User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: 230.71(A)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,289
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do we know if there is any exceptions being added to deal with things that were compliant when first installed? That would help some with variations on local level on how to deal with existing, unless the intent of the CMP is to eliminate these altogether.

    There are still a lot of split bus panels still out there.

    Other than to better coordinate with worker safety rules (harder to have a completely de-energized panelboard to work on, yet not impossible) I don't see a great reason for this rule, not sure why the old split bus was even eliminated, other than the ignorant abusing rules they didn't know about.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,566
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    If it's too late for NEC 2020, I would say try to talk to your state code people who are in charge if adopting/amending the NEC. This is what I plan to do in WA.
    Last cycle, I was chair of the committee that developed the Seattle amendments to the NEC. I expect to take on the same role this cycle. I will make sure this issue is carefully considered.

    I am not sure when the state of Washington with take up the 2020 NEC. Nor could I find out (in the few minutes I was able to spend this morning) who the committee members are.

    Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,742
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    Last cycle, I was chair of the committee that developed the Seattle amendments to the NEC. I expect to take on the same role this cycle. I will make sure this issue is carefully considered.

    I am not sure when the state of Washington with take up the 2020 NEC. Nor could I find out (in the few minutes I was able to spend this morning) who the committee members are.

    Thanks Charlie. Ill be in touch, and can work up a formal letter to submit when the time comes.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    (44.057116, -123.103394)
    Posts
    526
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What is the substantiation for this 2020 code change? Were there problems with firefighters disconnecting power or something?
    This seems like nonsense without some context.
    I figured we would adopt international light blue neutrals before something like this happened in 2020 ?
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tortuga View Post
    What is the substantiation for this 2020 code change? Were there problems with firefighters disconnecting power or something?
    This seems like nonsense without some context.
    I figured we would adopt international light blue neutrals before something like this happened in 2020 ?
    It is driven by 70E in an attempt to limit incident energy and exposure to line side energized parts.
    Don, Illinois
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    But there are a ton of existing meter/main combo service equipment enclosures in my area that are MLO. Just a ton. Hundreds of thousands if not a million in our service area. Like a 3rd of the service panels in suburban areas, I'd say. Especially subdivisions dating from, oh, about 1970 to 2000.

    Here's a fairly typical example that we're dealing with presently:

    Attachment 22855
    Attachment 22856


    (Note the part of the label that specifies the six-handle limit.)

    So in a couple years this panel will be bafflingly no longer compliant.

    The question is, will we still be allowed to do what we're doing on this job, which is to relocate that 40A circuit to a sub we're installing on the opposite side of the wall, into which we're also inserting our solar breaker? Will the AHJ be reasonable and say that the whole MSP is grandfathered? Or will we have to tell the customer that they need to increase the cost of the project by 10-50% to replace this recessed meter/main, and it's for a really stupid reason that wouldn't have existed in any of the decades since their house was built?
    IMHO, The Code only applies to newly installed equipment not existing installations.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Glen bunie, md, us
    Posts
    491
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why must only new equipment comply? Post #25 if its to limit incident energy I would imagine existing equipment to must comply as well due to safety reasons. Something needs to be address in 2020 regarding existing equipment not to be left to individual AHJ. I could forsee lots of fights and headache with contractors why we have to replace existing if code does not address what to do existing.
    Last edited by hhsting; 04-30-19 at 06:35 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xformer View Post
    IMHO, The Code only applies to newly installed equipment not existing installations.
    1) That's just your opinion. If my company had the money back from every time an inspector had a different opinion than me, we could probably pay someone's yearly salary.

    2) I'm talking about making changes to service equipment installations that run afoul of this new language. My part of the installation isn't 'existing.'

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,289
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    It is driven by 70E in an attempt to limit incident energy and exposure to line side energized parts.
    That was my suspicion all along, They now require line barriers on main terminals - might not completely be compliant to 70E for limiting exposure, but is a step in that direction anyway. Now if you have a main lug only and bus that is always energized - it is more difficult to get that into as limiting of exposure condition as it would be with a single main breaker.

    Quote Originally Posted by xformer View Post
    IMHO, The Code only applies to newly installed equipment not existing installations.
    Most places recognize things that were compliant at the time they were installed. The question becomes can you add to this panel that once was compliant but now is not? If NEC does not specifically put in conditions for this, whether it be in main language or as exceptions, I can see there being a mixture of ways of dealing with the existing by AHJ's.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hhsting View Post
    Why must only new equipment comply? Post #25 if its to limit incident energy I would imagine existing equipment to must comply as well due to safety reasons. Something needs to be address in 2020 regarding existing equipment not to be left to individual AHJ. I could forsee lots of fights and headache with contractors why we have to replace existing if code does not address what to do existing.
    The NEC is correlating and attempting to harmonize with 70E. In 70E, it is allowed to work on or around energized parts if it is "infeasible" to de-energize. Many would consider a MLO service panel to fall under this allowance due to the fact that the only way to de-energize is to have the utility company shut the entire building down. It sounds like 70E wants to eliminate this type of new installation due to shock hazards and high incident energy levels.

    Existing installations are just that, existing.
    Marty Schumacher
    Electrical Inspector, Plans Examiner, Code Instructor


    "All men by nature desire to know"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •