ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Recent Posts
Your favourite food?
by MagdolinB - 12/11/23 03:33 AM
Definition of FPN ,,
by Sfvace - 12/10/23 10:26 PM
Look Ma! I Did It Myself!
by renosteinke - 12/04/23 02:57 AM
Scary Looking Receptacles
by renosteinke - 12/04/23 02:46 AM
Old Computers?
by gfretwell - 11/21/23 03:45 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Sfvace), 32 guests, and 21 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
tdhorne Offline OP
In another forum I suggested the use of a twelve slot, single phase, main lug only panel as a way of heavying up an existing multi panel installation. I proposed supplying each of several "sub panels" from a breaker in the new service equipment and converting the original service panel from a breaker in the new service equipment after converting it to a lighting and appliance panel board by installing an equipment grounding buss and removing the neutral buss bonding screw.
The problem one inspector on that forum had was that the MLO panels I am talking about using as service equipment can except single pole breakers. He said he would turn down the installation on the grounds that more than six breakers could be installed. An example of the kind of panel I am talking about is a Square D QO112L200GRB. These panels are listed as service equipment. The label reads "suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six main breakers are installed and not used as a lighting and appliance panel board. My approach is to use no breaker under forty amps with a neutral connection in the circuit in the service panel. That means that thirty amp water heater circuits and twenty ampere heater circuits are cool in the service panel but thirty ampere dryer circuits have to go in the panels that are fed from the service.
I have used this approach to heavy up a number of services and I have not had any problem. The inspections all went without a hitch. The reason for asking this question here is that if this one inspector represents a substantial sector of opinion I will take the precaution of getting these installations approved in advance so as to avoid any problem on inspection.

Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:

>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 507

What you propose is accepted practice in the State of Nebraska. Nothing in the NEC prohibits this AFAIK. Everything is open to interpretation by the AHJ.......

Probably it's not worth fighting a battle over. Just get a main-breaker panel, it's a cleaner, safer installation.


[This message has been edited by golf junkie (edited 06-18-2002).]

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
tdhorne Offline OP
I might buy cleaner but I won't buy safer. One of the types of properties I use this in is rural residential properties with well pumps. By using an MLO panel to supply the interior panel, the well, other buildings, air conditioning, and so forth I assure that a problem in any one building will not deprive the occupants of the water to fight a fire with until their rural fire department has time to respond. I am aware that the code allows a separate disconnect for that purpose but that adds markedly to the expense of the installation.

Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Likes: 3
Sounds like you are building a new service, and using the old service equipment as a subpanel. If your new panel is service rated, and we all know the "6 switch on services" rule, I don't see what the inspector's problem is. To me it doesn't matter that more that 6 breakers could be installed. What matters is, that you install 6 breakers or less. We all know that only trained persons will be working on this equipment, and if a person is trained they should know the "6 switches or less" on services rule. So, the inspector can't assume (and we all know what happens when we assume things, it makes an a$$ out of u and me) that someone is going to, at some time in the future, break the rule by adding another breaker. Sounds like a job for Sam Colt.
No offense to any inspectors out there, or to you junkie. By the way, junkie, how's your game?

At your Service,

The Watt Doctor
Altura Cogen
Channelview, TX
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
Inspections should address what is, not what could be IMO.
He/She could just as easily fail my 40 cir. cans on the same premis here.

chapter & verse please....

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
Tom, this guy and his (I AM GOD) attitude is completely out of line. With the right person involved, say one that had the means and time to sue him and his city or county for lost revenues and inconveniece, I would bet he would reevaluate his "rule making" and go back to enforcing the code as it is written. or at least someone above him would see that he did. IMO BTW I read that thread in it's entirety, and you out classed him


[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 06-21-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 06-21-2002).]

Link Copied to Clipboard

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC + Exam Prep Study Guides Now Available!
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman


Member Spotlight
Posts: 264
Joined: February 2013
Top Posters(30 Days)
Sfvace 2
Popular Topics(Views)
313,463 Are you busy
239,246 Re: Forum
222,996 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5