400A Meter Main Questions

[ICE]

I thought the Mike Holt video covered that. It is about future maintenance safety.

So I watched the Holt video. That reinforced the point that the code change has to do with safety. I noticed that a panel member named Eric mentioned the handle tie which elicited scoffing from another member. It is apparent that the code change is dealing with the equipment that is behind the dead front. The handle tie is on the exterior and does nothing to mitigate the perceived danger that the code change set out to address.

 

[wwhitney]

So I watched the Holt video. That reinforced the point that the code change has to do with safety. I noticed that a panel member named Eric mentioned the handle tie which elicited scoffing from another member. It is apparent that the code change is dealing with the equipment that is behind the dead front.

The only discussion in the video about the specifics of the safety benefit was, to paraphrase, "you shut off one disconnect, and you kill all the energized parts inside except for the guarded line side conductors." CDK400 meets that criterion.

You seem to think that a single 400A double pole breaker provides better worker safety than two 200A double pole breakers with a common disconnect. OK, how? Give me one set of steps a worker can safely do on the meter main with one 400A double pole breaker for which the corresponding set of steps is less safe if there were instead two 200A double pole breakers with a common disconnect.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

The dead front is removed without opening any breakers. ….. Then a 200 amp breaker is opened to facilitate work to be done at a downstream panel while a second 200 amp breaker within the same enclosure remains energized. That is the exact condition the code prevents. In the best case, the electrician opens both 200amp breakers via the handle tie and then removes the dead front. He/she then energizes the 200amp panel that is not the object of the task.

The obvious retort to that is the electrician violated safety protocols. Well the odds that there is an electrician in this scenario are slim to none and it happens just like that with the current 400amp panels in use today. With that knowledge it is apparent that the handle tie defeats 230.71 and is a waste of money.

I have removed hundreds of dead fronts for inspection without opening the main breaker. Probably thousands. In my estimation, unless there is evidence that too many people are getting electrocuted, this new code is fixing what ain’t broke. However, slapping on a handle tie that removes with the dead front is a cosmetic effort to effect a physical barrier. It just fails to perform.

 

[wwhitney]

=

The dead front is removed without opening any breakers.

Yeah, stop right there, that's not safe to do. You shouldn't be doing it either.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

=

Yeah, stop right there, that's not safe to do. You shouldn't be doing it either.

Cheers, Wayne

Shouldn’t be doing it but when I perform residential service upgrade inspections, I can’t be shutting off the power. I have to be mindful of what is going on in the dwelling. LA County had a rule that inspectors are not allowed to remove dead fronts. Many inspectors require the permittee to be on hand to do that. More likely is that the dead front is removed and there is nobody there to meet the inspector. It sits there wide open and energized for days waiting for an approval that didn’t happen. The corrections are completed and the panel is left wide open a second time as the process repeats..


Then there’s the inspectors that do not inspect behind a dead front. Another thing is that when the contractor has someone there to remove the dead front, they were often not qualified to open a bottle of beer, much less a service panel. I preferred to be alone and I have tools. If I couldn’t get in the panel, the inspection failed.

The point is that the handle tie is an impotent appendage. The tie supposes that the point of the new code is merely to open two breakers at the same time and then the chore is completed. Handle ties elsewhere in use are not removed after serving the initial purpose.

 

[wwhitney]

The point is that the handle tie is an impotent appendage.

So is the disconnect itself if you refuse to use it. : - )

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

So I watched the Holt video. That reinforced the point that the code change has to do with safety. I noticed that a panel member named Eric mentioned the handle tie which elicited scoffing from another member. It is apparent that the code change is dealing with the equipment that is behind the dead front. The handle tie is on the exterior and does nothing to mitigate the perceived danger that the code change set out to address.

I am going to reach out to Vince, who was on that panel, to see if he has any insight since they made that video. He belonged to my previous IAEI and comes down to my present chapter meetings.

 

[jar546]

Shouldn’t be doing it but when I perform residential service upgrade inspections, I can’t be shutting off the power. I have to be mindful of what is going on in the dwelling. LA County had a rule that inspectors are not allowed to remove dead fronts. Many inspectors require the permittee to be on hand to do that. More likely is that the dead front is removed and there is nobody there to meet the inspector. It sits there wide open and energized for days waiting for an approval that didn’t happen. The corrections are completed and the panel is left wide open a second time as the process repeats..


Then there’s the inspectors that do not inspect behind a dead front. Another thing is that when the contractor has someone there to remove the dead front, they were often not qualified to open a bottle of beer, much less a service panel. I preferred to be alone and I have tools. If I couldn’t get in the panel, the inspection failed.

The point is that the handle tie is an impotent appendage. The tie supposes that the point of the new code is merely to open two breakers at the same time and then the chore is completed. Handle ties elsewhere in use are not removed after serving the initial purpose.

This is another thread in itself. I will be getting it started, right....................now. Thanks for bringing this hot topic up.