Hack Work?

infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
I was in a warehouse today picking up some materials and I saw this new pallet mounted transformer in front of the new panel and a new disconnect switch. When I was there a week ago they had the panel cover off and what they did was "tap" the original service conductors in the wireway and feed the main CB in the panel. They also "tapped" the conductors to the main CB and ran them to the disconnect switch. Both the new panel and the new disconnect switch are wired are service disconnects (you can see the GEC's). I'm assuming that this wasn't inspected just by the lack of working space in front of the panel. Besides the obvious hack work is it permissible to splice on to the existing service conductors in the wireway and then splice on to them in the panel to feed the additional disco?

Metals Service Disco.jpg
 
I think it's okay as it sounds like it falls under the six-disconnect allowance.

I'd be more concerned with the new load on the existing service conductors and meter.
 
LarryFine said:
I'd be more concerned with the new load on the existing service conductors and meter.
Click to expand...
Who knows what the existing load is. Someone installed this new panel and the two transformers. I'm guessing that since the service 3Ø, 4-wire Delta they needed 480 volts for some type of machinery.
 
Thats looks like Forza charger, its for electric forklifts and tow tugs, but perhaps Forza makes other stuff?
 
infinity said:
Both the new panel and the new disconnect switch are wired are service disconnects (you can see the GEC's).
Click to expand...
Why not extend service LB an extra 18", directly into xfmr disconnect, then eliminate nipple to new panel?
 
infinity said:
Besides the obvious hack work is it permissible to splice on to the existing service conductors in the wireway and then splice on to them in the panel to feed the additional disco?
Click to expand...
The existing service conductors need to have enough ampacity to handle the new calculated load which I believe has been addressed by others.

If they tapped off the existing service conductors, then tapped their tap again I don't think that would be allowed. Maybe if the sum of overcurrent devices supplied but without looking I'm leaning toward not allowed. Separate conductor to each disconnect with conductor ampacity in accordance with the overcurrent protection is what is the norm.

can the service conductors to that disconnect pass through the panelboard - I don't see why not if there is sufficient space for them and there is no non service conductors in any raceways that contain service conductors.
 
Funny how no one mentioned clear working space in front of the equipment, looks like a dock ledge to me. One false step and your off...
 
kwired said:
If they tapped off the existing service conductors, then tapped their tap again I don't think that would be allowed. Maybe if the sum of overcurrent devices supplied but without looking I'm leaning toward not allowed. Separate conductor to each disconnect with conductor ampacity in accordance with the overcurrent protection is what is the norm.
Click to expand...
I dont see any issue. You can tap of a set of service entrance conductors, and then tap that set again if you want, there is no prohibition from doing that as long as the load calc on every segment is ok. Once a set serves more than 1 disconnecet it can be sized to the load and doesnt matter what the OCPD's are. I mean there are certainly cleaner neater ways of doing it like using a bussed gutter, power distribution blocks, or multi port polaris......
 
Todd0x1 said:
Arent those bonding fittings for bare wire? And they used them with THWN......
Click to expand...
They're called Kenny clamps and they can be used with correct size solid or stranded conductors, bare, or insulated with the insulation removed where it enters the clamp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top