Picture of the Day

[George Stolz]

Check out the following pictures and tell me if you spot what I spotted and if you think it's a code violation. This is factory supplied gear that is brand new (hopefully energize soon) and has not been modified.

 

[George Stolz]

Not sure why the pictures rotated counterclockwise... :happyno:

Edit: I fixed the orientation of the photos.

To unTedesco this a bit: how do I reset the breaker on the SPD with the cover on, and how is this legal? This looks like a 240.24 violation to me.

 

[iwire]

Not sure why the pictures rotated counterclockwise... :happyno:

Edit: I fixed the orientation of the photos.

To unTedesco this a bit: how do I reset the breaker on the SPD with the cover on, and how is this legal? This looks like a 240.24 violation to me.

It is pretty common to find breakers for GFP or other power monitoring systems behind the panels of switchgear. I assume it is not an NEC issue being a listed assembly.

 

[ptonsparky]

It doesnt look like the covers belong with the panelboard.

 

[George Stolz]

It is pretty common to find breakers for GFP or other power monitoring systems behind the panels of switchgear. I assume it is not an NEC issue being a listed assembly.

I don't know - it seems like if that were the case they'd have an exception to 240.24(A) covering listed panelboards. The UL tends to jive fairly well with the NEC on larger issues like this, I thought.

It doesnt look like the covers belong with the panelboard.

Yeah, that's a selling point for the brand, I think. "Gear that looks like it slept in the competitions' clothes!"

 

[iwire]

I don't know - it seems like if that were the case they'd have an exception to 240.24(A) covering listed panelboards. The UL tends to jive fairly well with the NEC on larger issues like this, I thought.

We don't generally need exceptions for what happens in listed equipment.

Consider the breakers or fuse that protect internal components and are often behind covers on RTUs. We don't even think about it then.

 

[George Stolz]

We don't generally need exceptions for what happens in listed equipment.

Consider the breakers or fuse that protect internal components and are often behind covers on RTUs. We don't even think about it then.

Once we enter the RTU we're arguably past premises wiring and beyond the scope of the NEC. This is service equipment, so that aspect kinda flies out the window, doesn't it?

 

[iwire]

Once we enter the RTU we're arguably past premises wiring and beyond the scope of the NEC. This is service equipment, so that aspect kinda flies out the window, doesn't it?

IMO the factory wiring in a switchboard is no more premises wiring than the wiring inside an RTU.

 

[George Stolz]

A while back I submitted a proposal to modify 110.3(B) is such a way as to force listed equipment to automatically be approved. It was rejected because the AHJ is the final say in whether or not an installation is approved, and listing is a service to help the AHJ, not a chain to bind them.

Half of Article 408 gives instructions to manufacturers as to how to make a panel. If manufacturers can just ignore the NEC by hosting their own listing lab in house, why is there so much in the NEC to direct manufacturers? I have come over time to the belief that 99% of the time the White Book and the UL are painstakingly coordinated. I have a hard time buying that they have some license to ignore the NEC.

Edit to add: Hence all the sections bearing exceptions for listed equipment. If listing is an exception to this rule, it should say so, I would think.

 

[iwire]

A while back I submitted a proposal to modify 110.3(B) is such a way as to force listed equipment to automatically be approved.

Here in MA we have an amendment to 90.4 that does exactly that. If it's listed and installed per instructions the inspectors must accept it.

Half of Article 408 gives instructions to manufacturers as to how to make a panel. If manufacturers can just ignore the NEC by hosting their own listing lab in house, why is there so much in the NEC to direct manufacturers? I have come over time to the belief that 99% of the time the White Book and the UL are painstakingly coordinated. I have a hard time buying that they have some license to ignore the NEC.

As Don would say, I don't think those items belong in the NEC.

Can you tell me why you are trying to treat factory wiring in panels differently than factory wiring in any other listed equipment?

 

[jim dungar]

To unTedesco this a bit: how do I reset the breaker on the SPD with the cover on, and how is this legal? This looks like a 240.24 violation to me.

The only way the breaker feeding the SPD would need to be reset would be because the SPD has experienced a failure involving a short circuit. A short circuit would need to be investigated (i.e. the SPD would need to be examined) before the breaker could be reset. Hiding the breaker is almost a safety feature.

 

[George Stolz]

Here in MA we have an amendment to 90.4 that does exactly that. If it's listed and installed per instructions the inspectors must accept it.

And that's probably what gave me the idea.

As Don would say, I don't think those items belong in the NEC.

Can you tell me why you are trying to treat factory wiring in panels differently than factory wiring in any other listed equipment?

Because it can't be excluded from the definition of premises wiring unless the condition is included in that definition.

The only way the breaker feeding the SPD would need to be reset would be because the SPD has experienced a failure involving a short circuit. A short circuit would need to be investigated (i.e. the SPD would need to be examined) before the breaker could be reset. Hiding the breaker is almost a safety feature.

On the other hand, if I swing a hammer at the SPD and immediately regret it, I can't shut it off without suiting up. While a laughable example it gets at the core of it. For safety, OCPD is required to be readily accessible. If this is a reasonable exception then there shouldn't be doubt.

 

[jim dungar]

On the other hand, if I swing a hammer at the SPD and immediately regret it, I can't shut it off without suiting up. While a laughable example it gets at the core of it. For safety, OCPD is required to be readily accessible. If this is a reasonable exception then there shouldn't be doubt.

The SPD, itself, appears to be located inside of the equipment, it is just the display which is accessible. If you have external voltage indicators, like pilot lights or power meters, do you expect their OCPD to be externally accessible also?

The switchboard, individual parts, needs to be built to UL standards.
The switchboard, as an assembly, must be install following NEC requirements.
It is up to the AHJ to resolve any differences.