230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel

[iwire]

I think this poster said it quite well.

David
We just can't inspect from the aspect of what might happen at some future date or you would never be able to pass any installation. The jacklegs can add non code compliant additions at any time. A true electrician will not go back and violate the six switch rule.

Any future work will either be inspected or be done by people that do not care about the code.

Any installation can easily be made dangerous by those that do not care.

 

[jwelectric]

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

Don’t think that I said I was going to report any one individual for doing something wrong.
I believe that I ask about letting Doug White Director of Ohio’s Board of Building Standards, Rick Helsinger President of Ohio Building Officials Association and the Ohio IAEI have access to this thread so that the state could address this problem through out the state.

Without a formal complaint being filed no action would be taken against any one person but the problem of such statements like;
If I turn you down you won’t get a final until you comply.
If I turn you down you will lose many days doing appeals or you will comply
If I turn you down I can quote an unfounded code section and it is up to you to do something about it.
If I turn you down it is because I am the AHJ

Any and all of this type of attitude needs to be addressed at the state level for all code officials in that state. Dnem has said that his director believes the same as he does so this attitude must reverberate through out the department. This tells me that the state needs to address this before the department gets slapped with a law suit. I see it as I would be doing the person and his department a favor not trying to get someone in trouble.

 

[George Stolz]

The day I couldn't afford to install a 400 MB instead of this MLO is the day I let the job go to someone else.

That's another aspect of this, Lou.

The thing is, you would do it differently than I would. Iwire would do it differently than I would. All three of us could do this safely.

If it's safe, why can't we just acknowledge differences and move on? Why should you be punished for doing it differently than me?

 

[hillbilly]

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

I agree.
I fight my own battles. Other's opinion may vary.
ps. I think that the job is code compliant and therefore should pass.
steve

 

[roger]

Anyone posting on an open forum is aware of the fact that their superiors (or anyone else) may see it, so they should be confident enough in their stance that it wouldn't matter, at least that is the way I am in my postings.


Roger

 

[iwire]

Anyone posting on an open forum is aware of the fact that their superiors (or anyone else) may see it, so they should be confident enough in their stance that it wouldn't matter, at least that is the way I am in my postings.


Roger

I agree, I know that the office has looked in on my posts.

This is public, don't post what you can not defend.

 

[marko76]

I agree with Dnem if it is service rated and has less then 6 breakers it meets requirements . We cant stop people from doing foolish thing down the road.

 

[mpd]

jwelectric

do you work in ohio

 

[roger]

I agree with Dnem if it is service rated and has less then 6 breakers it meets requirements .

Marko, this is not what David is saying, he is tagging the installation even though there are no more than 6 switches or breakers.

We cant stop people from doing foolish thing down the road.

This is what the others are pointing out to David.

Roger

 

[amptech]

I have been reading this thread since it started. I haven't posted up to this point because I didn't have anything to add to the discussion that hadn't already been said over and over. I still don't have anything new to add but I'll throw in my opinion anyway. So just to make it clear where I'm coming from, I believe the installation as described in the OP's post is compliant with the NEC and should not have been red tagged. I think the inspector(the original poster)is trying to enforce his personal preference. While that may be well intentioned, it is wrong. I had a situation locally with a "well intentioned" inspector who was requiring breakers feeding detached garages to be GFCI. He just thought it would be safer. I was very diplomatic with him in explaining it was not required by code and he did not have the authority to make his own rules. Besides, there are no 2 pole 100A GFCI breakers available, as far as I know. He finally backed down after a polite conversation with the Deputy State Building Inspector. This same inspector also tried to limit receptacle outlets in dwellings to 5 per 20A circuit. His intentions were good but his information and methods were flawed. I think the OP needs to back off of this subject and write a proposal to change the next NEC.

 

[jwelectric]

jwelectric

do you work in ohio

No and with this type of inspections this is a good thing

 

[dnem]

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?

?directly,....specifically? ?
Is it just that simple, Bob ?
Who are you trying to fool by saying directly,....specifically ?

I know that you know better and I can?t believe how low you are willing to sink just to sling mud.
You used to attempt to quote the code properly.

http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showpost.php?p=588523&postcount=3

You were willing to reason back then. And you?re conclusion wasn?t the end of the discussion back then either.

http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showthread.php?p=588666#post588666
http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showthread.php?p=589353#post589353

Since you are showing an inability to even attempt a fair quoting of the code, I have nothing to say to you.

For everyone else reading, I would like to ask each of you something.

If you set aside the whole debate about the max 6 installed or max 6 capable and look at this installation for load issues only. If you were the inspector, would you pass this service ?

On the original inspection there were the two 200amp breakers that were each feeding a 42 space subpanel that were both empty [the rough install was yet in the future]. In the double column push-in section of 12 KOs there was a two pole 100, a two pole 60, a two pole 40, and a two pole 30, and four KOs still not knocked out. No labeling on the panel. No contractor on site. No loads calcs or prints on residential projects in my building department. Phone number line on the permit left blank by the contractor.

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

David

 

[Smart $]

...

For everyone else reading, I would like to ask each of you something.

If you set aside the whole debate about the max 6 installed or max 6 capable and look at this installation for load issues only. If you were the inspector, would you pass this service ?

On the original inspection there were the two 200amp breakers that were each feeding a 42 space subpanel that were both empty [the rough install was yet in the future]. In the double column push-in section of 12 KOs there was a two pole 100, a two pole 60, a two pole 40, and a two pole 30, and four KOs still not knocked out. No labeling on the panel. No contractor on site. No loads calcs or prints on residential projects in my building department. Phone number line on the permit left blank by the contractor.

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

...

Need clarification...

Does "parallel 4/0 AL." means just 2 sets?

Is the MLO panel inside or outside?

Based on the information provided, I cannot determine compliance not knowing the load calculations. Since none were available to you at or prior to time of inspection, this would be a NO PASS/NO FAIL...

 

[dnem]

Need clarification...

Does "parallel 4/0 AL." means just 2 sets?

Is the MLO panel inside or outside?

Yes and inside

Since none were available to you at or prior to time of inspection, this would be a NO PASS/NO FAIL...

We actually don't "fail" any inspection. We have just 2 different sticky back labels that we can leave with the writeup report sheet. We have a white one for Approved and a red one for Not Approved.

 

[dnem]

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.

"the inspector is essentially stating he doesn't care what the code really says"

And so what would the reason be that I am posting this thread , George ?
Am I saying that I don't care what the code says ?
Could I be asking questions so that I can revisit a call that is bothering me ?

You seem to have joined the group here that claims to know what I think.

Obviously your attitude has changed in the last 24 hours
http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showthread.php?p=605180#post605180

?doesn't care what the code really says, so long as his boss agrees with him he's not in trouble?

You really think that my standing with my boss is what really matters to me ?
I will decide what I think I should do and will follow that course regardless of what my boss thinks.
Me making the right call isn?t the only issue here. Maybe you missed something that I posted before. I know some of my posts have been pretty long. It said:

Because the contractor didn?t take the next appeal step, even if I change my mind about 230.71 being max 6 installed and not max 6 capability, this will have no effect on the other ESIs in my department nor any effect on the chief ESI. In conversation with my fellow ESIs, two of them [one of whom is the chief] have already stated that they will fail commercial MLO service equipment MDP if there is a capability of more than 6 disconnects.





I want to thank those that have contributed to this conversation. The most important parts for me are those that have made me think. The highlights are:

If you where inspecting the panel that this label was on would you ignore the labeling if the panel has more than 6 spaces?

If someone was to use a 200 amp fused disconect to supply a 125 amp load would you fail the job because someone could over fuse it later?

Question 3: Yes
There are many situations where more "breaker space" than normal is required for to accomodate 6 disconnects in a panel (i.e. shunt trip breakers often take more space, plug-on TVSS units, and finally actual breakers feeding TVSS and power monitoring).

how many times have you failed a house for ceiling fans or closet lights, and at reinspection they are removed and blanked off, I make a record they were removed at reinspection pass it and move on, if they get reinstalled after I leave, not my problem.

David

 

[Smart $]

...
We actually don't "fail" any inspection. We have just 2 different sticky back labels that we can leave with the writeup report sheet. We have a white one for Approved and a red one for Not Approved.

...and what about the third option, to leave no label at all?

If the information necessary to do a proper inspection has not already been provided or is not readily available, it is my opinion the inspection cannot take place.

 

[dnem]

...and what about the third option, to leave no label at all?

If the information necessary to do a proper inspection has not already been provided or is not readily available, it is my opinion the inspection cannot take place.

The contractor has scheduled an inspection. Our department has set policy that record must be left on site at each inspection.

The contractor had 630amps of breakers on 2 sets of 4/0 AL. If the information necessary isn't provided, the contractor needs to take responsibility for that. He was also responsible for properly filling out his permit card including a contact phone number.

Also including load cals so that you can exceed the wire ampacity as allowed by 230.90(A)x3 doesn't eliminate the need to comply with 240.4(B) and 240.6(A). 230.90(A)x3 is an exception to 230.90(A) and not the requirements of 240.

Table310.15(B)(6) limits 4/0 AL to 250a, so a pair would be 500a
Table310.16 limits 4/0 AL to 230a [75?C lugs assumed], so a pair would be 460a
The breakers totalled 630a and this isn't even close to being OK with 240.4(B) and 240.6(A).
He's going to get a "Not Approved" no matter what his calcs are.

David

 

[dnem]

At the same time, please keep in mind that "shooting the messenger" when someone has volunteered their time to try to help is not going to make friends or make people want
to help in the future.


Martin

There have been many very good posts on this thread and a number of people have helped me think thru these issues. But when you say that some of my responses are ?shooting the messenger?, I know who you are talking about.

Do you consider these statements, ?trying to help? ?

?When an inspector quotes 90.4 on an inspection of mine I just throw it in the trash and proceed with the job.?
http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showpost.php?p=604375&postcount=9

?I then made a comment that I stand by that a citation for 90.4 I will disregard and throw in the trash. I will not take the time to make a call nor will I return one. I will wait until you make a move that will have you under the gun before I will acknowledge your citation.?
http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showpost.php?p=605198&postcount=58

His help is to advocate:
1] disregarding and throwing away an inspectors report
2] not call the inspector to even let the inspector know that he doesn?t agree with him
3] nor will he return a call from the inspector if the inspector calls him and leaves a message
4] advocates throwing the general contractor way behind schedule because the job will go endlessly without power.
5] advocates dealing with all disagreements with an inspector by taking the most confrontational stand possible.

There appears to be a number of people that are regulars on this site that are friendly with Mike and wish to ?white wash? everything he says. Now you?re describing him as ?trying to help?.

David

 

[dnem]

If I turn you down you will lose many days doing appeals or you will comply

By far the most time spent in this instance was everyone waiting for Seimens to respond to repeated contacts by multiple parties using phone and email. The first couple appeals are quick.

I believe that I ask about letting Doug White Director of Ohio?s Board of Building Standards, Rick Helsinger President of Ohio Building Officials Association and the Ohio IAEI have access to this thread so that the state could address this problem through out the state.

It's been quite a while since I've agreed with anything you've said but this idea is a good one. I would love for the guys you've mentioned to get involved and I think them reading this thread would be good for them to understand the situation. But there is a large number of pages of posts on this thread that would use up their time being read without adding to the understanding of the situation.

I also have mentioned my intent to bring this up before the next meetings of the Cleveland [Western Reserve] and also the Akron IAEI meetings.

Any and all of this type of attitude needs to be addressed at the state level for all code officials in that state. Dnem has said that his director believes the same as he does so this attitude must reverberate through out the department. This tells me that the state needs to address this before the department gets slapped with a law suit. I see it as I would be doing the person and his department a favor not trying to get someone in trouble.

Don't worry yourself about the lawsuit. I'm much more concerned with settling the issue in a way that will provide correct and evenly consistent code application from all electrical inspectors.

Plus this would introduce me to another resource that I can contact for help with difficult inspection calls. I think the "higher ups" should provide us with more support then they do now. Has this issue been addressed by central officials in the upper levels of the state AHJ pyramid in other municipalities ? If it has, how are these rulings supposed to be made available to ESIs thruout the state ?

David

 

[Smart $]

The contractor has scheduled an inspection. Our department has set policy that record must be left on site at each inspection.

OK... so leave a Not Approved label, but don't write it up as non-compliance if it is not in fact non-compliance (i.e. only likely or assumed non-compliance). Write it up exactly for what it is... lack of necessary information (with elaboration on what information that is).

The contractor had 630amps of breakers on 2 sets of 4/0 AL. If the information necessary isn't provided, the contractor needs to take responsibility for that. He was also responsible for properly filling out his permit card including a contact phone number...

I agree, the contractor has these obligations.

Also including load cals so that you can exceed the wire ampacity as allowed by 230.90(A)x3 doesn't eliminate the need to comply with 240.4(B) and 240.6(A). 230.90(A)x3 is an exception to 230.90(A) and not the requirements of 240.

I see these as being fairly contradictory. In enforcing 240.4 and 240.6, the highest the 2 to 6 breakers/fuses of 230.90(A, Excpt 3) could hope to attain then is one standard rating higher than the conductors ampacity. I don't believe this to be the intent of the exception. As such, though, I cannot argue the point.

Table310.15(B)(6) limits 4/0 AL to 250a, so a pair would be 500a
Table310.16 limits 4/0 AL to 230a [75?C lugs assumed], so a pair would be 460a
The breakers totalled 630a and this isn't even close to being OK with 240.4(B) and 240.6(A).

I can't even go here in the discussion if you override 230.90(A) with 240.4(B).