225.30 and 250.32(B) problems

[dnem]

Here's the situation. There is an area of the county that my department inspects that is served by a electric utility that always puts a meterbase main disconnect [breaker] on their roadside pole and brings a mast down to it from the overhead lines. The customer trenches between the pole and house and brings a feeder lateral to the house and then up a few feet and then directly in thru a LB without any other exterior equipment.

This is the case at one house which was supplied according to 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] with 3 wires from the 120/240 single split phase service. The house is finished on all levels and there is no access to the main panel without damaging finished surfaces.

The detached garage came later and was supplied from the same roadside pole main according to 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] with 4 wires and ed/ing separation.

Now he is adding a building section that will connect the garage to the house as one single structure. The connecting section is not just a walkway roof but complete finished room areas with foundations that will go from garage to house.

He wanted to know if he could wire the new habitable section from the garage subpanel. I told him he had to deal with the violation to 225.30 first. I'd have to confer with my fellow inspectors to determine what options are acceptable. My fellow inspectors are giving me feedback but are not decided on how drastic of a fix is required. If possible, I would like to find a solution that
1) satisfies code requirements without causing damage to finished surfaces in the undisturbed house.
2) gives me a clear idea of how to approach this kind of situation next time.

What options are acceptable ?

David

 

[tonyi]

Where is this main panel located such that there's no access from the top or bottom to it? A 90 degree drill and a hole saw will get you through most top/bottom plates and into the bay the panel is in. Fish some cable through with a connector already on and you're in business for a subfeed.

Or take a KO out and flexdrill the plate. Its possible to slip a Arlington NM94/95 up through a KO and get it in. Tedious, but possible.

 

[dnem]

My first thought was to suggest that he trench from the garage, around the house, over to the house LB and refeed the house from the garage. But the garage feeder from the pole and the garage panel are built for 100a. The house has a 200a panel.

My next thought was to detach the house trench feeder from the LB, add a new exterior main on the side of the house, and connect the LB to the new main. And refeed the house with 4 wires and ed/ing separation. Then trench around the house to the garage and refeed the garage. This solution would increase the cost of the project by quite a bit and I don't want to deliver it as the solution unless I'm confident that it's necessary and the best idea.

For those of you that are inclined to say that it's not my job to engineer the job, I answer that there is no electrical engineer on this house addition. There is also no electrical contractor, it's a homeowner exempt install. And I don't want to go back over and over again to red tag each of his attempts to make it code legal. If I simply tell him to call an electrical contractor, I might get the same repeated inspection failures. If I'm not sure what fix is acceptable, the contractor may not be sure either.

Lastly, there's some question about "grandfathering". The only part of a building that doesn't get grandfathered at each code change [in Ohio] is the smoke alarms. He has changed the structure from two buildings to one building so I'm not sure if that negates the entire house electrical system being grandfathered or not. My guess is the house is still grandfathered and it is possible to complete the addition without disturbing any electrical in the house all the way to the pole main. But that guess leaves the house with 2 feeds, and mismatched feeds as well. The garage is a 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] with 4 wires and ed/ing separation. The house is a 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] with 3 wires and no ed/ing separation.

David

 

[dnem]

Where is this main panel located such that there's no access from the top or bottom to it? A 90 degree drill and a hole saw will get you through most top/bottom plates and into the bay the panel is in. Fish some cable through with a connector already on and you're in business for a subfeed.

Or take a KO out and flexdrill the plate. Its possible to slip a Arlington NM94/95 up through a KO and get it in. Tedious, but possible.

All walls and ceilings are drywalled. There's no access to any plate or bay from any angle without removing drywall.

If he has to remove drywall or do some other type of extensive work, I'm not afraid to deliver the news to him but I want to be damn sure that I'm telling him that it's required only if it actually is required.

David

 

[tonyi]

How about chisel off the LB (I assume PVC?) and swap it for a T & LB, refeed the house main through the T/LB and send the new subfeeds back through the T to wherever they're going...derate accordingly.

Seriously, just cutting the rock sounds like an easier deal. Or just pop the siding off and hack on the main panel from the back side coming out with LB's offsets, whatever... Vinyl and aluminum pop right off and even wood siding isn't that hard.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

David
Are there 2 separate feeds to the now 1 building? If so you mention the feeds are 3 wire, is there an equipment ground conductor installed from the pole metermain?

It sounds like there may not be. If there are two feeds of 3 wire, now you have a metallic path between the building and the pole service and that will have to be corrected.

Is the 200 amp service to the main house large enough (load wise) to supply the new set up? If not, it sounds to me like you will need to require a new service installed to the house, with a supply to the panel in the garage as a subpanel.
Do you enforce 225.30?

I would say this homeowner has taken on a project without any proper supervision and would need to comply with the code just as any other electrician would. Without the proper engineering he was shooting in the dark, and if you are willing to help in the manor you are suggesting, then help the correct way and have him make the corrections.

1. 225.30
2. 250.32 (he has mixed both (B)(1) & (B)(2) in the same building)

These are both unacceptable, regardless of the "grandfathering" as it presents a hazard. I am sure grandfathering is not permitted to allow installing potential hazards.

Your gut is telling you this is incorrect, and your gut is correct. No interpretation here. :wink:

 

[JohnE]

I'm assuming existing run frompole to house is not in conduit? So pulling 4th wire is not an option?

Out of curiosity, how far is house from pole?

 

[allenwayne]

As the inspector wouldn`t giving install instructions be a conflict of interest.Tell him what to install and be the one to inspect it :roll: He should go with the EC an since the EC would be the responsible party the EC would have to bear the brunt of design,inspections tag fees etc.Just because he is a home owner doesn`t give him carte blanch on inspection and tag fees.That is what the price of poker is when a home owner pulls there own permits.Would you be as obliging if the original permit was pulled by an EC :?: Your job is to inspect and that`s it ,if code compliant pass it if not list an article(s) and return for the reinspect.

 

[tshea]

Agree with allenwayne on this one. You only need to let the HO know what is to be done and why. He needs to:
1. pull permit and do work himself
2. hire an EC and EC pulls permit

You inspect.

As soon as you tell the HO what to do, he will hire an EC and say "the inspector said to do it this way."

The EC, who physically can see the job, may have a completely different view to meet the code than us armchair estimators.

 

[dnem]

David
Are there 2 separate feeds to the now 1 building? If so you mention the feeds are 3 wire, is there an equipment ground conductor installed from the pole metermain?

Yes, 2 feeds
Garage is a 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] 4 wire, yes equipment grounding
House is a 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] 3 wire, no equipment grounding

It sounds like there may not be. If there are two feeds of 3 wire, now you have a metallic path between the building and the pole service and that will have to be corrected.

If by saying "metallic path" "that will have to be corrected" you mean a violation of 310.4, Conductors in Parallel, I agree unless the grandfathering issue applies. One one hand I see the house as being grandfathered because the house system is not being touched. One the other hand I see the addition being physically attached to the house which changes the structures from 2 to one.

Is the 200 amp service to the main house large enough (load wise) to supply the new set up?

Yes

Do you enforce 225.30?

Yes

I would say this homeowner has taken on a project without any proper supervision and would need to comply with the code just as any other electrician would. Without the proper engineering he was shooting in the dark, and if you are willing to help in the manor you are suggesting, then help the correct way and have him make the corrections.

1. 225.30
2. 250.32 (he has mixed both (B)(1) & (B)(2) in the same building)

These are both unacceptable, regardless of the "grandfathering" as it presents a hazard. I am sure grandfathering is not permitted to allow installing potential hazards.

I'm not sure if I agree with the concept of potential hazard because if this were one commercial building with multiple tenants and no central electrical equipment, there could be multiple services into the single building [230.2(B)(1)] and it wouldn't be considered a hazard.
I don't question that it's a violation of 225.30 but I can't see it as a potential hazard that would give reason for it not to be grandfathered.

Your gut is telling you this is incorrect, and your gut is correct. No interpretation here. :wink:

If I go by my gut instead of solid code and logic, there are a number of people here that will roast me and drag my body thru the streets. Inspectors travel at their own risk on this web site.

I'm assuming existing run frompole to house is not in conduit? So pulling 4th wire is not an option?

Out of curiosity, how far is house from pole?

Conduit to the house is unknown. The homeowner was not the original owner. There are conduit risers coming out of the ground and a expansion joint on the house. Distance is about 150 feet.

As the inspector wouldn`t giving install instructions be a conflict of interest.Tell him what to install and be the one to inspect it :roll:

We get ECs and HOs at our counter every single day asking questions about what will pass inspection. We don't engineer the job but we answer questions about what we'll pass and what we won't pass.

He should go with the EC an since the EC would be the responsible party the EC would have to bear the brunt of design,inspections tag fees etc.Just because he is a home owner doesn`t give him carte blanch on inspection and tag fees.That is what the price of poker is when a home owner pulls there own permits.Would you be as obliging if the original permit was pulled by an EC :?: Your job is to inspect and that`s it ,if code compliant pass it if not list an article(s) and return for the reinspect.

Agree with allenwayne on this one. You only need to let the HO know what is to be done and why. He needs to:
1. pull permit and do work himself
2. hire an EC and EC pulls permit
You inspect.
As soon as you tell the HO what to do, he will hire an EC and say "the inspector said to do it this way."

I'm not going to tell him which way to do it. As soon as I figure out what is required and what is acceptable, I'll give him a couple of scenarios that would pass inspection and a couple that won't pass inspection and tell him why. It's up to him to pick an option.

The EC, who physically can see the job, may have a completely different view to meet the code than us armchair estimators.

And if I red tag the EC, the next day he'll be on the phone or at the counter asking me what I'll accept.

I don't know what I'll accept. I can't put my finger on what's code required in this circumstance, so I won't be able to answer the question. I'll just say, "I'll get back to you" but then I have to come up with the answer and get back to him.

David

 

[tshea]

Dave,

Yes, 2 feeds
Garage is a 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] 4 wire, yes equipment grounding
House is a 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] 3 wire, no equipment grounding

But are there 2 separate services, each with its own meter?

I don't like it if there is, and I believe the fire dept. won't like it either. Does your POCO allow more than one service per building? My does not unless it is separated by 150', or by firewalls. Do you have firewall separation between the buildings (garage, addition, house) including doors?

 

[dnem]

In my last post I talked to Pierre about the subject of "potential hazard". After thinking about it further, I realized that I don't know what potential hazard means. How is it defined ? I imagine that any deviation from the code could be termed "potential hazard". I don't think I should have replied to an issue about potential hazard.

I would say this homeowner has taken on a project without any proper supervision and would need to comply with the code just as any other electrician would. Without the proper engineering he was shooting in the dark, and if you are willing to help in the manor you are suggesting, then help the correct way and have him make the corrections.

1. 225.30
2. 250.32 (he has mixed both (B)(1) & (B)(2) in the same building)

These are both unacceptable, regardless of the "grandfathering" as it presents a hazard. I am sure grandfathering is not permitted to allow installing potential hazards.

I'm not sure if I agree with the concept of potential hazard because if this were one commercial building with multiple tenants and no central electrical equipment, there could be multiple services into the single building [230.2(B)(1)] and it wouldn't be considered a hazard.
I don't question that it's a violation of 225.30 but I can't see it as a potential hazard that would give reason for it not to be grandfathered.

I'm going to stick to a concept that I'm more familiar with, Life Safety.

Our department already has a policy about grandfathered or previous inspections and life safety issues. If an installation is grandfathered or if an inspection has already been done, we will only revisit life safety issues.

For example, if an installation passes a rough inspection, when I go back for ..... let's say ..... a service main inspection, I don't redtag anything that is part of the rough unless I see a life safety issue or something that has been altered since the rough. Non life safety violations of the code are "water over the dam".

If the rough has failed previously, when I go back for a reinspection, I don't do a whole new rough inspection, I'm there only for:
1) what's on the correction list
2) life safety issues that I notice in passing
3) alterations that I notice in passing

Ohio law specifies that one life safety issue that vetos grandfathering is smoke detectors.

So going back to my previous point with Pierre, I'm now saying .....

I'm not sure if I agree that a violation 225.30 is a life safety issue because if this were one commercial building with multiple tenants and no central electrical equipment, there could be multiple services into the single building [230.2(B)(1)] and it wouldn't be considered a life safety hazard.
I don't question that it's a violation of 225.30 but I can't see it as a life safety hazard that would give reason for it not to be grandfathered.

David

 

[dnem]

Dave,

Yes, 2 feeds
Garage is a 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] 4 wire, yes equipment grounding
House is a 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] 3 wire, no equipment grounding

But are there 2 separate services, each with its own meter?

One meter. One main disconnect.
Both feeds come from the same roadside utility pole mounted meterbase main disconnect combo.

I don't like it if there is, and I believe the fire dept. won't like it either. Does your POCO allow more than one service per building? My does not unless it is separated by 150', or by firewalls. Do you have firewall separation between the buildings (garage, addition, house) including doors?

Finding out what the fire department requirements are is a good point and a question that I don't know the answer to. They might have strong feelings about multiple supplies to a building and determining if it constitutes a life safety issue.

But if I find out the answer to that question for this job, it probably won't help me on the next job. A city building department operates in the same jurisdiction as the city fire department. One fire department answer stands for all inspections everywhere.

My department is a county building department that operates over the same jurisdiction as 17 township fire departments, 6 village fire departments, and one city fire department jurisdictions. We have the potential for 24 different answers depending on where the project is located.

I want to get this straight in my head so that if it comes up again, I can respond without going thru this again.

David

 

[iwire]

Dave,

Yes, 2 feeds
Garage is a 250.32(B)(1) [main to sub] 4 wire, yes equipment grounding
House is a 250.32(B)(2) [main to "main"] 3 wire, no equipment grounding

But are there 2 separate services, each with its own meter?

If I have been following correctly it is not two services it is two feeders.

The metering and service disconect are out at the street on the pole.

David This is just a lousy situation to be in, all I can say is good luck.

I will add I admire the fact that you want to find a reasonable solution.