Dan Boschee, Frontier Communications: The Company recently held a safety fair with many people showing up. PG&E attended with a gas and line safety demonstration for the folks at the fair. Health officials gave advice on taking on personal health care, and there was a fire extinguisher demonstration for clerks and office personnel who demonstrated how to put out a fire. No accidents or injuries to report.
Mark Flanders, SMUD: They held a joint meeting with management for arc hazard assessments, and met on remedies for exposed secondary buss. Issues have come up regarding energy exposures. the Company wants to catalogue exposure hazards and working on face shield requirement. Company is studying fall arrest options to be in compliance with new regulations. Grounds are being replaced and upgraded with testing equipment being purchased.
An incident took place involving six employees in a manhole in which in one area acetylene soldering iron was being used. An alarm was sounded and the employees evacuated. One employee felt queasy and complained of discomfort. He did not lose consciousness but the company investigated the incident and stated the cause was carbon dioxide exposure related to the soldering operation.
SMUD had five PVAs (preventable vehicle accidents) this year, compared to 18 in 2013. The Company cites increased awareness and the use of second person backers. If they stay on this trend, SMUD will complete the year with a smaller PVA rate.
Al White, PG&E Reliability: The Company had an incident with overhead crew on a two-day project to eliminate a pole and 3 spans of 715 mcm. Operating voltage was 21kV and there was a large crane on site. Clearance involved open jumpers and open switch on each side and UG switch open in the middle. Crew foreman who was on the job at the start of the project was not on the job on the day the wire was being removed from a primary riser. On the second day there was a tailboard and it was reported that the riser was tested dead and shunted. When the crew let off a span of wire they did not check primary riser de-energized on the side where the wire was being let down. The wire made contact and caused a brief outage. There was no non test on the contact feeder and the feeder returned to service after one relay. The company is using this incident as a learning tool and there will be briefings related to this incident.
PG&E is promoting the use of energized elbow clip that is designed to detect an energized line. These are used to prevent pulling a hot elbow, of which there have been incidents. The issue may be the tool may create a false sense of security and crews may not test prior to pulling an elbow. Testing prior to pulling is proper procedure and should not be avoided.
Carlos Rodriguez, Tree Companies: Tree trimmers at Utility Tree Service have requested that supervision purchase smaller lighter chainsaws. Climbers hang the chainsaws from their belts from a lanyard. The Company supervision removed safety lanyards and there were problems with saws getting caught in limbs and being pulled out of the trimmers’ hands. The company is returning the use of lanyards for trimmers. Issue with the heavier chainsaws is the Company claims that trimmers may one-hand lighter saws which is against company policy and a dangerous practice.
The issue of Line kills was discussed and the need to request lines be de-energized and grounded. Trees burning in the lines is an issue and line clearance crews go out to areas where trees are making contact. This presents a problem where the decision is to do the work or call the supervisor and arrange a line kill.
Joe Joaquim, PG&E Gas: An issue came up regarding USA locates in which PG&E is not going to areas marking to clear facilities. A Foreman had a job to replace a gas service, and when he got on site all other operators had cleared the site but PG&E did a map search and cleared remotely. The crew saw no PG&E markings to clear and no clearance mark on the USA tag. The crew foreman mistakenly started digging and hit a Comcast fiber cable conduit without damaging the cable. Below the conduit was a PG&E primary electric line. This raised several crucial problems. First, the foreman saw no markings, even if it is his own company, but did not stop work and call PG&E and request a mark or clear. The other problem was the practice of clearing from a remote location; locators going on site is a protective measure against incorrect mapping. A locator can spot a physical inconsistency on site and mark a facility that is otherwise considered clear.
Still seeing additional MVI”s related to backing incidents.
Seven years ago, PG&E started to study the procedure for removing asbestos. A trainer was brought in recently to take over training related to asbestos wrap removal. The training seemed to be good but questions came up regarding sample recovery, site security and no hands-on training. Trainer could not provide training materials for the trainees. The class is titled the PG&E Safe 0135 Asbestos Class 3 Training. Training company is Sierra Nevada Safety Training, instructor Richard Brightman. Training cited was done on 8-13-14.
Mike Gomes, Public Sector Line: It was reported that a lead lineman was covering for the crew during a cable replacement project. The Crew was to open a switch and lift elbows to clear other side of feed and created an open point at another opposite side feed. Later the foreman noticed what he thought was an incorrect tag at the switch. The Crew was doing cable replacement and leap-frogged transformer to transformer and missed a transformer that was covered by landscaping. Instead they went to the transformer on the energized side of the open point.
The Crew did not check elbows as energized and grounded on the live side. The effect was no explosion or flash but a relay of the line with no injuries. When the crew arrived at the wrong transformer the tagging was assumed to be an incorrect by a previous installation. The crew missed a crucial step by not testing the line prior to grounding. Some of the problems related to the incident: the crew leader was not present at time of work on transformer, and a crew member was distracted by a private matter. The crew had also worked for a very long time doing the same work and was getting complacent with the process and racing to get the work done. After the incident the crew wanted to not share the incident and keep it on the crew. The crew leader disagreed and conducted a safety stand-down the next morning with the department and was open with the whole incident.