Hypothetical-Table 310.15(B)(6)

[hurk27]

Well I guess we could sum this thread up by saying, 2/0 SECs from a 200 amp meter to a double lugged 200 amp main in the first panel then 2/0 to the 200 amp main in a second panel is code compliant, as long as the calculated load is below the rating of the conductors.

230.90(A) exception 3 allows the installation

230.82(1) also allows the installation "other current-limiting devices."
which the 200 amp main in the second panel is "other current-limiting devices"

90.8(A) or (B) is vague and un enforceable.

Now we also for the most part agree most of us would not do an install like this, My own feelings would be not where these SEC's enter a dwelling, I don't see a problem outside no more then having unprotected SEC's outside, but in a dwelling where Joe home owner could add circuits I wouldn't, on industrial or commercial I see it all the time. very common on the back of a strip mall to see a trough with the riser pipe out the top, and maybe 3/0 into the trough with 4 or 5 100 amp meters dropped out of the bottom each tapped to the 3/0, calculated load never done yet they are still there.

So as in the Myth Busters own words, "This myth is busted"

 

[jetlag]

Well I guess we could sum this thread up by saying, 2/0 SECs from a 200 amp meter to a double lugged 200 amp main in the first panel then 2/0 to the 200 amp main in a second panel is code compliant, as long as the calculated load is below the rating of the conductors.

230.90(A) exception 3 allows the installation

230.82(1) also allows the installation "other current-limiting devices."
which the 200 amp main in the second panel is "other current-limiting devices"

90.8(A) or (B) is vague and un enforceable.

Now we also for the most part agree most of us would not do an install like this, My own feelings would be not where these SEC's enter a dwelling, I don't see a problem outside no more then having unprotected SEC's outside, but in a dwelling where Joe home owner could add circuits I wouldn't, on industrial or commercial I see it all the time. very common on the back of a strip mall to see a trough with the riser pipe out the top, and maybe 3/0 into the trough with 4 or 5 100 amp meters dropped out of the bottom each tapped to the 3/0, calculated load never done yet they are still there.

So as in the Myth Busters own words, "This myth is busted"

Sounds good to me :grin:

 

[LEO2854]

90.8(A) is just wasted ink, it is simply a comment, not a requirement.

Roger

90.8(A) or (B) is vague and un enforceable.

Gentelmen . I have read ARTICLE 90 over an over. Nowhere have i found in ARTICLE 90 That it Is not enforcable,, can i be wrong ? Yes.
But i have read through several times and can not see how the entire article can be ignored.

In fact where i live the 2008 massachusetts Electrical Code has three AMENDMETS to ARTICLE 90 to the 2008 NEC .
How would some rules of ARTICLE 90 be enforcable and others not?

As for the "OP" I am stiil looking for the answer.
I have looked through ARTICLE 230 220 408 and can not find a way to
disallow this install
Hopefully this question will not be on someones Master Electricians Exam
You would think after 113 years of NEC History this type of install would have come up:grin:

 

[LEO2854]

I hope this Question does not end up on someones Master Electricians Exam:grin:

 

[hurk27]

Gentlemen . I have read ARTICLE 90 over an over. Nowhere have i found in ARTICLE 90 That it Is not enforceable,, can i be wrong ? Yes.
But i have read through several times and can not see how the entire article can be ignored.

In fact where i live the 2008 Massachusetts Electrical Code has three AMENDMENTS to ARTICLE 90 to the 2008 NEC .
How would some rules of ARTICLE 90 be enforceable and others not?

As for the "OP" I am still looking for the answer.
I have looked through ARTICLE 230 220 408 and can not find a way to
disallow this install
Hopefully this question will not be on someones Master Electricians Exam
You would think after 113 years of NEC History this type of install would have come up:grin:

Because 90.8(A) and (B) does not define how much, how little, how far, or how close.

For a local unit of government to adopt a code as law there must be things spelled out to say what one must follow to obtain compliance with that law, there is nothing in this article that gives us any solid definition on how much extra we must provide for the future expansion thus can not be enforced.

To say you can't speed on road X means nothing if speed is not defined, to say you must adhere to the posted speed limits gives us this definition of what we must follow.

Indiana has removed most of 90 and added amendments to what was left, and also of the many other areas of the NEC to which is not enforceable.

I think it was Bob (Iwire) who posted a list of most of these non-enforceable parts of the NEC

just like "Workmanship" it has no definition to what it means, what we think it means, means nothing in law. it has to have a definition as to what we must follow, not what someone thinks we must follow.

Yes as Roger said, allot of wasted ink.

 

[LEO2854]

Because 90.8(A) and (B) does not define how much, how little, how far, or how close.

For a local unit of government to adopt a code as law there must be things spelled out to say what one must follow to obtain compliance with that law, there is nothing in this article that gives us any solid definition on how much extra we must provide for the future expansion thus can not be enforced.

To say you can't speed on road X means nothing if speed is not defined, to say you must adhere to the posted speed limits gives us this definition of what we must follow.

Indiana has removed most of 90 and added amendments to what was left, and also of the many other areas of the NEC to which is not enforceable.

I think it was Bob (Iwire) who posted a list of most of these non-enforceable parts of the NEC

just like "Workmanship" it has no definition to what it means, what we think it means, means nothing in law. it has to have a definition as to what we must follow, not what someone thinks we must follow.

Yes as Roger said, allot of wasted ink.

[I think it was Bob (Iwire) who posted a list of most of these non-enforceable parts of the NEC]

Then respecfully i would ask that Bob ""IWIRE" Re post that list For the perpose of this thread .

I do not insist on the enforsment of ARTICLE 90 but i have read ARTICLE 90 and do not see where it states that ARTICLE 90 is not enforcable
.And The massachusetts Electrical code AMENMENTS do not state that ARTICLE 90 IS Not Enforcible

 

[roger]

[I think it was Bob (Iwire) who posted a list of most of these non-enforceable parts of the

That is from the "Style Manual"

I do not insist on the enforsment of ARTICLE 90 but i have read ARTICLE 90 and do not see where it states that ARTICLE 90 is not enforcable
.And The massachusetts Electrical code AMENMENTS do not state that ARTICLE 90 IS Not Enforcible

Article 90 is the introduction and nothing more, re-read 90.3 and notice what chapters contain the rules, article 90 is not one of them.

Roger

 

[elohr46]

With 400 amps of load you won't need to worry about the lugs. The #2/0 conductors would probably go first.

But back on topic, the issue here is not whether or not this is a good design, it's whether or not the installation is code compliant. I think that we all agree that we would find a better way to install this service.

I vote for code compliant, bad and costly design. Even with a better design every installer after is still responsible to do load calcs before he adds to the existing equipment.

 

[jetlag]

But...

...the sentence with panelboard applies only to the main feeder, not SE/SL conductors.

​

When the conductors get fried, stand there and tell them " If you were a main feeder I would not have fried you , Im sorry , but since you are a service entrance the code allowed my to fry you good " :grin::grin:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The only problem I see is 230.70(A)(1).

 

[hurk27]

[I think it was Bob (Iwire) who posted a list of most of these non-enforceable parts of the NEC]

Then respecfully i would ask that Bob ""IWIRE" Re post that list For the perpose of this thread .

I do not insist on the enforsment of ARTICLE 90 but i have read ARTICLE 90 and do not see where it states that ARTICLE 90 is not enforcable
.And The massachusetts Electrical code AMENMENTS do not state that ARTICLE 90 IS Not Enforcible

Here is that list that Bob posted from another thread, Hope Bob dosent mind

 

[roger]

Here is that list that Bob posted from another thread, Hope Bob dosent mind

I think this was covered in post #67, but you may need to look a little for it.

See Table 2.2.2.3

Roger

 

[hurk27]

I think this was covered in post #67, but you may need to look a little for it.

See Table 2.2.2.3

Roger

I missed your post 67:roll: I promise I will not do it again

At our state level we were discussing this area and it was asked why do they put these terms in the NEC and other codes, and the answer that was given was that it is up to the adopting parties of government to amend these specific areas to be enforceable by adding the wording and direction needed to make it an enforceable law.

We must keep in mind that not every state uses the same verbiage to write law, so this is why it is important that the NEC gets amended properly in each and every state to make it enforceable

The the NEC is only a model code that just gives an example to what is considered as a safe installation and or practices of the install, 90.8(B) is a good example of code that can be changed in the adopting process, and that some states have changed such a code, as requiring on a new building install that no more then 80% of breaker spaces can be used in a main service panel, but this would be up to the adopting party to amend it for a local requirement, rare but I have heard there are some areas of the country that actually have requirements like this, but also there are many areas that don't know or take the time to make these changes and it causes problems when local inspectors try to use these codes to enforce something they don't understand why its in the NEC, The NEC is really a guide that needs changes to be able to become a law.

 

[roger]

90.8(B) is a good example of code that can be changed in the adopting process.

Why would there be a need to amend 90.8(B), it is not a rule and in fact, it is just telling us that there are rules elsewhere in the code.

(B) Number of Circuits in Enclosures. It is elsewhere provided in this Code that the number of wires and circuits confined in a single enclosure be varyingly restricted. Limiting the number of circuits in a single enclosure minimizes the effects from a short circuit or ground fault in one circuit.

Article 90 does not contain a set of rules.

Roger

 

[jetlag]

I hope this Question does not end up on someones Master Electricians Exam:grin:

It was covered in my license preparation class in 1992 and I thought it was a stupid thing for for the code to allow then and I am of the same opinion now . The total for the 2 to 6 breakers should not exceed that of an allowed single breaker. The exception would be if we go to the next higher breaker on each of the 2 to 6 breakers because the code allows that when the calculated load is between 2 breaker sizes, having said that, if the total rating of the breakers is a little above the ampacity of the SE because of that , I can see an exception for that amount only . That would still give a little extra amps on each breaker that some one might add , but just starting out in the beginning doubling or quadruple the the breakers above the ampacity of the SE would be a "no can do" .

 

[jetlag]

I waited to long to edit in my previous post but by breakers I was refering to service disconnects . If I didnt make that clear someone will try to use that to discredit my post , I am getting smarter :grin::grin:

 

[roger]

I waited to long to edit in my previous post but by breakers I was refering to service disconnects . If I didnt make that clear someone will try to use that to discredit my post , I am getting smarter :grin::grin:

But you still haven't answered my question about how you are going to control what happens after you leave the job.

Roger

 

[jetlag]

But you still haven't answered my question about how you are going to control what happens after you leave the job.

Roger

I cant control it thats why I disagree with the code allowing something that dangerous . If you rented a space in a strip shoping center that had a 100 amp panel and you wanted to bring in your eqipt to plug in would not you assume it was ok because the 100 would trip if you over load it . The electrician that comes cant calculate the load for the other five units some are closed some are vacant some dont want him going all through their business. So why should he be reqiuired to do that and also go pull the cover off the encloser serving the 6 meters to try to decide ? So he adds a couple of 30 amp circuits and the main se to all the meters fries. I would blame the code and the AHJ that passed it for that. The NEC didnt mind forcing us to run a neutral to every switch just to stop a DYI from using the egc for a neutral , But a code this dangerous gets no attention ,

 

[roger]

I cant control it thats why I disagree with the code allowing something that dangerous . If you rented a space in a strip shoping center that had a 100 amp panel and you wanted to bring in your eqipt to plug in would not you assume it was ok because the 100 would trip if you over load it . The electrician that comes cant calculate the load for the other five units some are closed some are vacant some dont want him going all through their business. So why should he be reqiuired to do that and also go pull the cover off the encloser serving the 6 meters to try to decide ? So he adds a couple of 30 amp circuits and the main se to all the meters fries. I would blame the code and the AHJ that passed it for that. The NEC didnt mind forcing us to run a neutral to every switch just to stop a DYI from using the egc for a neutral , But a code this dangerous gets no attention ,

So now let's revisit the 150 amp fusible disconnect, you can't stop someone from over fusing it after you are gone no more than you can stop somebody from overload this sevice after you are gone can you?

Roger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Jet, the code allows a 200 amp main lug panel as the main disconnecting means as long as there are no more than 6 means of disconnect. Say I install 4 breakers which has a calculated load of 190 amps.

The next guy comes in and adds a sub panel for the addition and puts a 100 amp breaker in there. Now the calculated load of the service has jumped up over 200 amps. No main breaker to protect it--

Is this any different. Even if I install 6 disconnect (breakers) what is to stop someone from adding the seventh.