I take greater issue with the fact that the three wires spliced at the bottom would reach the breaker without the splices.
The are is testing requirements by UL to assure that the panel cover prevents access through cracks an spaces to live parts inside the enclosure and that the cover prevents parts and arcing from exiting the enclosure should their be a fault or failure inside the enclosure.
The cover as installed here fits better than most OEM applications I've run into. If I were the AHJ I would have no problem on this particular requirement.
The containment of arcing would be a function of fit and thickness of the steel, so I again fail to see an issue here. At least it isn't a DIY cover of light-guage steel or aluminum.
Even when we are confident that the replacement cover would perform as and OEM cover would we are not qualified to make that determination.
Does this mean we have to rip out this panel and submit it to an NTL to determine suitability? I also disagree with the statement that an experienced, licensed, EC is not "qualified" to make that determination, regardless of who did the installation. Can anyone cite any other violations here?
As you have noted the panel nameplate is misleading also.
Now this is the only real safety/Code violation that I would cite in this case. Unless we had the specs for the replacement interior, which would prove the AIC and allowable types of breakers permitted to be installed, then the information on the label
could now be incorrect. Although, from what I've seen, small loadcenters from different makes all seem to have the same AIC ratings. (10k amps.)
Now, as luck would have it, I have a customer whose "Big Name" panel has damaged bussbars. I have been unable to get any guidance from either the distributor, or the manufacturer, as to obtaining replacement guts. Since the old panel is set in brick, is piped in, and the nature of the customers' operation will not tolerate any but the briefest of interruptions- where does that leave me?
I'll tell you where it leaves me: with a poor attitude toward that line of panels! When the crunch comes, I can almost guarantee that I will replace the innards with someone else's (listed) retrofit kit!
I agree 100% with this. I would do exactly the same.
We have all seen that the Code falls quite short of reality in many situations.
As a final parting comment, didn't Siemans buy out Challenger? (Or is it the other way around?)
I love the discussions of things like this.
edited to add: I may be using incorrect terminology here, but by AIC I'm referring to the short-circuit withstand capability of the panel and breakers.
[This message has been edited by mxslick (edited 04-03-2006).]