No Thanks

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pct_elect

Member
At the site of a potential customer we came across this control panel. Part of what the job entails would involve modifications to this circuit. As they are on a shoestring budget, they may not want to spend for a proper panel as it would add K$ to the job. I sure don't want to deal with that thing! Fused coils for the starters? Nary a 3? disconnect or fuse block in sight! How do you be polite under such circumstances?
 
Spend a few minutes figuring out the minimum work necessary to make this thing operational and to make it safe. Give them a cost estimate for that work. Then you tell them you can't accept the job if they are not willing to do at least the minimum to make it safe.
 
charlie b said:
Spend a few minutes figuring out the minimum work necessary to make this thing operational and to make it safe. Give them a cost estimate for that work. Then you tell them you can't accept the job if they are not willing to do at least the minimum to make it safe.
Click to expand...


Not much more anyone can add to that. I feel it is our responsibility to do what's right if it means losing a job, so be it.

I have had jobs where the customer told be well so and so says they will do it...My response is OK let them , we can't and won't. and then explain in why.
 
I would break out that expense necessary to make this section of the job right and present it separate from the rest of the job explaining your responsibilty to protect the customer's installation and insurance standards. This will educate the customer to the point that the next bidder will be "at least" questioned about this portion of the job and not somehow get out of it. I have lost jobs on things of this nature, only to see that portion of the job excluded by my competition !! Customers don't realize issues like this..
 
It doesn't look like it would take a lot to make it legal. There appears to be plenty of room for 3 three pole Class CC fuse blocks above the IEC contactors, and a rotary switch in the door would take care of the disconnect issue.
 
If you seen half of the control panels that I have to deal with on a regular basis.....you would count your blessings on that cute little bugger......I have customers with some real rats nests.....that were I belive created by "spastic rats"........:D
 
JacksonburgFarmer said:
If you seen half of the control panels that I have to deal with on a regular basis.....you would count your blessings on that cute little bugger......I have customers with some real rats nests.....that were I belive created by "spastic rats"........:D
Click to expand...

I have to agree. My first impression was "that's all that's wrong?":wink:
 
Sell them a fused disconect,and a control xfrmr, so it will all be denenergized by the disconect, new alarm beacon, etc.... wont take that much to bring it up to snuff IMO
 
At firs I was thinking along the same lines as anyone else. As an ex Panel Builder I was disgusted with the looks and design of it. But after taking a step back, I think I was a bit hasty in my judgment. Let me explain before throwing rocks my way...
  1. We don't know from this picture what the motor sizes are. If, for instance, they are all of a size that fits the code criteria, it is entirely conceivable that there is a 15A branch circuit feeding the motor starters, all of the wiring is 14ga minimum and the OL relays are properly set for the proper FLA of each motor. For example, let's say each motor is rated 4A. The 15A CB is within the acceptable range to protect the circuit, the aggregate FLC is under 80% of the CB rating, and each OLR is set for 4A. That is technically OK.
  2. The box doesn't absolutely NEED to have a local disconnect if the box can be locked from the outside and there is a disconnect somewhere else within sight of each motor and there is a locking attachment on that 15A feeder CB.
  3. The location is clean and dry. Somewhere that, in spite of it being a NEMA 12 enclosure, only needed to be NEMA 1 so the octagon box on top for that "poor man's stack light" is theoretically OK. (not absolutely sure of this one though)
Hey, I know it's a stretch and the "what if's" are numerous, but it could happen.

Still ugly though, and I would have refused to work on it without bringing it up to minimum acceptable levels of safety even if things were technically not forbidden. I've taken on worse and convinced the cheapskate owners that my fees were far less than his lawyers. But I have also walked away from things like this, not wanting to be in any way associated with someone who would have accepted it in the first place.
 
Didnt look that bad to me but I would want an ee to sign off on any modification I will do to said cabinet as I am just an installer and although I can design I am not qualified to take on that responsibility and I wont because I shouldnt have to. Draw it up and I will modify.
 
Jraef said:
...
The box doesn't absolutely NEED to have a local disconnect if the box can be locked from the outside and there is a disconnect somewhere else within sight of each motor and there is a locking attachment on that 15A feeder CB. ...
Click to expand...
Jeff,
I don't agree with this one. There is no provision in 430.102(A) that permits a remote disconnect for the motor controllers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top