Electrical Inspection question

[jim baird]

Sounds to me like the disconnect means grouped at the service attachments, labeled, make the installation kosher.

 

[righter101]

righter101,Thanks for coming here to ask for assistance. I too do it all the time! Please do

not feel put off by our inquiries and interpretations. We are on the outside

looking in trying to assist you as best as we can. Please allow us to try and

work through this with you, ...we're curious too!

Looking forward to more info & pics., and a final outcome. By you telling us

how things worked out, it helps to educate others on here.

.

I don't feel put out at all. I guess it is hard to convey expressions via typed text, but I am more than grateful and appreciative for the feedback on this forum, and appreciate all the questions.

I spoke with the EI this morning and got some clarification. There is a WAC (Washington Administrative Code) provision that his is citing, which reads, as follows:

WAC 296-46B-225 Wiring and protection — Outside branch circuits and feeders.

030 Number of supplies.

(1) For the purposes of NEC 225.30(A) and this section, if a property has only a single building that is supplied from a

remote service, the building may be supplied by no more than two feeders originating from the service

equipment. The service equipment must contain overcurrent protection appropriate to each feeder. The building

disconnecting means required by NEC 225.32 must be located within sight and within 5’ of each other.

I think that is the reason for his write up. I am heading out to the site right now to take a look. This, I guess, is why they were looking to have the structure classified as 2 separate structures.

I brought the camera. Thanks again to all. I will take some pics today.

 

[righter101]

Im even more confused now. I re read the section in the NEC referenced by the WAC and that deals with the requirements for more than one building.

I will try to get more clarification or see if there are additional amendments to the NEC, by the state.

 

[MarkRandall]

I'm not exactly sure how electrical review and inspections work in WA (I should). Even with designed electrical drawings, the subcontractor has always handled permitting of the electrical work. It's always a last resort, but if I have a situation with building code that I know is correct and inspector is giving me grief, I will go over the inspectors head and back to the plans examiner. I've only done this a handful of times in 25 year career, but sometimes it's the path of least resistance in resolving the issue. Now this of course is not your place to take action, but it could be recommended to the contractor.

If they insist on going the route of multiple building, let them resubmit plans, review and then call it 2 buildings. I wouldn't issue anything in writing before review of revised drawings. In either case, it's up to the contractor/permit holders/owners to take the next step and I don't think you need to debate with the EI. If you do talk with him, you can always mention you think what they have done is code compliant since they have provided the code required disconnects and is he sure he is interpreting that correctly, but don't debate as it's not your position to do so.

 

[righter101]

I just went out to the site. I am unclear what electrical provisions are in violation. The electrical contractor, however, feels that the path of least resistance is doing what the EI wants for approval, rather than arguing. They are on a project that has some hard deadlines and the potential of upsetting an inspector or causing further delays to get an opinion seems to not be worth it. I am not going to interject myself in to the arguement either.

I gave them information on what is required to create a 2 hour wall that would allow the building to be considered 2 separate structures. They are weighing what that entails with what would be required to move the disconnect in to the house.

I am still unclear on how they are in violation of the electrical code, but that is not my area of expertiese.

I got some pics, so I will monkey with them and upload them later and post for all to see.

thanks again.

 

[righter101]

Washington state, for SFR, does not require electrical plans, just the completion of an online permit application. I discussed what was involved in creating a separate structure, based on a 2 hour firewall and that appears to present difficulties.

The issue with running the feeder into the house to a panel with a disconnect, then running that to the current location of the sub panel, is that they will need to bore underground, through 2 stem walls, which have between them, compacted fill.

 

[chris kennedy]

Im even more confused now. I re read the section in the NEC referenced by the WAC and that deals with the requirements for more than one building.I will try to get more clarification or see if there are additional amendments to the NEC, by the state.

In your OP you state, "The property has an 800A service (green box). At that service, the electrician installed 4 200A disconnects." Is the 'green box' a CT cabinet with a meter and the 4 disco's mounted next to it? And is all this equipment mounted to the structure? This info will determine whether this install falls under 225 or 230.

 

[righter101]

pics, descriptionAttached are some pics of the disconnect panel, near the transformer (green box). This is about 80 feet away from the structure. That may influence the code requirements. I have also included a picture of where the house and garage come together.I would be happy to answer any more questions. As mentioned, I am not that familiar with Elec. requirements. This discussion and research has given me some new insights. I feel bad for the contractor if there is truly no violation and they are being made to run something extra for erroneous reasons. Looking at the front of the house, they will need to bore through 2 stem walls and 10 feet of compacted fill to run the new disconnect. I guess I am not clear what purpose is served by having the disconnect for the garage panel located inside the house.Thanks again to all for help.

View attachment 381

View attachment 382

View attachment 383

View attachment 384

View attachment 385

View attachment 381

View attachment 382

View attachment 383

View attachment 384

View attachment 385

/monthly_2011_02/572953be62e24_5ftfromtransformer.JPG.4ab667bfb6265363ba13594e539d3c89.JPG

/monthly_2011_02/572953be6540d_elec2.JPG.686be9201c021c01323c60a2f315078c.JPG

/monthly_2011_02/572953be66fd0_garagelefthouseright.JPG.33a14456fccc605bf3a80805aa96d776.JPG

/monthly_2011_02/572953be68c41_insidegarage.JPG.24fbe041fb82c38ef16f994e6518a498.JPG

/monthly_2011_02/572953be6a845_insidehouse.JPG.d4df8a690b29235ff5fd6f1cf142a0fd.JPG

 

[GHRoberts]

Attached are some pics of the disconnect panel, near the transformer (green box). This is about 80 feet away from the structure.

You seem to be saying that the group of 4 disconnects is 80' away from the house. If so, they don't count as a disconnect for the structure.

I guess the builder has a problem.

 

[calhaz]

In most localities the service equipment in the situation would be considered a seperate structure. The building codes define structure as "That which is built". Because of WA code you can take two feeders to a seperate structure, in this case you have three. The NEC only allows one. The way to handle this in my humble opinion would be to carry a 600 amp feeder to the house then split to a 400 and a 200. Take the 400 in the house, as long as you can meet the tap rules and take the 200 to the garage