Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Energizing on Set Time Schedule

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    3,897
    Although the answers to my previous posts were good and interesting, the issue I wanted to address is the identification of any recognized standard that prohibits the energization of field equipment based on a set time schedule.
    Not per se. I think the requirements for LOTO and using grounding jumpers would apply.

    -Hal

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,127
    Quote Originally Posted by TVH View Post
    I failed to mention in the original post that locks and tags were removed from the prime energy source by supervision prior to the initial energization of the new field transformer. The lone worker at the transformer did not have a lock applied to the energy source. Part of the energization procedure, at that time, allowed energization based on a set time schedule. The procedure which was approved by management, had been in place for several projects without incident. The lone worker had not completed all his work and it was speculated that he did not have the proper time. It is obvious that the procedure was seriously flawed and it was subsequently revised requiring radio or portable telephone communications at the equipment being energized before the switch was pulled at the substation. Other safeguards were also added to the procedure.

    Although the answers to my previous posts were good and interesting, the issue I wanted to address is the identification of any recognized standard that prohibits the energization of field equipment based on a set time schedule. I cannot locate a reference on this subject. Can anyone help identify a mandatory standard/reference on this subject. I believe the subject needs highlighting to operatives responsible for the electrical energization of field positioned equipment.
    Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
    OSHA includes a "general duty" clause that basically is a catch-all, requiring:

    (a) Each employer --

    (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;


    Anyone familiar with this type of work could have easily foreseen this tragedy.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11
    From the LOTO standard "..in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy, could harm employees. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control of such hazardous energy."

    In this case LOTO would apply and should have been recognized.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by mikecj View Post
    From the LOTO standard "..in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy, could harm employees. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control of such hazardous energy."

    In this case LOTO would apply and should have been recognized.
    This clause is why the OP is soliciting thoughts. In his case the harm came not from unexpected energization but rather from anticipated energization.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Placerville, CA, USA
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremysterling View Post
    This clause is why the OP is soliciting thoughts. In his case the harm came not from unexpected energization but rather from anticipated energization.
    I guess it also matters in terms of expected by whom.
    It sounds like in addition to the scheduled activation there was a LOTO process in use. For some reason the victim either did not see the need for his own lock because he thought he was protected by the schedule or he was prevented from placing his own lock.

    I guess I do not see an insurmountable safety issue with setting a schedule as long as it is not seen as a substitute for a proper LOTO process.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    US
    Posts
    5
    The electrician working on that transformer, as a qualified person and as a precautionous technician should of used his own lock. I would of!

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ActionDave; 06-21-18 at 12:38 AM. Reason: language

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Luis Couto View Post
    The electrician working on that transformer, as a qualified person and as a precautionous technician should of used his own lock. I would of!

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    You did catch the part where a supervisor removed the locks, right? I don't know if "removed" meant "cut", but if it did the worker would have still been SOL.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by TVH View Post
    I failed to mention in the original post that locks and tags were removed from the prime energy source by supervision prior to the initial energization of the new field transformer. The lone worker at the transformer did not have a lock applied to the energy source. Part of the energization procedure, at that time, allowed energization based on a set time schedule. The procedure which was approved by management, had been in place for several projects without incident. The lone worker had not completed all his work and it was speculated that he did not have the proper time. It is obvious that the procedure was seriously flawed and it was subsequently revised requiring radio or portable telephone communications at the equipment being energized before the switch was pulled at the substation. Other safeguards were also added to the procedure.
    With that information hopefully someone was found to be criminally responsible.

    Roger
    Moderator

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,760
    Quote Originally Posted by gadfly56 View Post
    You did catch the part where a supervisor removed the locks, right? I don't know if "removed" meant "cut", but if it did the worker would have still been SOL.
    I did, but I read it differently. I got the impression the supervisor locked it out and the worker assigned to the project didn't hang his own lock. The sup subsequently removed his lock allowing energizing.


    I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,760
    OP, I don't think energizing on a time schedule was the cause of this tragedy, nor is a law that prevents it any different. The exact same situation could arise if someone called for energizing any time tomorrow, and other personnel being unaware of that directive. Proper Lock out Tag out wasn't followed and if it had been this tragedy wouldn't have occurred. I am merely restating what others have alluded to, not pretending that this is a fresh idea, by the way.


    I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •