NEC service entrance ????????

[Chief McGee]

Running 3-ph power to my shop behind my house. 200 amp. Mobile, Al.
They are still using the 1999 edition of the NEC. The inspector was just
here and approved everything except for the 4/0 aluminum wire. He said it
had to be "250 Aluminum" or "3/0 copper". He claimed that 4/0 Al was
acceptable for residential, not commercial. This is a one man machine shop.
Now I sure hate to go to the work and expense of changing this out.
Although, I would like it to be copper wire. Question is : Is he correct
about the 4/0 ? Also, He mentioned that the 2005 code was about to come
out. If the 2005 code allows 4/0 Al , Can I just wait until January to get
the permit? What does it say about this? What about the 2002 edition? He
wasn't very forthcoming with info, so I would appreciate some facts if I
decide to try and keep the 4/0.
Is the complete NEC listed anywhere on the net? I don't want to buy a 1999
edition and the 2005 is not out yet.
Thanks for any suggestions, Chief

 

[SQLit]

Running 3-ph power to my shop behind my house. 200 amp. Mobile, Al.
They are still using the 1999 edition of the NEC. The inspector was just
here and approved everything except for the 4/0 aluminum wire. He said it
had to be "250 Aluminum" or "3/0 copper". He claimed that 4/0 Al was
acceptable for residential, not commercial. This is a one man machine shop.
Now I sure hate to go to the work and expense of changing this out.
Although, I would like it to be copper wire. Question is : Is he correct
about the 4/0 ? Also, He mentioned that the 2005 code was about to come
out. If the 2005 code allows 4/0 Al , Can I just wait until January to get
the permit? What does it say about this? What about the 2002 edition? He
wasn't very forthcoming with info, so I would appreciate some facts if I
decide to try and keep the 4/0.
Is the complete NEC listed anywhere on the net? I don't want to buy a 1999
edition and the 2005 is not out yet.
Thanks for any suggestions, Chief

Commercial has always been 250AL or 3/0 copper. I doubt any time soon that
will change unless it is in the upward change. Just cause the code is in
production does not mean that your inspectors will adopt it. Phoenix is
still on the 1999. Having code books is not bad thing I have almost every
one back to 1987.

Keep the 4/0 and drop the breaker size to 150. If you really need more than
that I will be surprised. So will you when you get the bill, especially if
there is a demand meter.

 

[Chief McGee]

I think you are right about not needing more than 150 amp, But the minimum
service I can get is 200 so I am stuck with that.

 

[Bob]

Other posts addressed the technical issues, but I thought I would warn
you about a more important issue I saw in your post.

NEVER forget that the inspector is the FINAL AUTHORITY!
Even if your municipality adopts the new code AND it allows the
smaller wire (which I too doubt will happen), your inspector can STILL
reject it. You can appeal, then he can stall, then you can complain,
and he can stall again, and you can go over his head, and he can
appeal etc. etc. etc. Even if (and that is a BIG if) you ultimately
prevail, your project could get delayed 1-2 years in the process.
Throwing the code book into the face of an inspector is challenging
his authority, and it rarely has a favorable outcome.

Fix your attitude and put in a smaller breaker.

 

[John Gilmer]

Other posts addressed the technical issues, but I thought I would warn
you about a more important issue I saw in your post.

NEVER forget that the inspector is the FINAL AUTHORITY!
Even if your municipality adopts the new code AND it allows the
smaller wire (which I too doubt will happen), your inspector can STILL
reject it. You can appeal, then he can stall, then you can complain,
and he can stall again, and you can go over his head, and he can
appeal etc. etc. etc. Even if (and that is a BIG if) you ultimately
prevail, your project could get delayed 1-2 years in the process.
Throwing the code book into the face of an inspector is challenging
his authority, and it rarely has a favorable outcome.

Maybe where you live inspectors have the effective "final say" but in some
places the appeal process is quite speedy and the folks taking the final
decision are just "regular" contractors, tradesman, or semi-retired
engineers (like myself.) I was on the board of code appeals for about a
year. During that time we approved EVERY application for an override of
the code and/or inspector. (BTW: I usually was the only one who always
"went by the book.")

That said, I would go along with the previous poster and PUT IN A SMALLER
BREAKER!

 

[John Gilmer]

| Maybe where you live inspectors have the effective "final say" but in some
| places the appeal process is quite speedy and the folks taking the final
| decision are just "regular" contractors, tradesman, or semi-retired
| engineers (like myself.) I was on the board of code appeals for about a
| year. During that time we approved EVERY application for an override of
| the code and/or inspector. (BTW: I usually was the only one who always
| "went by the book.")

What were the typical basis for such appeals?

The most common cause was that the code made things so expensive that the
project would not make economic sense and the thing would not proceed.

In a case of running too small of a conductor I'm certain that the board
would have required that the conductors be protection. We definitely
weren't "anything goes."

In one case, a lumber yard put the sprinkler heads ABOVE a screen that was
designed to keep birds from nesting among the fixtures, conduits, rafters,
etc. The code required them be be below such structures. The owner
brought a letter from his insurance company saying that they had no problem.

One case had to to with handicap access in the remodening of a century old
building. Another could had to do with electrical and HVAC equipment being
below the flood line. In those cases, the board decided that is the owner
is willing to take the chance of a flood wiping out his equipment why should
we care?

During my term we didn't have a case like that cited. If we had and the
owner had a good story like the conduit was in place and in concrete, we
would have assured outself that the potential overload was not dangerous.
We might even have considered whether everything would be on at the same
time for long times or not.

But my point was/is that the inspector just doesn't have the last word. It
there is a reasonable appeal process in place the inspector would almost
NEVER go beyond the book. He might give some friendly advice but he would
not throw his weight about.

---

 

[John Gilmer]

Those are all good points. The National Electrical Code (NEC) is a product
of the National Fire Protection Association, Inc. (NFPA) and is a guideline
toward the safe use of electrical systems and the protection of society from
fire hazard. A structure that presents a fire hazard among other structures
is a safety consideration. It takes a lot of experience to recognize
something that may be a "code violation" but does not present a fire hazard.
To approve such a situation, an inspector sometimes goes out on a limb.
Most would not consider doing this, and so, the appeals. "Let someone else
do the final disposition on this, I've done my job and I'm right considering
the code." Of course, an inspector cannot be faulted for this thinking.
After all, he is right. And he shouldn't be put out if he is overruled.

Exactly.

That's the enviroment under which we served. The chief of the inspectors
was always present at the meetins and he made the initial presentation.
The appllicant followed up and the board could ask questions at any time
(the board was in charge of the meeting). We met in the office of the
chief of the code bureau.

Everyone one was there for the same reason: we wanted the best for the
community. Driving up owner costs for no good reason doesn't help anyone
and letting a true safety hazzard stay place doesn't help anyone either.

 

[John Gilmer]

The inspector can basically say "this is technically in violation of
the code, but you can get it waived at a panel hearing". Were it me,
I'd prefer to see some professional engineer sign off on the technical
merits of the waiver. Beyond that, getting it insured is between the
owner and the insurer.

That might be a way of encouraging a few more EEs to get the PE ticket.
Right now it's hardly worth the yearly dues.