Sub Panel Location

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



240.33 DOES NOT allow the breakers to be installed with ‘on’ being up.


240.33 is referring to the enclosure being horizontal, not the breakers. In fact, 240.33 includes this restriction "where the circuit breaker is installed in accordance with 240.81".

240.81 Indicating.
Circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open ?off? or closed ?on? position.

Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather than rotationally or horizontally, the ?up? position of the handle shall be the ?on? position.

Thus, the ONLY enclosures allowed to be installed in the horizontal position are those enclosures listed and labeled for use with the panelboard section installed vertically in the horizontal enclosure. 240.33 is a very restrictive option.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry I am not following you in the least here.


Breakers can be mounted in any position, if the position is such that there is an up or down to the handle movement up must be the ON position.

With a breaker mounted in an enclosure on it's back there is no up position of the breaker handle.

Quote:
240.81 Indicating.
Circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open ?off? or closed ?on? position.

Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather than rotationally or horizontally, the ?up? position of the handle shall be the ?on? position.


I would say that a breaker in an enclosure on it's back is operating horizontally negating the up is ON requirement.

This is really no different then a typical breaker installation on a wall, the breaker handle action is left to right or right to left.


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob Badger wrote:
Jerry I am not following you in the least here.

Breakers can be mounted in any position, if the position is such that there is an up or down to the handle movement up must be the ON position.

With a breaker mounted in an enclosure on it's back there is no up position of the breaker handle.


Bob,

Referring to "on the horizontal" as shown in Joe T.'s drawing above, versus "in the vertical" as shown in the same drawing.

When laid on its back, is that horizontal or vertical? Or is it just 'on its back'?

How about when installed on its back to the underside of a ceiling? Horizontal or vertical? Or just plain dumb? Would you want to remove a cover from a panel installed that way? Especially an FPE where the breakers tend to fall out on their own (no need to worry about a Zinsco, those breakers can't even be pried out is some cases, arced to the bus bars ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) ).

Let's go into the 'installed on its back' enclosure a little.

Where and how do you measure the working space? The clearance to the floor and structural ceiling? What about heat dissipation in the enclosure? What about when the cover is removed and the enclosure is 'face up' what about objects falling into the live parts? When installed 'face down', what about live parts falling into you?

Those enclosures (for overcurrent devices) are designed and intended to be installed on walls or supports orienting the enclosure in the way a wall would. Now, 'vertical' and 'horizontal' make sense.

Right?

Once you start to consider the weird and unintended, it can really get weird.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Here is a statement made by a member of Code Making Panel 10, the panel that handles this section of the NEC


It is important to remember this is just his opinion and not an official interpretation.

That said I have great faith in what he says, he is a man of integrity.

Quote:
Originally posted by charlie:
It is up to you to draw your own conclusions about what the CMP (Code Making Panel) meant. However, I was there when this was discussed since I am on CMP-10. The discussion was about the panelboards being mounted either on their backs or on a ceiling and the consensus was that it was up to the AHJ for his interpretation. The CMP did not see a problem with that type of installation.

A proposal was not made to clean up the language and the panel did not wish to take the time to put together a panel proposal for this since it was not an issue. Therefore, the words have to stand by themselves. I assume that you are aware that the intent of the CMP means nothing after the revisions have been made, the Code has to stand on its own words. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


Remember that was his opinion, not an NFPA statement.

If you go to the link below you can see the original post.

http://www.mikeholt.com/codeforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=004444;p=2#000016

I still maintain my position that laying a panel board on it's back is not a always violation of 240.33 or 240.81

I would look to 110.3(B) and 110.26 as possible violations.

How high up is this panel, is the top breaker higher than 6'-7"?

If it is higher than 6'-7" there is a violation of 404.8


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
rmoewe wrote:
You do learn something new every day. I the inspection business it seams like you learn at least 3 or 4. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)
Good Read


Richard, Thank you too!

I don't mind taking the time for researching the facts when necessary. I have most of the reports associated with the code as far back as the 1950's, they help me to get to the reasons for some of the changes in the code.

There is a problem though, the new members of the panels are without this real information, and make changes to the code on interpretation's by someone who reads the rule another way.

I could give examples, but will avoid them here to avoid thread drift.


http://www.mikeholt.com/codeforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=004431

I, Joe Tedesco, was the person who posted the quoted text in Bob's message above, and he advised me of his interest in my comments.

Here is the original location of the thread:

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=6307

I was happy to see another person, especially the young fella Charlie here agree with me!

Just ask anyone who has been involved in the process for a few code cycles (I go back to 1965 to the present) and ask them the same question!

I will lay odds that George Flach would agree with me as one, maybe others too.

He has been through 5 decades of the code process. I would like to hear from anyone who may have another opinion.

PS: I have documents and transcripts of meetings at IAEI Section Meetings from the 1960's through this cycle, and historical text that would make you want to hide under a rock if you were involved in the code making process today, not trying to start anything, just the facts, as I always try to produce!

Quote:
Originally posted by charlie:
Bob, as a member of CMP-10, I think I can add some insight to this thread.

Unfortunately, the poster is correct. The panel members are chosen by their organization to represent them.

Most of the panel members are either in management or are engineers and are just defending their own turf.

Let me hurry to say that I am not aware of a single panel member that is not concerned about electrical safety and that is foremost in their minds.

You have heard this before but I can use since it involves my own industry (I will not run anyone else down).

Since I represent EEI (The Edison Electric Institute), I know that we are interested in protection our own turf and our customer's turf.

EEI feels like 90.2(B)(5) should be protected and we do fight to protect that area of the NEC since we are covered in most locations by the NESC.

Additional, we at EEI do not feel like anyone protects the consumer (our customers) from overly expensive construction. We attempt to keep the wiring costs as low as possible without sacrificing safety.

Getting back to your original question, most panel members are supported for just a few cycles and then they retire.

For instance, I started with the 1993 cycle and am one of the "old timers" on our panel. I expect to serve for one more cycle and then I will retire.

At that time I will be 65 (I am 62 now) and will take my experience with me unless I can continue as a consultant like John Troglia.

It is imperative for the EEI group to educate the "new" panel members with the items of importance as they return, that is the value of a directed vote.

If I don't know what to do with a particular item, the collective knowledge of our group will help the newbie.



--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Once you start to consider the weird and unintended, it can really get weird.


You can say that again Jerry Peck!

What is happening to our trade and the way in which rules are interpreted!

![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
What is happening to our trade and the way in which rules are interpreted! ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Joe, seriously who made you the arbitrator of the correct way to interpret the NEC?

You are very knowledgeable and respected however not all your ideas are shared by the NFPA.

As has been shown by the NFPAs "Tenuous Nexus" response and more recently the letter you have posted from the NFPA to you "Adequately Covered Existing NFPA Documents!" you want a much more restrictive NEC than the NFPA seems willing to accept.

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob Badger wrote:
jtedesco wrote:
What is happening to our trade and the way in which rules are interpreted! ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Joe, seriously who made you the arbitrator of the correct way to interpret the NEC?

You are very knowledgeable and respected however not all your ideas are shared by the NFPA.

As has been shown by the NFPAs "Tenuous Nexus" response and more recently the letter you have posted from the NFPA to you "Adequately Covered Existing NFPA Documents!" you want a much more restrictive NEC than the NFPA seems willing to accept.

Bob


Again, before we start any further discussion, you should understand that this is a Public Board, and like you and the others here we are entitled to say what we want and interpret the code as we see it!

Please don't be upset with my responses, I have a bit more time spent in this industry than most.



Go on and give the kids a Hug!

PS: The name of the game in the Electrical Industry is the bottom line.

The almighty Dollar!! Just leave this in an envelope and anything goes.




--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jpeck wrote:
Bob Badger wrote:
Jerry I am not following you in the least here.

Breakers can be mounted in any position, if the position is such that there is an up or down to the handle movement up must be the ON position.

With a breaker mounted in an enclosure on it's back there is no up position of the breaker handle.


Bob,

Referring to "on the horizontal" as shown in Joe T.'s drawing above, versus "in the vertical" as shown in the same drawing.

When laid on its back, is that horizontal or vertical? Or is it just 'on its back'?

How about when installed on its back to the underside of a ceiling? Horizontal or vertical? Or just plain dumb? Would you want to remove a cover from a panel installed that way? Especially an FPE where the breakers tend to fall out on their own (no need to worry about a Zinsco, those breakers can't even be pried out is some cases, arced to the bus bars ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) ).

Let's go into the 'installed on its back' enclosure a little.

Where and how do you measure the working space? The clearance to the floor and structural ceiling? What about heat dissipation in the enclosure? What about when the cover is removed and the enclosure is 'face up' what about objects falling into the live parts? When installed 'face down', what about live parts falling into you?

Those enclosures (for overcurrent devices) are designed and intended to be installed on walls or supports orienting the enclosure in the way a wall would. Now, 'vertical' and 'horizontal' make sense.

Right?

Once you start to consider the weird and unintended, it can really get weird.


Jerry, do you see or hear any echoes here? or am I seeing or hearing things too?



I would not allow the panel described in the very first question to be installed as discussed!! Would you?


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
Jerry, do you see or hear any echoes here? or am I seeing or hearing things too?



jtedesco wrote:
Please don't be upset with my responses, I have a bit more time spent in this industry than most.



Go on and give the kids a Hug!


Joe I do not care how long you have in the industry the official interpretations do not come from you.

I see you are showing you true colors again with rude comments, that is typical when someone disagrees with you.

I was wondering if you can explain the thread you entitled Seems Simple Enough For A Home Inspector?

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=6449

jtedesco wrote:
How many times must we review multiple images here that always discuss the situation that involves and shows the so-called double taps?


You list yourself as NACHI Electrical Trainer and you post something like that? ![icon_mad.gif](upload://j9pysYkUDeHxjgaVCpqL5B8x4z3.gif)

Great attitude for a 'teacher' Give me a break.

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob Badger wrote:
jtedesco wrote:
Jerry, do you see or hear any echoes here? or am I seeing or hearing things too?



jtedesco wrote:
Please don't be upset with my responses, I have a bit more time spent in this industry than most.



Go on and give the kids a Hug!


Joe I do not care how long you have in the industry the official interpretations do not come from you.

I see you are showing you true colors again with rude comments, that is typical when someone disagrees with you.

I was wondering if you can explain the thread you entitled Seems Simple Enough For A Home Inspector?

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=6449

jtedesco wrote:
How many times must we review multiple images here that always discuss the situation that involves and shows the so-called double taps?


You list yourself as NACHI Electrical Trainer and you post something like that? ![icon_mad.gif](upload://j9pysYkUDeHxjgaVCpqL5B8x4z3.gif)

Great attitude for a 'teacher' Give me a break.

Bob


You seem to be the only one who has a problem with my comments!

Again, this is a Public Forum and I am not giving official opinions just personal opinions.!


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



No I am not upset, disappointed is a better description.



Bob (AKA iwire)


ECN Discussion Forums


Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob:


Disappointed?

I stand ready to sign up for, or be invited too, one or more of your code classes, now that you teach the subject, then maybe we can begin to see eye to eye!

I promise to keep quiet, just allow me to Audit your class(es) and supply you with a few questions, and see how you answer them.

Bob, I have lots of official information from the early code years, and that gives me some information that I try to share, so I do, and because of that I am criticized!

Call me anytime..

![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
Bob:

Disappointed?

I stand ready to sign up for, or be invited too, one or more of your code classes, now that you teach the subject, then maybe we can begin to see eye to eye!

I promise to keep quiet, just allow me to Audit your class(es) and supply you with a few questions, and see how you answer them.



More backhanded comments, what a surprise. ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
More backhanded comments, what a surprise.


Bob: Not at all, I am sincere and not trying to discredit you in any way!

Please see my comment as something positive.

![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: rmoewe
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:


The almighty Dollar!! Just leave this in an envelope and anything goes.

![](upload://g1aTFJoKNb1z46EoJg6iizyms8m.jpeg)


Add a few more of these to the board and I will print them up and put them in a bag. Then I will not have to worry if the the damn panel is mountd right or wrong.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Com’on children … QUIT fighting. What will the neighbors think!


Joe has much good knowledge and experience. Quit picking on the younger one.

Bob has much good knowledge and experience. Quit picking on the older one.

If you kids would quit fighting with each other, we could this this danged wiring job done! (Quote from my dad when my brothers and I were "helping" him when we were young).

Time out, go to your corners, no lunch today, and bedtime is 8 PM tonight. MAYBE you kids will learn to act nicer toward each other tomorrow.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jmcginnis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It’s apparent from the various postings here that the NEC does not necessarily prohibit the installation of an panel on it’s back but as a home inspector I would note any such panel in my report as potentially unsafe for the reasons that Jerry stated. The code is a great place to start for criteria in an inspection but since it is a “minimum” standard, it is up to the inspector to use his experience, knowledge and common sense to evaluate any situation and advise his client accordingly. For example, the NEC allows for the installation of a regular receptacle (without GFCI protection) in a room with a shower and toilet but without a sink (basin). In an inspection, I would advise my client that this is a potentially dangerous situation even though I know the NEC does not prohibit it.


Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jmcginnis wrote:
The code is a great place to start for criteria in an inspection but since it is a "minimum" standard, it is up to the inspector to use his experience, knowledge and common sense to evaluate any situation and advise his client accordingly.


That is something I can strongly agree with. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

Jerry please let me know when time out is done. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

Bob (in the corner facing the wall)


Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I wish I had a copy of the UL standard for panels, because I am guessing there is something there about panels flat on the back.


But I like Jack's comments, and would write it up as a "concern" anyway using common sense. Just seems like an accident waiting to happen if something spills on the panel.

[Bob ... don't forget to wear the cap while in the corner ... I bet David Valley could come up with a cool avitar you and Joe have to use while you are in your "time out" ... ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ]


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong