ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
A 5-20(20a) receptacle is legal on a 15a circuit?
by libellis - 10/10/21 12:46 PM
GFCI's pops in large numbers
by dsk - 10/07/21 03:46 PM
Backup Generator Done Right
by timmp - 10/06/21 02:07 PM
How's all our Non-US folks doing?
by dsk - 09/30/21 05:06 AM
Well I am back to stay (nearly 6 years)
by Bill Addiss - 09/26/21 11:09 PM
New in the Gallery:
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Now you know.
Now you know.
by Tom_Horne, September 7
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 6 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#90043 10/28/04 11:49 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 172
W
Member
I had initally installed a 100 amp panel but needed more spaces so I changed it out for a 200 amp main breaker panel inside the house. Outside there is a meter / 12 circuit panel (6 switch) service equipment, in which I installed a 100 amp 2 pole and a 100 amp four wire feeder to sub panel inside. Inspector didn't like the 200 amp main downstream. I was unaware that this installation would violate any code 2002. If it does please let me know which one so at least I will know what the reference is.
Inspector failed the installation without any code reference, and when asked for one, he said "TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT." This guy went off when I asked him for the reference. I was not out of line as I am not entirely stupid and have talked my way out of a few tickets etc.. Told me I would have to set up appointment at his office for next week to talk about it. I would hate to think he is looking for a dead president to change his mind. [Linked Image] [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by watthead (edited 10-28-2004).]

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 886
H
Member
Well, you could have saved yourself some money (and not had this problem) by using a main lug panel since a main breaker is not required in this sub panel. You have a 100A feeder that is protected by a 100A breaker.

That said, I can't see any code article that this would violate. You could say that it is simply a disconnect which are often sized larger than their circuit OCPD.

-Hal

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 650
W
Member
Given the economics of mass distribution, it may be cheaper to buy a 200A service panel with a main breaker then to get a 'non standard' main lug only panel [Linked Image]

Installing a 200A subpanel would seem to make it easier to improperly load the 100A feeder, but if your demand calculation shows that 100A is sufficient, I see no problems. When the time comes for the discussion with the inspector, I'd make sure to have the demand calculation written out in detail.

As far as arguing with the inspector, I think that the only real issue that he could have is that this 200A breaker is not properly 'coordinated' with the upstream breaker. It is generally good design practise to coordinate breakers so that the breaker nearest a fault will trip. I don't believe that there is a explicit NEC requirement for coordination, and you may need to explain that coordination is not needed here [Linked Image]

-Jon

As hbiss said, if you consider this breaker simply to be a disconnect switch,

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
"TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT."

Tell you where it says you can not do that.

Other than that, is a 100A cb or main lug kit available to swap out to get him off your back in case? You may have to deal with this personality again.


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 582
R
Ron Offline
Member
In this case the 200A main breaker is acting as a local disconnect which happens to be rated at 200A. For example, a condenser unit may have a 40A breaker, 40A wire and a 60A local disconnect (next standard size). Will he reject the 60 disco?

No code requirement for protective device coordination.


Ron
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 162
C
Member
I do not believe you stated that the exterior panel was locked or capable of being locked but this may have prompted the inspectors decision

230.92 Locked Service Overcurrent Devices.
Where the service overcurrent devices are locked or sealed or are not readily accessible to the occupant, branch-circuit overcurrent devices shall be installed on the load side, shall be mounted in a readily accessible location, and shall be of lower ampere rating than the service overcurrent device.

The main lug panel might be a good choice.

Charlie

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
G
Member
The 200a main is not a branch circuit, so I say there is no violation. All conductors are properly protected ans there can be no overloading of the branches if they are properly protected with the correct breakers.


George Little
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 172
W
Member
charlie
The exterior panel is not locked and is readily accessible to the occupant as it is a single family residence.

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
Tell that hillbilly inspector that he needs to cite you with a code section or your alleged violation will not hold up in court.


Earl
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 201
Member
I am not so sure that name-calling helps anyone. [Linked Image]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy


Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
electure
electure
Fullerton, CA USA
Posts: 4,288
Joined: December 2000
Top Posters(30 Days)
dsk 5
wa2ise 1
Popular Topics(Views)
284,570 Are you busy
217,281 Re: Forum
203,631 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5