Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    122

    Default 4/0 copper service wire

    4/0 copper servicing the left panel (picture 2), a 150 amp breaker at this left panel with 2/0 copper servicing the right panel (picture 1). I know that the ground is double tapped, this is improper. A similar post in the not so distant past informed me that a disconnect would not be necessary at the main, in this case the left panel, is this correct?...and how many amps is this service as the left panel may be under rated.

    Picture 3 shows all of the breakers in the left panel, 100 amp breaker feeding a sub panel in the attached garage is not fully visible.

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    2018 ASHI InspectionWorld

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,546

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    The experts will chime in soon, but in the meantime, I will say that I think the 6 breaker rule applies here. The panel which you call the main panel, which has the correction two neutrals under one lug, may have too many breakers in it.
    Do the 4/0 feeders come straight from the meter? If so, there is a problem, too many breakers.
    If there is a disconnect between the meter and this panel, then the ground and neutral should be separated, so again, there would be a problem.

    If there is no main disconnect at the meter, then there is no limit to the amperage available to the panel you call the main..
    I am not an expert, and I rarely encounter a service like this, so best wait for comments from the other guys.

    Last edited by John Kogel; 09-27-2010 at 10:18 PM.
    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Yes, the 4/0 copper comes directly from the meter, no disconnect between. I had never seen 4/0 copper in 8+ years. 2/0 copper is rare down here, usually 4/0 al.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kogel View Post
    The experts will chime in soon, but in the meantime, I will say that I think the 6 breaker rule applies here. The panel which you call the main panel, which has the neutral and the ground under one lug, may have too many breakers in it.
    Do the 4/0 feeders come straight from the meter? If so, there is a problem, too many breakers.
    If there is a disconnect between the meter and this panel, then the ground and neutral should be separated, so again, there would be a problem.

    If there is no main disconnect at the meter, then there is no limit to the amperage available to the panel you call the main..
    I am not an expert, and I rarely encounter a service like this, so best wait for comments from the other guys.
    That's actually two neutrals under one lug. I think I wrote it up wrong in the OP.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by sidney alstad View Post
    A similar post in the not so distant past informed me that a disconnect would not be necessary at the main, in this case the left panel, is this correct?
    Incorrect.

    A main disconnect would be needed in that left panel, the "service equipment" panel.

    That is because there are spaces for more than 6 overcurrent devices of the smallest which fit into that panel.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Thank you Mr Peck.


  7. #7
    David Newton's Avatar
    David Newton Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Incorrect.

    A main disconnect would be needed in that left panel, the "service equipment" panel.

    That is because there are spaces for more than 6 overcurrent devices of the smallest which fit into that panel.
    I agree this particular panel requires a main disconnect....not because there are 'spaces' for more than 6 breakers, but because there are more than 6 breakers in this panel.

    There is nothing in the code that says anything about 'spaces' [carry this further, on the exterior of a building is plenty of space to add additional separate disconnecting devices].

    The code addresses the actual number of disconnecting means present...not 'what might eventually or potentially be.'

    I have often encountered this situation as a municipal inspector - I am only allowed to address what actually is, not what might be. 'Are there 6 or less disconnecting devices in place today?...yes or no.'

    Do I agree with Jerry's concern about the available space for more breakers? Absolutely.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by David Newton View Post
    I agree this particular panel requires a main disconnect....not because there are 'spaces' for more than 6 breakers, but because there are more than 6 breakers in this panel.

    There is nothing in the code that says anything about 'spaces' [carry this further, on the exterior of a building is plenty of space to add additional separate disconnecting devices].

    The code addresses the actual number of disconnecting means present...not 'what might eventually or potentially be.'
    Incorrect.

    I have often encountered this situation as a municipal inspector - I am only allowed to address what actually is, not what might be. 'Are there 6 or less disconnecting devices in place today?...yes or no.'
    As municipal inspectors (meaning you, myself, and all others, should not be approving installation as shown because the code DOES address the number of spaces, not just the number of breakers which are currently installed.

    The NEC states: (underlining and bold are mine)
    - 225.33 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
    - - (A) General. The disconnecting means for each supply permitted by 225.30 shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be no more than six disconnects per supply grouped in any one location.
    - - - Exception: For the purposes of this section, disconnecting means used solely for the control circuit of the ground-fault protection system, or the control circuit of the power-operated supply disconnecting means, installed as part of the listed equipment, shall not be considered a supply disconnecting means.
    - - (B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers capable of individual operation shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with identified handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all ungrounded conductors with no more than six operations of the hand.

    If (when) there are empty spaces, you as the AHJ KNOW that the above code is not complied with as there is no limitation from adding more than six, and the code simply says "shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers", and if there are spaces for 7, then one more *could* be added, making it non-compliant, and being compliant means that it "shall consist of not more than six" - *ever*.

    I am trying to remember where I read it recently but this very issue was described in detail and it was described as the number of disconnects allowed is the largest number based on a total count of the smallest disconnects allowed in the panel.

    I.e., if you have a CTL panel with 12 breaker spaces and 6 double pole breakers installed, you actually have 12 disconnect slots, and if the bottom 4 breaker slots accept tandem breakers, then you actually have 16 disconnect slots, and you KNOW that the panel is not compliant with "shall consist of not more than six" - meaning *ever*.

    Or you had a non-CTL panel with six breaker spaces and six tandem or half-size breakers are allowed to be fitted into the panel, you would then have 12 and that would not conform either.

    I wish I could remember where I recently read that (it was within the last month, I believe) as I would post it here.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    These pictures so many code violations. Include the whole panels and identify what feeds what and I can outline all the violations. As it stands there are many problems beginning with no service disconnect and 2 conductors in a lug not listed for 2 conductors. Separation of grounded and grounding also come to mind in anything other than the service panel. With better pictures I'm sure more will become obvious.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Incorrect.



    As municipal inspectors (meaning you, myself, and all others, should not be approving installation as shown because the code DOES address the number of spaces, not just the number of breakers which are currently installed.


    If (when) there are empty spaces, you as the AHJ KNOW that the above code is not complied with as there is no limitation from adding more than six, and the code simply says "shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers", and if there are spaces for 7, then one more *could* be added, making it non-compliant, and being compliant means that it "shall consist of not more than six" - *ever*.

    I am trying to remember where I read it recently but this very issue was described in detail and it was described as the number of disconnects allowed is the largest number based on a total count of the smallest disconnects allowed in the panel.

    I.e., if you have a CTL panel with 12 breaker spaces and 6 double pole breakers installed, you actually have 12 disconnect slots, and if the bottom 4 breaker slots accept tandem breakers, then you actually have 16 disconnect slots, and you KNOW that the panel is not compliant with "shall consist of not more than six" - meaning *ever*.

    Or you had a non-CTL panel with six breaker spaces and six tandem or half-size breakers are allowed to be fitted into the panel, you would then have 12 and that would not conform either.

    I wish I could remember where I recently read that (it was within the last month, I believe) as I would post it here.

    You were reading Roger F.'s posts and he directed you to the January 2010 UL Marking Guide for Panelboards and applying varous NEC citations from 2008 and 2005 NEC.

    Roger F. was working a question (Lighting appliance panel boards vs. power panel 2005 vs. 2008 NEC) regarding wanting to install a MLO panel board he already had on a feeder for a detached garage for 5, single pole 20 amp circuits, and was in need of a "service rated disconnect" for the structure.

    Despite the file name reference (March 2006), the following clickable link to the UL site will take you to a pdf file which is the January 2010 edition of the Panelboards Marking Guide (link):

    http://www.ul.com/global/documents/o...2006_Final.pdf

    I believe you are confusing number 21 and 22 with number 23, and you have flipped it backwards.

    Start at number 18.

    There may be uninstalled/un-used spaces in a non-ctl MLO panelboard, and still be six disconnects installed and be perfectly legal as service equipment, IT DEPENDS ON THE MARKING. It would not be legal to have MORE than six "of the hand" as installed.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 10-25-2010 at 02:44 AM.

  11. #11
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    You could have a 2 space 4 circuit panelboard that was a code violation because of the 6 disconnect rule with 2 single pole beakers installed. The listing and labeling speaks of lighting and branch circuit panelboards for every panelboard I have ever seen. Someone here seems to forget this fact. As to failing a panelboard because it has the ability to violate the code IF changes were made, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Every panelboard would fail then because the 2 pole breakers could be taken out and single pole breakers could be installed. Somebody here has a pretty wild imagination. In over 21 years of code enforcement I've never heard of that one and I've knows some real idiot inspectors in this timeframe who have the craziest "interpretations", or excuses, for what they state to be code requirements.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    First - Jerry, an AHJ CAN NOT "inspect the future". In other words if. If the service has 6 or less , it is compliant PERIOD. If the AHJ fails the job because another breaker "could" be installed - the AHJ should be challenged as the AHJ is inspecting the future. This is no different then an inspector insisting that receptacle grounds shall be up or down
    Who's to say that even if there is no more room for that 7th breaker, that someone would not just add a sub panel off the first one, thus having more then 6 switches?

    Second - Jerry , Your quoting the incorrect code article ! You quoted article 225. Article 225 is for Outside Branch Circuits and Feeders.

    You should be quoting article 230 - Services as the pictures are of service equipment.


  13. #13
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    When you don't know the material you pretend to be an expert in you make these mistakes. Using the incorrect code reference is very common among those who THINK of themselves as experts. Let actual electrical inspectors point out all of the violations in this house, they are the professionals. Simply point out "several code violations in the electrical service" and you will be fine. If you try to list them all and miss one somebody is going to blow up on you. I wouldn't try to list them all with these pictures, they aren't complete enough for me to do it properly. In the sub panel for example with grounding on one side and grounded on the other side I would need to see that the bar is removed from the bottom of the panel that connects those 2 busses together. More detail is necessary to be complete.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    You were reading Roger F.'s posts and he directed you to the January 2010 UL Marking Guide for Panelboards and applying varous NEC citations from 2008 and 2005 NEC.
    I was, thank you.

    I believe you are confusing number 21 and 22 with number 23, and you have flipped it backwards.
    No, I am not confusing 21 and 22 with 23, I am referring 22 and to service equipment which is marked either "Suitable for use as service equipment" or "suitable only for use as service equipment".

    There may be uninstalled/un-used spaces in a non-ctl MLO panelboard, and still be six disconnects installed and be perfectly legal as service equipment, IT DEPENDS ON THE MARKING. It would not be legal to have MORE than six "of the hand" as installed.
    It does depend on the marking, you are describing those marked "Suitable only for use as service equipment. Install no more than six main disconnecting means." or "Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six main disconnecting means are provided and when not used as a lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard; See Section 408.34 of the 2005 NEC."

    The probably comes from the fact that (to the best of my recollection) I have only seen panelboard marked with "Suitable for use as service equipment" or "suitable only for use as service equipment".

    And, if one were to actually find a panelboard marked with "Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six main disconnecting means are provided and when not used as a lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard; See Section 408.34 of the 2005 NEC." and then find that other circuits were installed, than that panelboard would no longer meet its listing and labeling and the panelboard would be improperly installed as it is no long suitable for use as service equipment.

    The only way for that panel to be acceptable as David said would be for that panel to be marked "Suitable only for use as service equipment. Install no more than six main disconnecting means." or "Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six main disconnecting means are provided and when not used as a lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard; See Section 408.34 of the 2005 NEC." Thus, to say that that panelboard is acceptable without knowing that it is indeed rated for either of these two would be, in my opinion, incorrect, as these are so narrowly defined that one would not, should not, just presume that it is okay if there blank spaces which are not used.

    The default position should be 'not acceptable' unless proven otherwise by the labeling. Which gets down to something we ask about a lot here - Did you (the person posting the question) take a photo of the label? Usually the answer is 'No.', when the answer is 'Yes.' we frequently find out things which were not asked.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by ken horak View Post
    First - Jerry, an AHJ CAN NOT "inspect the future". In other words if. If the service has 6 or less , it is compliant PERIOD.
    Incorrect.

    As that UL marking guide shows, it would ONLY be compliant IF AND WHEN it is marked as stated in that marking guide (see my post above this one).

    ONE MUST NOT ASSUME that it is okay just because there are only 6 disconnects installed with the allowed use is SO NARROWLY CONFINED to panels which are precisely marked as stated (and is therefore NOT APPLICABLE to other panels).

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  16. #16
    Roger Frazee's Avatar
    Roger Frazee Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    In my experience load centers for residential are marked "Suitable for use as Service Equipment" ... "Suitable for use as Service equipment when not more than 6 disconnects are installed" ... Suitable for use only as Service equipment" ... "Suitable for use as Service equipment when not more than 6 disconnects are installed and when not used as a Lighting and Appliance branch circuit panelboard."

    The later being the most common for panels (load centers) being used as L&ABCP... That do not have a single main breaker protecting them ..ie..main lug only (MLO). Most modern ones have the neutral bar insulated from the metal enclosure.

    These panels are not suitable for service equipment as marked if used as Lighting and Appliance branch circuit panel boards. So a 6 disconnect rule cannot be used in them under said application and marking. You would have to install a single throw main breaker to make them suitable as service equipment.

    In some panels there may be added language saying something like "do not install more than six disconnects."

    As for this post the panel shown has at least 8 double pole breakers so it does not comply with a 6 disconnect service rating.

    Point being is what HG mentioned ...depends on the marking.

    I understand the UL marking guide to say when marked " suitable for Service Equipment when not more than 6 disconnects are provided' to mean that panel must have some combination of switches or breakers that will result in 6 disconnects whether by using handle ties or other listed means and all the spaces are filled. So I will assume that it would be unlikely to have a 20 circuit ctl panelbaoard with that marking.
    Under that marking an example would be a 12 circuit mlo panel. In which case I could have 6 double pole breakers installed .. all spaces would be filled ..and only 6 protective devices connected to each bus. Also you could legally have unused spaces and have 6 disconnects under this panel marking.
    You could also have more than 6 disconnects and it would be up to the installer to understand the labeling/marking to avoid a violation.

    So I would agree with Jerry it would be risky as for code compliance to look at ...for example ... a 20 circuit mlo ctl panel with only 6 disconnects in it and automatically approve it as code compliant as service equipment without reading the panel marking/labeling.

    And then as I said you need to understand the marking of panels as it is related to service equipment which IMO is not well understood.

    I would assume that the marking in a panel for service equipment use would be directly related to the way the panel is made as to number of circuits and application. In other words I would doubt I would see an mlo 20 circuit ctl panel in a residential application being code complaint as service equipment under a 6 disconnect rule NEC 2005 and prior because it would almost be impossible for it to be other than L&ABCP. Now if that panel has a single throw main breaker in it then we have a horse of a different color.


  17. #17
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    The mole hill has become a mountain. The NEC requires a service disconnect be labeled "suitable for use as service equipment". If there is a condition then it must be met. Read the label and do what it says. End of subject. I learned that right away as an inspector over 21 years ago.
    One other thing, the most abused word in code enforcement is "interpretation". People use this word in place of "it an excuse to make you do what I tell you to do because I'm saying that's what it means". In other words blah blah blah BS. Read the black and white, apply the rules of the English language and most things become pretty clear. If it's not so clear ask an English teacher what it means.


  18. #18
    Roger Frazee's Avatar
    Roger Frazee Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Winchester View Post
    The mole hill has become a mountain. The NEC requires a service disconnect be labeled "suitable for use as service equipment". If there is a condition then it must be met. Read the label and do what it says. End of subject. I learned that right away as an inspector over 21 years ago.
    One other thing, the most abused word in code enforcement is "interpretation". People use this word in place of "it an excuse to make you do what I tell you to do because I'm saying that's what it means". In other words blah blah blah BS. Read the black and white, apply the rules of the English language and most things become pretty clear. If it's not so clear ask an English teacher what it means.
    It's just a discussion after the fact .. that in my opinion would be very beneficial for some of the HI's here ... not everyone has 21 years of experience. Understanding the marking/labeling in a load center is fundamental in understanding what is required of that panel. So IMO there are those here that would like to learn about the subject at hand.


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    It depends not only on the marking/labeling, but the application. For example Square D makes CONVERTIBLE panels. Another example, use of a panel as service equipment might be limited to surface installation, or suitibility for use as service equipment might be limited to service lateral, or from the top, etc.The idea that a panel could possibly be exceeded in the future with more than six disconnects as installed makes it somehow not suitable for use as service equipment is incorrect. That would mean that a good deal of for example Square D's listed panels were illegal to use. Stupendous. The rule is that there is some combination of breakers and ties that could fill the panel with six throws of the hand rule - not that to be used the panel must be filled in that manner.There are a number of different types of listed equipment which is convertible or has multiple listed applications - sometimes requiring the removal of an identifying label/marking to be installed under one application or another or a componant of the equipment (removal of part, moving a wire, removing a screw, changing pre-installed conductors on a terminal block, etc., sometimes requiring the additional field installation of additional equipment (or parts), Sometimes equipment is Classified in addition to being Listed, has multiple standards and applications it is listed to, sometimes it is just classified, etc.One of the differences in the labeling regards to suitable for use as Serv Equip vs. suitible for use ONLY as service equipment is if the netural/case bond is factory and permanent. Key is the manufacturer's installation and applicaton INSTRUCTIONS, which are a part of the listing.Too much opining and interpretations not in keeping with the actual standards, style manuals, etc. goes on here. For example, a manufacturer cannot use SHALL, just SHOULD. The manufacturer is not an AHJ, nor a listing entity. Even listed items (not componants) are incorporated into a larger manufacturered assembly or system by other manufacturers as well. Finally, alteration is allowed if one wishes to have something field evaluated and labeled in the field (willing to pay for the field evaluation), therefore the mfg listing instructions cannot preclude a legal purcahser of equipment to utilize in the manner they see fit, esp. when they have the item further evaluated, either through their own incorporation in a manufactured setting for listing service through UL or another competing entity, or to have the item as altered field evaluated. When an item is legally purchased, not just a license or lease, the purchaser OWNS it, therefore the MANUFACtURER has no legal authority to dictate what may or may not be done with it. That's why the directive language in Mfg instructions uses the less strong words, and RECOMMENDATIONS and "Should" language is used, that language MUST be followed to MAINTAIN its LISTED USE and still comply with the CODE, otherwise it must be field evaluated, or otherwise subsequently LISTED or be deemed unlisted use/delisted application. I see the same interpretation errors regarding NEC code language and personal, baseless "opinions" in applications here all the time. When an item is Listed to particular standards, one has to know MORE than the "standard scope" to really have an idea of what that means, this includes LIMITATIONS WITHIN that standard may be incorporated. When some item is CATEGORIZED it does NOT mean that the item can or is listed to meet every application or ability of any item that might be included in that categorization or classification. If just one small detail of an overall system installation application, manufacturer's instruction or limitation is not met anywhere in the equipment/chain, it can void equipment status/safety/compliancy/warranty/liability/ and negatively effect insurance claims as well, as well as the code compliance. An extreme example a few high hats marked for incandescents only, switched by a switch limited for incandescent/resistive loads only, substituting a compact fluorescent or LED, etc. which is classified to be okay with the use of luminaires otherwise indicating incandescent only - violates the limitations of electrical system installed SWITCH listed application/use. The classified/Listing of the compact fluorescent doesn't extend to switched applications in which the switch is not listed/rated for the load (different load with integral power supply in the compact). Violations may or may not SEEM to be important, or the reader might opine that they are just "TECHNICAL violations, but that is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, and more often than not they prove to be significant overall safety issues. Sometimes the switch is made so that it wouldn't be an issue - but the manufacturer chose to NOT pay for the safety testing that would allow it to be listed for use in an application other than a limited wattage and limited to purely resistive loads - there is no requirement that a manufacturer to acquire a listing to a standard meet EVERY provision of that standard possible regarding testing or application - they can LIMIT up front. Sometimes the limitations are BY DESIGN, and sometimes the limitations are due to the product being tested (expensive) tested to higher limits fails to meet so it is limited. Although so many electricians might THINK they can perform what they perceive to be simple math calculations to do what the codes reserve to ENGINEERED deviations/solutions/applications; the ENGINEER is supposed to take into account so much that the electrician (even an experienced master electrician) or code inspector (even an "expert" AHJ) is neither aware of nor qualified to interpret, frankly don't know even what or WHY something needs to be applied or considered. Having a solution or appication engineered obviously is no guarantee that the engineer who stamped the plan, engineered a good one; just as having an attorney represent a client is no guarantee that the case will be won, even if he's the best around and your case is a slam-dunk (or so it may have been thought). The documented engineering is insurance for the insurance, and hopefully fully researched, but is always upon an assumed fact set and tolerances; even if perfect world and perfectly designed - it is designed to a point in time not necessarily for future changes that can undermine the safety and function of the overall system or componant thereof.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 10-26-2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason: formatting keeps disappearing, i.e. paragraph breaks! I must have a script bug/debug issue.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    421

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Very good discussion fellas. H. G., would U please install some paragraphs in that book U just wrote.... Mine eyes can't see the glory.


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    3,177

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by bob smit View Post
    ... H. G., would U please install some paragraphs in that book U just wrote...
    He done already explained, " formatting keeps disappearing, i.e. paragraph breaks! I must have a script bug/debug issue."

    "There is no exception to the rule that every rule has an exception." -James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894-1961)
    www.ArnoldHomeInspections.com

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    To me it is as simple as this question:

    A GFCI receptacle device is installed outside, and we all know that the outside receptacle is required to be GFCI protected, therefore ... the GFCI receptacle device is acceptable ... right?

    I suspect we all know the answer to that is: 'No.' Then, 'not necessarily'.

    We must first examine the GFCI receptacle device and see if it has WR or Weather Resistant on it. If not, then it is not acceptable to be used outdoors, but if yes, then it is acceptable to be used outdoors.

    That panel is the same way, the default answer is: 'No.' Then, 'not necessarily'.

    We must first read the label to check if 'maybe' applies, then we apply the "ifs" stated in the label and see if it is acceptable 'as installed' 'where it is installed'.

    When one gets down to it, the answer is the inspectors favorite answer: Depends.

    Plain and simple: Depends.

    But if any other answer is given it should first be 'no' followed with checking to find out if 'maybe' applies, and then the answer may be 'yes, okay if you do this'.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Since when do HIs find something acceptable. HIs do not "accept" anything, AHJs do or do not.

    It is perfectly acceptable and code compliant if an existing installation installed prior to the WR receptacle requirement has a proper in-use cover and is installed with the existing non-WR GFCI receptacle outdoors.

    The six-motions of the hand rule, however, pre-dates even the manufacture time-period for the equipment in the OP.

    We do not inspect for future configurations, Neither, generally, do AHJs. AHJs do not make up non-existant code, standards, nor manufacturer's instructions, nor do we cite code where the code language does not apply to existing installations. We look for defects, misapplications, and safety/repair issues.

    As a generalization, HIs do not approve or accept anything during inspections, they inspect and report, period.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 10-26-2010 at 07:36 PM. Reason: dang formatting again, keep losing paragraph returns!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    In case one missed it, several of us are discussing this in terms of us being AHJ, and, thus, we do "accept" or "reject" the work.

    Also of note, I did not say the GFCI receptacle device was installed in an older structure. I was simply giving an analogy as to how one should not look at things - one should not accept things without knowing and checking that the things are, indeed, acceptable.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    421

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Jerry, I never thought in those terms but, yes, I think your on to something here.
    Now however, 'weather resistant rated gfci's"? Hate to admit this one, but have not heard of such. If I don't have enuf items to look for/at with a minimal amount of time during inspections, and now I have to get down on my knee outside in the mud, snow, and rain to see some embossed 'wr' under an in-use cover that only open 90 degrees and I just broke the fn frozen cover...... U make me hate my job.


  26. #26
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    What code did the requirement for WR receptacles come to play? Does anyone have the answer? What code section requires this?

    How many of those here watching this question are actually code enforcement inspectors? It's obvious I am I think, it's no secret, both electrical and mechanical.


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    (underlining and bold are mine)
    - 406.8 Receptacles in Damp or Wet Locations.
    - - (A) Damp Locations. A receptacle installed outdoors in a location protected from the weather or in other damp locations shall have an enclosure for the receptacle that is weatherproof when the receptacle is covered (attachment plug cap not inserted and receptacle covers closed).
    An installation suitable for wet locations shall also be considered suitable for damp locations.
    - - - A receptacle shall be considered to be in a location protected from the weather where located under roofed open porches, canopies, marquees, and the like, and will not be subjected to a beating rain or water runoff. All 15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt nonlocking receptacles shall be a listed weather-resistant type.
    - - - - FPN: The types of receptacles covered by this requirement are identified as 5-15, 5-20, 6-15, and 6-20 in ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2002, National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standard for Dimensions of Attachment Plugs and Receptacles.
    - - (B) Wet Locations.
    - - - (1) 15- and 20-Ampere Receptacles in a Wet Location. 15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt receptacles installed in a wet location shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof whether or not the attachment plug cap is inserted. All 15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt nonlocking receptacles shall be listed weather-resistant type.
    - - - - FPN: The types of receptacles covered by this requirement are identified as 5-15, 5-20, 6-15, and 6-20 in ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2002, National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standard for Dimensions of Attachment Plugs and Receptacles.]
    - - - - Exception: 15- and 20-ampere, 125- through 250-volt receptacles installed in a wet location and subject to routine high-pressure spray washing shall be permitted to have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug is removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Winchester View Post
    How many of those here watching this question are actually code enforcement inspectors? It's obvious I am I think, it's no secret, both electrical and mechanical.
    I am the AHJ inspector: building; electrical; plumbing; mechanical; fuel gas; coastal construction/flood plain; building plans examiner; etc.; residential and commercial.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  28. #28
    Roger Frazee's Avatar
    Roger Frazee Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    I thought I would share a paper from square d that the technical department linked me to yesterday in reference to label language for class ctl 42 circuit and less mlo panelboards in regards to the new changes for 2008 NEC.

    You need to scroll down to the paragraph referencing the 6 disconnect rule and labeling about L&ABCP . The entire paper is worth reading however.

    http://ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Ele...0100DB1015.pdf


  29. #29
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Jerry which trade are you actually qualified to inspect other than the certifications? Are you a plumber by trade for example?


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Winchester View Post
    Jerry which trade are you actually qualified to inspect other than the certifications? Are you a plumber by trade for example?
    Bob,

    I am actually qualified to inspect, other than just by the certifications, by my years of working in, being responsible for their work and mine, and by supervising them - as acknowledged by the State of Florida, which requires more than just certifications, it requires work experience by various means.

    More specifically, though, I am a General Contractor, and, have worked in electrical for many years, first with my Dad (who was an electrical contractor) as I was growing up and then later with an electrical contractor for 12 years or so. And that only touches the tip of the iceberg for my construction work experience.

    Now to turn the question: "which trade are you actually qualified to inspect other than the certifications? Are you a plumber by trade for example?"

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  31. #31
    Bob Winchester's Avatar
    Bob Winchester Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Electrical contractor, master electrician and inspector 21 years, journeyman before that. Mechanical inspector as well from work experience over many years. There are no licenses for mechanical people other than a contractor's license in one or more of the 10 or more sections of mechanical here in Michigan. Additionally B.A. in Physics.


  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Winchester View Post
    There are no licenses for mechanical people other than a contractor's license in one or more of the 10 or more sections of mechanical here in Michigan.
    Florida has a license for almost everything:
    - Contractors (general)
    - - General Contractor (can build anything, no matter how big or how high)
    - - Building Contractor (can build anything, no matter how big, but not over 3 stories high)
    - - Residential Contractor (can build residential one and two family, duplexes, and townhouses)
    - Mechanical Contractors
    - - Class A (can do any type of mechanical work)
    - - Class B (some restrictions apply)
    - - Class C (more restrictions apply
    - Plumbing Contractor (I believe there is one class for plumber)
    - Electrical Contractor
    - - (there are several classes, from being allowed to do it all, to fire alarms, to low voltage, to ... )
    - Swimming pool contractor
    - - (there are several classes here too)
    - and more ... and this more is just for construction related contractors, after that there are other licenses for most other things too.

    I've been working in construction since I was about 10 years old, except for 5 years when I worked in a defense plant in Quality Control (low power and high power - which was to 5 megawatts and higher); R&D; Standards Lab calibrating oscilloscopes, voltmeter, etc.; and other things as needed - much of my work was on Air Force projects with Secret and Top Secret clearances, the entire plant was a Classified clearance area, everyone in the plant had to have that clearance. Of course, though, that stuff I worked on is completely and totally out of date now - dinosaur stuff by today's stuff.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: 4/0 copper service wire

    I wrote the OP as a defect for not having a main disconnect. I was informed by the buyer's agent that an electrical contractor stated this was not a defect, it was okay when it was originally installed, therefore not a defect.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •