230.7... ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tbakelis

Senior Member
Hello all...

So, I have 3 panel boards... Panel A, A1, A2. All 3 are right next to each other. Panel a is serviced by a 400 Amp breaker. At the bottom of panel A I have a 225 Amp breaker feeding panel A1 through close thread nipple. Also in panel A I have a 100 Amp breaker that is going THROUGH panel A1 and then into Panel A2.

My question is, my inspector said that I cannot feed panel A2 via going through panel A1. 230.7 says I can go through a cabinet... he says that it isn't a cabinet, it is a panel.

It's not a big deal and I can change it for him... but I just want to know if he is right or not?

Thanks!

Ted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe you are quoting 230.7 not 230.70. I corrected your post....

It sounds like panel A1 and A2 are sub fed from Panel A and therefore they are not service conductors but rather they are feeders. In that case 230 does not apply...

article 312.8 applies and your install is compliant
 
tbakelis said:
Hello all...
It's not a big deal and I can change it for him... but I just want to know if he is right or not?

Thanks!

Ted
Click to expand...

as dennis said. it's a cabinet, not a panelboard.
similar point is not permitting splices in a panelboard.
the cabinet is fine.

i am not positive, but i believe this harkens back to the days
when panelboards were often made on site. knife switch days.
when thomas edison was hollowing out wood logs for conduits.
 
I was pretty sure about this one but he was persistant .... So now the question I face is... do I just change it to make him happy, or poke the bear and show him a mike holt video saying it's ok..
 
tbakelis said:
I was pretty sure about this one but he was persistant .... So now the question I face is... do I just change it to make him happy, or poke the bear and show him a mike holt video saying it's ok..
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you want to keep doing it the way the inspector interprets it from now on, or do you want to show him the proper code section allowing it?

Inspectors are people too, make mistakes like anyone else. A good inspector would want to know, a poor inspector will get defensive about it.

Oregon has the "cite it, write it" rule meaning any violation must come with a code reference to support it.
 
tbakelis said:
I was pretty sure about this one but he was persistant .... So now the question I face is... do I just change it to make him happy, or poke the bear and show him a mike holt video saying it's ok..
Click to expand...

You are obliged for the sake of every other electrician to point out that he is wrong. It can be polite, but it needs to be done. A good inspector won't feel threatened or offended, and if he is then he needs to grow up a little.
 
This might help:


707ecmcqfig1.jpg


http://www.ecmweb.com/content/code-quandaries-39
 
You may want to ask the inspector to show you a code reference that supports his citation.

You never know, the inspector may have a point.

If he can not come up with a supporting code section then continue with your installation.
 
He stated article 408.3 exception 3 was what the city was hanging their hat on with this. Very frustrating that there are 2 codes that can be pinned against each other. Anyway, the solution isn’t too tough but it’s installing a flex within the panel between the penetrations for the conductors to pass through. Oh well!
 
tbakelis said:
He stated article 408.3 exception 3 was what the city was hanging their hat on with this. Very frustrating that there are 2 codes that can be pinned against each other. Anyway, the solution isn’t too tough but it’s installing a flex within the panel between the penetrations for the conductors to pass through. Oh well!
Click to expand...

Your argueing is pointless if this inspector doesn't know the difference between a switchboard, switchgear and a panelboard within a cabinet.
 
tbakelis said:
He stated article 408.3 exception 3 was what the city was hanging their hat on with this. Very frustrating that there are 2 codes that can be pinned against each other. Anyway, the solution isn’t too tough but it’s installing a flex within the panel between the penetrations for the conductors to pass through. Oh well!
Click to expand...
There is no 408.3 Exception No. 3. The only exceptions in 408.3 are 408.3(A) Exception, 408.3(C) Exception, and 408.3(E) Exception. Is he perhaps thinking the former is somehow only associated with 408.3(A)(3)?

That said, I don't get how he is correlating any of 408.3 with the passage of two subpanel feeders supplied from a service panel.

PS: In general, an exception typically permits under a specific condition or set of conditions that which would not normally be permitted. That is, an exception does not restrict permission but rather loosens restriction under a specific condition.
 
Unfortunately Seems like it’s pointless for me to argue with them anymore because it has come from the top. :(. More time and money thrown at this job because of an abuse of power! :-(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top