Siemens Uni-Pak NEC 408.36

L

LeftBlankAgain

Member
Location
CA
Occupation
AHJ
Hi everyone,

I am having a disconnect on how Uni-Pak dual meter mains meet the requirements of 408.36. A common installation is a 200 amp bus with two 125 amp service disconnects. However, the sum of the OCPD are greater than the bus rating in this situation. Can anyone help me connect the dots on why this installation meets 408.36?

Thank you,
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't see where 408.36 applies to the bus on the line side of the 125 amp breakers. This is no different than when a 320 amp meter socket supplies two 200 amp service disconnects
Click to expand...
The example I added was just to give some context to my confusion in general. What you mentioned is another scenario where I would have confusion.

I suppose my concern is that in the example I gave the panel will have overcurrent protection that is greater than the bus rating.
 
LeftBlankAgain said:
The example I added was just to give some context to my confusion in general. What you mentioned is another scenario where I would have confusion.

I suppose my concern is that in the example I gave the panel will have overcurrent protection that is greater than the bus rating.
Click to expand...

See 230.90 Exception 1.
I recently did a repair on a 3 phase 240V delta service that had 1/0 CU service entrance conductors in a service wireway, tapped off it was a 60A fused disconnect and a 200A loadcenter. The calculated load of the entire service was 150A.
 
tortuga said:
See 230.90 Exception 1.
I recently did a repair on a 3 phase 240V delta service that had 1/0 CU service entrance conductors in a service wireway, tapped off it was a 60A fused disconnect and a 200A loadcenter. The calculated load of the entire service was 150A.
Click to expand...
This 230.90 makes perfect sense to be but it is more focused on protecting the service conductors and not the bus.
 
brycenesbitt said:
I wish I had your AHJ.
Click to expand...
90.7 ...It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this Code....
Click to expand...
 
90.7 ...It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this Code....
Click to expand...
I was bold enough to show that code section to this AHJ
and the building official just scoffed and said "If it's between the sidwewalk and the back property line it's our jurisdiction".
 
brycenesbitt said:
I was bold enough to show that code section to this AHJ
and the building official just scoffed and said "If it's between the sidwewalk and the back property line it's our jurisdiction".
Click to expand...
A local building official does not have the knowledge or expertise to inspect the "guts" of a listed product, and such listed products are not built to the NEC, they are built to the product listing standard.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
A local building official does not have the knowledge or expertise to inspect the "guts" of a listed product, and such listed products are not built to the NEC, they are built to the product listing standard.
Click to expand...
It's a UL508A thing, used in a multifamily residential setting.

These particular local building officials literally said "If it's between the sidewalk and the back property line it's our jurisdiction".
They are blocking it because the flavor of UL is UL508A.
They and have blocked installation of the equipment for a year and half, variously saying they needed more time to study it, and that UL508A is only valid for installation at industrial sites (despite residential sites being part of the scope definition in the standard), and despite CEC 90.7. They have me under their thumb.

I proposed having a determination by an outside code expert (Mike Holt specifically), and they said outside experts can write them a letter, but they won't read it.

They want destructive testing and a separate UL listing for each control panel. Which would mean making two of each type, and tens of thousands of dollars in UL fees to type test each one. Each one is, as you might expect, customized under UL508A to the particular property.
 
brycenesbitt said:
It's a UL508A thing, used in a multifamily residential setting.

These particular local building officials literally said "If it's between the sidewalk and the back property line it's our jurisdiction".
They are blocking it because the flavor of UL is UL508A.
They and have blocked installation of the equipment for a year and half, variously saying they needed more time to study it, and that UL508A is only valid for installation at industrial sites (despite residential sites being part of the scope definition in the standard), and despite CEC 90.7. They have me under their thumb.

I proposed having a determination by an outside code expert (Mike Holt specifically), and they said outside experts can write them a letter, but they won't read it.

They want destructive testing and a separate UL listing for each control panel. Which would mean making two of each type, and tens of thousands of dollars in UL fees to type test each one. Each one is, as you might expect, customized under UL508A to the particular property.
Click to expand...
Someone above these people needs to be informed and these people need to be fired.
 
brycenesbitt said:
It's a UL508A thing, used in a multifamily residential setting.

These particular local building officials literally said "If it's between the sidewalk and the back property line it's our jurisdiction".
They are blocking it because the flavor of UL is UL508A.
They and have blocked installation of the equipment for a year and half, variously saying they needed more time to study it, and that UL508A is only valid for installation at industrial sites (despite residential sites being part of the scope definition in the standard), and despite CEC 90.7. They have me under their thumb.

I proposed having a determination by an outside code expert (Mike Holt specifically), and they said outside experts can write them a letter, but they won't read it.

They want destructive testing and a separate UL listing for each control panel. Which would mean making two of each type, and tens of thousands of dollars in UL fees to type test each one. Each one is, as you might expect, customized under UL508A to the particular property.
Click to expand...
Sounds like civil suit for malicious prosecution may be in order.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Sounds like civil suit for malicious prosecution may be in order.
Click to expand...
The AHJ insists that CEC 90.7 is not applicable, because UL508A is not a "real" UL listing.
This AHJ's current demand is to submit a sample of the uL508A panelboard to their offices for examination, along with a sheaf of paperwork in USB form, and $500 per hour inspection fee.

CEC 90.7 Examination of Equipment for Safety
For specific items of equipment and materials referred to in this Code, examinations for safety made under standard conditions provide a basis for approval where the record is made generally available through promulgation by organizations properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service-value determination through field inspections. This avoids the necessity for repetition of examinations by different examiners, frequently with inadequate facilities for such work, and the confusion that would result from conflicting reports on the suitability of devices and materials examined for a given purpose.

It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this Code. Suitability shall be determined by application of requirements that are compatible with this Code.
Informational Note No. 1: See requirements in 110.3.
Informational Note No. 2: Listed is defined in Article 100.
Informational Note No. 3: Informative Annex A contains a list of product safety standards that are compatible with this Code.

------------------------------
All I can say is if this AHJ examines the device and approve it's installation, THEY had better be an NRTL.
 
LeftBlankAgain said:
This might be the reason it was not clicking for me. The bus is before the service disconnecting means, so it does meet the definition of service conductors. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Back when it was still allowed to have six service disconnecting means within same panelboard you had the same situation. This was maybe more common with meter centers than with panelboards. Now that is more complex with the separate enclosure rule that came along in 2020, haven't encountered any situations since then so not sure what is out there for multimeter equipment that can comply since that change. I do know it has caused the need to change the design in particular on the once common meter with 2-200 amp breakers as most of what was out there no longer complied with that change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top