Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Energizing on Set Time Schedule

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Strathead View Post
    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.
    Since the OP said "locks" and "tags", both in the plural, I made the assumption that supervision removed at least one more than the supervisor's personal lock.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by gadfly56 View Post
    Since the OP said "locks" and "tags", both in the plural, I made the assumption that supervision removed at least one more than the supervisor's personal lock.

    either interpretation is certainly viable.

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

  3. #23

    Repeating Oral Messages (Energization on a set time schedule)

    Quote Originally Posted by TVH View Post
    Several years ago, a worker on my construction project, was completing work on a transformer when he was electrocuted. Very tragic-dramatic event. The investigation revealed that the upstream energization of the transformer was based of a set time. Worker was triying to complete the work befroe the time deadline and/or he did not have the correct time. Investigation also revealed that the group responsible for commissioning were not provided with portable radios or telephones. A phone or radio could have been used to effectively communicate with other team members the status of completed work before energization.

    Is electrical energization based on set time schedule(s) prohibited by any law or consensus standard? If so where is the subject is clearly addressed? Any comments will be appreiciated.
    Research on this subject further reveals that the National Electrical Safety Code under additional rules - 442G Repeating Oral Messages emphasizes the following:
    Oral messages associated with line switching must be repeated back to the sender and the sender's identity must be obtained by the receiver. The sender of an oral message associated with line switching must require that the message be repeated back by the receiver and must obtain the receivers identity.

    Oral communications is discussed several areas of the NESC and would confirm that energization of downstream electrical equipment on a set time schedule is not condoned. Oral messages during electrical works is good common sense with messages communicated via radio or cell phone. In my view, to ensure absolute safety, the oral protocol should be made mandatory requirement for electrical energizations/re-energizations with protocol clearly included in written energization procedures. Unfortunately the NESC is only a recommended Standard unless adopted by the respective Authority Having Jursdiction or by individual organizations. Thank you all for your inputs into this interesting and important subject.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    The essential lesson for everyone is: Ultimately, YOU are responsible for your safety. The only thing you can rely on is YOUR lock and tag and YOUR ground.

  5. #25

    Energizing on Set Time Schedule

    Employers also have duties and responsibilities in providing a safe work place, implementing and enforcing viable safety policies and procedures, provide necessary training, providing necessary safety equipment/tools and providing leadership in developing a culture of safety within their respective organizations.

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