charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
WOW
This is really a hot subject. The only comment I have is for you to listen to what everyone is saying. The comment I made earlier is factual.


It is impossible to check torque on existing equipment, since the cold flow is already accounted for in the initial torque spec when originally installed. The torque will be less in the future, and rightfully so. Retorqueing existing terminations to the initial torque values will start to pinch off the conductor.dcspector said:Marc,
What one of those guys am I?........Yes the bus and the tap box lugs. Aluminum creeps/ loosens up over the years and when I inspect existing equipment....It is part of my job. I check one or two bolts and or lugs and make out a report. I use a torque wrench.........roll: ???? what was that all about) ?
iwire said:Did you miss that it is an OSHA violation? It surprises me a hospital is not already acutely aware of the OSHA standards.
It's called scheduling a shut down. My experience is that more often then not you can schedule a shutdown when you do not give the penny counters any option. Yes, this means things might have to wait.
You show them the rules.
The companies I have worked for have a paper form that both explains the rules and requires signatures from the customer saying it is their decision and they will be liable for the hot work.
Two months ago we pulled an 800 amp feeder, it just got connected recently as that was the first shutdown possible.
Nothing will change until we make it change.
iwire said:unless the employer can demonstrate that deenergizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is infeasible due to equipment design or operational limitations
iwire said:Note 1: Examples of increased or additional hazards include interruption of life support equipment, deactivation of emergency alarm systems, shutdown of hazardous location ventilation equipment, or removal of illumination for an area.
Note 2:Examples of work that may be performed on or near energized circuit parts because ofinfeasibility due to equipment design or operational limitations include testing of electric circuits that can only be performed with the circuit energized and work on circuits that form an integral part of a continuous industrial process in a chemical plant that would otherwise need to be completely shut down in order to permit work on one circuit or piece of equipment.
iwire said:I personally have only once had a customer sign it all others decide a shutdown was in their best interest.
A Hospital and the switchgear we had to go into controlled the OR ventilation.
IMO it was still an OSHA violation.
mdshunk said:It is impossible to check torque on existing equipment, since the cold flow is already accounted for in the initial torque spec when originally installed. The torque will be less in the future, and rightfully so. Retorqueing existing terminations to the initial torque values will start to pinch off the conductor.
brother said:I do not believe this a violation of Osha as you quoted:
mdshunk said:It is impossible to check torque on existing equipment, since the cold flow is already accounted for in the initial torque spec when originally installed. The torque will be less in the future, and rightfully so. Retorqueing existing terminations to the initial torque values will start to pinch off the conductor.
iwire said:.
IMO it was still an OSHA violation.
Yeah, but it will be censored, so I substituted something else that I wanted to talk about.frizbeedog said:Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand?
frizbeedog said:OR ventilation for the uniformed? That being me.
Operating room?
mdshunk said:Yeah, but it will be censored, so I substituted something else that I wanted to talk about.
iwire said:If someone gets injured or killed it will not be seen that way.
But, forget OSHA, forget $.
Think of yourself, is time in a burn ward worth it to you?
Not one burned electrician thought he would be burned that day.
mdshunk said:Yeah, but it will be censored, so I substituted something else that I wanted to talk about.
mdshunk said:Yeah, but it will be censored, so I substituted something else that I wanted to talk about.
brother said:I wonder what you have to say about the safety gloves and working hot?? what is your practice "MEGGER MAN" marc??
iwire said:Now I really wonder how he expects his employees to work.
I have to disagree, OSHA many of times require the employer to 'train' the employees concerning safety.iwire said:Marc is empowered to ignore OSHA. :grin:
As the owner he is not really an employee he is the employer.
I guess that really depends on how his business is set up but that is beyond what I know.
Now I really wonder how he expects his employees to work.
brother said:I have to disagree, OSHA many of times require the employer to 'train' the employees concerning safety.
iwire said:That is true, the employer is required to train the employee. :smile:
But the rules in 1910.333(a)(1) apply only to the employee(s).
There would be no profit in my comments on the matter of working hot and hot work gloves, therefore I will uncharacteristically bite my tongue.brother said:Still waiting to hear from "MEGGER MAN' marc.