How about an opinion on table 310-15 b

Status
Not open for further replies.
emahler said:
mac,

am i correct in thinking that there is an existing 100A MCB disconnect at the meter, feeding an existing 100A MLO panel in the house. And that you want to add an additional MLO panel at the other end of the house?

why not replace the existing disconnect with a 4 ckt panel. put in the 100A CB and a 60A cb?

you have less than 6 means of disconnect, you aren't pigtailing, each is it's own feed...

code wise..i didn't look it up, so have at code guys.

would this work for your app?
Click to expand...

Erik, You are right about the existing setup, but it is a 100 amp rated meter/main socket. There are two unused spaces, however adding a 60 amp to the existing 100 amp breaker in that existing can would be IMO a different code problem. I could do the calculations, split this up to a 60 and a 40 and be done with it I guess, however I know for a surefire fact that just re-routing all the existing branch circuits from the old location to the new spot will meet code . ln this case that's going to take a bit of finesse and labor. A kitchen panel would have made this a bunch easier. Without a doubt a new 200 amp service would be the best solution, but imagine a 150 foot concrete driveway poured over an old hardened lava field and then multiply that by my excessive need for Charge Large for this kinda headache, and you will see why the property owner would prefer I could find a solution using the existing service.;)
 
why would adding a 60a breaker to the two existing spots be any different than having a MLO panel with less than 6 means of disconnect and total amperage of the breakers totalling 200A+ in a 100A MLO panel?

what's the actual load? less than 100A?

come on code guys, help a haui out
 
Erik, I appreciate your trying to help out a fellow spark here. The whole problem is that the existing panel feeder as it is right now meets 310.15 (B) 6. If I did it like you suggest, then that goes out the window, and I would have to switch that feeder to a larger one to meet table 310.16 . That is one of the main problems I have in this particular job, the replacement of that feeder means tearing into a wooden t+g paneled wall (all nice and varnished), getting into the existing panel is almost out of the question for the purposes of this one job. Interesting side note, the GC as usual is falling all over himself to cut up the slab to help the plumber get his stuff relocated, but they are an important trade, I'm just an electrician. I'm still having my doubt's as to why my original idea would not meet the intention of 310.15 (B) (6) but this is so razor thin I'll take Iwire's advice for this just to save steps later. Thanks again to all.
 
georgestolz said:
Then I shall pounce on this insecurity. :D
Click to expand...

Cool :cool:

I think it is one feeder. If these conductors were starting at an OCPD and ending at outlets, it would be one branch circuit, despite going two ways from the circuit breaker.
Click to expand...

I think it is one feeder as well. :)

But.....:D


"and feeder conductors that serve as the main power feeder to each dwelling"

Neither set of conductors will serve as the main power feeder.

Both sets of feeder conductors only serve part of the dwelling.
 
iwire said:
Neither set of conductors will serve as the main power feeder.

Both sets of feeder conductors only serve part of the dwelling.
Click to expand...
I think it's a 50/50 split on this one, I think Mike will have to talk to the AHJ to determine their call on it.

The words can be presented to mean both ideas, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top