Questionable modification to an electrical panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

agoordeen

Member
First some background information. The panelboard in question is designed with the following specifications by the manufacturer:
Type: CDP
Amps: 100
Date: 6/85
Series: 8A
Voltage: 208Y/120V
System: 3 Phase, 4 Wire
Manufacturer: I-T-E Panelboards (S.O. 18 95114)

The problem that I have observed, along with some other electricians, is that the inner panel cover
that conceals the breakers has been intentionally cut (maybe by a "SAWZALL") in order to accomodate three additional 20 AMP breakers. To clarify, the panel appears to be designed only to allow 30 OCPD's and one MAIN 3 POLE OCPD rated for 100 AMPS in this installation; however, and this is conjecture on my part, I would submit that whoever made this modification was probably trying to add three more circuits, maybe multiwire branch, and was to cheap or ignorant to carry out the installation according to proper N.E.C. rules.

Nevertheless, the questions to be answered are:

Is this modification considered to be a flagrant violation of the National Electrical Code?

If not, then could it be a violation of the manufacturer's intended use of the panelboard especially when there were no twist out filler plates left to be removed? (NOTE: All 30 single pole slots were filled not including the 3 slots at the bottom right used for the 3 pole MAIN Breaker)

If there is a violation here, then what article section or sections can I or we reference to clear up this dilemma?

Any input from the members of the forum is appreciated. Thank you for time.
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Questionable modification to an electrical panel

Welcome to the forum

Well to start with:
See the bold type:


408.15 Number of Overcurrent Devices on One Panelboard.
Not more than 42 overcurrent devices (other than those provided for in the mains) of a lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be installed in any one cabinet or cutout box.
A lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be provided with physical means to prevent the installation of more overcurrent devices than that number for which the panelboard was designed, rated, and approved.


110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling. (2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided
(3) Wire-bending and connection space
(4) Electrical insulation
(5) Heating effects under normal conditions of use and also under abnormal conditions likely to arise in service
(6) Arcing effects
(7) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Maybe some of the others here will know of some others.
Wayne
 
joe tedesco

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Re: Questionable modification to an electrical panel

See 90.7 ......... It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this Code.

FPN No. 1: See requirements in 110.3.

FPN No. 2: Listed is defined in Article 100.

FPN No. 3: Annex A contains an informative list of product safety standards for electrical equipment.
Click to expand...
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Questionable modification to an electrical panel

As an added note ITE allows for double space breakers in some of there panel this info will be in the lable and the model# as it will list the model like this MB10030/40 this allow for the last 10 breaker spaces to have double space breakers installed and these breakers have to be type CTL listed ITE also has a non CTL double space breaker that they use in panels where the whole panel can be filled with them like a MB10020/40CU but these can not be used in a CTL panel as the CTL breakers are only designed to fit in cirtain slots in the last 10 spots but this does allow for more breakers than there are spaces and is code compliant
 
L

luke warmwater

Senior Member
Re: Questionable modification to an electrical panel

Something like this?? :
view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-892962.html


[ August 29, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: luke warmwater ]
 
A

agoordeen

Member
Re: Questionable modification to an electrical panel

Originally posted by hurk27:
As an added note ITE allows for double space breakers in some of there panel this info will be in the lable and the model# as it will list the model like this MB10030/40 this allow for the last 10 breaker spaces to have double space breakers installed and these breakers have to be type CTL listed ITE also has a non CTL double space breaker that they use in panels where the whole panel can be filled with them like a MB10020/40CU but these can not be used in a CTL panel as the CTL breakers are only designed to fit in cirtain slots in the last 10 spots but this does allow for more breakers than there are spaces and is code compliant
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is the knowledge that our "mystery perpetrator" was ignorant of.

Thank you for your feedback.

agoordeen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top