230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel

[iwire]

?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.

David I still stand by my post, I happened to be away from my code book when I posted before but I assumed you had one and would know the rules.

Here is the code section I was thinking of.

230.90 Exception No. 3: Two to six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent device to provide the overload protection. The sum of the ratings of the circuit breakers or fuses shall be permitted to exceed the ampacity of the service conductors, provided the calculated load does not exceed the ampacity of the service conductors.

I am not trying to fool anyone.

That section does specifically and directly allow the ratings of the OCPDs to exceed the the conductor rating.

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.

You sound like a DIY when you start adding up breakers to determine the load.

Given what you describe you would be within your authority to ask for load calculations.

If they provide load calcs that are under the the conductor rating than yes this service is legal and must pass.

If they do not provide load calcs than yes I would not pass it and the citation would be 230.90 Exception 3.

The 'red tag' would not have anyting to do with lack of phone numbers, KOs not knocked out or emtpty spaces that someone may in the future break he rules with.

 

[iwire]

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 ?

David I have no idea what you reason for posting this has been.

You tell us you are interested in other opinions on this issue but at the same time you are coming across as angry and arrogant.

You do not come across as a guy who has an open mind or that is willing to learn new things.

Before you go on a rant listen.....it may not be how you think you are but it is how you have been coming across in this entire thread

Many members have tried to point that out and you have not listened.

You have been around the forum long enough to know that is unusually for many posters to have the same opinion.

I recommend that you step back from this thread for a few days, than print it out and read it carefully.

If you read it honestly I think you will see what many of us have tried to point out, your coming across as a hot head.

Remember people will treat you as you treat them.

JMO, Bob

 

[iwire]

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.

That is a very different read on those sections than around here.

Here it is a very common installation in commercial jobs that six OCPDs are used in a MLO that greatly exceed the ratings of the conductors.

3000 amps worth of OCPDs installed in a 1200 amp MLO panel would not be unusual at all.

But I will admit that this has been your best argument for a fail so far.

 

[jwelectric]

So the officer that sold this permit sold it without obtaining all the pertinent information required by your department so you now hold the job.
In all you previous post this was not mentioned. All that was mentioned was your ability to use 90.4 as a basis to reject the job.

There is no violation that you have posted as yet except the labeling of the panel. This should be written up as 408.4 not 90.4.

Instead of seeking help from the “AHJ PYRAMID” you called the panel manufacture and ask them about the panel holding the job for four or five days.

Now instead of addressing the questions that you ask and that were answered by several people you choose to bash those that are trying to give you the help you were seeking. The reason for all of this bashing is simply because we disagree with you and your tactics. We disagree with the code sections that you have chosen to use to reject this job.

On the first page Don, Trevor, Bob and then me answered you questions with me pointing out how I handle a 90.4 rejection. You are the one that mentioned the 90.4 in your title.

On the second page Andrew, Jim, Larry and Mark answered your question and then you start your bashing of poor old Bob. Now I know that he needs to be bashed every once in a while just to help keep him straight but I just don’t think this was one of them times.

Your second post on page two was a bashing of me and you attempt to display your powers as an inspector and ability to hold a job on unfounded code references and this is the jest of the rest of this thread.

So this leaves me to give you just one final piece of advice. Have at it your way.

 

[iwire]

and then you start your bashing of poor old Bob. Now I know that he needs to be bashed every once in a while just to help keep him straight .

LMAO

Thanks Mike you made me spit coffee out my nose.

You are 100% correct, I do need that once in a while.

I have a good friend that has about 10" of height and 125 lbs on me that is always willing to give me a good bashing when my head gets to big.

 

[jwelectric]

Good morning Bob, Hope you have a blessed day.

 

[iwire]

Good morning Bob, Hope you have a blessed day.

Thank you and you have a great week.

 

[George Stolz]

"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 ?

That would be the David I have gotten used to on the forum. For some reason, it appears you started the topic to get confirmation on your decision, and found none, and got angry. If appearances have deceived us, then so be it.

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.

I figured someone would be along to point out what seem to be hypocritical posts of mine. Here it is as I see it. I saw a string of posts. I responded with a heartfelt bit of advice, which was quickly dismissed without response, to defend what looked to be indefensible behavior. So, the reaction that followed from me was in line with, "If my advice (good or bad) isn't good enough, fine."

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.

Then I guess this is something that you can educate and enlighten them on for future events, now that you know the truth for certain.

If you disagree with the NEC's take on it, you can push for an amendment at the local level or propose changing the NEC at the NFPA's level. In either case, it's important: if it's in print before the installation starts, you have grounds to fail it. Otherwise, you're essentially making stuff up as you go, costing contractors money and aggravation.

 

[George Stolz]

I think this all comes back down to a prime rule for inspectors: cite the correct section, or the communication process shuts down.

According to the last couple of posts from David, it appears that 230.71 shouldn't have been on the ticket.

From my seat, it appears that the installation should have failed for a violation of 230.42(A). That would have required presentation of a load calc to prove or disprove the violation, and that would have been the end of it.

Six handles (or the capability of seven) should never have entered the picture at all, IMO.

 

[dnem]

I figured someone would be along to point out what seem to be hypocritical posts of mine. Here it is as I see it. I saw a string of posts. I responded with a heartfelt bit of advice, which was quickly dismissed without response, to defend what looked to be indefensible behavior. So, the reaction that followed from me was in line with, "If my advice (good or bad) isn't good enough, fine."

"quickly dismissed without response"

This is the 11th page on this thread in about 6 days time. The total number of responses needed has been more than the time I have. I jump in whenever I get a chance but I also need time to think about each point before posting. This past weekend I was jumping on and off the web site, but otherr things in life demand time also.

This post is coming after a batch of about a dozen phone calls in the first hour and a half this morning. And of course we're short handed again. Just typing this post to this point has required me to stop and answer 3 different phone calls. I have my route to set and the route of a part time guy to help him out too. Help out with a plan review, look up some prints and search out so info and get out of here in time to have the time to do proper inspection on my route.

"quickly dismissed without response"

Unfortunately I'm going to do that to you again.

You have brought up that my manner on this thread is combative.
You don't appear to see a problem with others saying anything they feel like.
I guess I'm held to a different standard.
Is it because I'm an inspector or because I'm not part of the good old boys club or is there another reason ?

Do you think you are a fair person ?
Let me ask you why you have no comment about this:

?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

That would be the David I have gotten used to on the forum. For some reason, it appears you started the topic to get confirmation on your decision, and found none, and got angry.

You don't have to guess at what comments I was responding to. It's all right there in the beginning of the thread. From Mikes first post he let everybody know how he handles disagreements with inspectors. And right up to this very page #11 both Mike and Bob have continued.

David

 

[dnem]

?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.

David I still stand by my post, I happened to be away from my code book when I posted before but I assumed you had one and would know the rules.

Here is the code section I was thinking of.

Quote:
230.90 Exception No. 3: Two to six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent device to provide the overload protection. The sum of the ratings of the circuit breakers or fuses shall be permitted to exceed the ampacity of the service conductors, provided the calculated load does not exceed the ampacity of the service conductors.



I am not trying to fool anyone.

That section does specifically and directly allow the ratings of the OCPDs to exceed the the conductor rating.

"I assumed you had one and would know the rules"

I do know the rules and 240.4(B) is one of them.

"That section does specifically and directly allow the ratings of the OCPDs to exceed the the conductor rating."

Don't play dumb with me. You know exactly what you're saying. And you know that 230.90(A)x3 doesn't allow unlimited load. I stated that the load calcs were not provided and as long as the contractor sticks to Table310.15(B)(6) they don't need to provide any. 99.9% of all our residential services go in according to Table310.15(B)(6) without any complications.

There is no specifically and directly in 230.90(A)x3 and you know it. You've shown from past threads that you know it. But right now you're pissed at me so you're saying things that you know aren't true. You appear to say certain things only to bait a response and possibly aslo to try to score points with anyone that doesn't think thru the post completely.

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.

You sound like a DIY when you start adding up breakers to determine the load.

Given what you describe you would be within your authority to ask for load calculations.

If they provide load calcs that are under the the conductor rating than yes this service is legal and must pass.

If they do not provide load calcs than yes I would not pass it and the citation would be 230.90 Exception 3.

The 'red tag' would not have anyting to do with lack of phone numbers, KOs not knocked out or emtpty spaces that someone may in the future break he rules with.

"You sound like a DIY when you start adding up breakers to determine the load"

When you don't have load calcs, how else would you quick check to see if there might be a problem ? If I added up all the breakers and they came to less than 400 amps on para 4/0 AL, why would I ask for load calcs ?

Do you consider the use of basic logic to be "DIY" ?
Every single situation doesn't require a rocket scientist to quick check whether or not to look more closely at the install.

"The 'red tag' would not have anyting to do with lack of phone numbers"

I got a suggestion on this thread that the inspection should never been performed and that's the reason that I brought up a phone number. I can't undo the miles that I've driven to get to the jobsite. I don't get to erase the time spent driving or checking out the install/opening panels etc. When a phone number is available it can improve a situation and just maybe add enough info to change the situation from a Not Approved to an Approved.

There's no red tags for lack of phone number. But we do have reinspection fees. If one of us is called out on an inspection and it does not end with an Approval, we may have to return for another inspection for the same item. A reinspection fee would go on the contractors permit. A phone number just might bring enough info to change that outcome.

David

 

[sandsnow]

90.4

That seems to be the main irritant here.

After some thinking about it I came up with this.

90.4 can be used, but in conjunction with a section that requires judgement. I'm thinking something like 230.70(A)(1). What is "nearest the point of entry"? It's different all over.

I don't think 230.71(A) is a section that requires interpretation. To me it's black and white.

Just my 2 1/2 cents worth.

 

[petersonra]

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of serviceentrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception Nos.
1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or
sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than
six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a
single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or
on a switchboard.

I do not see anything in this section that says you cannot have provision for more than 6 disconencts, just that you cannot have in excess of 6 disconnects.

 

[iwire]

David

Don't play dumb with me. You know exactly what you're saying. And you know that 230.90(A)x3 doesn't allow unlimited load. I stated that the load calcs were not provided and as long as the contractor sticks to Table310.15(B)(6) they don't need to provide any. 99.9% of all our residential services go in according to Table310.15(B)(6) without any complications.

I am not playing dumb, it is my belief that 230.90(A)x(3) allows us to use any amount of OCPDs with any size conductor provided the calculated load does not exceed the capacity of conductors.

Here is a very typical service on a multi family in this area.

There are literally tens of thousands of similar services.

As you can see it is new, the riser contains a set of conductors probably in the 250 amp range.

The total OCP for this service is 700 amps.....five 100s and a 200.

This is a code compliant installation by virtue of 230.90(A)x(3).

I ask you this.

If x(3) is limited as you believe to 240.4(B) and (C) what is 230.90(A)x(2) about?

x(2) tells us we can use 240.4(B) and (C)

x(3) tells us we don't even have to do that if we respect the calculated load.

I will be on vacation and will have limited access to the Internet, don't take my absence from this thread lead you to believe I agree with your interpretation of 230.90(A)x(3).

 

[jwelectric]

?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

You don't have to guess at what comments I was responding to. It's all right there in the beginning of the thread. From Mikes first post he let everybody know how he handles disagreements with inspectors. And right up to this very page #11 both Mike and Bob have continued. David

Once again I stand by my statement that should any inspector cite me for a violation to 90.4 I will disregard their attempt of power and treat it for what it is, trash.
There is no way that any electrical contractor in this nation could violate 90.4 so why would a professional such as an inspector try to cite the section as a violation?

In your original post you ask this question:

4] Do you think failing a push-in MLO with more than 6 breaker slots is a correct use of 90.4 ?

And I made a response that must have rubbed you ego a little because you came back with holding a job up.

And in Medina County Ohio all that would get you was a house that the power company would refuse to energize. You wouldn't get a meter without a passing inspection.

Now rather than acting like a child would you rather have an intelligent adult discussion ? David

When an inspector starts thinking that he has some kind of power to cost me undue expense then it is time for me to step forward and take action to end this type of behavior. This would be a flagrant misuse of their position and I would seek retribution in civil court and yes I can afford to do it.
You held the job in your original post until the electrical contractor changed a compliant installation to suit your desire again a flagrant misuse of your position.
Are you intending on reimbursing the electrical contractor for the money he lost changing this installation?
I would guess based on the size of this service that the general contractor is paying close to $100 a day in interest on this job. Are you going to reimburse the general for any loses?
No.
What you are going to do is try to make yourself look good by pointing toward Bob and me as the bad people in this thread. Neither one of these guys will roll over and play dead so they both have a bad attitude and just won?t play fair. Point toward me all you want to, I will stand on my post as outlined here.

You made a mistake, we all do, and this is why there is an eraser on pencils. There is no shame in making a mistake the shame comes in trying to justify it or trying to point the blame somewhere else.

Now do the right thing and give this poor old electrican that is trying to feed his family the money that he lost trying to figure out what you wanted instead of doing a compliant installation.
.

 

[RB1]

David,

According to Rule 20 of the UL Marking Guide for Panelboards.

A panelboard with the neutral insulated from the enclosure may be marked "Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six main disconnecting means are provided" when the following conditions are met:

A. There must be at least one combination of switching units that can be mounted to occupy all available space for switching units; and, whether by using handle ties or similar devices, not more than six main disconnects will result (including factory installed disconnects).

B. With this combination of switching units, no more than six overcurrent-protective devices will be connected to each ungrounded service conductor.

Note that a panelboard marked "Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than disconnecting means are provided" may permit some combinations of switching units varying in ampere ratings and physical size that would exceed the six disconnect rule on a completely filled panelboard. The six disconnect rule can be exceeded if handle ties are not installed where needed.

If the panelboard in question does not meet this criteria I would call UL and see if the manufacturer is improperly labeling their equipment. Otherwise, if the electrical contractor has installed properly labeled equipment, in accordance with its listing and labeling, I don't think it is fair or appropriate to reject the installation, certainly not on the grounds of 90.4. Cite the appropriate code Section 110.3(B) for example. Then you can justify that interpretaton of the code via 90.4. Be careful though, if you cite 90.4 more than twice a year you don't know what your doing.

Ron
Tennessee Chapter IAEI

 

[Johnmcca]

Ron, your answer seems well reasoned, and as an inspector perhaps you can help me understand the code, David hasn't. Doesn't 90.4 just give the ultimate AHJ the power (or authority) to adopt he NEC and modify if they desire. It has nothing at all to do with my installation as long as I follow the published codes not the ones made up, as the inspectors personal interpretation of the codes? If you want to cite 90.4 it shoud also refrence the local AHJ rule that is in conflict with the NEC ,if the citation is to make any sense, and then it is really only a local violation not necessarily a NEC violation.
"Be careful though, if you cite 90.4 more than twice a year you don't know what your doing."

 

[George Stolz]

The total number of responses needed has been more than the time I have. I jump in whenever I get a chance but I also need time to think about each point before posting. This past weekend I was jumping on and off the web site, but other things in life demand time also.

Meanwhile, your wife is not amused at the exuberance with which you run in to check the computer instead of spending "quality time" watching "What Not To Wear" re-runs. I've been there, I understand completely.

Just typing this post to this point has required me to stop and answer 3 different phone calls.

This will always be here when you get time. I wouldn't let it rule your life, or add strain to a hectic day. Just as Bob's post did, your "busy" post clues us in to your schedule, so don't get heartburn over it. I can tell you're as addicted as I am.

Is it (the combative reputation) because I'm an inspector or because I'm not part of the good old boys club or is there another reason ?

There is no good ole boys club. Bob and Mike and I have the most vicious rock-throwing fights around here against each other. On that note, consider yourself part of the club, in that case.

Do you think you are a fair person ?
Let me ask you why you have no comment about this:

I then made a comment that I stand by that a citation for 90.4 I will disregard and throw in the trash.

Because I agree with the sentiment. It is physically impossible for an electrician to violate 90.4.

You called this thread "230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel".

Mike stated that a red-tag citing 90.4 deserved a quick trip to the dumpster. If that was the violation, Mike's correct. If the violation was 230.71 when viewed through 90.4, then at least what you're saying makes sense (purely in a grammatical sense).

But you'd have to use fifteen gallons of 90.4 laced with vodka to swallow it. 230.71 plainly doesn't say what you want it to.

 

[George Stolz]

I stated that the load calcs were not provided and as long as the contractor sticks to Table310.15(B)(6) they don't need to provide any.

Table 310.15(B)(6) is step two, David. You have to know the calculated load before you can use it.

Before you gasp, I will say I install services all the time on the Good Ole Boy schedule. 100A is on the bid, and this is a small house. 200A is on the bid, and this is a large tract home.

99.9% of all our residential services go in according to Table310.15(B)(6) without any complications.

You might want to consider recommending a limit to that grace. 200A is the limit of Fort Collins, CO. All services over 200A require a load calculation on file at the city. I bet it's worth a couple dollars more for a permit, too.

You sound like a DIY when you start adding up breakers to determine the load.

When you don't have load calcs, how else would you quick check to see if there might be a problem ?

In Bob's defense, many a DIY'er rolls through here counting breakers in a 42 space panel to tell us their house has a billion amps of load.

In David's defense, 230.80 tells us to define our service rating just that way.

 

[Johnmcca]

George, does 230.80 tell us to add up the ampacity of all the breakers? I think not! We have to be able to supply the computed load, but not the total ampacity of all OCPD's on the panel. Unless there is a difference due to 90.4 in Fort Collins.