Need suggestion for 125A bolt on circuit breaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is one reason why I Line is better. Not that buying just one breaker is necessarily cheap, but no need for adapter parts. Then if you have a 30 year old I line you want to add a breaker or two you just buy a small main lug panel and the breakers you need and even a couple spares, for less then just one of them would have cost you, and the breakers will fit the 30 year old panel with no adapters necessary.

I dont disagree. Another benefit of I-line is its...."more reasonable" to add a breaker hot to a MLO service panel than anything bolt on. Although I think in some situations there is a benefit to being able to put standard miniature series breakers in a large panel. For example, the situation I was mentioning a few posts ago was a 1000 amp P4 with several dozen 100 amp miniatures. Not sure you could do that with an I-line.
 
A few years ago I had to get a strap kit to put a few more BL breakers in a P4. I dug around in my email for the price, but couldnt find it. Maybe somewhere around $400 (would mount 2 - 3 poles) is the best I can remember.
I went from BL to NG, the kit was $600. Three fingers and the plastic holder.
 
I dont disagree. Another benefit of I-line is its...."more reasonable" to add a breaker hot to a MLO service panel than anything bolt on. Although I think in some situations there is a benefit to being able to put standard miniature series breakers in a large panel. For example, the situation I was mentioning a few posts ago was a 1000 amp P4 with several dozen 100 amp miniatures. Not sure you could do that with an I-line.
I have never seen one in the wild, but in the catalog there is a I line module that takes up 4.5" of breaker space just like a typical >225 amp breaker, and you can mount six single pole QO breakers in it. I seem to recall they are limited to no more then 30 amp branch breakers though.
 
I like I-Line for sure.

But the only way it pays for itself is in places with frequent changes.

While I agree easier to hot swap I-Line breakers but it is still live work and in all likelihood prohibited.
 
Trust me I've considered running on the 100A considering that some of my measured values add up to 93A (new motor included, but measured on a separate circuit). The FLA adds up to 113A.

Do circuit breakers typically open exactly at their rated value or is more of a nominal number like most electrical values?

My place of work is not shy of fudging things to "get it to work," but I am afraid of sag on the motor as it heats up. As it gets warmer it starts to pull more amps bringing us closer to that 100A threshold. We can't have the circuit breaker constantly "popping" open considering its running our cooling system on our dynamometers.

Let me know what you guys think.

In theory, your 100 amp breaker will take 100 amps forever. In practice, I have had trouble with breakers holding even at 80% - this was a very hot greenhouse. The client ended up putting a bunch of fans blowing at the panelboards and they held then :angel: Then there are other factors such as sagging utility voltage which will typically make an inductive load pull more current, adjacent breakers heavily loaded adding heat to the mix, the motor working "hard" for whatever reason......

Let us know what you decide to do and if you can get those parts, how much they are.
 
In theory, your 100 amp breaker will take 100 amps forever. In practice, I have had trouble with breakers holding even at 80% - this was a very hot greenhouse. The client ended up putting a bunch of fans blowing at the panelboards and they held then :angel: Then there are other factors such as sagging utility voltage which will typically make an inductive load pull more current, adjacent breakers heavily loaded adding heat to the mix, the motor working "hard" for whatever reason......

Let us know what you decide to do and if you can get those parts, how much they are.
I agree with you but must say if you start at 100 amps load and utility voltage sags causing inductive loads to pull more or motor works harder for whatever reason - you probably are no longer pulling 100 amps.

Over time you may also develop higher resistance in a connection be it the main contact, connection between breaker and bus, connection between breaker and load conductor and this can contribute to thermal heating of the unit or even others nearby.
 
I agree. Just because you are not an employee does NOT release the owners of the responsibility (and liability) for providing for safe work practices.

Business owners cannot "contract their way out of OSHA requirements".

I have a hard time seeing how a owner of a property would be liable for an electrician getting hurt because of a stupid choice he made. I mean you can sue somebody for anything - whether it gets to court and you win is another thing.
 
I have a hard time seeing how a owner of a property would be liable for an electrician getting hurt because of a stupid choice he made. I mean you can sue somebody for anything - whether it gets to court and you win is another thing.
I agree, in those kinds of applications where the owner says you will comply with their safety policies or you won't work there - is more of a way to lessen the possibilities, why even risk a contractor getting injured just because they don't follow similar safety practices and any litigation it may bring with it if there is an incident. It can also prevent their own employees from seeing bad examples or questioning why?
 
I have a hard time seeing how a owner of a property would be liable for an electrician getting hurt because of a stupid choice he made. I mean you can sue somebody for anything - whether it gets to court and you win is another thing.

Liable? I was not even going there. OSHA can go after the customer.

That is why in many places with a real safety program you have to agree in your contract with them to abide by OSHA even if you are an owner / contractor.


Jraef put it well, "you can't contract their way out of OSHA requirements"


You have to move the work to a third world country, than you can thumb your nose at OSHA. :D
 
I have a hard time seeing how a owner of a property would be liable for an electrician getting hurt because of a stupid choice he made. I mean you can sue somebody for anything - whether it gets to court and you win is another thing.

Don't take that out of context. Stupid choices by electricians will always be a fact of life (and death). The issue in this discussion was live work and the implication that contracted electricians can play by different rules simply because they are not employees. A business owner is required to provide a safe workplace. Hiring an outside contractor and telling them to work live for the sake of convenience does NOT release him from the responsibility of making the choice to work live the same way he would make it for his own employee. If a contractor is injured, OSHA will look at the decision to work live in exactly the same way, so if it turns out it COULD have been de-energized but was not because of simple convenience, the business owner is STILL criminally and financially liable, not the contracted electrician.
 
Don't take that out of context. Stupid choices by electricians will always be a fact of life (and death). The issue in this discussion was live work and the implication that contracted electricians can play by different rules simply because they are not employees. A business owner is required to provide a safe workplace. Hiring an outside contractor and telling them to work live for the sake of convenience does NOT release him from the responsibility of making the choice to work live the same way he would make it for his own employee. If a contractor is injured, OSHA will look at the decision to work live in exactly the same way, so if it turns out it COULD have been de-energized but was not because of simple convenience, the business owner is STILL criminally and financially liable, not the contracted electrician.
Larger industrial plant where there is commonly electrical workers there on a regular basis - sure they will have electrical workpractices covered in their safety policies, and likely will expect any contractors or other "guests" to comply with their rules.

Now what about some other business maybe a bank, retail store, business that operates entirely out of clerical office settings, that doesn't run into electrical work type tasks as a normal part of their operations and they call in some electrical contractor to install/repair something? They don't have any knowledge of electrical workers rules because they don't use them. They expect those contractors to know what they are doing and how to do it. At what point does their liability shift over to the contractor in such situations, or are they still potentially liable for something they have absolutely no need to know anything about? Where does this line get drawn when the owner is not a business but is a homeowner?

I still think it happens (OSHA gets involved, and/or lawsuits pop up) the most in big businesses because they are a bigger target - not saying it is right or wrong.

Only time it seems to come up with smaller businesses is if there is a fatality or very serious injury.
 
Well this is interesting, what do you know, you guys just might know what you are talking about ;):

OSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations.

Craig Martin, Construction Attorney Lamson Dugan & Murray, LLP

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent.

The case that brought this issue to a head in the Midwest is Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc. which involved Summit Contractors oversight of a college dormitory construction project in Arkansas. Summit had only four employees on the job and utilized subcontractors for the vast majority of the work on the project. OSHA stopped by for an inspection and noticed a subcontractor’s workers on defective scaffolding who were not wearing fall protection. OSHA issued Summit a citation for this safety violation as the “controlling employer.” The case wound its way through the court system, with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that OSHA was permitted to rely on the multi-employer worksite doctrine to cite general contractors for the safety violations of its subcontractors.

The Takeaway for General Contractors

General contractors facing increased risk of being cited for their subcontractor’s misconduct can take a few steps to minimize their liability. General contractors may incorporate indemnity clauses specifically tailored to address situations in which a general contractor is cited for a subcontractor’s OSHA non-compliance. Here is a sample clause:

Subcontractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless General Contractor from and against all claims, penalties, fines, losses, judgments, liabilities, settlements, costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, arising out of, relating to, or incurred in connection with the breach or violation of any occupational safety and health administration (“OSHA”) laws, rules, or regulations by Subcontractor, any of Subcontractor’s subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable.

Incorporating an indemnity provision that targets OSHA violations should assist general contractors in recovering any penalties assessed by OSHA against the general contractor for a subcontractor’s safety violations.

Craig Martin, Construction Attorney, Lamson Dugan & Murray, LLP


BUT........

This responds to your March 8, 2001, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). We have paraphrased your questions below:

Question 1: Can OSHA cite a self-employed individual working on a construction site for violations of OSHA construction standards?

Answer: No. If a construction worker is truly self-employed — is not an employee — and has no employees working for him or her, OSHA has no authority to require that individual to abide by OSHA construction requirements.

Question 2: What can be done to address unsafe practices by a self-employed individual?

Answer: Although OSHA has no authority to issue citations to a self-employed construction worker (with no employees), where a general contractor has hired that individual to work at the site, the general contractor can, by contract, require that individual to abide by the practices set out in OSHA standards. In other words, OSHA's lack of compliance authority does not restrict the general contractor from instituting workplace safety requirements on the individual by contract. Note, though, that OSHA does not have the authority to compel the individual to abide by such contract requirements.

OSHA construction requirements must be met by employers where employees are exposed to a hazard created by a self-employed worker. The extent of an employer's obligations regarding hazards created by others is explained in [CPL 02-00-124 (formerly CPL 2-0.124)] ("Multi-Employer Citation Policy") (copy attached).

If you need additional information, please contact us by fax at: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance, fax # 202-693-1689. You can also contact us by mail at the above office, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail.

Sincerely,


Russell B. Swanson, Director
Directorate of Construction

So my interpretation of that is that OSHA cannot fine a self employed person, and cannot use the multi employer citation policy to cite a general contractor for violations of a sub contracted self employed person UNLESS what the self employed person is doing is creating a risk to others.
 
So my interpretation of that is that OSHA cannot fine a self employed person, .

I agree and none of us have said they can

and cannot use the multi employer citation policy to cite a general contractor for violations of a sub contracted self employed person UNLESS what the self employed person is doing is creating a risk to others

There is nothing in what you posted to arrive at that conclusion.
 
There is nothing in what you posted to arrive at that conclusion.

That is the way I read it. Although it is not specifically stated, IMO it is strongly implied by several sentences. Also, just doesnt make any sense that OSHA could give a citation for something that they have no authority over. If an employee is put at risk, even by someone who OSHA has not authority over, then in that case yes they can cite the employer(s).
 
That is the way I read it. Although it is not specifically stated, IMO it is strongly implied by several sentences. Also, just doesnt make any sense that OSHA could give a citation for something that they have no authority over. If an employee is put at risk, even by someone who OSHA has not authority over, then in that case yes they can cite the employer(s).

They have authority over all employees. If they think your actions are putting other employees at risk for sure they can fine the employer that allows their employees to be exposed to that.

It comes down to what was said above, you can't contract away OSHA compliance.
 
125 amp breaker

125 amp breaker

You are correct The BL only went to 100 Amp. Looking at Pictures of the S5 Panel, it looks like you are out of space to add mounting hardware. for another model
On a different site you also have a pic of what appears to be an S3 or S2 panel. If you can use this panel, it is an easy fix. At the bottom of the panel you will see a black plastic blank. This is so you can put a subfeed breaker
9k=
This is what it looks like at 240 volt look like for the S3 or S2
Sincerely Joe
JRL Electric Supply Inc. https://www.jrlelectricsupplyinc.com 800-743-1851 (about us )https://www.dropbox.com/s/7jiw1qfyjjafa49/JRLfinal.mp4?dl=0

Hello and thanks for reading,



We have a Siemens 800A panel:
Cat. No. S5C75LM800ATS
S.O. 79-59460-A00
Type S3S5

We are utilizing BL type bolt on circuit breakers and the largest we can find is a 100A breaker. Unfortunately we need a 125A breaker. Is anyone here familiar enough with this panel that could make a suggestion for a 125A breaker that would be suitable for use?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top