Reader Feedback – 2004-10-10
Bus duct misunderstanding The "Dangerous Solution" letter by Charles R. Lee Jr., P.E. in the August 2004 issue of PLANT ENGINEERING is great advice. One should never modify bus duct. I would, however, like to point out that no modifications whatsoever were made to the bus duct on page 80 of the June 2004 issue of PLANT ENGINEERING.
Bus duct misunderstanding
The “Dangerous Solution” letter by Charles R. Lee Jr., P.E. in the August 2004 issue of PLANT ENGINEERING is great advice. One should never modify bus duct. I would, however, like to point out that no modifications whatsoever were made to the bus duct on page 80 of the June 2004 issue of PLANT ENGINEERING. No drilling, no tapping, no cutting or metal shavings on or near the bus duct. The angle iron is bolted onto existing threaded boltholes and is removed as soon as the duct spacing and alignment is perfect. All the original covers and all the original bolts will be installed and all the original insulation will remain perfect, all according to the manufacturers’ instructions as well as the National Electric Code. Bus Buddy is not a modification, only a temporary alignment tool for fine adjustments.
I can’t imagine anyone deliberately attempting to drill, cut, or saw bus duct, but it is most certainly not done here. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I am certain that if it were in fact a bad idea it would not have made it into PLANT ENGINEERING. I merely tried to explain the concept using fewer words than I should have. That is why Mr. Lee was confused.
I noticed Mr. Everett’s letter in the July issue scolding Mr. Dreyfack. I find the column to be most valuable. I don’t deal with our people on the floor in a direct supervisory position, but I have the ear of the plant manager who does. Since he trusts my opinions, this column helps me provide him with a balanced perspective that has helped us have a relatively happy and productive workforce. As production controller, this makes my job easier.
Kudos to Mr. Dreyfack. Keep up the good work.
Sewer camera hazard
Many plants that use video monitoring equipment for sewer and other piping inspections may not realize that this type of equipment is classified as electrical equipment for purposes of OSHA compliance. As a result, this equipment must meet certain OSHA approval requirements.
Manufacturers of video monitoring equipment used in sewers recently received a letter from OSHA advising them that their products may need to be approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NTRL).
OSHA regulations for electrical equipment state that, first, electrical equipment must be approved for ordinary use, which protects users against electrical shock or hazards, and second, when used in a hazardous (classified) location, electrical equipment also must be approved or employer-demonstrated as safe for use in such a location.
OSHA’s applicable approval requirements can be found in 29 CFR 1910.303(a) and 29 CFR 1910.307(b).