ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Happy Thanksgiving all!
by gfretwell - 11/30/22 05:55 PM
EMC Glands on Motors
by gfretwell - 11/30/22 05:53 PM
Ground Rods: Installation and Hook-Up
by gfretwell - 11/30/22 05:45 PM
Colt Firearms Switchbox
by NORCAL - 11/29/22 01:04 AM
Perfect work light?
by gfretwell - 11/22/22 12:48 AM
New in the Gallery:
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Now you know.
Now you know.
by Tom_Horne, September 7
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 18 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#81364 08/07/02 10:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 324
A
Member
George, if it was a bigger issue I would have done that, but this guy was a p*cker head and wasn't worth the time. I slammed him and he knew it but I wanted to move on. I do over a 100 dwellings a year and don't have much time for bickering with a guy who has only had about two weeks worth of class on the code. But perhaps I'll have the pleasure of working in his jurisdiction again one day.

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with these Exam Prep Combos:
 

>> Master Electrician Exam Prep     >> JourneyMan Electrician Exam Prep
 

#81365 08/08/02 05:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
E
Member
GRRRRR

#81366 08/15/02 09:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
T
Member
Electricmanscott said GRRRRR

I am with him all the way on that.

I recently went the two rounds with an AHJ over the outside mains issue. I had installed a twelve slot, 200 amp, MLO panel as service equipment on the exterior and used double pole breakers to supply the water pump, the sewage lift pump, two outbuildings and two panels in the main building. The insurance company wanted only one disconnect between the water pump and public power because of the domestic water piping also serving residential automatic sprinklers. The first round was with the inspector himself. He was really angry when I would not yeild and truly furious that I would demand a written notice of violation quoting chapter and verse. The second round was with the supervisor but as soon as it became clear that I would appeal any demand that I install a main breaker they claimed that the fire department wanted it. I told them to ask the fire department how it feels to want because by know I was really ticked off. The chief electrical inspector for the state board was telephoned at my request and asked the local fellas how many breakers there were and when they answered six he said "you will loose any appeal that the installer brings to the state board." They then agreed to sign off on the job.
--
Tom


Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
#81367 08/15/02 10:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
[Linked Image]

So, ignoring the other violations, such as the lack of marking the GC white (or gray), and assuming less than 6 CB's, then this installation is OK?

Even with the bus unprotected up to the 4160V fuse before the X-former?



[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-15-2002).]


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
#81368 08/15/02 11:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
T
Member
sparky66wv

If the panel is listed as service equipment then yes that is a code compliant way to install a service. More importantly it is a superior way to supply a water pump on rural property were the occupants are on there own until the FD can reach them after a long run. The last thing you want is to have a fault caused by the fire to deprive you of the only water for fighting that same fire.

The issue of the faults to which the service equipment may be exposed is not new. They are what fault current calculations are all about. As long as the withstand listing of the equipment and the breakers installed in the service meet the available fault current all is well. Why should we believe that the buss bars being part of the service entry conductors makes those problems any worse.
--
Tom

[This message has been edited by tdhorne (edited 08-16-2002).]


Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
#81369 08/16/02 12:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
OK, I'm trying to follow you here...

Let's assume it's listed for service equipment. There is no Breaker upstream of the branch circuit breaker for the pump, so nothing protects the exposed parts of the bus. I can't see how the best OCPD can protect upstream of a fault, and I realized that service cable is under the same risk, but it is covered with insulation, the bus isn't.

Some bus designs, particulary SQ D Homeline, present the hazard of getting across 240V while working on a hot panel. Many people don't like GE, but the buses in GETHQLs are much better protected from accidental contact.

I have more to learn before becoming an inspector; I would have tagged it and I would have wanted a main.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-16-2002).]


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
#81370 08/17/02 10:34 AM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
T
Member
There are many arrangements of service equipment that do not provide overcurrent or fault protection to buss bars. Sectional switch gear with six main switches is a good example. We have all seen multiple disconnects used as service equipment. The tap conductors from the service conductors to each disconnect are also without any OCPD. The Buss bars are insulated from contact with other conductors and grounded surfaces by air. That is why they are rigidly held in place. They are protected fro accidental contact by the enclosure dead fronts instead of insulation that covers the conductors.
--
Tom


Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
#81371 08/28/02 12:58 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 54
W
Member
I just recently done a 125amp sub panel here in fayetteville, nc and the inspector said now we wire it just like a service. over six disconnects, has to be a main.
also we do not have to run the fourth wire with the feeder. we had to install a ground rod. like we say it is up to AHJ in differnt locations. we just have to passify them to get what we want sometime.
wayne

#81372 08/28/02 08:21 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 840
C
Member
Wayne, Electricmanscott said it all on this issue:

Quote
there is no requirement for a main breaker in a "sub panel". If these inspectors are under the NEC they have no right to require anything over and above regardless os their views on safety or such. I know this is off the topic but I will never accept inspectors making up the rules as they go. It is not right and it is counterproductive to everything that the NEC is.


Peter
#81373 08/29/02 05:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
true...

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

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

 

Member Spotlight
AllClear
AllClear
Belmond Iowa US
Posts: 44
Joined: August 2005
Top Posters(30 Days)
Trumpy 7
NORCAL 5
Popular Topics(Views)
300,340 Are you busy
230,001 Re: Forum
214,810 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5