Failure to Test After a Fault

[Little Bill]

Here is an interesting article about a fault and the failure to test conductors before re-energizing.

You can read it here.

 

[cornbread]

Never enought time to do things right the 1st time....always plenty of time after the deed. Thanks for posting the article.

 

[zog]

Shocked that there is no mention of 1910.334 (b)(2) in that article?!?!?

 

[petersonra]

You can always find someone after the fact that will decide you did something wrong, no matter what you do.

To me the main thing the EC did wrong was to accept the idea that the time constraint was an important factor in deciding what testing should be done.

I do not know that insulation testing is the standard of care after such an event that the paid witness is claiming. Given how quick such tests are though, it seems like something that ought to be the standard if it isn't. We are not talking about something that would take more than maybe 15 minutes total.

 

[meternerd]

Energizing a switchger that suffered a fault with the covers off is, in my humble opinion, stupid. Not to mention the need for Arc Flash PPE (Class 3 flash suit for 480V, if no arc flash study has been done) when removing or installing bolted covers on energized equipment. I agree that a megger test may not have shown any problem since the conduit was PVC. But who said the fault was a ground fault? Also, a ground fault can quickly turn into a phase to phase fault as the conductor insulation melts. I work for an electric/water utility and have never been a fan of "time vs. safety" concerns. Utility primary transformer fuses are notoriously slow when clearing secondary faults. Their function is to protect the primary of the transformer, not secondary cabling or loads. Then again, hindsight is always 20/20 (after the smoke clears)!