Art. 408.3(3) Same Vertical Section

Status
Not open for further replies.

steveve1

Member
Location
Tucson, AZ
We've installed a 400a feeder thru the right hand section to it's switch in the left section of a 1000a 2-section board. The right hand section contains no busbars and serves as an MCC with all line side connections to starters made by cabling from switches in the left section. All grounding is accomplished at the ground buss in the left section. We are being cited with violating 408.3(3). As no busbars are in the right section, wouldn't the exception to 408.3(3) apply by default?
Greetings to all of those I've met here in the past.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
If the conductors travel only horizontally thru that vertical section and where the conductors cross the bussbar section there is a divider then it appears you are okay. That is my take on the section but I have never worked on such panels so maybe someone else will jump in.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Switchgear and MCC's are not switchboards.

Read the definition of switchboard in Article 100, and especially note the last sentence.
 

steveve1

Member
Location
Tucson, AZ
My Reply To Customer

My Reply To Customer

1) The absence of busbars in the right hand section allows the Exception to the Rule by default. 408.3(3) Exp.
2) The right hand section does not qualify as a "switchboard" as it does not contain overcurrent devices ( NEC 100-Swithboard) and
is an adjunct Motor Control Center (NEC 100-Motor Control Center). Thus negating 408.3 altogether.
3) The reasoning behind 408.3(3) is that no conductors from one section can energize another section or be energized by the
section the conductors would pass thorugh. Thus the "barrier" in 408.3(3) Exception.

The AHJ should step back and look at the intent of the code rather than take a cursory look at the installation, deny ,and then go get a cup of coffee and a donut.

Feel free to share this with anyone
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ceb58

Senior Member
Location
Raeford, NC
1) The absence of busbars in the right hand section allows the Exception to the Rule by default. 408.3(3) Exp.
2) The right hand section does not qualify as a "switchboard" as it does not contain overcurrent devices ( NEC 100-Swithboard) and
is an adjunct Motor Control Center (NEC 100-Motor Control Center). Thus negating 408.3 altogether.
3) The reasoning behind 408.3(3) is that no conductors from one section can energize another section or be energized by the
section the conductors would pass thorugh. Thus the "barrier" in 408.3(3) Exception.

The AHJ should step back and look at the intent of the code rather than take a cursory look at the installation, deny ,and then go get a cup of coffee and a donut.

Feel free to share this with anyone

In as such as you have came up with a good code article defence for your position, ask for as you should have, the code articles the inspector failed the install with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hurk27

Senior Member
We've installed a 400a feeder thru the right hand section to it's switch in the left section of a 1000a 2-section board. The right hand section contains no busbars and serves as an MCC with all line side connections to starters made by cabling from switches in the left section. All grounding is accomplished at the ground buss in the left section. We are being cited with violating 408.3(3). As no busbars are in the right section, wouldn't the exception to 408.3(3) apply by default?
Greetings to all of those I've met here in the past.

In as such as you have came up with a good code article defence for your position, ask for as you should have, the code articles the inspector failed the install with.

He did:D..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top