[MMachina]

Good Day,
First post on this great forum!
I need some advice and opinions please: I am in the position of making recommendations to a Client in a safety/inspection report.

The client has two UPS units plugged into a receptacle that is fed from the panel (To the UPS Input). Then at the UPS output they have a male cord-cap with cabtire/flexible cords plugged in, that enter the panel and are joined to two different circuits (#12AWG T90). These conductors were previously connected to breakers. The conductors are going into a slab conduit, then later surface EMT, and is shared with other circuits from that Panel. The UPS is feeding BAS System panels. I believe ESA has already called them out once for this, if I recall correctly, but I don’t know what the result or remedy was. (I have a photo if anyone needs to see the setup).

In my opinion I see this current setup unsafe, and goes against OEC:
6-212 (1) Enclosures for breakers not to be used as a junction box feeding through to other apparatus.
4-030 (2) to identify the neutrals of different systems; neutrals are not identified as different (they may even be sharing a neutral with another circuit but I didn’t check).
And 14-414 (4) – suitable warning of multiple sources.

Am I missing anything else? Please let me know if I am wrong or additions to any the above determinations. Or am I being too particular?

Thank you very much in advance!

 

[51360]

Good Day,
First post on this great forum!
I need some advice and opinions please: I am in the position of making recommendations to a Client in a safety/inspection report.

The client has two UPS units plugged into a receptacle that is fed from the panel (To the UPS Input). Then at the UPS output they have a male cord-cap with cabtire/flexible cords plugged in, that enter the panel and are joined to two different circuits (#12AWG T90). These conductors were previously connected to breakers. The conductors are going into a slab conduit, then later surface EMT, and is shared with other circuits from that Panel. The UPS is feeding BAS System panels. I believe ESA has already called them out once for this, if I recall correctly, but I don’t know what the result or remedy was. (I have a photo if anyone needs to see the setup).

In my opinion I see this current setup unsafe, and goes against OEC:
6-212 (1) Enclosures for breakers not to be used as a junction box feeding through to other apparatus.
4-030 (2) to identify the neutrals of different systems; neutrals are not identified as different (they may even be sharing a neutral with another circuit but I didn’t check).
And 14-414 (4) – suitable warning of multiple sources.

Am I missing anything else? Please let me know if I am wrong or additions to any the above determinations. Or am I being too particular?

Thank you very much in advance!

Sounds like you have things under control. :thumbsup:

I am more interested in the IR camera you are using, where you purchased it, and a ball park price range.

But, I digress!

Borgi

 

[V-Dough]

You've got that right. As UPS is considered another source of power than the one the panel is fed from, you have to run separate cable or conduit to whatever UPS is powering, and you're not allowed to enter enclosures or conduits that have conductors of other systems.

 

[emtnut]

Good Day,
First post on this great forum!
I need some advice and opinions please: I am in the position of making recommendations to a Client in a safety/inspection report.

The client has two UPS units plugged into a receptacle that is fed from the panel (To the UPS Input). Then at the UPS output they have a male cord-cap with cabtire/flexible cords plugged in, that enter the panel and are joined to two different circuits (#12AWG T90). These conductors were previously connected to breakers. The conductors are going into a slab conduit, then later surface EMT, and is shared with other circuits from that Panel. The UPS is feeding BAS System panels. I believe ESA has already called them out once for this, if I recall correctly, but I don’t know what the result or remedy was. (I have a photo if anyone needs to see the setup).

In my opinion I see this current setup unsafe, and goes against OEC:
6-212 (1) Enclosures for breakers not to be used as a junction box feeding through to other apparatus.
4-030 (2) to identify the neutrals of different systems; neutrals are not identified as different (they may even be sharing a neutral with another circuit but I didn’t check).
And 14-414 (4) – suitable warning of multiple sources.

Am I missing anything else? Please let me know if I am wrong or additions to any the above determinations. Or am I being too particular?

Thank you very much in advance!

12-3030 Conductors in Boxes, Cabinets, or Fittings

may apply here

*edit* 12-904(2) may apply if the conductors are in the same raceway as well.

 

[emtnut]

... Then at the UPS output they have a male cord-cap with cabtire/flexible cords plugged in, that enter the panel and are joined to two different circuits

SJ run into the panel

Jezzzusss Christ on a cracker :laughing:


I missed that first time I read the post :bangin:

 

[MMachina]

Thanks very much!

Thanks for the replies Gentlemen! :thumbsup:

I just wanted to drive the point home to the client that they shouldn't be doing this. The more info I have the better.

SJ run into the panel

Believe or not we quoted to correct it after ESA was on site and no action was taken. They actually REPLACED old units with these units since, so someone thought this was okay.

12-3030 Conductors in Boxes, Cabinets, or Fittings may apply here

You're right, I Always read the rule and the sub-rules as OR but really they do need to follow the Separation Barrier rule In this case.

*edit* 12-904(2) may apply if the conductors are in the same raceway as well.

I thought that too but was somewhat unsure if it applied. What about the 12-904(2)(b) says "OR" and (c) where it states, control or supply of remote devices. Wouldn't this be classified as remote devices? If so, wouldn't it be Okay? That was my original thinking anyway, that's why I didn't include it, was pretty unsure - but please let me know if I am wrong in my thinking with that rule.

Thanks again! :thumbup:

 

[MMachina]

IR Camera.

Sounds like you have things under control. :thumbsup:

I am more interested in the IR camera you are using, where you purchased it, and a ball park price range.

But, I digress!

Borgi

I'm using a FLIR P620 it's an old Model. It has a 640x480 IR Sensor. My Company purchased it years ago about 2009. I've been using it since 2013 on/off.
Back then I think they paid ~$50-60K Canadian. I believe they bought it directly from FLIR.
They have really come down in price now, about half that for the equivalent T620 (about $27K CAD), with more features. (Notice how I said "My Company", it's a massive investment, I don't personally own it) But really for a smaller business/clients a lesser model from EX or EXX Series would work fine too. They Run anywhere between $2-12K. (check out flir-direct.ca for an idea for prices) You just loose some ability to totally pin point the problem with less resolution, but honestly the main part is identifying there is a problem, there's other methods to pinpoint. But anyway I haven't worked with any of those models but I could see them working fine.

I've heard from some other IR Thermographers suggest that the FLIR ONE phone attachments ($300-500) are even good enough but I am very skeptical about that one. Not to mention relying the phone, the wear on the phone and the less professional look of those phone Add-ons - I personally wouldn't go that route unless its strictly for troubleshooting periodically, or checking the result of a repair.

Let me know if you need more info.

 

[emtnut]

I thought that too but was somewhat unsure if it applied. What about the 12-904(2)(b) says "OR" and (c) where it states, control or supply of remote devices. Wouldn't this be classified as remote devices? If so, wouldn't it be Okay? That was my original thinking anyway, that's why I didn't include it, was pretty unsure - but please let me know if I am wrong in my thinking with that rule.

Thanks again! :thumbup:

In 'english' anything not in the panel, is remote to the panel :shifty:

Section 0 defines a remote control circuit
"any electrical circuit which controls any other circuit through a relay or an equivalent device"

*note that this only applies if the wires are in the same conduit ... I don't know if that is the situation for you ?

You're right, I Always read the rule and the sub-rules as OR but really they do need to follow the Separation Barrier rule In this case.

Moot point, cause you can't do it in the panel anyways !

When you move this into a separate box, it would apply if you have a second power source from a different system.

 

[eddy current]

I thought that too but was somewhat unsure if it applied. What about the 12-904(2)(b) says "OR" and (c) where it states, control or supply of remote devices. Wouldn't this be classified as remote devices? If so, wouldn't it be Okay? That was my original thinking anyway, that's why I didn't include it, was pretty unsure - but please let me know if I am wrong in my thinking with that rule.

Thanks again! :thumbup:

No. An example of that rule would be the controls and power for a motor in the same conduit. I've even had an inspector let me run the controls going out to a generator and the feed from the generator in the same conduit.

And if you do this, all the conductors used in the same conduit must have the same voltage rating. So lets say you ran 600 volt wire for a 120 volt switch and the low voltage controls for the switch in the same conduit. Even though the low voltage is only 10 to 24 volts, you still need to run the same type of wire you used for the 120 volt.