• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Electrical Inspection question

R

righter101

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
604
I work for a county in Wa. St. Our electrical permitting, plan review and inspections are handled entirely separate, by the State. The extent of our involvement is verifying that electrical has been approved at certain phases, prior to continuing. That being said, I am not the most electrically literate, so forgive my layman wording of things, but am trying to bring resolution to an inspection write up. Any and all help and comments are appreciated.

Situation: New construction of a large (8000 sqft) SFR. There is a garage with living space above it about 6 feet away. There is a connecting breezeway, which is only about 4 feet wide and actually is part of the support of a deck above.

We permitted this as one structure because they were attached.

The electrician filed for his permit and the plan checker/inspector at that time approved his design. The state rotates inspectors every year so they have a new inspector writing them up for the following violation. I will try to describe it as best as possible.

The property has an 800A service (green box). At that service, the electrician installed 4 200A disconnects. These feed 2 panels in the house and one in the garage building and the 4th is unused.

Each sub-panel has its own disconnect as well. The electrical inspector told them since this is considered a single structure, the disconnects have to be grouped. His reason for this was NEC 230.72A.

After some discussion, the inspector told the electrician he would accept a note from the building department stating that this is in fact, 2 separate structures, then the configuration would be allowed. If not, he would need to move the disconnect for the garage panel to the main house.

I could require them to provide a full 2 hour fire wall to establish 2 separate structures, however, I don't want to make the contractor do anything unnecessary.

My questions for the electrical folks on this forum are this:

Does my explanation make sense? I will provide more details if needed.

Would the disconnects at the 800A service box satisfy the requirement of "grouping" per the section cited?

Is this a legitimate write up by the electrical inspector?

I guess I am not clear what good me writing a letter stating this is 2 separate structures does, other than satisfy the electrical inspector. I don't want to approve something that is inherently unsafe.

Thanks again, in advance, for all feedback.
 
First, he shouldn't be quoting NEC......this is an SFD so IRC applies.

Second, the garage is 6 feet away from the main residence so why require a 2 hour wall?

<---- not familiar with WA laws.
 
We permitted this as one structure because they were attached.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to write a letter contradicting what you permitted.

The electrician filed for his permit and the plan checker/inspector at that time approved his design
Click to expand...
Stay out of it. Let the electrician fight it out with the state.
 
Without the proper separation I would not write a letter stating that it is two separate structures - I would tell him he needs to satisfy the requirements of the electrical inspector.
 
Sounds like CO, state adopts the electrical code, most current NEC (IRC doesn't apply). If you are home rule, and have qualfied electrical inspectors, you do you own plan review and inspections. Otherwise, the state has jurisdiction.
 
righter101,

If I understand your scenario, the "disconnecting means" that your electrical inspector is referring to,

is for the main service entrance conductors, and not the sub-panels. Article 230.72(A) in the NEC

is for the service entrance conductors. If you just must, have the electrical inspector to cite

something for the sub-panels.

As others have stated, it would be VERY wise for you to direct the electrician to discuss this

with the electical inspector and for you to stay out of it. Request that they notify you

in writing of the solution and any applicable code sections.

.
 
Washington State has adopted the NEC, so IRC is not used. I appreciate the advice of staying out of the dispute between the Electrician and the State, however, the state electrical inspectors solution was to have the electrician obtain something in writing from the AHJ (me) that these are 2 separate structures. For me to do this, I would need them to separate them, either by removing the connection, or building an approved firewall that separated the structures.

I am involved to that extent, having been asked for a letter, or direction on what would be necessary to qualify the building as 2 separate structures. I just don't want to have them build a 2 hour fire wall unless it is truly necessary.

The contractor, also on a schedule, would rather build a 2 hour wall on the garage portion, versus finding some sort of goofy electrical workaround. I realize that scheduling of subs is never a primary concern of mine, however, I have been asked to assist, so I am doing my research to see why this would be required.
 
I think we need more information because if there is an 800A service and all of the disconnects are 200 disconnects are grouped together then I don't see an issue. It does not matter where the subfeeds are.
 
righter101 said:
What other information would you like?
Click to expand...
From your words it appears that the installation is code compliant. Perhaps you could have the state inspector write some words for us.

--

It appears that the fact that the subpanels are not grouped is causing some misunderstanding.

I would not design a house with 2 subpanels and their disconnects in one part of the house and a third subpanel and its disconnect in another part of the house.

Consider what happens if for some reason a circuit is run from the garage subpanel to the main house. And then someone turns the 2 house subpanets off and does work on the live circuit.

---

Having said the above. I designed my daughter's electrical. Each of 4 sections has its own subpanel - But no disconnect. The subpanels are fed from a single main panel with disconnects. Slightly different set up. One that I feel is safer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
righter101,

As mtlogcabin asked above, " ...if you permitted it as one structure", how can you

now say that it is two separate structures? :confused:

.
 
chris kennedy said:
Then how could there be a 230.72(A) issue???
Click to expand...
righter101 said:
That is what the electrician is wondering, as well as myself.
Click to expand...
It would appear that the EI doesn't have a real great grasp on 230.72. From what you have described, the service disconnecting means are indeed 230.72 compliant. The fact that these in turn feed panelboards or loadcenters with main breakers has no bearing.
 
globe trekker said:
righter101,As mtlogcabin asked above, " ...if you permitted it as one structure", how can you

now say that it is two separate structures? :confused:

.
Click to expand...
I would allow them to apply for a revision to the permit. They could propose creating 2 different structures by either removing the connection (breezeway), or by providing a fire wall that would effectively create 2 separate structures. This would require a design change and revised construction details. I wouldn't simply just deem it 2 separate structures. I just feel that this may be unnecessary. That is, requiring someone to perform additional work with no apparent purpose, other than to satisfy the electrical inspector.

I can allow them to modify their design to include a 2 hour, structurally independent, fire wall, and consider the building 2 separate structures. Then I could write the electrical inspector a letter that this set of buildings is indeed 2 separate structures. Now, with the installation of this wall and the stroke of my pen, somehow, the electrical installation is code compliant, where it wasn't before, yet no electrical has been changed. That is what I don't understand. It seems like action being required for the appeasement of the inspector.

I will go out there in the morning and get some pictures and a copy of the inspection report and give you guys that information. Maybe I am missing something.

One of the issues we also have, being a rural county, the EI only comes out once a week, so they need to call in tomorrow by 3pm for a reinspect, otherwise, it delays everything an additional week. As I have stated before, I in no way place scheduling or profit before my duty to public safety, I am just trying to help solve a problem.

Some of the posters have suggested letting the electrician sort it out with the electrical inspector. They tired and felt they were up against a wall. The only solution they have been offered by the EI is to have the AHJ declare this 2 separate structures.

The garage will have the required separation from the residence and habitable spaces, as per R302.5, so it meets our building codes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there is indeed a NEC issue (which seems debatable) then you should allow the choice of compliance methods up to the owner.
 
chris kennedy said:
Is there any chance you could post the riser diagram for this service here?
Click to expand...
I will go out to the site in the morning and get copies of the drawings, electrical drawings, and inspection write up and post them here.

thanks for the help guys.
 
Yankee said:
If there is indeed a NEC issue (which seems debatable) then you should allow the choice of compliance methods up to the owner.
Click to expand...
The contractor has been given the authority to make the decisions such as this. I think they are seeking the path of least resistance which is to get a letter from the AHJ that this is 2 separate structures. I put in a call to the EI to verify what he was asking. I just don't feel comfortable debating code language of the NEC with him, as I am rather unarmed. That is why I am trying to get up to speed quickly.

thanks again you guys.
 
Bootleg said:
Can you see if another electrical Inspector can take a look at it?
Click to expand...
In our location, not an option. We are a county of remote islands, served only by ferry/airplane. The State EI has a rig they leave at the airport, then they come once a week to our island, once a week to the other 3 main islands. It was 2 days a week, just got cut to 1.

They do rotate the inspectors yearly, so next year will bring another one. The current one is new in the rotation, so that was part of the problem, having the project given the nod by a previous inspector.

That is another reason the electrician doesn't want to but heads with the new inspector, it can cause him a year of difficulties. Right or not, that is how it is.

Thanks for the help though. I will have some documents to post tomorrow.
 
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.

.
 
Greetings all

If the 4 disconnects at the service are grouped, identified and such, then service disconnect requirements should be met. It does not matter where the panels are. This should be considered 1 structure as well IMHO. I really don't see where the conflict is from info given. Are there some particular requirements in your state? Good luck.

Byron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top