:ASSESystem Safety SocietyNational Society of Professional Engineers NSPEVeterans of Safety.

Past member of:Society of Mining EngineersNational Safety CouncilHuman Factors SocietyMilitary Engineers.

1995, author of book, Construction Safety Planning, published by John.Wiley & Sons. 1993, author of book, Crane Hazards and theirPrevention, published by ASSE. Is a well-known author of articlesappearing in Professional Safety, Western Construction, NationalSafety News, Rural Electrification, Power, Professional Engineer,Prentice-Hall=s ΑNewsletters,≅ Business Insurance, Journal ofIndustrial Hygiene, Hazard Prevention, Control, CraneWorks, Lift, andnumerous other professional and trade journals.

He has spoken before international and national groups: the BritishMinistry of Technology, the American Medical Association, the EdisonElectric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association,the National Institute of Cooperative Education, the National SafetyCouncil, the American Society of Safety Engineers, the System SafetySociety, and the Crane Inspection and Certification Bureau.

AWARDS

1999, elected Fellow by ASSE for superior achievement in the safetyprofession.1970, Engineer of the Year, AZ Society of Professional Engineers.1969, First Place for Outstanding Contribution to Safety EngineeringLiterature; 1983-1984, another First Place; and 1990-91, Third Place,byASSE and Veterans of Safety.Listed in Who=s Who in Engineering.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

2000, principal founder of the Hazard Information Foundation, Inc., anonprofit foundation that maintains a resource library of safety andhazard information.

1995, established the Center for Hazard Information, which publishedthe monthly Hazard Information Newsletter for three years.

Has prepared system safety hazard analyses and safety programmanagement evaluations and given expert court testimony covering abroad range of safety engineering applications, especially as to cranesand other heavy construction equipment, application of rolloverprotective systems (ROPS) on a wide variety of equipment, andconstruction safety planning.

1972-76, provided technical assistance for construction of tunnelsupport systems in Europe and the U.S. for Bernold of Switzerland.1972-74, served on the advisory body that drafted the ArizonaOccupational Safety Act; was a member of the Arizona ReviewCommission of Appeals for state citations.1972-73, retained as an instructor by the University of Arizona for aseries of courses on System Safety, Safety Management, and SafetyProgram Evaluation; developed special safety engineering seminars forUniversity of Arizona, Michigan Technological Institute, University ofOklahoma, University of Wisconsin, and NIOSH (crane safety).

March 1970, testified before a US Senate hearing for the ProductSafety Commission on hazards of unvented heaters; April 1977, beforeUS Senate hearings on product liability insurance; and 1984 before aUS Department of Labor hearing on cranes and derricks.

1969-72, served on the US Department of Labor=s Construction SafetyAdvisory Committee; was chairman of the subcommittee for Subpart Vof OSHA for power transmission and distribution; and was on theboard investigating tunnel disasters.1958-62, was a member of a standards setting committee for the Stateof Oregon, for material handling equipment.1956-58, developed design criteria for ROPS --10 years before theSociety of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed its standard -- thatwas adopted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (CofE), US Bureauof Reclamation, and State of Oregon and later incorporated into OSHAstandards; and made studies on cost-effective and safe use ofscaffolding and on crane load- testing on construction projects that wasadopted by the CofE.

EMPLOYMENT

1955 to 1972 employed by the Department of Army:

Director of Safety, Strategic Communications Command, Ft.Huachuca, AZ, a worldwide command with sixteensubcommands.Safety Director, Electronic Proving Ground, Ft. Huachuca;developed doctrine for product testing for safety.Safety Director, 4th and 32nd Infantry Divisions and supportfunctions, Ft. Lewis, WA; responsible for maneuver andtactical safety in large-scale field exercises for combattraining.Assistant Chief, Safety Branch, Portland, OR District, Corpsof Engineers; developed design criteria for ROPS, reversesignal alarms, emergency braking systems, and haul-roadsafety.

1951 to 1955 employed as a safety engineer by the State of OregonIndustrial Accident Commission.

OTHER

Served 9 years on the Board of Directors, Sulphur SpringsValley Electric Cooperative, Inc., serving southeastern Arizona.Past member of Sierra Vista, AZ, Planning and Zoning andUtility Commissions.

Married with three grown children.

198

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

David V. MacCollum, 1515 Hummingbird Lane, Sierra Vista, AZ85635

"Report on the Collapse of the Owyhee Bridge Reconstruction",

1952.

“ How Crane Load Tests Prevent Accidents" Pacific Builder &

Engineer, Mar.1957.

"How Proper Scaffolding Cuts Costs” Western Construction,

Sept. 1957.

“ Tractor Canopies in Rollover Accidents” Study and

Evaluation, January 1958.

"Tractor Canopies” "Pacific Builder & Engineer, October

1958.

“ Testing and System Safety" USAEPG, November 1967.

"A Systems Approach for Design Safety" Professional Engineer,

Nov. 1968.

"Construction Safety", Professional Engineer Letters,

Professional Engineer, December 1968.

"Arizona Cities - Fuel for Firestorms” AZ Professional

Engineer, Jan. 1969.

"Testing for Safety" National Safety News, February 1969."A Systems Approach to Safety" Annual Southwest SafetyCongress Exposition, April 1969."A Systems Approach to Safety" Proceedings of Seventh GuidedWeapons Contractors' Safety Officers' Conference, BritishMinistry of Technology, London, England, Nov. 12, 1969.Published statement at National Commission on Product SafetyHearing, Washington, D. C., March 3, 1970."Reliability as a Quantitative Safety Factor" ASSE Journal,May 1969. First Place Technical Paper Award fromASSE/Veterans of Safety, 1969. Reprinted in SelectedReadings in Safety, Academy Press, 1973. Also reprinted inDirections in Safety, Charles C. Thomas, publisher, 1976."A Systems Safety Approach to Mining" National SafetyCongress and Exposition, Chicago, IL, October 1970."Executive Action," Tucson presentation as Director ofSafety, USA STRATCOM, Ft. Huachuca, AZ, 1971."Systems Approach to Safety", Oklahoma Center for ContinuingEducation, The University of Oklahoma, April 19, 1971."Getting Back to the Fundamentals of Safety" ConstructionIndustry Sessions, 1972.

199

"New Safety Requirements for Power Line Construction" RuralElectrification, February 1972."New Horizons for Safety Engineering" Professional Engineer,June 1972."Coping with OSHA" approximately 108 monthly articlesstarting July 1972, Construction Foreman's & Supervisor'sLetter, a Prentice-Hall publication."Construction Safety" and "Utility Safety" approximately 68monthly articles in Construction Foreman's & Supervisor'sLetter and Utility Safety, May 1975 to January 1981.A series of seven safety articles Arizona Currents, Marchthru July 1972, Summer 1974, and June 1975."Systems Analysis--The Key to Tunnel Safety" WesternConstruction, August 1972."What Is the Value of a Disaster?" Valuation, AmericanSociety of Appraisers' Journal, September 1972."Federal Safety Act Brings Money to Your State" RuralElectrification, November 1972."What Safety Can Do For Local Government" VOL 8 NationalSafety Congress, 1973."Diverse Forces Motivate Greater Safety Awareness" ArizonaReview, January 1974."Employer Enforcement of Safety - How Tough?" NationalSafety Congress, 1974."Coping Effectively with Safety & Health Act" 1973-74Yearbook of Cooperative Knowledge, published by The AmericanInstitute of Cooperation, Washington, D. C."Ten Steps Show Way to Plant Safety" Power, McGraw-Hill,July 1974."The Bernold Support System" Western Construction, August1974."Why Professionalism?" Professional Safety, October 1974."A Week Without Accidents" Professional Safety, January 1975."Has Workmen's Compensation Made for a Safer Workplace?"IAIABC Magazine, March 1975."Guest Comment" Professional Engineer, May 1975."A Danger Greater Than Sellout" Rural Electrification, May1975.National Emphasis Program, Hazard Prevention, January-February 1976.Ten editorials to the membership as President of the AmericanSociety of Safety Engineers (ASSE) Professional Safety, July1975 to May 1976."Tunnel Design ... the Criteria for Safety", Proceedings:Second International Systems Safety Conference, San Diego,California, July 1975."Fundamentals of Safety" Control, National Safety Council ofAustralia, August 1975."The Safety Engineer's Viewpoint" NIOSH, 1976.“ A Bicentennial Look at Safety & Engineering" ProfessionalEngineer, January 1976.

200

"Safety in the Seventies" National Safety News, January1976."Voluntary' Approach to Safety Needs Incentives" BusinessInsurance, January 12, 1976."OSHA - A Look Ahead" US Dept of Labor, July 1976.“ 1975-76, A Year of Change" Professional Safety, September1976."The Safety Engineer's Viewpoint" Health/Safety Teamwork,July 1977, NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health Symposia,Sept. 1976.Statement on Proposed Kansas State Senate Bill 209, March1977."Public Safety", Edison Electric Speech, April 1977."Systems Safety and Tunnel Support" National Safety News,Dec. 1976.Statement at hearing before Sub-Committee for Consumers ofthe Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, U. S.Senate, April 27, 28, and 29, 1977, on Product LiabilityInsurance, Serial No. 95-26."What Are the Nation's Top Safety Priorities?" ProfessionalSafety, August 1977."Safety: Are We Making Progress?" Professional Safety,February 1978."Accident Reporting--An Exercise in Futility?" NationalSafety News, August 1978."Freak Accidents?" Hazard Prevention, September/October1978."How Safe the Lift?" Proceedings of the Human FactorsSociety--22nd Annual Meeting, October 1978."Safe Product Design -The Key to Profitability" ASSEProfessional Conference, June 1979."Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design" 4th InternationalSystem Safety Conference, July 1979."Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design" reprinted inProfessional Safety, January 1980."How Do We Get Workers More Involved in Safety - AuthorityMust Be Centralized" National Safety News, September 1979."Methodology of Hazard Identification"--ASSE's Consultant'sConference, June 21, 1980, Houston, Texas."Crane Safety" U. S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare Training Study, NIOSH, March 1981."Methodology of Risk Evaluation" ASSE's Consultant'sSection, Professional Development Conference, June 14-17,1981, Salt Lake City, Utah."Methodology of Hazard Identification" System SafetyConference, July 26, 1981, Denver, Colorado."Fire Hazards", letter to the Editor, The Arizona Daily Star,October 25, 1982."Lessons from 25 years of ROPS” Professional Safety,January 1984. First Place Technical Paper Award fromASSE/Veterans of Safety, 1983-84.

201

"Crane Design Hazard Analysis" Chapter 8, AutomotiveEngineering and Litigation, Volume 1, by George & BarbaraPeters, Garland Law Publishing, 1984.Statement for OSHA Hearing on Proposed Standard for Crane orDerrick Suspended Personnel Platforms September 7, 1984."There is no such thing as a liability crisis--it's theabsence of hazard prevention that's hurting us!" 1985(unpublished)."Foreword," "Critical Hazard Analysis of Crane Design," and"Lessons from 25 Years of ROPS," Readings in Hazard Controland Hazardous Materials, American Society of SafetyEngineers, 1985, (Consulting Editor).Corps of Engineers Safety Plan, 1986.Letter to the Editor, Hazard Prevention, September/October1986."The Liability Crisis", Professional Engineer Talk, Austin,Texas, November 10, 1986."Safety Management System Success,", Safety ManagementNewsletter, The Merritt Company, December 1986."Safety and Its Application to Construction," MassachusettsContinuing Legal Education, Inc., Conference, Boston, 1987."What should we be doing better?", Towards the Millennium, byAllan St. John Holt, IOSH Publishing Limited, 1987."Rollover Protective Systems (ROPS)” , Chapter 1, AutomotiveEngineering & Litigation, Volume II, by George and BarbaraPeters, Garland Law Publishing, 1988."Hazards of Craning," Crane Inspection & CertificationBureau, 10th Annual Crane Conference, November 9, 1988, LasVegas, Nevada."Construction and Industrial Equipment Safety," Chapter 19,Automotive Engineering and Litigation, Volume 3, by Georgeand Barbara Peters, Garland Law Publishing, 1990.“ Cranes and Derricks, The reasons for crane accidents,”OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20B, Directorate of TechnicalSupport, June 14, 1990.Liability Project Safety Machine Tools and Heavy Equipment,The Brookings Institute Conference, Washington, D.C., June 19& 20, 1990A Guide to Crane Safety, Division of Occupational Safety andHealth, North Carolina Department of Labor, by David V.MacCollum, printed October 1991."Time for Change in Construction Safety," ProfessionalSafety, American Society of Safety Engineers, February, 1990.Third Place Technical Paper Award from ASSE/Veterans ofSafety, 1990-91."Hunting Down Crane Hazards," Lift Equipment, February-March,1992."Designing Out Electrical Hazards," CraneWorks, July, 1992."Excuses Equal Disaster," CraneWorks, December, 1992."Lessons Learned too Late," CraneWorks, December, 1992.

202

"Cranes and Powerlines Make Fatal Combinations," ConstructionNewsletter, National Safety Council, May/June, 1993.Crane Hazards and their Prevention, book published by theAmerican Society of Safety Engineers, December 1993.“ Anatomy of an Accident” CraneWorks, March/April 1994(Pinchpoint).“ Anatomy of an Accident” CraneWorks, May/June 1994 (Softfooting).“ System Safety Analysis of Workplace Equipment andFacilities," Hazard Prevention, the Journal of the SystemSafety Society, Second Quarter 1994."Planning Safe Crane Use," presented at the 13th CraneConference of the Crane Inspection and Certification Bureauin Las Vegas, Nevada, November 10, 1994.Construction Safety Planning, book published by Van NostrandReinhold, New York, NY May 1995."Planning for Safe Crane Use," Proceedings of the 34th AnnualASSE Professional Development Conference & Exposition,Orlando, Florida, June 17-24, 1995.“ Avoid pinch point hazards on stand-up rider forklifts,”Lift Magazine, October/November, 1995.

“ Hazard Information Newsletter,” the newsletter of theCenter for Hazard Information. Published monthly, from April1996.

The Nature of Hazards/ Equipment Rollover/ Crane Two-Blocking/ Equipment Powerline Contact/ Moving Parts ofMachinery/ Forklift Hazards/ Blind Zones on Moving Equipment/Fall Prevention/ Unsafe Equipment Control Systems/ Nuts,Bolts, Pins and Other Connectors/ Falling Objects/ LargeTruck Hazards/Dangerous Access and Work Platforms/ Trenching/Fire Prevention/ Fall Protection/ /Hazardous SecondaryVoltages/ Dangerous Compressed and Confined Gases/ KillerHooks/ Lockout/ Tagout/ Carbon Monoxide/ Mobile Crane Upset/Electric ARC Welding/ Conveyors/ Steel Erection/ Ladders/Construction Management/ Facility Design Hazards/ ConfinedSpaces/ Traffic Control for Road Construction andMaintenance/ Concrete Formwork/ Dust Hazards/ Masonry/ WoodFraming/ Nature of Hazards - Recap

“ How Can We Be Prepared to Meet Industry’s Need for SystemSafety In the 21st Century?” Proceedings, 16th InternationalSystem Safety Conference - September,1998.Keynote Speaker, The Nature of Hazards, Traffic AccidentReconstruction and Litigation Seminar, Lawyers and JudgesPublishing, November 6, 1998.

203

ROWENA I. DAVIS P.O. Box 1841ridavis@mtholyoke.edu Bisbee, AZ 85603 (520) 432-6617

EDUCATIONMount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA Strong course study in journalism with

Bachelor of Arts, May 2002 emphasis on investigative research;Major: English Minor: Political Science independent/community based analysis

EXPERIENCEResearch Analyst, Hazard Information Foundation, Inc., Sierra Vista, AZ April 2003-present

Collect, refine, and categorize information from a wide variety of sources, edit all outgoingmaterial, implement filing and cross-referencing systems, verify factual information,

Urban Alternatives, Mount Holyoke College and Hadley, MA. September-December 2001Met with members of the Hadley Planning Board, city officials, and concerned citizens;assessed local urban development in Hadley and created planning alternatives, including acritique of zoning laws and implementation of Calthorpian ideas.

Tutor, Girls, Inc, Holyoke, MA. August 2001-January 2001Tutored up to 15 girls, aged 7-12, with homework and reading skills, helped superviseexcursions, mediated conflicts with on the spot creative problem solving.

Data Analysis, Mount Holyoke College and Association of Community Organizations for ReformNow (ACORN) S. Hadley/Holyoke, MA. October-December 2000

Collected and analyzed data on several major mortgage companies and theirlending patterns in the Holyoke/Springfield by reading census tracts, attempting toprove predatory lending action.

Server/ Jr. Assistant Manager, Denny’s Restaurant, Tucson, AZ. June 1999-June 2000Supervised second shift; responsible for money drop and customer/ staff relations.Developed ability to think quickly under pressure and implement spontaneous solutions.

LEADERSHIPCo-Chair, Lapidary Club, September 2001-May 2002

Key email contact, recruited members, provided hands-on instruction for stone shaping,assisted the master silversmith in equipment maintenance and tool instruction.

Co-captain, Mount Holyoke Ice Hockey, October 2001-March 2002Ran practices in absence of coach, arranged transportation to practices and games,dissipated team conflicts in and out of practice.

SKILLSExtensive knowledge in Microsoft Word, Works, WordPerfect, PowerPoint, MicrosoftExcel; experience in Linux and alternate operating systems; Experience as freelance editor,Conversational knowledge of French

AWARDSGroup winner, Sally Montgomery Prize in Community Based Learning, 2001Merit Scholarship to Whitman College, 1997Dean’s Scholarship to Lewis and Clark College, 1997National Merit quarter- finalist, 1995Merit Scholarship to attend Green Fields Country Day School, 1993

204

ResumeFor

Jack D. Ainsworth

Professional EducationBachelor of Science, Electronics Engineering with Bio-Medical Option, University of Wyoming, 1966Master of Science, Bioengineering, University of Wyoming, 1968

Professional Experience1968: U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO: Research Engineer, GS-09; Research inelectronics techniques to monitor human physiologic parameters for manned space flight.

1969-1970: U.S. Army, White Sands Missile Range, NM; Research Engineer, Military; Development,fabrication, installation, test and acceptance of electronics technologies to detect high altitude windsthrough the echo of radio waves from ion clouds caused by meteors, and monitoring the movement of theclouds.

1970-1974: U.S. Army, Langdon, ND; Field and Installation Engineer GS09 thru GS-12; Installation ofcommunications and electronics equipment in direct support to the SAFEGUARD Anti-Ballistic MissileDefense System.

1974: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Staff engineer, GS-12; Design, installation, implementation ofelectronic systems for airfield operations- air-to-ground communications and radar tracking; plane-to-ground (on the ground) communications and radar tracking; safety support systems for fire suppressionand personal protection.

1974-980: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Project Manager, GS-13; Development, installation, test andacceptance, implementation of computer based, high reliability electronic message systems.

1980-1985: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Research and Development Electronics Engineer, GS-13;Application and adaptation of emerging technology to advance the state of Army communicationscapabilities; Test and evaluation of newly developed communications-electronics systems; Developmentof fast relocating surveillance system for the U.S. Border Patrol.

1985-1989: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Research engineer and supervisor, GS-13; Investigation, test,and evaluation of newly developed systems for application to military communications requirements.

1989-1994: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Branch Chief, GS-14; Design, development, test andacceptance, implementation of automation based digital communications systems for military commandand control, administration and logistics support.

1994-1998: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Senior Systems Engineer, GS-14; Design, development, testand acceptance, implementation of automation based digital communications systems for militarycommand and control, administration and logistics support; Application of new technology to improveeffectiveness and efficiency of organizational operations.

1998-2001: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Director of Information Systems Engineering, GS-15;Supervised design, development, test and acceptance, implementation of automation based digitalcommunication systems for military command and control, administration and logistics support; andensuring protection of information in transition from disclosure and exploitation.

2001-2002: U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ; Director of Mission Support, Chief Operating Officer, GS-15;Supervising the operations for an organization designing, developing, testing and acceptance,implementation of a wide spectrum of electronics technologies to meet military communications, voice anddata, for the command and control, administration, logistics support for national defense.

Professional Associations

205

Member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers since 1964David Bryant Baker2115 W. 33rd StreetTucson, AZ 85713

520-622-0558

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

• Eleven years of experience in development, implementation, evaluation, andadministration of a corporate safety program.

• Fifteen years of technical experience in research and development, systems testing,engineering support, and industrial systems modification.

• Twelve years of administrative and organizational experience as a volunteer with anon-profit organization.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• TEP’s Public Safety program is based on my concept of utilizing a rattlesnake tocompare the similarities of a downed powerline and a commonly understood danger.

• Designed a root cause accident investigation method that can be utilized at most levelswithin an organization.

• Evaluated various Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Systems. Negotiated withvendor for the best financial arrangement. Supervised the installation of a customizedcorporate MSDS system.

• Convinced the state electrical utilities to organize and take a pro-active approach byworking with the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the State IndustrialCommission in the interpretation and implementation of new OSHA standards.

• Directed a research team in the design, construction, instrumentation, and operation ofexperimental apparatuses. This work led to several U.S. patents.

• Founded the American Youth Soccer Organization Region 244. Appointed byNational Board of Directors as its first Regional Commissioner

• Applied for and received a $20,000 “Samantha Smith” Grant from the U.S.Government in conjunction with a Youth Cultural Exchange Program between aTucson youth group and a University group in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, USSR.

• Received a 2000-2001 “Leader Ahead of the Curve” recognition award from theWestern Energy Institute.

206

EDUCATION/CERTIFICATION

• Received Certified Safety Professional (CSP) from Board of Certified SafetyProfessionals, Certificate # 16859. (July, 2001)

• Received Certified Utility Safety Administrator (CUSA) from the National SafetyCouncil’s Utility Division. Certificate #903. (August, 2000)

• Received Bachelor of Arts Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies incorporating the fieldsof Safety, Communication, and Psychology from the University of Arizona(December, 1999)

• Received Certified Hazard Control Manager (CHCM) designation at Master Level byBoard of Certified Hazard Control Management, Certification # 2730. (July 1998)

• Received Associates of General Studies from Pima Community College. (December,1997)

• Received certification as an Instructor for Mine Safety and Health Administration(MSHA) Safety Courses from Federal MSHA. (August 1996)

• Received certification as an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic from the FederalAviation Administration after completion of six quarters (18-months) at Eastern NewMexico University, Certificate # 2060284. (December 1970)

• EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Tucson Electric Power Co. Safety Supervisor (Risk Man) Sept. 1991 to presentTucson, AZ Plant Operations July 1986-Sept 1991

IBM Electronic Technician Sept 1985-Apr 1986Tucson, AZ (temporary position)

ARCO Metals Research Technician Jan. 1982-Apr 1985Tucson, AZ

Duval Corp Maintenance Mechanic May 1973-Dec 1981Tucson, AZ Dec 1970-May 1973

US Army Radar Technician Apr 1971-May 1973Korea MOS 24B20

Robert’s Chevron Night Manager Apr 1970-Dec 1970Roswell, NM Auto Mechanic June 1969-Apr 1970

Grumman Aircraft Eng. Mechanical Technician July 1968-May 1969White Sands Missile Range, NM

207

Robert A. Dey

Mr. Dey is a Senior Manager for industrial, engineering, and constructionprograms. He is experienced in decision making, operational responsibility, andleadership-management of large organizations. He was educated at the UnitedStates Military Academy and Stanford University with a M.S. degree in CivilEngineering (Construction). Mr. Dey has experience across a broad range oftechnical, financial, and management issues. During military service hecommanded major military engineer combat and construction units up to Brigadelevel. He is trained and experienced in effective communications and leadershipat all levels of government and industry. He was selected as a White HouseFellow in a national competition in 1971 and during that fellowship served asSpecial Assistant to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. He served as a senior manager for the Morrison Knudsen Company,Inc., for over thirteen years, specializing in the delivery of professionalmanagement and contracting services for construction, engineering, and industrialprograms. He has operated as an independent consultant since 1997, providingservices in the field of construction management for clients such as Amtrak

EXPERIENCE

• Mr. Dey was hired by Morrison Knudsen (MK) in 1982 as part of amanagement team chartered to market and then manage the delivery ofprofessional engineering and construction management services. He preparedmajor proposals for management of programs (engineering, procurement, andconstruction by others), acting to represent the best interest of an owner. Theclient base was both public and private sector. He was often teamed witharchitect-engineer (A/E) firms or major construction companies for proposals.He was sent to Los Angeles as a consultant under an MK contract with the LosAngeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) to assist them indeveloping their management plan for engineering procurement, andconstruction of the Long Beach to Los Angeles light rail system. Thereafter, heworked in proposal joint venture with the Fluor Corporation as part of the MKteam to develop the proposal for management of the Los Angeles subwaysystem construction.

• Mr. Dey led MK’s successful effort to provide a management concept and an

on-site consulting team to supplement the Washington State Department ofTransportation in completing Interstate 90 in Seattle. This program was valuedat $1.3 billion in Federal and State highway funds. He marketed this contractby directly approaching the State Secretary of Transportation and his deputyfor highways. He helped to provide the management organization concepts,performed estimates, run the master schedules for engineering contracting andconstruction, and provided specialized personnel to the state. He representedthe company as a senior manager, selected the key members and launchedthe MK team during startup, developed and negotiated a professional servicesJoint Venture with H.B. Lochner (a Chicago-based AE firm). He was thenrelocated to Seattle to establish an Area Office with oversight of the project.

208

• As Seattle Area Manager, he assured the quality performance of the I-90 team

and generally monitored compliance with the contract. In addition, hemarketed MK’s highway construction management services on a national basisproviding business development with state highway departments nation-wide.During this period, he assisted with the reorganization and transfer ofprofessional management services and international marketing form Boise toMK’s San Francisco-based engineering company. He acted as the DivisionManager of the Program Management/Construction Management Division ofthat company until a successor was assigned. Later, he was the proposalmanager for a major proposal for management of the U.S. Embassy SecurityProgram, a complex proposal for the U.S. Department of State (DOS) whichinvolved travel to coordinate the joint venture team as well as visits to the DOSin Washington, D.C. for marketing purposes.

• When the company reorganized, he returned to Boise where he was assigned

to the Equipment/Manufacturing sector of the company. He performed aspecial market analysis study of remanufacturing of Government vehicles andaircraft, securing both an Army and Coast Guard helicopter componentoverhaul contract. He marketed several major proposals to Army MaterialCommand Agencies (Tank-Automotive Command and Aviation SystemsCommand), working with Untied Technologies Corporation as a team tocombine aerospace analytical capability and technology with MK’sremanufacturing capacity.

• Mr. Dey managed the startup of MK’s contract at the Hornell, New York plant to

remanufacture a major portion of New York Transit Authority’s (NYCTA)subway fleet of “R46” cars. This contract involved engineering design,procurement, and remanufacturing plant operations, valued at over $300million. He coordinated the various MK plant entities and performed liaisonwith the NYCTA client. Thereafter, he developed concepts for improvednetwork scheduling of manufacturing for the successor contract with theChicago Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRA).

• Mr. Dey was responsible for the project support functions for the Texas High

Speed Rail Project. These functions included master scheduling, cost control,contracting, procurement, financial management, and personnel. This projectwas valued at $6 billion and would have produced the country’s first 200 mileper hour high speed train service between major Texas urban centers. Theproject was canceled by the sponsors in 1994, due to lack of funding.

• Mr. Dey was part of MK’s Transit Group as the Program Manager designee for

the rebuild of the Bay Area Rapid Transit car fleet. Tasks involved developingthe plans and selecting people to execute this work if awarded. Planningincluded the management of design, procurement, system integration, qualityand test programs, and production in MK’s California facilities. The competingbid was substantially below MK’s price for the work.

209

• Mr. Dey was transferred to Amerail (the spin-off company of MK’s formerTransit Group) as Director of an on-going California Department ofTransportation (CALTRANS) Program valued at over $200 million. Theprogram included design, development, subcontracting for materials, andproduction of 113 commuter and rail cars in eight different configurations. Hewas directly responsible for all client relations and negotiations in this program.The contract was successfully re-negotiated from its initial loss position, andinternal changes made to staff and procedures. He helped to reverse theprevious pattern of late deliveries and cost overruns, resulting in the attainmentof all revised cost and schedule objectives, reducing projected losses by atleast $40 million.

• As an independent consultant, Mr. Dey was retained by Amtrak to provideproject management services to the AMTRAK Los Angeles Engineering Office.Services included development and construction of major train maintenancefacilities on the west coast (Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle). He acted asProject Manager for the Oakland Maintenance project, and advised andproduced actual models and templates for the establishment of managementteams, schedules and budgets, facility maintenance concepts, and reviewprocesses for other Amtrak projects.

210

Robert A. Dey

EXPERIENCE OUTLINEGeneral Management:• Defining and planning function and organizations.• Maintenance of facilities and equipment.• Development and execution of capital and operating budgets along functional

and objective alignments.• Development of network schedules for programs.• Procurement of goods and services in both government and private sector.• Effective communications at executive or craft labor level.• Information architecture.Industry:• Rail and transit

∗ Planned the organization and systems to control and administer the TexasHigh Speed Rail Project, estimated at over $6 billion.

∗ Served as Project manager for design, procurement and assembly for twomajor transit car rebuild programs, each valued at over $300 million.

∗ Framed the organization and management options for the Los AngelesCounty Transportation Commission to design and construct the LA LongBeach light rail system.

∗ Developed concepts and management templates for program managementof rail transit car contracts.

∗ Provided Project Management services to Amtrak for the development andconstruction of three major west coast maintenance facilities.

• Vehicle Remanufacturing∗ Conducted market analysis, developed concepts and proposal which were

presented to the U.S. Army in a teaming arrangement with the UnitedTechnologies Corporation to integrate aerospace technology into militaryvehicle remanufacturing.

• Construction∗ Marketed, organized, and assisted in the startup of professional services

rendered to the Washington State DOT for the Interstate 90 completionproject in Seattle. Services included engineering management, programscheduling and control systems, and construction management assistancefor this program which cost in excess of $1 billion. The program wascompleted by the State DOT on planned schedule and budget.

∗ Managed the proposals for Morrison Knudsen Company on two majorconstruction management programs of national interest, namely, the LosAngeles subway system, proposed in joint venture with the FluorCorporation, and the U.S. Embassy Security Program of the U.S.Department of State. These proposals required extensive preparation,planning, and presentation.

211

• Aviation∗ Planned, marketed, and participated in the execution of aviation component

rebuild contracts with the U.S. Army and Coast Guard.∗ Piloted military and civilian aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing, single and

multi-engine for over 2800 hours.

Government:• White House Fellow

∗ Selected in national competition in 1971 to participate in the White HouseFellowships.

∗ Was appointed as special assistant to the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency.

∗ Participated in representational and national policy development trips toAfrica and Asia.

Military:• Command

∗ Commanded a combat engineer company and battalion. Commanded theU.S. Army Engineer Center Brigade of over 2,400 combat, administrative,and medical personnel.

• Staff∗ Army General staff experience in the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

• Engineering and Construction∗ Military project construction in the U.S., Germany, Korea, and Vietnam.∗ Planning and initial engineering of projects through the Corps of Engineers

for middle-eastern governmental agreements with the U.S. Projects werelocated in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt.

∗ Facility engineer training at major installation level.

EDUCATIONSUMAC West Point, Bachelors Degree (1958)Stanford University, Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering/ConstructionManagement (1963)The Army War College, Postgraduate Studies in National Security (1980)

INTERNATIONALEurope: Assignments in residence in Germany (6 years) and Italy (3 years)Asia: Tours in Korea and Vietnam (3 years) Travel on assignments to Japan, Indonesia, and ThailandAfrica: Representational trips to Tunisia, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, and Zaire.Middle East: Assignments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt

212

Arizona State UniversityDepartment of Electrical Engineering

GEORGE C. KARADYProfessor, Salt River Chair

DegreesDoctorate in Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Budapest, 1960Candidate of Technical sciences, Hungarian Academy of Science, 1959Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Budapest, 1952

Professional Experience1986-Present Salt River Project Chair Professor, Arizona State University1977-1986 BASSO Services, Chief Consulting Electrical Engineer Chief Engineer Computer Technologies and Manager

of Electrical Systems1969-1977 Hydro Quebec Institute of Research, Member of Research Staff, Program Manager and IREQ fellow1952-1969 Technical University of Budapest, Teaching Assistant, Associate Professor and Deputy Department Head

Membership in Scientific and Professional StudiesIEEE Senior Member, 1969, senior member, 1971, fellow 1978 Canadian Electric Association, 1971-78CIGRE member, 1981-present Hungarian Association of Electric Engineers, 1952-68PHI KAPPA PHI, honor society, 1988-present SAE, Society of Aerospace Engineers member, 1988

Professional Society ActivitiesInstitute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)

Transmission and Distribution committee (T&D) Member, 1977 to presentT&D Committee, Working group on Non-Ceramic Insulators; Chairman, 1978 to presentT&D Committee, Lightning and Insulation Subcommittee, Vice-Chairman 2985-1988; Chairman, 1988 to presentT&D Committee, Working Group on HVDC System Performance; Chairman, 1974 to 1986T&D Committee, HVDC Subcommittee, Member since 1970 and Secretary, 1978-1982Fellow Committee, Member, 1983-1986T&D Committee, Working Group on Flexible AC Transmission Systems, Member, 1991 to presentPower Engineering Education Committee, Member, 1980 to presentPower Engineering Education, Technical Sessions Subcommittee, Chairman 1992 to presentPower Engineering Education, Fellow Committee, Member, 1990 to presentPES, Working Group on Insulation Coordination, Chairman, 1992 to present

CIGRE, International Conference on Large High Voltage Electrical Systems, 1981 to presentVice President, U.S. National Committee, 1981-1985Treasurer/Secretary U.S. National Committee, 1981-1985Technical Committee, Member, 1994 to presentWorking Group on Insulators, Member, 1980 to presentWorking Group on Insulators Contamination, Canadian Representative, 1973-1976International Study Committee 22, U.S. Expert Advisor, 1986 to present

Honors and Awards

- IEEE Fellow, 1978- Working Group Recognition Award (IEEE-PES Education Committee), 1993- Student Affairs Recognition, ASU, 1992; Student Affairs Recognition, ASU, 1990- Working Group Recognition Award, IEEE-PES, 1989- Transmission and Distribution Committee Award for Outstanding Working Group, (IEEE), 1988- Surge Protective Devices Committee Award for Prize Winning Paper, (IEEE), 1983- Working Group Recognition Award, (IEEE T&D Committee), 1981, Technical Paper Award (IEEE- India), 1981- Diploma, College of Relay Engineers (NARM), 1969

Student GraduationDoctor of Philosophy (Ph.D 2), Master of Science (MS) 23

Author of over 22 Professional Journal Papers in the last five years, expert witness on approximately six crane/hoistlinepowerline contact litigations.

213

BEN J. LEHMAN, Rear Admiral USN (Engineering) Retired ProfessionalEngineer, Certified Safety Professional

Registered P.E. in New York 1949, California 1953, Alabama 1976, Louisiana 1976,Florida 1976 (lapsed). Born 1922.Certified as a Safety Professional in 1979 by BSCP, Savoy, IL.

Education:C.C. N.Y. Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering 1942;Manhattan College 1943 (evening) - IndustrialPsychology and Safety;Pratt Institute 1943 (evening) – Electronics;U.S. Naval Academy Post-Graduate School – Electrical and MechanicalEngineering – 1944 to 1945;Harvard University, Graduate School of Engineering –Mechanical and Chemical Engineering – Masters DegreeIn Mechanical Engineering 1949;Stanford University – Design Philosophy and AdvancedStress Analysis - 1957 to 1959 (part- time).Editor-in-Chief C.C.N.Y. VECTOR Magazine.Honorary Fraternity: Tau Beta Phi

Experience:Student Engineer, Mack Truck Co., Allentown PA 1941;U.S. Navy Shipyard Management and Contract Administration,

1942 to 1946 & 1950 to 1953;Engineer, General Electric Co., 1946 to 1948;Engineer, Bethlehem Steel Co. Shipbuilding Div. Central

Technical Department, Quincy, MA 1949 to 1950;Engineer, power plant construction and safety,

Refinery design, Bechtel Corp, 1954 to 1955;Project Engineer: Sylvania Electric, 1955; Kaiser

Electronics, 1956; Beckman Instruments, 1957 to 1959;Engineering Manager, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.,

Sunnyvale CA 1959 to 1969;Director of Engineering, Lockheed Shipbuilding and

Construction Co., Seattle WA 1969 to 1972;Vice-President of Engineering, Litton Industries Ship

Systems, Los Angeles CA and Ingalls Shipbuilding Div.,Pascagoula MS 1972 to 1975;

Private Practice, 1975 to present.

Professional Societies:Systems Safety SocietyAmerican Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)IEEE Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation SocietyAmerican Soc. Of Naval Architects and Marine EngineersAmerican Society of Naval EngineersAmerican Boat and Yacht CouncilRisk Analysis SocietyMechanics Institute of San FranciscoPanelist, American Arbitration Association

P.O. Box 3480, 169 Juniper Drive, Stateline, NV 89449PHONE 702/ 588 - 7765 FAX 702/ 588 – 587

214

Melvin L. Myers1293 Berkeley RoadAvondale Estates, GA 30002-1517

Phone (404) 288-7085Fax (404) 288-7166

e-mail: melmyers@bellsouth.net

Education1967 B.S., College of Engineering, University of Idaho (Agricultural Engineering)1977 M.P.A., School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University (International

Environment Policy, Science and Technology Management)

Professional Experience1982-2002 Consultant2002-2003 Assistant Professor, Voluntary Faculty, University of Kentucky, Southeast Center for

Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention1992-2002 Assistant Professor, Adjunct Facility, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health,

Teach Occupational and Environmental Health Policy1995-1998 Deputy Director, Office of Extramural Coordination and Special Projects, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Atlanta, GA1996-1998 Senior Editor, Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, 4th Ed. Geneva:

International Labour Office (ILO)- Chapter Editor, Agriculture and Natural Resource Based Industries, Vol. 3, pp. 64.1-69- Chapter Editor, Livestock Rearing, Vol.3, pp. 70.1-38

1988-1994 Special Assistant to the Director, NIOSH, Atlanta, GA- Coordinator, Agriculture Program, NIOSH

- Project Officer for the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health, 1991- Acting Director, Alaska Activity, NIOSH, 1991- Member, Agriculture Steering Committee- Member, Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, OSHA, 1998-1990- Executive Secretary, Mine Health Research Advisory Committee, DHHS, 1987-1992- Committee Management Officer, NIOSH, 1987-1994

1981-1988 International Coordinator, NIOSH. Project Officer for Cooperative Agreement with the World Health Organization

1986-1988 Deputy Assistant Director, NIOSH, Atlanta, GA. Director, Office of Program Planning andEvaluation, NIOSH, Rockville, MD 1979-81,Atlanta, GA 1981-86

1975-1979 Technical Assistant to the Assistant Administrator, Office of the Assistant Administrator,Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),Washington, D.C.

1971-1975 Center Staff Officer, National Environmental Research Center/Research Triangle Park,Office of Research and Development, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC

1969-1971 Engineer-Economist, National Air Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Public HealthService, Cincinnati, OH and Raleigh, NC

1967-1968 Design Engineer, Hyster Company, Portland, OR1966 Engineering Aid, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of

Idaho1963-1967 Engineering Aid, Idaho Department of Highways

Membership in Scientific SocietiesAmerican Public Health Association, Occupational Safety and Health SectionAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers

215

American Society of Safety EngineersCommissioned Officers Association of the USPHSNational Institute for Farm Safety

Chair, Long-Range Planning CommitteeNational Safety Council

Honors2002 NAMIC Engineering Safety Award, American Society of Agricultural Engineers1998 Outstanding Service Medal, U.S. Public Health Service1998 Unit Commendation, U.S. Public Health Service1994 Outstanding Unit Citation, U.S. Public Health Service1993 Outstanding Unit Citation, U.S. Public Health Service1992 Unit Commendation, U.S. Public Health Service1991 Surgeon General’s Exemplary Service Medal, U.S. Public Health Service1991 Special Assignment Service Award, U.S. Public Health Service1990 Commendation Medal, U.S. Public Health Service1989 Public Health Citation, U.S. Public Health Service1988 Meritorious Service Medal, U.S. Public Health Service1988 Unit Commendation, U.S. Public Health Service1987 Special Achievement Award, Centers for Disease Control1986 Certificate of Appreciation for Contributions to the Success of the Second National

Symposium on Prevention of Leading Work-Related Disease and Injuries, Centersfor Disease Control

1986 Letter of Appreciation from Jimmy Carter for Participation in the Global HealthConsultation, The Carter Center

1986 Superior Work Performance Award, U.S. Public Health Service1985 Assistant Secretary for Health Award for Exceptional Achievement, Department of

Health and human Services1985 Certificate of Appreciation for Contributions to the Success of the First National

Symposium on Prevention of Leading Work-Related Disease and Injuries, Centersfor Disease Control

1985 Certificado Assistio al Serninsho, Pan American Health Organization, Paipa, Columbia1984 Commendation Medal, U.S. Public Health Service1979 EPA Award, Pioneer of the Nuke Watch, Three Mile Island1979 EPA Recognition for Outstanding Contribution1977 Phi Alpha Alpha (Public Affairs and Administration honorary)1976-77 Education for Public Managers Fellowship1966-67 Student Honor Award (Idaho Student Branch, American Society of Agricultural

Engineers1966-67 Alpha Zeta (Agricultural honorary) Chancellor, Idaho Chapter

Significant PerformanceServed as Project Officer for the Annual Report to the Congress, The Economics of Clean Air, March,

1971.Served as the first Project Officer for the Annual Report from the Administrator, EPA to the Congress,

Research Outlook 1978-1982.Assured in 1978 that expert witnesses were provided to a major enforcement program within the

Environmental Protection Agency covering the utility, iron and steel, pulp and paper, andchemical industries.

Acted in 1979 as Executive Officer for the Environmental Protection Agencies response to the nuclearincident at Three Mile Island, PA.

216

Coordinated international activities at NIOSH from 1982 to 1988, over which 17 international documentsand books were published and a system of international, regional, and bilateral coordination wasestablished.

Served as the project officer on and active sponsor-representative for an Institute of Medicine study thatresulted in the publication of The Role of the Primary Care Physician in Occupational andEnvironmental Medicine in 1988.

Managed the planning committee, the convening, and the publication of papers and proceedings from theSurgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health, 1991.

Opened a field office in Anchorage, Alaska for NIOSH in 1991 to conduct demonstration programs in theprevention of occupational injuries.

Served as a senior editor for and edited two chapter in the ILO Encyclopedia of Occupational Health andSafety, which was published in 1998. One chapter was “Agriculture and Natural Resource BasedIndustries” and the other chapter was “Livestock Rearing”.

Served as managing editor for a special issue of Statistics in Medicine, in which the proceedings andpapers from the Seventh Biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry Symposium on Statistical Methods held in 1999 werepublished in May 2001.

Mel Myers has also authored over 50 articles for publication.

217

JEFFREY C. SPEERP.O. Box 685

Sierra Vista, AZ 85636520.458.8056

SUMMARY: Results oriented individual with strong problem solving experience. Skilled in organizing,developing, and implementing industrial safety, ergonomic and environmental programs. Strong interpersonalabilities combined with excellent analytical and management skills.

EDUCATION:CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY- Warrensburg, Missouri 64093Master of Science- Industrial Safety/Management

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO- Toronto, Ontario CanadaHonors Bachelor of Arts

EXPERIENCE:1995 to Present Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Army Signal Command

(NETCOM) Title: Safety Engineer (1995-1997) Safety Director (1997- present)

Is the principal staff advisor, technical consultant and coordinator to the NETCOM Commander and the staff inplanning, organizing, directing and evaluating all safety and occupational health efforts involving 12,500 personnelworldwide. Expert in system safety engineering and management to support design, installation, operations,maintenance and sustainment of worldwide tactical, strategic, and power projection signal support systems for theArmy. Principal activity is to provide safety engineering design assistance to developing engineers of both hardwareand software of electronics and support products to ensure that the end products are safe for their intended use. Thisfunction requires innovation of alternate designs that eliminate or minimize the hazard to the operating personneland users. This also includes application of human factors considerations to overcome foreseeable operator and usererror. Established NETCOM safety, occupational health and system safety engineering program and policy andprocedures. Manages and conducts analysis or NETCOM accident data to evaluate hazards and control measures.Develops safety guides and control procedures for safe design specifications, equipment layouts, facilities,processes, and personal protective equipment, devices and materials. Assesses the effectiveness of safety andtechnical guidance on the integration of risk management processes and MANPRINT safety.

1994 to 1995 Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management CommandTitle: Safety Engineer

Reviewed and evaluated operations, programmatic system safety requirements and techniques in a manufacturingenvironment that included concept, design, development, testing and production phases. Assessed and resolvedindustrial safety, ergonomic, health physics and industrial hygiene problems. Participated on accident and mishapinvestigation teams to assure that safety considerations were inherent in contractors’ programs and activities.Assured that contractors had properly applied industrial safety and environmental standards to engineering plans,production operations and maintenance, and hazardous operations. Developed and performed engineering studies,hazard analyses and risk assessments in the areas of hazard identification and hazard control. Coordinated andprovided safety training classes. Conducted safety inspections, surveys and audits of contractor operations withauthority for immediate work stoppage, if found to be in serious non-compliance with regulatory standards.

1994 Steelcase Incorporated, Athens, AL 35611Title: Production Line Associate

Performed quality control inspections of production line product and periodic audits for compliance with ISO 9000requirements. Provided technical and hazard identification assistance to management.

1989 to 1994 Technical Analysis, Incorporated, Huntsville, AL 35806Title: Safety Engineer

218

Mission service contractor to the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, AL. NANA IndustrialSafety Office representative for facility design/construction/activation or a 2.7 billion-dollar chemical/manufacturingprocessing multi-complex facility. Reviewed facility, equipment and process specifications and design drawings forcompliance with statutory health and safety, ergonomic and environmental (RCRA, TSCA, SARA) requirements.Assessed applicability, developed and implemented OSHA Process Safety Management Program to MSFCoperations at various locations. Evaluated engineering, technical, process development, manufacturing, oroperational issues for the Space Shuttle program. Revised MSFC safety instructions and manuals to comply withnew OSHA standards. Established a base line questionnaire for evaluating safety and health program compliance.Evaluated contractor safety program plans, hazard analyses and engineering changes. Performed inspections andaudits of all MSFC contractor facilities and operations.

1986 to 1989 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA 91803Title: Safety Officer

Developed, implemented, and administered a comprehensive safety and accident prevention program, policies, andprocedures for a newly consolidated Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure compliance withfederal, state, and local health and safety requirements. Reviewed safety reports, investigations, and prepared reportsof industrial and automobile accidents. Inspected and evaluated Department facilities, equipment, work practices,and safety devices for code compliance. Analyzed work activities and equipment for potential health and safetyhazards and identified personal protective equipment. Prepared and conducted safety training for employeesincluding: Hazard Communication, Confined Space, Hearing Conservation, Respiratory Protection and AsbestosAbatement. Generated risk assessment reports for senior management on status of safety program on a monthly,quarterly, and yearly basis. Provided liaison and technical support for the Department of Safety committees.Assisted with Preparedness and Emergency Response manual, policies, and procedures.

1985 to 1986 Handyman of California, Incorporated, Santa Maria, CA 93438Title: Technical Consultant

Responsible for customer assistance and service involving building material selections and purchases. Completedsales floor maintenance and weekly inventory procedures.

1983 to 1985 Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO 64093Title: Teaching Assistant

Developed and taught driver education program for high school students and adults including theoretical andpractical aspects of motor vehicle operations. Program instructor for defensive driving, as well as winter drivingtechniques and traffic safety programs presented to various State of Missouri police forces. Demonstrated the SeatBelt Convincer at community functions statewide to encourage seat belt usage.

1979 to 1983 Algoma Steel Corporation, Limited, Sault Ste. Marie, OntarioTitle: Coke Oven Operator Safety Specialist

Assisted the Cokemaking Superintendent in the development and implementation of the department safety programand the first phase of a Coke oven Battery Emission Control Program to meet government standards. Responsiblefor the preparation of the department safety manual, safe maintenance and shutdown procedures, and personalprotective equipment program.

SPECIAL ISO 9000 Inspections System SafetyTRAINING: Industrial Hygiene Certified First Aid

Solid Waste Management Construction InspectionAccident Investigation/Reconstruction ManprintHealth Hazard Evaluation Hazard RecognitionConfined Space Configuration ManagementHazardous Materials Management Process Safety Management

ORGANIZATIONS: American Society of Safety EngineersSystem Safety SocietyNational Fire Protection AssociationSociety of Explosive Engineers

219

Dr. JOHN H. VAN ARSDELP.O. Box 2894

Sierra Vista, AZ 85636-2894(520) 459-3836

email – jhvanars@theriver.com

EDUCATION

B.S., Industrial Technology, Engineering Major,Purdue University.

M.A., Ph.D, Post Graduate credits and honors,University of Denver, Commonwealth University.

Seminars and Technical Training in Operational Areas.

HIGHLIGHTS OF ASSIGNMENTS

* Twenty years experience electronics and human engineer.* Extensive writing and presentation experience.* Supervisor particularly in human engineering applications.* Experience in large scale military oriented projects.* Eight years computer experience: main frame to micro & mini.* Project experience in identifying and resolving problems.* Human factors Scientist – NORAD Computer Systems, Space Comp.

Ctr.

RELEVANT SKILLS and EXPERIENCE

ELECTRONICS ENGINEER . Developed test plans, conducted tests, wrote test reports: equipment and

aircraft testing, electronic instrument and control systems. . Developed tables for solar and X-ray data for C-E HF predictions. . Prepared, coordinated C-E multiservice standardization documents. . Developed/reviewed C-E standards and practices for effectiveness. . COR's technical representative in C-E standards efforts.

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEER (MANPRINT) . Developed, conducted human engineering tests of pilots and technicians,

non-standard instruments and controls, wrote reports. . Directed technical teams, extensive missile testing programs. . Developed Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements Information

(QQPRI), Human Factors Design Compliance, Personnel System Testand Evaluation reports.

. Lead human engineer, Minute Man III Post Boost Propulsion System. . Human Factors Scientist, updating Cheyenne Mountain Space Computational

Center and NORAD computer systems.

SUPERVISORY . Acting Supervisor in Air Training Command assignments. . Coordinator of technical, training teams for missile testing. . Lead human engineer, Minute Man III Post Boost Propulsion System. . Supervisor Computer Laboratory in University. Supervising Human Factors Scientist for updating Cheyenne Mountain

Space Computational Center and NORAD computer systems.

220

RELEVANT BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE

USAISEC SED-ASQB-SET-N, Electronics Engineer, Fort Huachuca, AZ.

USAISEC SED-ASQB-SET-T, Electronics Engineer, Fort Huachuca, AZ.

USAISEC ASBI-SST, Electronics Engineer, Fort Huachuca, AZ.USACEEIA ASC-CED-CE-TP, Mathematician, Fort Huachuca, AZ.USACEEIA CCC-EMEO-ECD, Operations Research Analyst, Fort

Huachuca, AZ.US Army Academy of Health Sciences, Technical Reviewer and

Operations Systems Analyst, Ft Sam Houston, TX.USAF Contract, Officer Training, Lackland AFB, TX.USAF Contract, Space Computational Center and NORAD

Computer System 427M Improvement Program, SupervisingHuman Factors Scientist, Colorado Springs, CO.

Univ. of Denver, Supervisor Computer Laboratory, Denver,CO.USAF Contract, Lead Human Engineer, Minute Man III, Post

Boost Propulsion System, Niagara Falls, NY.US Army Contract, Senior Systems Engineer, Tucson, AZ.USAF Contract, Senior Development Engineer, Goodyear, AZ.US Army Contract, Technical and Training Coordinators,

Multisystem Test Equipment Program (missile testing), Burlington, MA.

USAF Contract, Human Engineer, Dyna-Soar Project, Cherry Hill, NJ.

US Army Contract, Electronics Engineer and Human Engineer, ElectronicsFlight Instrumentation and Controls Testing, USAEPG, FortHuachuca, AZ.

APPENDIX C:

APPLIANCELIST

220

SAFETY APPLIANCES AVAILABLE TO HELP PROTECT AGAINST THEOCCURRENCE OF POWERLINE CONTACT

♦ Boom Swing Limiting Device: This device employs two spring bumpers mounted on therevolving superstructure directly below the boom, which are pointed in opposite directions.These bumpers stop the rotation of the crane when they come into contact with stop blockswhich are connected by two pins to a ring welded to the crane carrier. The stop blocks can beset to allow as much or as little rotation as is desired or can be removed completely fornormal operation. The unit also is equal with switches which contact the stop blocks aboutone foot ahead of the bumpers, activating a bell in the cab to warn the operator that the craneis approaching the stop blocks. This device varies slightly to fit various models of cranes. Itcan be designated to fit most truck cranes and some crawler cranes.

Rayco Boom RangerModel R420

Rayco Electronics, U.S.A. Inc. (Wylie Systems)P.O. Box 225

4323 Lincoln Way EastFayetteville, PA 17222

717.352.2121Fax 717.352.8707

Rayco R2420 Range Limiting DeviceRayco Electronic System

2440, Avenue DaltonSainte-Foy, Québec, Canada

418.266.6600Fax: 418.266.6610

Rayco@raycotech.com

Rayco Boom BuoyRayco Electronic System Ltd

1370 Chemin FilteauBerniéresm Qc G7A 2K1

418.831.6137

♦ SigAlarm: This device is equipped with a sensing aerial running the entire length of theboom. The purpose if the aerial is to pick up electrostatic fields which are present around anyalternating current transmission line. The strength of these electrostatic fields at any point inspace is directly proportional to the power of the transmission line and inversely proportionalto the distances of that point from the powerline. The aerial on a crane is connected toelectrical circuitry which activates a light and a buzzer when the aerial enters a field of a

221

certain strength. This must be adjusted by the crane operator at every site due to the variationof power carried by transmission lines and to the distances from the line at which theoperator chooses to work. Battery power from the crane is used to operate the warningdevices, and to energize the detector circuit. This device is available with several optionswhich enable it to be used. With any crane on any type or crane-shovel operation.

647 Progress WaySanford, FL 32771

1.800.589.3769407.328.9479

Fax: 407.328.5889www.SigAlarminc.com

♦ Other Proximity Warning Devices

Detek-Thor Proximity Warning Device Model R600Rayco Electronics, U.S.A. Inc. (Wylie Systems)

P.O. Box 2254323 Lincoln Way EastFayetteville, PA 17222

717.352.2121Fax 717.352.8707

Will-Burt ISO 9001 D-TEC TripWill-Burt

169 South Main StreetOrrville, OH 44667-0900

330.682.7015330.684.1190

www.willburt.com

H.J. Tinsley & Co LtdSpittlegate Level

Grantham, LincolnshireEngland NG31 7UH

Tel: Grantham (0476) 77297

Wylie Systems (A Hinderliter Company)1240 N. Harvard

Tulsa, OK 74115-6103918.832.9035

www.wyliesystems.org.uk

222

Saf-T-Boom® Dielectric ShieldSafe-T-Boom Corp.

#1 Skyway Dr.Little Rock, AR 72201

501.375.3291

♦ Insulating Links:

Load Insulator®Insulatus

708 Marks Rd, Suite BValley City, OH 44280

1.888.323.5623Fax: 1.888.323.1733www.insulatus.com

Miller ISO LinkMiller Products

41 Fremont St. Worcester, MA 01603800.733.7071

www.millerproducts.net

also available through

Safety Products Engineering, Inc.707 Mullet Dr. Ste. 204

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920800.589.3769

Safety LinkSafe-T-Boom Corp.

#1 Skyway Dr.Little Rock, AR 72201

501.375.3291

♦ Other Equipment:

Pneumatic Shock Guard(Pneumatic Remote Control)

US Truck Cranes Inc. (USTC)R.D. 6, Box 34-BYork, PA 17404

800.233.1961