200 amp service ,in a strip mall. service entance about 100 ft. from store, 200 amp disconnect under meter base . is their a requirement that that the service panel have a main breaker installed? and if not what would you do ? thank you . because of the 100 ft. of entance conductors i think i would use main in service panel.The real problem is this area if you dont like what inspector say you can call another not a good situation thank you very much.
[This message has been edited by kenrod3020 (edited 04-03-2002).] thanks all for help. i would use main breaker in this install because i think the code in this area is the minimum standard . if i get the job great if not, its ok [This message has been edited by kenrod3020 (edited 04-06-2002).]
[This message has been edited by kenrod3020 (edited 04-06-2002).]
If your disco is fused or contains a main breaker and is rated as service equipment then your panel inside will be a sub-panel which requires no main. You should check w/your local inspector and see if he requires a second main. As for me, I always used a main breaker panel for safety. When the stuff hits the fan you can always throw the main at the panel!
Is it a fusible disconnect? Does is meet the requirements below? If so, I think that you will be OK. You must meet local ordinances, if they are different from the NEC. Also, consider the utility company's requirements. 230-90. Where Required Each ungrounded service conductor shall have overload protection. (a) Ungrounded Conductor. Such protection shall be provided by an overcurrent device in series with each ungrounded service conductor that has a rating or setting not higher than the allowable ampacity of the conductor....... A set of fuses shall be considered all the fuses required to protect all the ungrounded conductors of a circuit. Single-pole circuit breakers, grouped in accordance with Section 230-71(b), shall be considered as one protective device. 230-91. Location The service overcurrent device shall be an integral part of the service disconnecting means or shall be located immediately adjacent thereto.
I would skip the extra main. Althoug it adds a measure of safety I don't beleive it is practical to live life thinking "what if?" I would do an installation that is safe and code compliant and be happy with that. The other angle on this would be pricing. If you are pricing with a main and the other guy is not, you might be out of a job.
E...Scott, You make a good point, and I'm with you 100%. My only concern would be if the panelboard would be considered a "power" panelboard. Because if I'm reading kenrods statement correctly, the disconnect is the service equipment, which is feeding a panel (via a feeder) 100 feet away. What are the loads being fed from the panel? Does the following NEC rule apply? Notice: 384-16. Overcurrent Protection (b) Power Panelboard Protection. In addition to the requirements of Section 384-13, a power panelboard with supply conductors that include a neutral and having more than 10 percent of its overcurrent devices protecting branch circuits rated 30 amperes or less shall be protected on the supply side by an overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater than that of the panelboard. I do not think the exception applies here. Notice: Exception: This individual protection shall not be required for a power panelboard used as service equipment with multiple disconnecting means in accordance with Section 230-71. IMO the panelboard in question is not being used as "service equipment". So, in conclusion, the OCP's (size, and number) in the panelboard could possibly require the panel to have a main. Scott, I've read many of your posts in the past, and believe that you know the electrical industry. Please correct me if I'm wrong in the matter.
I ran into a similar situation a few years ago that turned into a dispute between two inspectors.
A local lodge added a bingo/meeting hall to their building.
The existing service entered the building on the North end, while the new addition, which required 200 Amps, was added to the Southern side of the building. We installed the service on the North end of the new addition, which put it about 125' from the existing service, which was upgraded from 200 to 400 Amps, for this addition.
We installed, with the approval of the utility and our inspector, a 200 Amp disconnect at the main service, and ran our feeds to the new addition.
It passed our inspector, and the utility did approve this in advance.
Another inspector, (who had a reputation of driving around finding construction sites and soliciting business from the contractors, and, if he failed there, from the building owner) informed us that it was a total violation, and he was going to do his level best to make sure it didn't pass. (After we refused to pay for his services, of course)
It did pass, without any problems after a letter from our attorney.
The whole incident did, however, sour me from using main lug only panels when the service is a distance from the entrance.
I've always wondered who was really "right" in that situation, as both inspectors cited vague parts of the code. Ours made the most sense when he pointed out the "except when approved by the utility" (or something along those lines) clause in the code.
Doc, The way I read 384-16 is that the panel overcurrent protection device must only be on the supply side of the panel. A feeder OCPD at a remote location is "on the supply side" and will provide the required overcurrent protection for the panelbaord. I see nothing in 384 that actually requires the panel OCPD to be within the panel. Don(resqcapt19)
I have seen, installed and spec'ed only a hand full of scenarios [in Commercial projects] where there was a disconnecting Means at the Subpanel, instead of the Subfeeds landing into the Main Lugs directly.
The Disconnect is not an OCPD, rather a simple EXO disconnecting means. All which I had dealt with resembled a typical 225 amp 240 VAC frame Circuit Breaker - even having the same handle, case markings and such as a typical Multipole 225 Amp Frame Circuit Breaker - just no Over Current Protection. They were mounted in the panel in the "Main" location [take off the Main Lugs and land the disconnect in their place - then punch out the K.O. at the top of the dead front ].
These locations were covered by CEC [Cal. Electric Code] and Local Code [City / County of LA], in which the AHJ requested the disconnects during plancheck [AKA "Plancheck Revision"].
Best to verify with all code requirements on these situations.
The disconnecting means at the subpanel does not require Over Current Protection if this is provided at the Switchgear where the subfeed is derived from. Simply, if there is a 200/3 frame in the gear for the subfeed, and the device is an OCPD, there is no provision to provide OCPD at the subpanel for the subfeed or bus.
Having an OCPD at the subpanel for the subfeed is not required, but it would not hurt! The intention is to have a Disconnecting means at the subpanel - just in case s**t happens (Doo-Doo Occurs).
Scott " 35 " Thompson Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!
Don, I'm with you, but....but....but if you'll notice 384-14 Classification of Panelboards differentiates between lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards and power panelboards. The difference that you noted in your post is allowable for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards only. Notice 384-16 (a) exception 1. That exception does not apply to power panelboards. A power panelboard must have a main in it. To me, the question still remains. What equipment will be fed from the panel in question? If that question is answered, the problem is solved.
Doc, It doesn't say anywhere in either (a) or (b) that the overcurrent protection must be in the panelboard. I don't think the exception to (a) is even needed. The rule only says that the panel must have overcurrent protection not exceeding the panel rating on the supply side. The other end of the feeder is on the supply side of the panel and provides the required overcurrent protection for the panel. Don(resqcapt19)