ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (CoolWill), 250 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#112758 01/06/04 11:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Quote
abandoned wiring should be removed. This is a good example of why. This 600A 480/277 section was smacked hard by a forklift about 30 years ago

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. [Linked Image]

Bob



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


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#112759 01/07/04 08:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
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).]

#112760 01/07/04 10:03 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
iwire:

Quote
I think you guys have big marbles ....

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 Tedesco, NEC Consultant
#112761 01/07/04 03:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Joe,

Quote
I agree with some of your comments, and only ask for safety, not necessarily removal of the equipment.

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

Electure, I did not figure I would change your mind, [Linked Image] 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 Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#112762 01/07/04 07:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Bob:

Quote
You mean you and I do have some common ground? Cool, I do appreciate you saying that. [Linked Image]

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.


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
#112763 01/07/04 10:34 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
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.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5