well if it's live, it's not really abandonded. the bad thing here is the impression that it IS abandonded.

Being neglected for thirty years sure borders awfully close to abandonment.

Can you get your customer to pay for it????

I pulled the feeder out of the EXO while on their clock. Their Millwright is under some heat, as he's the cause of lots of their problems. I think they'll make him remove it.

electure:

What is the current status of this problem?

Joe,
It's been removed entirely.
The customer actually is a very good one.
Very concerned about a safe workplace, and just didn't know that this was in their back 40.
The "millwrong" still works there, but is under a heck of a lot more scrutiny...S

Electure,
That ain't good!.
It would make you wonder why the feeder wasn't disconnected at the same time as the other circuits were re-routed.
Even so, the upstream protection should have been locked out/pulled.

Look here for information concerning the subject of this thread:
http://ee-hi.com/electrical_1.htm
http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/vmc/Title_17/16/140.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/espc/16060.doc
http://www.aoba-metro.org/resourcecenter/Reports/120403-Expanded_At-Issue.asp
http://www.emsd.gov.hk/emsd/eng/pps/pub_gng_ei.shtml
http://jeffcoweb.jeffco.k12.co.us/cm/warranty/exceldocs/arvadamsphase2.xls
http://www.dfwinspector.com/!!4139%20Centurion%20COMMERCIAL%20SAMPLE.pdf
http://www.cornerstone-inspection.com/reports/sampleold.pdf
http://www.nortoninspection.com/library/files/sample_report.pdf

i can see this issue becoming definitional, re; abandoned vs. neglected...

I have tried to keep my mouth shut here but I could not.

I think you guys have big marbles to suggest that this 600 amp feeder should be removed. You are awfully generous with other peoples money.

Of course this should not have been left both live and open. But closed or dead it would be as safe (forgetting about fork lift damage) as any of the electrical gear in use.

Why should the building owner have to pay to remove this 600 amp feeder when down the road they may need it again?

If the panel was damaged and the conductors are in good shape, just replace the panel and it is now ready to go. The difference in dollars would be substantial.

Let us imagine a manufacturing facility that rents its building, the company goes belly up and all the machinery is sold.

How far back would you say the electrical systems should be ripped out to.

The first disconnect? (my choice) the first panel?

As you are doing this if you end up with a panel with no loads on it do we now rip that out back to the service?

The removal of unused electrical systems is absolutely not an issue for the NEC. It is an issue for those that are paying the bills.

There are rules now in place that required this live panel to have a cover.

Let us use the existing rules to keep things safe, lets not start forcing the removal of currently idle electric equipment.

I would have done what electure did, on thier clock after talking to them removed the feed from the breaker.

Job done, now safe.

Bob



[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 01-06-2004).]

Bob,
"Dangling by the top insulators"
Maybe I should have said "only the top insulators"
I would have felt differently had the interior been secure. As it was, it could flop around in the cabinet, and a good earthquake, or another forklft running into it could have dropped the entire interior.
I would have felt differently had there been a cover, or the section removed and a box placed over the feeder.
I would have felt differently had the feeder been even pulled out of the lugs at the disconnect, or even the fuses been pulled out, but such was not the case.
As it was, this was a disaster waiting to happen, among many in the same plant (hot 480 sticking out of the end of conduits with nothing but wirenuts on the end, etc).
I didn't make the decision for (or even suggest) total removal of the feeder. That was done by the management of the company., and it is their money.
I agree that removal should only be needed to the first "safe point", but it very often doesn't happen.

If you believe there shouldn't be any type of regulation regarding something like this, then so be it.

It won't change my mind. (Note the date)
I saw this and the conditions surrounding it, fortunately before someone that didn't have a lick of sense stuck their face in it...S


[This message has been edited by electure (edited 01-07-2004).]

iwire:


Not true! Seasoned mechanics have "Huge Marbles!"

I agree with some of your comments, and only ask for safety, not necessarily removal of the equipment. Like you said, covers on, etc., that's at least an attempt!

Joe,


You mean you and I do have some common ground? Cool, I do appreciate you saying that.

Electure, I did not figure I would change your mind, and if you look at my post I said "forgetting about forklift damage"

I just chose this particular thread to unload on, I have seen many posts that advocate the removal of old wiring and felt is was time for a view from the other side.

It is not so much that I am against "any type of regulation regarding something like this" I just do not see this as a issue for the NEC.

I am also concerned about the wording of such regulations.

You clearly want regulation for this, so how about it, I would be interested in how you would write such a regulation and how you would define "abandoned, idle, unused, etc. any term you feel would work.

Electure I respect the professionalism you bring, I am confident you could fairly enforce such rules.

What about people that have an agenda other than safety, like a contractor trying to make work or an inspector with a mission against a certain building owner?

The code rule will have to be black and white no room for interpretation, that is very tough.

Bob



[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 01-07-2004).]

Bob:


Yes, and I always thought the way in which you describe the ways that the abandoned systems could be made safer.

I guess that's really what the text in the code is trying to get across to us, and if we could think safety, and not worry about the almighty dollar (yeah who's kidding who!) maybe we can get some cooperation from the electrical industry.

My thoughts are that common sense should prevail. Anything that is capable of being energized by the flip of a breaker, switch, etc. should be removed back to an accesible box or enclosure with a cover on it.
(I don't advocate forced removal of homeruns, for Pete's sake.)
I'll put up another thread, picture being worth 1000 words.