230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
allenwayne said:
It has to do with you thinking you`re right ,because you`re right that is quite obvious.It was obvious in the OP when you brought up 90.4 is going to cause a rift.
Click to expand...

petersonra said:
You have no power to make it up as you go, regardless of how well intentioned you may think you are being.

I would call this an abuse of power since you obviously know you are in the wrong on this.
Click to expand...

One believes
?you think you`re right?
Another believes
?you obviously know you are in the wrong on this?

I?m surprised at how much effort goes into telling me what I?m thinking rather than just discussing the subject.
Some have made very goods points on this thread. Others have just filled posts with anger and accusation.

I like discussing the subject and thank those that have done just that.

David
 
dnem said:
So we have 200, 200, 100, 60, 40, & 30 which equals 630 amps of breakers.
The service conductors were parallel 4/0 AL.

I red tagged it. My explanation stated the max 6 disconnect rule and listed 230.71 and inadequate protection on the service entrance conductors
Click to expand...

That looks like six so in other words you completely ignored the NEC and the exception that directly,....specifically,..... allows the combined ampacity of multiple service disconnects to exceed the rating of the service conductors?

What is the legal justification for that?

You are no better than an EC that ignores the rules.

How can you enforce rules from a code that you yourself ignore?
 
Last edited:
dnem said:
I?m surprised at how much effort goes into telling me what I?m thinking rather than just discussing the subject.
Some have made very goods points on this thread. Others have just filled posts with anger and accusation.

I like discussing the subject and thank those that have done just that.
Click to expand...

OK lets discuss this.

Where is the NEC rule that prohibits more than six spaces for disconnects?

Only one person in this thread has agreed with your point of view and it is unusually for the group that has answered this thread to all be in agreement.

You have engineers, inspectors, instructors and electricians all disagreeing with you.

It is time for you to reconsider your view and your approach, for what it's worth in my opinion you brought the hostility to this thread.
 
David,
When did I say that I didn't like the answers ?
Click to expand...
Not it those words but the tone of your posts is that we have to answer the questions in the manner you want then answered. You said my post wasn't clear because it didn't answer your 4 questions. You are not the teacher correcting papers. We get to post the answer to your questions as we see fit.
Look for yourself before posting, I've only objected to the arrogance of some posters.
Click to expand...
As I read this thread the most arrogant posts have come from you and yes others have replied in kind.
Don
 
David,
So we have 200, 200, 100, 60, 40, & 30 which equals 630 amps of breakers.
The service conductors werre parallel 4/0 AL.
Click to expand...
Now there may be a load violation here, but only if the load calculated per Article 220 shows a total load in excess of the ampacity of the parallel 4/0 aluminum condutors. See 230.42. As far as the total of the breaker ratings exceeding the ampacity of the condctors, that is specifically permitted by Exception #3 to 230.90(A) where there are 2 to 6 service disconnects.
I still find no provision in the code to permit a red tag based on what might happen in the future. As long as the panel is service rated, the condcutors are correctly sized for the load, and there are siz or less breakers installed, the installation complies with the NEC.

Don
 
my 2 cents

my 2 cents

I would like to point out that if you purchased a split-bus panel that was specifically designed for the max 6-switch rule you had a max of 6 2-pole spaces.

While I will have to concede that the described installation is technically code complaint, I don't like it as the OP didn't like it. I think it is a poor installation. But alas, that is only my opinion and my opinion doesn't count (except on my jobs so long as it is code complaint at a minimum).

If you install a wireway and 6 individual disconnects, it takes some effort to install an additional circuit. If you install a split-bus panel you cannot exceed the 6-circuit rule unless you install 1-pole breakers.

I support David in his decision to reject this and let it move up the command chain (boy I guess I'm in hot water now). The one thing I would have done is to ask the contractor to provide a load calculation for the service feeders.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
If you install a wireway and 6 individual disconnects, it takes some effort to install an additional circuit.
Click to expand...

Say these disconnects are all 200s and fused at 150 to supply 150 amp rated panels.

I suppose you would have to fail the job as it takes little effort to install 200 amp fuses in them later.

To sum this thread up;

We have 3 members that say to fail it because they 'don't like the installation' while the rest of the posters show how UL, the NEC and the manufactures all allow the installation.

Interesting.
 
iwire said:
Say these disconnects are all 200s and fused at 150 to supply 150 amp rated panels.

I suppose you would have to fail the job as it takes little effort to install 200 amp fuses in them later.
Click to expand...

? Did I say that?

The main point I made is they make split-bus panels specifically designed for this installation.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
? Did I say that?
Click to expand...

Kind of.

The main point I made is they make split-bus panels specifically designed for this installation.
Click to expand...

And according to the manufacturers so are many MLO panels.

In commercial work it would be entirely possible that I would need a 24 'space' MLO panel to supply 6 - 3 pole breakers with shunt trip units.

The bottom line is you can only inspect for what you are looking at today.

It boggles my mind that an inspector feels they can fail a job for what might happen. Might as well fail every job and have all of us go off the grid.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
That's your interpretation. I never said that. Kind of the same thing the OP did?
Click to expand...

Yes I did twist it some

hardworkingstiff said:
While I will have to concede that the described installation is technically code complaint, I don't like it as the OP didn't like it. I think it is a poor installation. But alas, that is only my opinion and my opinion doesn't count (except on my jobs so long as it is code complaint at a minimum).

If you install a wireway and 6 individual disconnects, it takes some effort to install an additional circuit. If you install a split-bus panel you cannot exceed the 6-circuit rule unless you install 1-pole breakers.

I support David in his decision to reject this and let it move up the command chain (boy I guess I'm in hot water now). The one thing I would have done is to ask the contractor to provide a load calculation for the service feeders.
Click to expand...

That is what you posted.

What I get from that is you know it's code compliant but support the red tag because "I don't like it as the OP didn't like it. I think it is a poor installation."

IMO If it's code compliant than legally the inspector must pass it.
 
jwelectric said:
What is the opinion of sending a link of this thread to the proper state offices in Ohio?
Click to expand...

I vote, yes.

And I want to go on record as being another that says it is code compliant.

I can't find the "I don't like it so it doesn't pass" article or section. ;)

Roger
 
Since I'm on an opinion kick, it is also my opinion that a MLO panel should not be allowed without overcurrent protection prior to the panel bus.

(give y'all someone else to jump on) ;-)
 
To give support to the it should be passed side of the arguement,


Service Entrance Equipment
When a panelboard is used as service entrance equipment, it
must be located near the point of entrance of building supply
conductors. In a main lugs only panel, the number of breakers
or switches directly connected to the main bus must be limited
to six. In a panel having a main breaker or main switch, the number
of circuits are not limited except as may be provided under
other panelboard requirements, i.e., lighting and appliance
branch circuit panelboards. Also, panels must include a connector
for bonding and grounding neutral conductor.​
Click to expand...

 
jwelectric

so you think anytime somebody asks a dumb question or posts an opinion that in your opinion is wrong, there empoyer should be notified, I hope your kidding, this forum is not the place for that, people come here to learn not to worry about somebody reporting them to there employer
 
Okay, in all seriousness, I agree with you, MPD. The hammer should not come down from here if someone walks in here, hat in hand, and says, "I've been performing this illegal installation for years, and don't see the problem."

Or, "I've allowed this illegal action as an inspector for years, and want to hear why it's bad."

I've done it myself.

The angering aspect of this is that we're seeing that negative cycle repeat right before our eyes. The EC (or their customer) does not have the time or profit margin to defend their perfectly compliant installation.

So time and resources have been wasted redoing a safe installation for no good reason.

Since the issue has been dropped (the EC folded), then he lost when he was right. To top it off, the inspector is essentially stating he doesn't care what the code really says, so long as his boss agrees with him he's not in trouble.
 
Thinking about this more and more, maybe I'm wrong in thinking the OP was right to reject it.

I still don't like the installation and if I was the inspector I would confer with my supervisor, but I guess I'd have to let it go. Again, I don't like it and wish there was some better wording in the NEC to prevent using a MLO panel in this situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top