ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Larger breaker downstream

Inspector has conceded that he can't cite a Code violation, but will not accept the installation. He thinks that it violates the intent of the listing and labeling of the panel. He isn't willing to offer any proof of what he thinks. He has talked to the building official and they will not accept the installation.

You're hosed then, right or wrong


From '99 NEC (sorry no '02 today)

90-4 Enforcement
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code will have the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials,

I'm a "hillbilly" electrical inspector and a fan of country music but you can bet if I cite you a code violation I can find it in the book. Really ticks me off when an inspector cites a contractor on a job because he thinks it's a code violation and yet he can't find the page and verse. Then he dupes his building official to go along with him. The Building Official, Electrical Inspector and Contractor need to be aware of and use the appeal process.

I was discussing this with the building official and he told me the reason I could not do this was because the 200 amp breaker would put a 200 amp load on the feeder. Then I asked him if 40 20 amp breakers put an 800 amp load on a 200 amp panel and he said that it did not. I ended this conversation with the intention of not only pursuing the appeal process but the legal system if the appeal was not successful. A short time later the building official called me back and was trying to act nice. I had not told him of my intentions, but I think he guessed as much. He then asked me why I had not asked him what I could do to get approval. I told him that his inspector had only given me one alternative of changing the breaker to a 100 amp, and providing him with a letter that stated that this change would not violate the listing and labeling of this panel. While at the same time he did volunteer that I could not change the panel to main lugs because it was a lighting and appliance panel and a main breaker in the panel was required. I can only guess that 408.16(A)Exception 1 was ammended from the Code that they accepted. I will give the building official credit for saying that a catalog cut would suffice for the letter that I thought would be impossible to obtain anyway. I already had my appeal letter written when he informed me that I would have to fill out their form to get an appeal. I guess 80.15 (G)1 doesn't apply in their jurisdiction either. After talking with my customer, general contractor, I decided to try to change the breaker. I personally hate to do this as I believe that there is no place for Dumb and Dumber in our industry, and that not challenging them leaves them thinking that they are correct. With these guys it is not only that they are wrong, but they won't discuss it. I do not like being beaten when I have listened to their side and still think that I am correct. On the downside, this could turn into one that I never get paid for. Just another of the little joys of our business.


[This message has been edited by watthead (edited 11-06-2004).]

Sorry,
I retract my last post
Your inspector and his superior are idiots

Life's not fair. They DON'T know their job, and they're getting paid for it. You DO know your job, and you're NOT getting paid for it...the phone calls, meetings, etc.

I've been there and I feel your pain.

Dave

*****UPDATE*****UPDATE*****UPDATE*****
Well I just couldn't let this one go without a fight. After I had replaced the 200 amp main with a 100 amp version to get the power released to the house, I carried my appeal letter to the building official. He couldn't understand why I wanted to appeal a decision that I had already complied with. I told him that it was the money it cost me to comply, but it was really the fact that they were making up codes under the guise of interpreting it. I have just returned from an afternoon spent with the mechanical appeal board. The vote was 5 to 0 in my favor. Then the building official wanted to challenge my use of 2-2-2-4 ser aluminum cable on the 100 amp feeder. He was using 310.16 for ampacity. He was aware of 310.15 (B)(6) but was sure even after I read it to him (real slow) that it was only for services and not for feeders. The vote was again 5 to 0 in my favor. The building official was thoroughly convinced that he could interpret anything he wanted to into the code by virtue of being the AHJ, and chastized the board chairman for taking away his ability to enforce the code by using this ability to interpret at will. This time truth and right and hopefully many others that are governed by this AHJ came out the winner. Thanks to a high quality appeals board.

[This message has been edited by watthead (edited 11-30-2004).]

Good for You
Bravo!!!!!!!!!
Get rid of power hungry types one at a time

As I read 310.15(B)(6), it is for services or feeders that supply the main power to a residence. Using 310.15(B)(6) for any other feeder is not correct, and table 310.16 needs to be used. The only other way to use 310.15(B)(6) is for _any_ feeder in a residence is that no feeder is required to be larger than the service or feeder conductors.

So a feeder to a subpanel in a garage needs to be sized with 310.16, since a garage is not a residence, even if the garage is part of a residence. If you have a 100A service with conductors sized using 310.15(B)(6), and a 100A feeder to a garage, then the 100A feeder would be the same size as the 100A service. It isn't clear from your posts if this feeder supplies the bulk of a residence.

Congrats on getting the inspectors to see the light on the larger breaker downstream!

-Jon

So Winnie, to get this straight, if a feeder fed a panel for an apartment over the garage you mention, you could use 310.15(B)(6), because it's a residence?