Utility Electric Contact Incident Report 2004

Transcription

2004
Utility Electric
Contact Incident
Report
Regarding Personal Injury Incidents
Reported to the OPUC in 2003
The Oregon Public Utility Commission does not discriminate
on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services.
This document is available in alternate formats by calling
503-378-8962 (voice), 800-648-3458 (TTY) or
electronically via the Oregon PUC Web site at
http://[email protected] (click on “Safety”)
v
2004
Utility Electric Contact
Incident Report
(For Injury Incidents reported in 2003)
Compiled March 2004
Prepared by:
Bob Sipler, Utility Safety and Reliability Section
Oregon Public Utility Commission
550 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 215, PO Box 2148
Salem, Oregon 97308-2148
Telephone: 503-373-7451
Internet: [email protected]
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
Chart: Incidents Reported By Electric Utilities – 20 Year History
1
2
Summary
3
Description of Charts
4
Chart: Injury Severity
5
Chart: Type of Electrical System Involved
6
7
Chart: When Incidents Occurred - By Month
8
Chart: When Incidents Occurred - By Day of Week and Hour of Day
9
Chart: Demographic Areas: Rural, Suburban, Urban and Construction
10
Chart: Where Incidents Occurred - By Area
11
Area Map
12
13
Chart: Who Was Involved in Accidents - By Activity Classification
14
Chart: Who Was Involved in Accidents - By Age
15
16
Chart: Tree-Related – 20 Year History
17
Chart: Crane-Related – 20 Year History
18
Chart: Irrigation Pipe-Related – 20 Year History
19
Chart: Antenna-Related – 20 Year History
20
Breakdown by Activity Involved
Chart: Children in Trees – 20 Year History
21
22
Recommendations to Electric Utilities by the OPUC Safety Staff
23
Target Your Education Efforts
24
Introduction
Incident reporting to the PUC is required by ORS 654.715 (IOU’s), and OAR 860-024-0050 (“all operators” - defined in
OAR 860-024-0001(3)). The PUC Utility Safety and Reliability Staff uses this information to help with National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC) administration and to promote accident prevention.
The safe transportation of electric energy includes more than just building and maintaining facilities to meet a safety code.
It is very seldom that an accident occurs because utility facilities do not meet the safety code. Incidents usually occur
because of an unsafe act, not an unsafe condition. There is often a lack of awareness of the degree of danger. The
innocent looking wire that a bird can land on, with impunity, has the potential to end, or change forever, the life of a person
who touches it. It is essential that all of us who live and work around power lines understand the danger, the possible
consequences, and how to avoid it. The electric utilities have some responsibility to provide this education.
This report contains a series of written analysis sheets with accompanying graphs. The end of the report contains a
summary and recommendations. Electric operators can use this information to more accurately target their public information
program and their worker safety efforts.
(Chart on Page 2)
The first chart shows incident levels since 1984 (20 years). There have been some parallels with the level of past
construction activity in Oregon. The graph shows that while 2002 and 2003 were not statistically years with an extreme
number of accidents, there were quite a number of serious and fatal injuries recorded.
1
Incidents Reported By Electric Utilities - 20 Year History
50
p
40
30
20
10
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Serious Injury Contacts
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
All Reported Contacts
1995
1996
Fatalities
1997
1998
1999
2001
2002
2003
Average All Reported Contacts=24.8
(Fatalities and Hospitalizations)
* * * Yes, an average of almost 25 people injured each year! * * *
2
2000
Summary
Here are some basic facts for 2003 incidents:
1. There were 20 people who made Injury* electrical contacts in 17 separate incidents with electric utility facilities.
Six were fatalities, seven were hospitalizations, and seven fell into the minor or non-injury categories.
2. Most of the incidents involved “distribution” voltage (between 600V and 30,000V) overhead wires. (See pg. 6)
3. About half of the contacts were work related in 1995 and again in 1996. In 1997, there were about twice the
number of work-related incidents to non-work incidents (i.e., 29 to 14). That ratio changed to approximately 3 to
1 (work to non-work) in 1998. There were 19 work to 5 non-work incidents in 1999 (approximately 4 to 1),
continuing this trend. This trend did not continue in 2000, as the ratio was 2 to 1 (i.e., 16 to 8). In 2001, the
work- to non-work incidents were about even, 6/7, 2002 was 9/7, and 2003 had a 10/7 ratio. Non-work incident
causes have been predominately tree-related for several years (not the case in 2003).
4. Historically, most (all in 2001) of the contact victims have involved males. An extremely high (3 of the 20) number
of women were injured in 2002. All involved vehicles hitting facilities (one airplane and two cars). Again, in 2003,
there were three female victims, one when a car hit a pole and two pedestrians who contacted a low wire.
5. Two workers were seriously injured when booms contacted lines while highway guardrail work was being done.
6. There were only two tree-related incidents in 2003. One was a person trimming a branch in a friend’s yard near a
transmission line. The other was a landscape tree trimmer who dropped a branch onto a distribution line.
7. An unusually high number of collision type accidents occurred in 2002. Three people were in a sailboat, two in an
airplane, and there were two cars that hit poles. A high number were reported again in 2003 with three fatalities
related to airplane collisions and another with an automobile accident.
*”Injury” as defined in OAR 860-024-0050.
3
The next two charts show:

Injury Severity - A “Minor” injury is usually a trip to the hospital, first-aid-type treatment, and same-day release. “Noninjury” cases often involve a person who does not need or want any treatment or examination but has had contact with
high voltage and has felt a shock. “Hospitalization” requires at least an overnight stay for injury treatment. A
precautionary, for-observation stay, can be considered a minor injury. Please note the high number of fatalities in 2003.

Type of Electrical System Involved - This chart shows that most utility electrical incidents result from contacts with
overhead distribution conductors. These are the typical high voltage distribution wires found in most neighborhoods and
along roads. There were three other incidents that involved transmission voltages of 69 KV and 115 KV. There were no
contacts in 2003 that involved facilities inside substations, lower voltage secondary and service lines, or underground
distribution lines. Two line workers were injured when they made contact with de-energized lines that had static charges
because of nearby lines that induced a voltage on the “dead” line. Serious injuries can occur when this type of contact is
made.
4
Injury Severity
35
30
Number of People
25
20
15
10
5
0
1988-97 Average
--- 1998 ---
(10-year Period)
--- 1999 ---
--- 2000 ---
--- 2001 ---
--- 2002 ---
--- 2003 ---
Severity of Injury
Fatal
Hospitalized
Total Reportable Contacts
(Includes "minor" & "non-injury" contacts)
5
Type of Electrical System Involved
2003
15
14
13
12
Number of Incidents
11
10
600 to
30,000 Volt
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
30,001 to
500,000 Volt
2
600 to
30,000 Volt
1
0
Overhead Distribution
Overhead Transmission
600 to
30,000 Volt
Substation
Underground Distribution
Type of Electrical Facilities
6
Under 600 Volt
Secondary Service
Induction
Charge
Static
The next two charts relate to When Incidents Occurred:

By Month – In 2003, there was a high degree of variability from month to month with less of a seasonal peak. Incidents
in 2002 were higher during the summer months, except August, and more like the typical pattern seen in most years.

By Day of Week and by Hour of Day – This chart shows when incidents generally occur. This correlation between
“on” and “off” work hours to actual work-related activity is not accurate in all cases.
7
When Incidents Occurred - By Month
5
Number of Incidents
4
3
2
1
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
2002
2003
8
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
When Incidents Occurred
2003
6
5
Number of Incidents
By Day of Week
and Hour of Day
4
3
2
1
0
Sunday
(Off Hours)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Normal Work Hours
Thursday
Friday
Off Hours
(M - F, 7 AM - 5:30 PM)
Saturday
(Off Hours)
(M-F, 5:31 PM - 6:59 AM and
Sat., Sun., & major holidays)
Note: This chart does not indicate the number of work related or home/recreation related incidents. Some work related incidents occurred
during "off" hours and some home/recreation incidents occurred during "work" hours. The total number of incidents did come out
close to what is indicated with ten (10) work related incidents and seven (7) incidents that were not related to work activities.
9
The pie chart below indicates where people are injured in regard to
Demographic Areas or Sites: Rural, Suburban, Urban, Industrial and Construction.
Our statistics show rural areas typically have a higher rate than other types of areas.
There were no accidents in suburban areas in 2003, which is unusual.
Industrial - 1
Rural - 14
Urban - 5
Suburban - 0
Costruction - 0
The next chart and map indicates Where Contact Injuries Occurred:
Five time periods are compared: 1999 through 2003.
The most populated area of the state, the Northwest, has historically had the highest incident rate.
10
Where Contact Injuries Occurred - By Area
20
Northwest
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
18
16
Number of People
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1999
2000
2001
11
2002
2003
12
The next two charts indicate Who Was Involved In Accidents:

By Activity Classification - This chart shows the trends over the last five years for the three categories. General
worker accidents increased the last two years. This is hard to understand since general construction activity across the
state doesn’t seem to be increasing.

By Age - This four-year chart shows the typical historical pattern where most of the incidents involve men in their 20s,
30s, and 40s. The pattern for 2001 and 2002 was somewhat different, in that injuries involving young men in the 21-30
year old category were rare. The number of 2002 accidents to 11-20 year olds was very high due to a single incident
where three young men were injured in a boating accident. 2003 has two unusual facts, with the 40s category at 0 and
the 50s category very high at six injuries.
13
Who Was Involved In Accidents - 5 Year History
22
20
By Activity Classification
18
Number of People
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1999
2000
General Public
2001
Line Worker
(Residential, Recreation, etc.)
2002
Work Related
(not Line)
14
2003
Who Was Involved In Accidents - By Age
4-Year Comparison
12
11
10
9
Number of People
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
2000
31-40
41-50
Age Bracket
2001
2002
(The age of one person
was not reported.)
15
51-60
2003
61-70+
The next four charts track 20 years of incidents related to certain equipment or activities.

Tree-Related – This category is, on average, where most people are injured. There has been an average of 5.25 treerelated contacts per year over the last twenty years. Many of these contacts involved homeowners trimming or falling
trees in their yards. The majority of the remaining contacts were non-utility tree trimmers (landscapers) and loggers. If
utility customers are going to get injured with high voltage lines, the chances are very high that it will be connected to a
tree in their yard. The 2003 total of two injuries in this category is quite low.

Crane-Related - Crane contact has been a continuing source of concern needing special attention by the electric utilities
and Oregon OSHA. Over this 20-year period, there has been an average of 4.15 people injured each year. Here are
some conclusions taken from recent crane incidents. Three of the five crane-related accidents for 2003 are “digger”
booms on a track hoe or backhoe. The two fatalities were separate accidents involving cranes being used to work on
highway guardrails.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crane contacts have been the most likely incident type to result in multiple victims.
Line visibility is not a problem in most cases.
Most operators know of the line’s presence.
The types of “crane” involved in line contacts are highly varied.
Operator experience and training is highly varied.
Moving cranes in the “up” position is dangerous.
Cement pumper incidents are becoming more frequent (two in 1999 and another in 2001)

Irrigation Pipe-Related - These incidents usually occur when farm workers raise pipes vertically to clear animals or
debris. When a power line is above them, there are disastrous results. Constant utility education during certain times of
year can help raise awareness and prevent accidents. Radio announcements seem to work well. Our investigations do
reveal that even with education and awareness it is easy for people to just forget about the presence of overhead lines.
Public service announcements on Spanish-speaking radio stations may be helpful. Two young men made this type of
contact in 2003 when they tried to shake out a rat. They were aware of the line but lost control of the pipe. Their injuries,
fortunately, seemed to be fairly minor.

Antenna-Related - Antenna contact is another area of concern that usually involves members of the public installing or
maintaining equipment near homes.
16
Tree Incidents Reported - 20 Year History
16
14
Number of People
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Fatalities
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total Contacts
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Annual Average Total Contacts = 5.25
17
2002
2003
Crane Incidents Reported - 20 Year History
12
11
10
9
Number of People
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Fatalities
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total Contacts
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
18
2001
2002
2003
Irrigation Pipe Incidents Reported - 20 Year History
8
7
Number of People
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Fatalities
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total Contacts
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
19
2002
2003
Antenna Incidents Reported - 20 Year History
6
5
Number of People
4
3
2
1
0
1984
1985
1986
Fatalities
1987
1988
1989
1990
Total Contacts
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
20
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year 2003
Breakdown by Activity Involved
(By Person Injured)
Note: Some incidents fit into multiple categories.
¾ Tree Trimming/Falling or Other Contact
¾ Direct Contact
• By landscape tree trimmer
1
• Vehicle hit pole-wire down-driver contact
1
• By homeowner’s friend
1
• Power lineman contacts
3
0
• Plane struck lines
3
• Pedestrians contact low conductor
2
¾ Excavation/Dig-ins
¾ Construction/Maintenance
• Roofer – metal roofing into line
¾ Irrigation Pipe
1
2
¾ Crane/Lift/Digger booms
• Cranes (Highway Guardrail work)
2
• Diggers (Backhoe/Track hoe) into overhead lines
3
¾ Vehicle
¾ Vehicle collision
• Aircraft
3
• Car hit pole
1
¾ Homeowner (friends – contractor)
• Tree related
2
• Antenna
1
• Car hit pole
1
• Dump truck (raised bed)
1
• Shaking rat from irrigation pipe
2
• Airplanes
3
• Walking
2
• Flying (ultra-light)
1
• Installing CB antenna
1
¾ Line/Utility Related Work
• Overhead line work (electric)
3
21
¾ Recreation
Children in Trees - 20 Years
High Voltage Line Contacts in Oregon
Number of Children Injured (18 years and younger)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Average Injury over 20-year period is about one every other year or .55 per year.
This last chart, Children in Trees, reflects some serious statistics for an activity that concerns us all.
Although there were no injuries in this category in the last four years, we cannot afford to become
complacent. This is an important safety issue every year. Staff believes that consistent good tree-to-line
clearances being maintained across the state is directly contributing to these excellent results. Remember
the years 1980 through 1983 when there were 12 children injured this way.
22
Recommendations to Electric Utilities by the OPUC Safety Staff
1. Continue the effective general safety education programs now in place. These efforts are preventing accidents.
Ongoing programs for schools are particularly encouraged. All grade school students in Oregon should receive power
line safety education at least twice during these years. Some excellent bill stuffers have been developed and we
recommend their use for educating customers about common hazards.
2. Focus educational programs to:
a. Target construction workers where construction is anticipated. A special emphasis should be placed on
work using crane or lift equipment. Crane related accidents have been very high when construction levels
are up. Educate about dig-in hazards and one-call notification.
b. Warn homeowners about electrical hazards related to trees. This is a key area needing emphasis to every
customer.
c. Continue education for agricultural workers. PUC staff specifically recommends broadcasting
messages on Spanish language-speaking radio stations. Irrigation pipe accident prevention should
particularly be emphasized. Stacking or laying out pipe under power lines should be discouraged
(per OSHA rules). These incidents were high in 2000 and continue to be a problem area.
3. Emphasize utility worker safety programs to reduce the number of contact incidents. A significant number have been
experienced in the last 11 years (total 59). Consider the expanded use of rubber gloves in any primary area, overhead
and underground, energized or not. Trends indicate that accidents related to underground systems are on the rise.
4. Notification of utilities should be encouraged prior to all work or activities, which will occur near both overhead and
underground lines. An overhead notification system coupled with the statewide underground one-call system is
recommended. A system was instituted in 1997 related to logging operations.
Each electrical utility should consider these recommendations with the perspective
of knowing your local conditions and activities, priorities, and potential hazards.
Our hope is that this information will help you develop an effective accident prevention program.
23
Target
Your Education Efforts
¾ Use programs that have been successful in the past. Be creative in presenting
information in attention getting ways.
¾ Try new ideas. Target problem areas. (Customers trimming their trees, cranes, work sites,
and dig-ins.)
¾ Reward creative thinking and those who spot potential problem areas.
¾ Reward safe workers, especially those who consistently encourage safe practices for their
crews.
¾ Give all employees the chance to know safety basics and be part of the accident prevention
team.
¾ Electrical safety training should be a part of every grade school child’s education at least twice.
¾ Consider using safety related bill stuffers regularly. Caution customers about tree related
hazards.
¾ Encourage and participate in at least one (per year) utility worker safety day (or half day) with
all operators who share the overhead and underground rights of way with you.
Public Safety Education is an essential responsibility of the electric utility industry.
24