400 amp service w/no main.

[iwire]

Was it this one?

 

[M. D.]

Yup , that is the one I sort of remembered

 

[M. D.]

Obviously a mistake was made .

 

[mikeames]

Some panels like the split bus panels (Appliances on top, general and lighting on the bottom) have stickers right on the breaker KO's that say " If used as service equipment "DO NOT REMOVE".

 

[George Stolz]

I've just read this through. I've seen Romeo around on the forum, and I know he does his best, and I appreciate his measured responses to some of the things said. It's not easy voicing an unpopular emotion, and I think he did well. So, first off, kudos.

Now, here is the thing I am going to offer about this; every time this discussion comes up, it invariably leads to "What if someone installs a 7th breaker?"

My response, setting the six-handle rule aside for a moment (which I have always faithfully respected): So what?

Is a 7 handle service unsafe? We're allowed more than six for some purposes, mentioned in 230.71. It just tickles me to hear the "horrors! horrors!" hand-wringing because a code rule could be violated at some point in time.

We take the time to learn the rules, adhere to them as best we can, so we can feel good. I think it's the prospect that someone is out there who doesn't care about the rules, which we hold dear, that angers us more than the act itself.

I've never seen a fireman that I thought could only throw six handles in an emergency situation.

Just food for thought.

 

[Mike01]

just some food for thought

just some food for thought

This reminds me of a project (currently on-going) where initially when the installation was done in 1976 according to the existing drawings there was a 225Kva transformer that was feeding what they called a ?gutter? the transformer secondary conductors were then tapped (a code violation now) and served multiple disconnects now the disconnects did comply with the rules of xfmr overcurrent protection according to table 450.3(b) (primary protection only) since that time they added concessions stands and to my surprise after a field visit to examine existing conditions and review the scope of work to begin to write a design narrative I discovered that there had been some modifications over the last 31 years they have since added multiple concessions and to provide power to the 100A MCB panels at the individual concessions they just tapped the feeder again, and again where they needed power (a 225Kva xfmr primary protection only with 7-100A/4P. 1-200A/4P, and 1-400A/4P Disc. Sw. the 400A load was currently not being used but the switch and panelboard still remained), . By the time I concluded my field survey I found this at multiple (4) different locations all with different set-ups, not to mention the transformer, gutter and disconnects are located in a mechanical enclosed Mezzanines that consists of two large air handlers, with a partially grated floor used for the AHU return air, I am still trying to find out if this is a violation or not as there is a MCC adjacent to the installation that serves the AHU?s I believe the MCC can stay but the remaining equipment once brought up to code will have to be relocated as it is located in an environmental air space and does not serve the local equipment.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Now, here is the thing I am going to offer about this; every time this discussion comes up, it invariably leads to "What if someone installs a 7th breaker?"

Is a 7 handle service unsafe? We're allowed more than six for some purposes, mentioned in 230.71. It just tickles me to hear the "horrors! horrors!" hand-wringing because a code rule could be violated at some point in time.

Interesting that you say this because I was just downstairs telling my wife how absurd it is to think that a fireman or anyone else couldn't turn off an entire 42 circuit panel in 5 seconds. Many of them just pull the meter anyway, of course if there are CT's that won't work....

I am not advocating breaking the rules nor do I ever break this one but as George says "Big Deal". There are a lot more issues to be concerned about than this--- like the lack of EGC on those outdoor post lights in a recent thread.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

I have been in this game a LONGGGGGGG time and have always thought MLO service panels were "weak links" and a major oversight by CMPs, however, I must admot I have not actually witnesses a "meltdown" in thes e many yeasrs of inspecting. Some fellows from areas with heaver loads might.

Has anyone actually experienced a problem with this ?

Anyone ?

 

[dnem]

David, Larry. I would say that 18 is not the limit.

Some shunt trip breakers use 4 spaces, that brings us to 24 spaces needed to reach six disconnects.

Yes, very true
I just saw another one of those 4 slot 3 pole shunt breakers yesterday

 

[dnem]

Now, here is the thing I am going to offer about this; every time this discussion comes up, it invariably leads to "What if someone installs a 7th breaker?"

My response, setting the six-handle rule aside for a moment (which I have always faithfully respected): So what?

Is a 7 handle service unsafe? We're allowed more than six for some purposes, mentioned in 230.71. It just tickles me to hear the "horrors! horrors!" hand-wringing because a code rule could be violated at some point in time.

Interesting that you say this because I was just downstairs telling my wife how absurd it is to think that a fireman or anyone else couldn't turn off an entire 42 circuit panel in 5 seconds. Many of them just pull the meter anyway, of course if there are CT's that won't work....

I am not advocating breaking the rules nor do I ever break this one but as George says "Big Deal". There are a lot more issues to be concerned about than this--- like the lack of EGC on those outdoor post lights in a recent thread.

I agree !
We?re not talking about something on the same level as GFCI protection against electrocution or lighting on a stairway or something else of a serious safety nature.

David

 

[dnem]

First, the NEC does not apply to the manufacturing of a panelboard.

Second, how do you know that the manufacturer did not submit "some" combination of breakers and handle ties that provides for only 6 operations of the hand?

While I don't think it is a good design to for this 40 circuit MLO panel application, I cannot call it a 110.3(B) code violation if I see the UL listing allows it.

“First, the NEC does not apply to the manufacturing of a panelboard.”
True, the NEC doesn’t apply to the manufacturing of a panel board but the UL whitebook does apply and inspectors are charged with enforcing
1) NEC [plus local/state code if applicable]
2) approved engineering prints [if applicable to the particular job]
3) manufacturers specs
The manufacturers specs include complying with UL listing limitations.

Also the inspector doesn’t include the factory installed wiring of equipment in his inspection. . The internals of equipment are covered by compliance with the UL listing. . But if it is obvious by a quick look at the equipment that it is not in compliance with its UL listing, then it has not complied with manufacturers specs.

The UL delivers Whitebooks to us inspectors free of charge because they want us to know what the manufacturers are required to comply with. . I only fault UL in that they don’t also provide explanatory material or easy access to their staff for answers to questions.

“While I don't think it is a good design to for this 40 circuit MLO panel application, I cannot call it a 110.3(B) code violation if I see the UL listing allows it.”

As of right now, I don’t believe UL listing allows it.

David

 

[jim dungar]

As of right now, I don?t believe UL listing allows it.

So you are still working on your own personal beliefs.

Have you gone to any local electrical supply house and looked at the MLO panels they have in inventory? I have seen many brands (SQD, C-H, and Siemens included) that all have UL labels on panels similar to the one under discussion. It is unlikely that most manufacturers have been mis-applying UL labels for so many years.

Have you notified UL about this supposedly mis-applied label?

 

[dnem]

So you are still working on your own personal beliefs.

It's not working on personal beliefs. . It's working with the information that you have. . The best information that I have says that the panel discribed by the original poster has been installed in violation of its UL listing.

Have you gone to any local electrical supply house and looked at the MLO panels they have in inventory? I have seen many brands (SQD, C-H, and Siemens included) that all have UL labels on panels similar to the one under discussion. It is unlikely that most manufacturers have been mis-applying UL labels for so many years.

There are certainly many MLOs that are listed as suitable for service equipment. . Are you specifically asking me about 40 and 42 slot MLO panels ?

Have you notified UL about this supposedly mis-applied label?

I have discussed this with UL representatives and come away very unhappy with their replies.

Read this thread

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=80176

David

 

[jim dungar]

It's not working on personal beliefs. . It's working with the information that you have. . The best information that I have says that the panel discribed by the original poster has been installed in violation of its UL listing.

What was Ul's reponse when you told them a manufacturer had mis-applied a label?

There are certainly many MLOs that are listed as suitable for service equipment. . Are you specifically asking me about 40 and 42 slot MLO panels ?

Yes, have you looked at UL labels on any new MLO panels with 30-40 circuits?

I have discussed this with UL representatives and come away very unhappy with their replies.

That thread seems only to address the NEC definitions of panelboards and the "recent" NEC prohibition of not more than 2 disconnects for a residence.

 

[JohnE]

Thank you for your response. That is what I am doing now, I expect to hear from the power company Eng. tomorrow.The breakers have 10,000 AIC rating,if the available fault current does not exceed 10,000 the service will pass.

Just to let everyone know, I am not a this is my town kind of inspector, if I am not able to provide a code section that has been violated I will pass the job.

Let me start by saying I know Romeo personally, and I like and respect him very much. And he is a good and thorough inspector.

But I have to ask: Are you checking the AIC rating for every installation? Or are you doing so for a hidden agenda? If he had agreed to change the original installation to one with a main, would you have checked the AIC rating? With all due respect, it seems like you are doing this because you "don't like" the install. (I don't blame you for not liking it, BTW)

And please don't take this out on me next time I'm in town.

 

[dnem]

What was Ul's reponse when you told them a manufacturer had mis-applied a label?

A misapplied manufacturers label was not an issue on that thread and in my conversation with UL. . I never asked that question. . But what is apparent by the conversation is lack of a clear explanation about the correct application of UL Whitebook Panel Marking Guide page 9 item 20A. . I didn't feel that the representative that UL directed me to speak to, I didn't feel that person understood his own companys listing requirements.

Yes, have you looked at UL labels on any new MLO panels with 30-40 circuits?

No, but I'm glad you suggested it because now I'm going to do that.

That thread seems only to address the NEC definitions of panelboards and the "recent" NEC prohibition of not more than 2 disconnects for a residence.

There is no 2 disconnect limit for a residence.
The limit for all buildings is 6.

David

 

[jim dungar]

There is no 2 disconnect limit for a residence.

My mistake, this is a Wisconsin rule.

 

[iwire]

The limit for all buildings is 6.
David

Now David I know that you know we can have more than 6 disconnects in one location and we can certainly have more than 6 service disconnects on the same building in different locations.

 

[dnem]

Now David I know that you know we can have more than 6 disconnects in one location and we can certainly have more than 6 service disconnects on the same building in different locations.

But wasn't my sentence a correct way to state the general rule ?
One service 230.2 with 6 disconnects max 230.71 would be the general rule

You would need "special permission" for 6 per each separately addressed building occupant, 230.2(B)(1).

But we all know that in the real world 230.(B)(1) is the usual and asking for "special permission" consists of an engineer including it on the prints that go in to the building department for plan review.

David

 

[romeo]

400 amp service w/no main

400 amp service w/no main

Let me start by saying I know Romeo personally, and I like and respect him very much. And he is a good and thorough inspector.

But I have to ask: Are you checking the AIC rating for every installation? Or are you doing so for a hidden agenda? If he had agreed to change the original installation to one with a main, would you have checked the AIC rating? With all due respect, it seems like you are doing this because you "don't like" the install. (I don't blame you for not liking it, BTW)

And please don't take this out on me next time I'm in town.

John, thank you for the kind words. You are always welcome in town,I doubt that I could ever find a violation with your work,but I must admit I would get a chuckle out of it if I did.

BTW People from National Grid never got back to me about the transformer available amps.

Also the electrical contractor voluntarily installed a panel with a main breaker.