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.

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

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

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

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

-Jon

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

charlie
The exterior panel is not locked and is readily accessible to the occupant as it is a single family residence.

Tell that hillbilly inspector that he needs to cite you with a code section or your alleged violation will not hold up in court.

I am not so sure that name-calling helps anyone.

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

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?

Since I just argued this before the board I'll bite. The article reads dwelling not residence although in my opinion an apartment would be included in either of these. The feeder or feeders if located between the main disconnect and lighting and appliance panel or panels can be sized by 310.15(B)(6).

Now let me clear up my original post. The sub panel in question is a lighting and appliance panel. It is the only one inside the dwelling. The calculated load was 47.5 amps on this panel. It contained 2 small appliance circuits, 1 bathroom circuit, 2000sq. ft. lighting load, and 4 electric space heaters. I used 220.30 Optional calculation method since I had 4 unit heaters. The chairman of the board, much to my delight, was an electrical engineer, and initially had a problem with the diversity of load in the lighting and appliance sub panel. The outdoor service equipment panel has the range, water heater, dryer, laundry circuit, and the feeder breaker for the lighting and appliance panel in it. When I said 310.15(B)(6) allowed lighting and appliance panel or panels. His opinion of this was that the lighting and appliance panels were limited by a percentage of 20 amp circuits, and therefore the service panel did not meet the requirements for a lighting and appliance panels. When I read 408.14(A) and mentioned that in my home jurisdiction that ranges, dryers, and water heaters are appliances, he saw no problem with the installation.
There was also an electrical contractor who took issue with my calculation of the load in the sub panel, because he said the calculations only covered services and not feeders. When I pointed out 220.30(A) he saw no problem with the installation. Now if the AHJ had been that reasonable, this appeal would have never happened.
The 310.15(B)(6) issue was not part of the original appeal and the chairman asked the building official where did this come from. He responded that he just had a problem with it on his, subsequent to my appeal, visit to the job to see if he could find anything else to cite me for, only this time he thought he had 310.16 to use against me. He only showed his ignorance of the code once again along with what a jerk he is.

SolarPowered: That is exactly what I am saying. Feeder to an apartment, use 310.15(B)(6). Feeder to a swimming pool subpanel in a home, use 310.16. 310.15(B)(6) applies to services and feeders that supply power for _dwellings_, not anything else. We had a long discussion of this point here: https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001450.html

It is my opinion that 310.15(B)(6) simply confuses the issue of proper conductor sizing. It seems to say that the ampacity of the conductors is different in this particular application. But it seems to me that what 310.15(B)(6) is really saying is that for a particular type of load (feeders to dwellings) a circuit which requires OCPD X and conductor ampacity Y, where Y is less than X.

This is done all the time for things like motors or welders, where the conductor ampacity might be half the OCPD trip rating. IMHO the service and feeder demand calculations should be modified to return _two_ numbers, one for required conductor ampacity, and the second number for OCPD rating. Doing the calculation on a dwelling might give a number such as 'this service requires an OCPD of 100A and a conductor ampacity of 80A', and the result would be a 100A main breaker and #4 conductors, matching what happens when 310.15(B)(6) is applied.

watthead: Based upon this last description, I agree that the feeder in question is the 'main power feed' of a dwelling and that 310.15(B)(6) applies. Sure sounds like the inspectors were looking for anything to hang a violation on, and I'm glad that you stuck with the appeal.

-Jon

Watthead
Let me offer my congratulations on taking a principled stand and sticking to it.

Some states are now considering instituting a statewide secondary appeals process. The advantage to such a system is that it provides a secondary avenue for resolution but more importantly the state appeals board decisions are precedent that is binding state wide. A local AHJ that is repeatedly overturned on appeal could be in danger of being decertified as a code official where upon he/she would have to be replaced.
--
Tom H

First let me also congratulate watthead on a victory.

Jon


I agree 100%



Do you really think that will lessen the confusion?

I understand your idea and agree it would work.

I have my own idea, remove Table 310.15(B)(6) and have everyone use 310.16

No one is saving a boat load of money by using Table 310.15(B)(6). The run length of the applications that table is designed for are generally short.

JMO, Bob

Watthead,I would also like to say congratulations.

I respect good inspectors and will gladly correct all violations when they are substantiated by code(s), or other reasons for safety.

I do have a problem with mavericks, be it police, inspectors, or any one in an authoritative position that will abuse their power.

I won't go into the 310.15(B)(6) issue, I think my stance is pretty well known.

Roger