Add a lug - live or dead...

[Volta]

If you want to partake in throwing out baseless odds, I'll join in too. I'll bet that an experienced, skilled electrician has a better chance of getting hurt in a car accident while driving to work one day than adding the lugs as the OP described.

Maybe, but the amount of hurt with an average 4000 amp accident is likely to be higher than the amount of hurt from an average auto accident.

 

[iwire]

I'll bet that an experienced, skilled electrician has a better chance of getting hurt in a car accident while driving to work one day than adding the lugs as the OP described.

Of course you are right.

But unless you have some other way to get to the job that is a risk that cannot be entirely avoided.

On the other hand the risk of becoming FUBAR here can be entirely avoided by a shutdown.

In my opinion the only reasons not to shut it down are laziness, bravado or just not thinking clearly.

 

[M4gery]

Maybe, but the amount of hurt with an average 4000 amp accident is likely to be higher than the amount of hurt from an average auto accident.

Hmmmm, I don't know. I will speculate a bit more and say that the experienced, skilled electrician using the proper insulated tools and blankets as well as PPE will eliminate most of that risk. While even if you are being a very defensive driver, you'll never be able to avoid the risks associated with driving these days, from drunks traveling backroads at 75MPH to tractor trailers going thru red lights at full speed.

 

[M4gery]

Of course you are right.

But unless you have some other way to get to the job that is a risk that cannot be entirely avoided.

You can find a new career path that does not involve you to commute so far that you need to drive yourself. You are making a conscience decision to drive to work knowing the dangers. We all take this risk, even tho it's more of a risk than doing the work as described above, as you yourself admitted. Yet doing the work above is stupid while taking a bigger risk by getting behind the wheel is perfectly fine. Funny how that works.

In my opinion the only reasons not to shut it down are laziness, bravado or just not thinking clearly.

I disagree with those last reasons. You missed the main reason, money.

 

[e57]

Well this certainly took off while I was sleeping...

My concern of the 1963 switch having a failure while opening or closing it, is in a location where the incident energy would be far higher, and something that would be happening blindly. If something snaps off and comes loose in there, I would truly not be exactly safe despite the covers being closed. If I were more confident about that, there would be nothing to discuss...

The what if if's - some type of non-conductive support from the days of backalite -when that was anew thing - gives way opening the switch 12' from the transformer below. What if the contacts are just welded shut, and self destructs as the trigger to open it is sprung. Or hangs up closing it?

The thing is, my confidence in the switch to shut it off, with a higher incident energy, and it's risk of failure. As opposed to the incident energy 18 floors up, in a known situation.

I have no problem politically forcing anyone to shut something off. It is the act of doing so, that I worry more about at the moment.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Well this certainly took off while I was sleeping...

My concern of the 1963 switch having a failure while opening or closing it, is in a location where the incident energy would be far higher, and something that would be happening blindly. If something snaps off and comes loose in there, I would truly not be exactly safe despite the covers being closed. If I were more confident about that, there would be nothing to discuss...

The what if if's - some type of non-conductive support from the days of backalite -when that was anew thing - gives way opening the switch 12' from the transformer below. What if the contacts are just welded shut, and self destructs as the trigger to open it is sprung. Or hangs up closing it?

The thing is, my confidence in the switch to shut it off, with a higher incident energy, and it's risk of failure. As opposed to the incident energy 18 floors up, in a known situation.

I have no problem politically forcing anyone to shut something off. It is the act of doing so, that I worry more about at the moment.

I would have to agree about the switch. At the risk of backlash from others, I have to admit, it would be easy to remove one bolt and add a single lug on the backside with load removed as you suggest. Get in, get out, get paid. If the disconnect were to break, who would be responsible for the fix? (monetarily) Is the exercise of switches included in the contract? What if you can't get parts for the old disconnect? and if you do and have them available, who pays for them if needed or if not needed?

 

[e57]

I would have to agree about the switch. At the risk of backlash from others, I have to admit, it would be easy to remove one bolt and add a single lug on the backside with load removed as you suggest. Get in, get out, get paid. If the disconnect were to break, who would be responsible for the fix? (monetarily) Is the exercise of switches included in the contract? What if you can't get parts for the old disconnect? and if you do and have them available, who pays for them if needed or if not needed?

Or, the potential for catastrophic failure of the switch itself, and it's safety risk. I'll post some pics of it in a few... If I trusted it more, there would be nothing to talk about.

 

[cadpoint]

You really need to get with Zog or Brian type people!

I've seen it said where they have machines and sudo robots that will open the Switch.

 

[e57]

Anyone have any info on the reliability or construction of this "Pringle" on Westinghouse gear that will remove my concerns about opening and closing it for the first time in ~ 50 years...

Can't pull the covers with the handle on the way the side/end panels are put together, the fuse cover will open a 'little' but you cant see jack, and I dont know enough about how the lock mechanism on the switch works to attempt it blindly. Or just shut it off and find out?

 

[zbang]

My concern of the 1963 switch having a failure while opening or closing it, is in a location where the incident energy would be far higher, and something that would be happening blindly. If something snaps off and comes loose in there, I would truly not be exactly safe despite the covers being closed. If I were more confident about that, there would be nothing to discuss...

Sounds like the best avenue is to have the PoCo kill the service, then PM the switch(es), add the lugs, and do any other long-defered maintenance reasonable needed. 40+ years is a long time to go without maintenance, might as well consider that switch to be a set of bolted-in copper bars.

 

[jim dungar]

Anyone have any info on the reliability or construction of this "Pringle" on Westinghouse gear that will remove my concerns about opening and closing it for the first time in ~ 50 years...

Can't pull the covers with the handle on the way the side/end panels are put together, the fuse cover will open a 'little' but you cant see jack, and I dont know enough about how the lock mechanism on the switch works to attempt it blindly. Or just shut it off and find out?

Bolted pressure switches, like this, that have not been operated in the past 10 years have a very high rate of 'fail to open'. However, this type of switch is very easy to maintain and rebuild, even at this age. Schedule a shutdown have the switch maintained at the same time.

Think of this: you are already planning to have an incident or you would not even bother with PPE for the shock hazard. If something happens, and the fuses act like they are supposed to (which is extremely likely), then won't the switch need to be operated with no provisions for repairing it?

Planned shut downs are not tolerable, but unplanned ones can always be accommodated.

 

[e57]

Anyone know of anyone who does "remote racking" in my area? There is someone on the forums who does this for a living - but can remember who?

 

[hillbilly1]

Anyone have any info on the reliability or construction of this "Pringle" on Westinghouse gear that will remove my concerns about opening and closing it for the first time in ~ 50 years...

Can't pull the covers with the handle on the way the side/end panels are put together, the fuse cover will open a 'little' but you cant see jack, and I dont know enough about how the lock mechanism on the switch works to attempt it blindly. Or just shut it off and find out?

View attachment 5960

View attachment 5961

With those type switches, you have to remove the handle in order to remove or open the covers on the front with the switch closed.

 

[weressl]

He would pretty much need to be a sole-proprietor or a partner, if he has organized a corporation then he would still be an employee.

Know the law if you argue it. OSHA is no applicable if you have less than 10 employees. De-energized work is not in any of the CFR's, OSHA tangentially refers to NFPA 70E, but it does not so in a legislative fashion as it is not THE law.

 

[Volta]

Know the law if you argue it. OSHA is no applicable if you have less than 10 employees. De-energized work is not in any of the CFR's, OSHA tangentially refers to NFPA 70E, but it does not so in a legislative fashion as it is not THE law.

Ok, so do tell.

From the OSHA site:

Who OSHA Covers


Private Sector Workers

Most employees in the nation come under OSHA's jurisdiction. OSHA covers private sector employers and employees in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions either directly through Federal OSHA or through an OSHA-approved state program. State-run health and safety programs must be at least as effective as the Federal OSHA program. To find the contact information for the OSHA Federal or State Program office nearest you, see the Regional and Area Offices map.


State and Local Government Workers

Employees who work for state and local governments are not covered by Federal OSHA, but have OSH Act protections if they work in a state that has an OSHA-approved state program. Four additional states and one U.S. territory have OSHA approved plans that cover public sector employees only. This includes: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands. Private sector workers in these four states and the Virgin Islands are covered by Federal OSHA.
Federal Government Workers

Federal agencies must have a safety and health program that meet the same standards as private employers. Although OSHA does not fine federal agencies, it does monitor federal agencies and responds to workers' complaints. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is covered by OSHA.


Not covered by the OSH Act:

Self-employed;
Immediate family members of farm employers that do not employ outside employees; and
Workplace Hazards regulated by another Federal agency (for example, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard).

OSHA does not need to refer to any particular practice, standard, or regulation. The general duty clause of ~provide a safe workplace~ is sufficient to require the employer to use some means of providing reasonable safety. It doesn't have to be NFPA 70E, but unless some other fairly comprehensive plan is used, and can be demonstrated to be reasonable, all OSHA has to do is point at 70E and say, "that industry standard exists, why didn't you use it?"

Especially seeing as they were the main driving force behind that particular book . . . :roll:

But anyhow, can you show us where OSHA says employees with no more than 8 coworkers aren't covered?

 

[e57]

Let's put aside the legal debate threadjack please. I'm a manager at a company, but often looks at situations as if "I had to do it", because in some situations I will... I look at assigning no one to something I won't do myself.I'm not sure why, but I feel more apprehensive about that switch, than I do about adding the lugs live. As crazy as that sounds.... Let's stick to the calculation of risk assessment aspect.Is it unfounded? Or, more risky to shut it off, than just doing the work hot?

 

[M4gery]

I'm a manager at a company

iwire was right, installing the lugs hot is illegal and you shouldn't do it.



FWIW, the "Occupation" section of your profile is a bit misleading.

 

[e57]

FWIW, the "Occupation" section of your profile is a bit misleading.

Has a tendency to change from time to time since 04 when I became member here. Last year I was contractor, and depending on my mood still am, but for purposes of this topic not... But again, that is not the point is it?

I could shut it off, but what if doing so is more of a hazard? - that is the point. Truthfully remote operation of that switch is far more appealing IMO the more I think about it. As the unknowns and knowns of that I might consider more of a hazard, get it?

 

[M4gery]

But again, that is not the point is it?

I have to disagree. It would be illegal for you to do what you propose and against the forum rules for members to recommend breaking the law. The answer to your question is very clear, do not do the work hot.


If you were the contractor and this was your company, your insurance, your name, your reputation, your risk, etc. then it would be a different story (and legal as well).

 

[e57]

I have to disagree. It would be illegal for you to do what you propose and against the forum rules for members to recommend breaking the law. The answer to your question is very clear, do not do the work hot.


If you were the contractor and this was your company, your insurance, your name, your reputation, your risk, etc. then it would be a different story (and legal as well).

Alright, define the LAW.... And legality... This is a highrise building, not exactly the easiest thing to shut off without debate about the safety involved in just doing that.... But it can be done with a near act of congress - which for those who know me, I fear not... But that leaves the whole bulding on the dark, where i need to work, and possibly a neighborhood off.... Shutting off the feeder, not a big deal - this is residential, the inconvenience of these people by making them reset their clock.... I could care less about that.... It is the 'act of' shutting off the feeder. THAT is what I find worrisome. The phrase, "not with a ten foot pole" comes to mind... Get it? Or should I bother worrying about that?