The Case of the Concrete Cutting Catastrophe

1 of 5

http://ecmweb.com/print/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-c...

print | close

Electrical Construction and Maintenance

Andrew Paris

Andrew Paris, P.E., Anderson Engineering

Wed, 2012-02-01 12:00

When a rapidly growing packaging plant decided to once again expand its main manufacturing facility, the
company faced a long yet familiar renovation road ahead. Through addition after addition, what was once a
single building had now grown many times over into a large office, manufacturing, and distribution complex. As
is the case with many building expansions, operations in the older sections moved into the new additions, and
their former homes were then repurposed.
In this case, the company wanted to expand its production area into a warehouse section of the complex. A large
extruder, which outputs rolls of plastic sheeting that make up the various packets, bags, and wrappers for the
final product, was required in the new production area. The packaging company coordinated the construction
and hired individual contractors to remodel the warehouse and update the utilities.

The Scene
The extruder weighed several tons, which was much greater than the concrete foundation floor of the warehouse
could handle. A 30-ft 115-ft rectangle of concrete needed to be cut out of the approximately 60-ft 150-ft
warehouse floor to accommodate the footprint of the extruder. The concrete pad section was further divided into
5-ft 5-ft sections that could be removed with a front end loader. The ground below the foundation would then
be dug out to accommodate a thicker, 18-in. reinforced concrete foundation to handle the additional weight of
the extruder.
This particular project required the use of a gas-powered, walk-behind cutting saw with a 38-in. blade. To use
this tool, a constant stream of water jets onto the blade and cutting surface to prevent the otherwise heavy dust
generated by the cutting operation from blowing into the warehouse. As the operator walks along with the
self-propelled saw, another worker follows behind and uses a floor vacuum to remove the slurry. Although the
cutting process doesnt seem complicated, a hidden electrical hazard awaited the unsuspecting workers.

The Accident
Jared had worked for XYZ Heavy Construction, the company hired to replace the foundation below the new
extruder, for about 16 yr prior to this project. He had cut out sections of concrete and asphalt at least 20 to 30
times before, including other areas of the packaging company. Although he never received any specific training,
he was familiar enough with the operation of different types of cutting saws and cutting procedures in general.
The day of the incident was also Jareds first day of work on this particular job. After meeting with the on-site
foreman for XYZ at 7 a.m., the project manager for the packaging company made a rough sketch of the
foundation area to be removed and told the guys to get to work. XYZ employees asked if there were any potential
utility services (water lines, electrical conduits, etc.) in the area they needed to be aware of. According to Jared,
the answer was no.

07-03-15 4:29 PM

The Case of the Concrete Cutting Catastrophe

2 of 5

http://ecmweb.com/print/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-c...

Jared and other XYZ workers took a few hours to measure and lay out the extruder footprint, eventually
denoting it with a black marker. It took another hour or two to set up the saw and vacuum equipment. Once they
were ready, Jared began his first cut along one of the 115-ft edges of the extruder footprint.
As he moved along the perimeter with the saw, he moderated the cutting depth based on the resistance on the
blade and the type of material thrown up with the saw (dirt vs. concrete). In this case, the concrete floor was on
average 8 in. to 10 in. thick. Wearing his normal construction outfit of jeans and a T-shirt along with regular
work boots, leather gloves, eye-protection, and a hard hat, Jared walked along the right side of the saw in order
to make sure he was following the cutting line, steering the saw with his left hand.
He had traveled approximately 80 ft during his first cutting pass when the arcing event occurred. After seeing a
blue arc come out of the saw, he felt an electrical shock and was immediately thrown to the floor. Jared later
reported that the saw itself jumped up from the cutting track due to the force of the blast.
Unfortunately, none of the other workers saw the incident. The worker operating the vacuum was several feet
behind Jared and didnt initially notice anything. Once the XYZ foreman saw Jared sitting on the floor 10 ft to 15
ft away from the now non-operating saw, he quickly went over to him. He found Jared pale, shivering, and
shaking. I got zapped, Jared told him.

Investigation and Analysis

The legal case in this matter tended to revolve around whether the presence of the electrical conduits was known
prior to the incident and if that information was properly communicated to the building contractor. Other
legal questions related to whether Jared was properly notified of the risks involved in cutting concrete and if
proper personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn.
Apparently, no photographs were taken immediately after the incident, and very little documentation was
produced regarding the initial, informal investigation by XYZ and the packaging company. As a result, our
analysis was limited to examining medical records, reading depositions of the various people involved in the
incident and remodeling project, and trying to simulate the most viable cause of the incident.
Photographs taken during construction of the warehouse 3 yr prior were eventually found and produced as
evidence in the civil lawsuit. They show several metal conduits traveling along the subfloor of the warehouse that
were later covered and encased in the concrete foundation.
We did not receive any evidence that the conduits were incorrectly installed according to the NEC, although the
specific installation of the conduits is unknown. Liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit (LFNC) [356.10(7)],
rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC) [352.10(G)], electrical metallic tubing (EMT) [358.10(B)], and other
types of conduit may be encased in concrete, but if the foundation and/or the conduits are in contact with the
earth, the conduits must be rated for the appropriate corrosion resistance for the wet location (see Art. 100 for
definition of Location, Wet). According to Table 300.5, conduits running under a building have no minimum
burial distance, so that must be kept in mind when cutting operations occur.
Deposition testimony later showed that a large, 480V, 3-phase, air turnover unit located in the warehouse lost
power at the time of the incident, as did some of the 120V receptacles mounted on the perimeter walls of the
warehouse. The circuits originated from 480/277V and 208/120V panelboards located in an adjoining building.
The circuit breakers protecting these circuits also tripped.
It is likely Jared cut through the energized conduits and conductors during the incident. Cutting through the
277V phase-neutral conductors created a fault path through the saw and/or conduit to earth. However, it also
created a parallel fault path through the saw, through Jareds left arm, and down his body to the electrical earth

07-03-15 4:29 PM

The Case of the Concrete Cutting Catastrophe

3 of 5

http://ecmweb.com/print/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-c...

ground of the concrete foundation (click here to see Figure).

When the electricity traveled through Jareds body, it affected his muscles, causing involuntary contractions.
The contraction of his left arm was severe enough to tear his bicep. The shock path also likely caused his leg
muscles to contract, causing him to jump away from the saw.
Evidence discovered as a result of the various depositions revealed the packaging companys lack of knowledge
regarding the possible hazards below the floor of the warehouse. The piecemeal construction of the building
resulted in there being no unified set of building plans. The packaging company only had the original
construction plans for the warehouse no plumbing or electrical drawings were available.
Instead of going back to the electrical contractor who originally installed the electrical system in the warehouse
for further confirmation, other packaging company employees were asked whether they thought there were any
hidden utilities under the floor. They also discussed the situation with an electrical contractor working on the
new extruder addition. The information we received was contradictory regarding who knew what and when. But
either way, the packaging company, the electrical contractor for the extruder project, and XYZ agreed there
were no potential hazards under the warehouse floor during their meeting on the morning of the accident, which
led to the initial floor cutting operation.

Lessons Learned
If further investigation had been done prior to the start of construction, it would have revealed the existence of
electrical plans in the possession of the original electrical contractor. This would have at least given all parties
notice that hazards did exist, which could be further identified by using a circuit tracer and cable locator to
determine the actual path of the conduit runs beneath the concrete.
Even if the electrical plans were not found prior to construction, one could still attempt to determine the
existence of pipes, conduits, cables, etc., using an outside contractor to examine the extruder footprint with
x-ray equipment or ground-penetrating radar. Both of these methods are well known ways of mapping out
unknown underground utilities.
OSHA statutes require all employers to inform their employees of the risks involved with their job and provide
them with the appropriate PPE. In particular, OSHA 29 CFR 1910 and 29 CFR 1926 regulate safety and health
in general industry and construction, respectively. Section 1910.132(d)(1) states: The employer shall assess the
workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal
protective equipment (PPE)
The argument against XYZ Construction is that it did not perform this task to the best of its ability. Furthermore,
it did not provide the appropriate PPE to employees performing concrete cutting operations, as provided in the
OSHA statute 29 CFR 1926.29(a), which states: The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of
appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an exposure to hazardous conditions
or where this part indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.
In this case, cutting concrete where known or unknown electrical lines may exist is referred to in 29 CFR
1926.416(a)(2): In work areas where the exact location of underground electric power lines is unknown,
employees using jack-hammers, bars, or other hand tools which may contact a line shall be provided with
insulated protective gloves.
Further, protective footwear is also required according to 29 CFR 1910.136(a): Each affected employee shall
wear protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling
objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employees feet are exposed to electrical hazards.

07-03-15 4:29 PM

The Case of the Concrete Cutting Catastrophe

4 of 5

http://ecmweb.com/print/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-c...

Protective gloves need to be designed and manufactured according to ASTM standard D 120: Specification for
Rubber Insulating Gloves as well as rated for the appropriate voltages that may be encountered. Insulating
footwear should be rated DI, for dielectric shoes, and rated according to ASTM F 1117: Specification for
Dielectric Overshoe Footwear.
According to OSHA standards, employers are also required to train their employees to recognize potential
hazards and determine when PPE is necessary. Because Jared did receive many hours of training during his
work history with XYZ, he probably should have been able to recognize hazardous conditions on his own and
request mitigation and/or PPE. However, his prior history of accident-free concrete cutting and his position in
the company may have discouraged him from questioning the safety of this particular project.

The Outcome
As a result of this incident, XYZ Construction changed its policy and procedures regarding concrete cutting.
Now, it brings in a utility locating company if the building owner states that there are underground conductors
in the area or if the as-built plans show such lines. It also requires workers to wear insulated gloves and boots.
The packaging company hired an electrical contractor to produce electrical drawings of the building systems.
Eventually, the lawsuits against XYZ Construction and the packaging company were settled confidentially out of
court for an undisclosed amount prior to trial. Had OSHA investigated this claim, XYZ could have been fined
based on the violations uncovered during our analysis.
One final note to keep in mind on this case is that you, as electrical professionals, are aware of the hazards
involved when dealing with electricity. Therefore, its critical to coordinate with all parties involved to ensure that
safety is paramount. Keep clear and accurate records/plans of your work, provide the same to your client at the
conclusion of a project, and keep archive copies on-hand in case incidents such as this arise.
Paris is a forensic electrical engineer with Anderson Engineering, New Prague, Minn. He can be reached at
dparis@andeng.net.

The Concrete Sawing and Drilling Association (CSDA), the leading trade group representing concrete sawing
and drilling companies, offers many safety and construction training courses/documents. It has also worked
directly with OSHA to produce a best practices document regarding electrical safety. CSDA-OBP-1004, issued in
2010, lists a variety of electrical safety concerns, involving both underground electrical services and the
electrical components of the saw itself. Below are a few items of significance from its best practices document
that relate to this case.
Electricity is widely recognized as a potential workplace hazard, exposing employees to electric shock, burns,
fires, and explosions. Working on or around electrical conductors and equipment can be particularly dangerous,
because electrical energy often cannot be sensed until contact is made. Apply the following guidelines to
maximize safety:
1. On a daily basis, before starting any task, inspect the work area for possible electrical hazards. Take all
necessary precautions to avoid cutting into electrical lines. In work areas where the exact location of the
electrical power is unknown, power in the general vicinity of the building should be de-energized.
2. Operators should wear ASTM F 1117 dielectric boots and ASTM D 120 rubber insulating gloves. Leather
protector gloves that meet ASTM F 696 should be worn over insulating gloves to prevent damage. Instruct each
employee on how to recognize and avoid unsafe conditions that apply to the work areas.

07-03-15 4:29 PM

The Case of the Concrete Cutting Catastrophe

5 of 5

http://ecmweb.com/print/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-c...

Source URL: http://ecmweb.com/shock-amp-electrocution/case-concrete-cutting-catastrophe

07-03-15 4:29 PM