User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: sketch code complaint

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    11,229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hhsting View Post
    Very far like takes 8 hours drive
    Not so very far if the project is big enough. Schedule time with the local AHJ.
    Tom
    TBLO

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,565
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Saying that something exists already and therefore it must be OK is taking logic too far. If it was never in compliance, not even when it was first built, then it is still not in compliance. I believe the installation you described is not in compliance.

    225.30(B)(1) would allow multiple feeders to a single building, and I think your installation will fit into that exception. However, separate from this article is the one that says you have to be able to turn off power to the building, and that the disconnecting means must be either outside or inside nearest the point of entry of the conductors. Your installation fails to meet this requirement, in my opinion. Having the main disconnect 30 feet away and each feeder tap disconnect 90 feet inside the building are not, in my view, acceptable means of disconnecting power to the building.
    Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,742
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    Saying that something exists already and therefore it must be OK is taking logic too far. If it was never in compliance, not even when it was first built, then it is still not in compliance. I believe the installation you described is not in compliance.
    .
    We come across things in the field all the time that are non compliant. I can't make a customer pay me to fix it, nor can the AHJ force the client to fix it (generally, there are probably exceptions for very dangerous things). That is what I meant by "OK". If the client wanted this "brought up to code" then I agree it is not ok. If partial rework/additions are being done, them that could trigger bringing it up to code. It would probably be up to the AHJ.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •