# Electrical Inspection question



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


----------



## packsaddle (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 14, 2011)

> We permitted this as one structure because they were attached.


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


 Stay out of it. Let the electrician fight it out with the state.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2011)

How does the IRC apply to an 800A service?


----------



## NH09 (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


----------



## globe trekker (Feb 14, 2011)

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.

.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 14, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The property has an 800A service (green box).  At that service, the electrician installed 4 200A disconnects.


Then how could there be a 230.72(A) issue???


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2011)

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 (Feb 14, 2011)

What other information would you like?


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Then how could there be a 230.72(A) issue???


That is what the electrician is wondering, as well as myself.


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 14, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> What other information would you like?


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.


----------



## globe trekker (Feb 14, 2011)

righter101,

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

now say that it is two separate structures?  

.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 14, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Then how could there be a 230.72(A) issue???





			
				righter101 said:
			
		

> That is what the electrician is wondering, as well as myself.


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.


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

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?
> 
> .


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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 14, 2011)

Is there any chance you could post the riser diagram for this service here?


----------



## Yankee (Feb 14, 2011)

If there is indeed a NEC issue (which seems debatable) then you should allow the choice of compliance methods up to the owner.


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Is there any chance you could post the riser diagram for this service here?


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.


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

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.


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 (Feb 14, 2011)

Can you see if another electrical Inspector can take a look at it?


----------



## righter101 (Feb 14, 2011)

Bootleg said:
			
		

> Can you see if another electrical Inspector can take a look at it?


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.


----------



## globe trekker (Feb 14, 2011)

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.

.


----------



## BSSTG (Feb 15, 2011)

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


----------



## jim baird (Feb 15, 2011)

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


----------



## righter101 (Feb 15, 2011)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 16, 2011)

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 (Feb 16, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 16, 2011)

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


----------

