Exclusive care and control of a disconnect

[Tazy-D]

I am concerned that I have been incorrectly expanding the use of the term "Exclusive Care and Control" to the need or lack there of to apply a lockout device to a disconnect if you have an unobstructed line of sight and are within ? feet. Would anyone care to weigh in? I have been unable to find any supporting documentation in the CFR, or WAC.

 

[hillbilly1]

That used to be the rule, but I believe it no longer exists. Usually it was where the disconnecting means was within several feet, such as an A/C disconnect. Check OSHA regs.

 

[petersonra]

Exclusive Care and Control

Is that phrase anywhere in the code?

 

[Tazy-D]

I did not find it in the NEC. I believe the term exclusive control is mentioned in OSHA CFRs, the NESC and the WACs. Usually in reference to telecommunications or power distribution lines under the exclusive control of the utility or in reference to cord and plug systems. I was reaching out to the learned community for insight and direction, thanks.

 

[darkenergy]

2020 NEC Handbook:

Article 100; Definitions

"In Sight from (Within Sight From, Within Sight) Where this Code specifies...
...The Specified equipment is to be visible and not more 15 m (50 ft) distant from the other.

Blue commentary explains "no obstructions", etc.

2nd definition after "Hybrid". Page 19 in genuine Handbook.

"NEC: within sight" as a general search online yields much.

 

[hillbilly1]

That is disconnect location, not lockout/tag out requirements.

 

[Tazy-D]

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on this important subject. I have reviewed section 120 of NFPA 70 E and there is much information to sort through. The closest thing I have found to an answer is included here. Bottom line is there is no shortcuts to being safe and being half safe isn't safe at all. thanks again.