I’m looking for the best way to handle this issue.
Here’s my basic setup:
I have underground service from the transformer to a poll in my front yard. On the pole is a combo meter/breaker panel with feed through lugs (Square D). Our temp trailer is fed off a 100A breaker from this panel. Everything was approved to this point.
This morning the inspector came to inspect the service I just ran to my house. I used the feed through lugs from the combo unit & ran 3 wires to the house & into the panel. I grounded the service panel in the house to two 10 ft copper ground rods (20 ft apart).
Anyway, the inspector said that since the combo panel was the main service disconnect, that I need to run 4 wires & separate the ground & neutral. I see where this is in the code (section 250.32B1), but section 250.32B2 says that no ECG is requred if there is no continuous metal path between the buildings (in this case the pole w/ the meter would be the first building).
I tried to explain this to him, but since I’m not an electrician by trade, I didn’t want to offend him. I ran this by a friend of mine who was an electrician most of his life & an inspector in a neighboring town for the past 20 years, & he said the 4th wire would not be needed – also the guy who inspected my temp setup initially said it would not be needed, but he doesn’t work for our township anymore.
How is the best way to approach this w/o getting the inspector PO’d? I already had to bury a good length of the trench since it was a hazard, so running the 4th wire would not work – not to mention that the combo panel will be replaced with a regular meter when construction is complete.
BTW, if I AM wrong about the code, the let me know that too!!
Replies
when you say "feed through lug" am I correct in assuming that there is in effect no overcurrent device before the wires that feed the house? ie...are the wires that feed power to the house "Feeders" or " Branch Circuits".
They are feeders, although they are protected by the 200A main breaker on the combo.
The Square D model # is RC816F200C (I can't find a picture of it online). Basically, the meter is on top & the incoming power connects to the lugs on top. The lugs on the "house side" are at the very bottom).
Here's an extremely rough sketch
This whole business of grounding and bonding when separate buildings are involved, can be somewhat confusing. I'm no expert either but am familiar with many codes but again no expert at any of them.
Article 250-32b(1) and 32b(2) do clearly state the case you describe and it would appear you are correct in your argument and that the inspector made a blanket inclusion of your particular arrangement with Article 250-32b(1). As you descibe, your wiring more closely looks like it should be considered under Article 250-32b(2). But then I read on and see the following: Article 250-32d (as in Dog!). I would think that your disconnecting means is located at the pole in your yard and it feeds power to the house in question. Conditions #1-3 need to be met since Article 250-32d also seems to apply to your situation .
Again, I aint no expert but he may have you by the shorts in this particular case. I would bring this down to the inspectors office, crawl in the door and be humble as hell, then with a whipped puppy look in your eyes, ask if they could clarify if this apparent separate "Disconnecting Means" article applies to your situation. If it does then you have three choices:
(1) Disconnect the house from the pole all together and use a generator to supply power to the house for the time being.
(2) Disconnect the grounding rod from the electrical system at the house and run a "Branch" circuit from the pole to the house to temporarily supply power to the house . You would have to remove the pole power supply after the house is complete.
(3) Start uncovering that trench and run a three wire with ground cable from the pole supplied power to the house and disconnect the grounding rods at the house to the system until you complete the house and remove the power pole.
Around here, California, they won't let us hook up the house with power until the house has a final inspection and all electrical is signed off. We have to run all tools by extension cords and a generator till finished. Of course we do cheat once in awhile but do it so that the inspector doesn't see it when he/she is on site. Got caught once and he got pissed and almost got the ol red tag out but didn't , thank god.
You may still be right in the long run. The more I look into Article 250-32(d) it seems to me that it, 32(d), only applies to industrial locations such as Nuclear power stations and factories etc. I'm beginning to think your situation more closely fits Article 250-32(b) You have a separate grounding electrode system at the house,your house panel has provision for a meter, you have a disconnecting means at the house and the grounded (neutral wire) from the pole is bonded to the grounding electrode system within the main panel at the house. I think your good to go! I don't see how you could be creating any parallel grounding paths back to the pole so it should be OK. I would still crawl down to the office and confer with the higher powers(humbly ask if your situation is correct or need alteration). It's happened more than once where one inspector disagrees with another and get the ok written down ( a hard copy). However, if you take the pole down after the house is complete, what happens to the three wire with ground cable ? Seems to me the service drop would then be made direct to the house service panel . If the pole with main disconnect, meter and breakers stays; then it would act as just the first "building" on a lot owned by single party and your essentially supplying power to other buildings. This would be exactly what Article 250-32b(2)seems to apply to.
My head hurts but in this situation, I'm glad it's you not me.
Uh, you're right, your electrician friend is right, and the former inspector is right.
If there are no metalliic pathways between the two structures (the service pole and the house), then a three-wire feeder can be run. That's two ungrounded conductors (the hots) and one grounded one (the neutral). The 2002 NEC says so in Section 250.32(B)(2). In this situation, at the house you bond (connect) these three things:
1) the neutral of the feeder
2) the grounding electrode conductor (wire from the ground rods), and
3) the housing or "can" of the panel at the house.
For most panels, this is accomplished by connecting the grounding bar and the neutral bar together, and by installing the "main bonding jumper", be it a strap from the groundg bar to the can or a green screw that connects the grouding bar to the can.
How to work with the inspector? Just ask him to point out in the code book where it says that a grouding condictor has to be run. If there's no formal local regulation (i.e., in writing and adopted by some government body), then the inspector has no basis for his stand.
Cliff
Thanks. Would it be sufficient to call, or should I go into the office?
CAP or Cliff, I think your right. I would just be carefull on how I approach the building dept. I don't want to get on the bad side of any inspector even if they're wrong...crovelling works for me and getting down low works for wolves and man once in awhile even though the crovellee(sp) is right.
Your wrong on four counts:
First, if you don't know what your doing you need to hire an electrician who does. That you don't know how to handle the situation pretty much confirms this first point.
Second, the AHJ, inspectors, can call this either way. 2005 NEC Article 90.4 gives them authority to make the call. Part of what electrical contractors call 'local knowledge' is a working understanding of how the local inspectors think and previous decisions and standards.
Third, you are assuming the power pole previously installed can be counted as a 'building' and so allows you to avoid having to install a fourth conductor.
2005 NEC Article 100 - Building: A structure that stands alone or that is cut off from adjoining structures ...
2005 handbook adds unenforceable commentary - "A building is generally considered to be a roofed or walled structure"... "However it MAY also be a separate structure such as a pole"...
A judgment call by the AHJ is required and prior history and decisions may have precedence.
Fourth: What you are describing, separate pole feeding a building is functionally very much the same as a mobile home installation. In such cases the panel within the building is a sub panel and Not a separate service. As such the fourth wire is required.
Sounds like this is what he inspectors are thinking. You can piss and moan and perhaps get them to relent but odds are they have made the call some time in the past and this is the accepted understanding in your area. Fighting this could be up hill and, depending on how uncivil things get, can cause resentments and repercussions farther down the line. Inspectors may be in place for a long time and some hold grudges for their entire term.
Seldom any need to bow and scrape but inspectors are commonly trained professionals hired to make tough calls as best they can. They are doing a job. They have good reason to expect their decisions to be respected. Polite and respectful questioning is usually OK but if your doing electrical work you are expected to know the Code so beyond interpretation of the finer points they aren't there to teach. They don't have time and it is not their mandate.
Best course is probably to comply with the wishes of the inspector and to do it without too much resistance. Consider any inconvenience, costs and trouble doing so to be the price you pay for not hiring an electrical contractor in the first place.
>>"First, if you don't know what your doing you need to hire an electrician who does. That you don't know how to handle the situation pretty much confirms this first point."
Sounds to my like the OP knows very well what he is doing. He's also had two different inspectors give him two different reads on it.
You're advice is to have him ask the AHJ for an interpretation. Isn't that what his post is about -- getting some info. so he can speak with the inspector in an informed way?
Maybe you had too much coffee, today. Lighten up.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Maybe it's a regional thing, but here on the left coast, in rural areas, it's real common to have a pole with the service on it, and a three-wire feeder to the house panel.
Mobile home wiring is treated in a completely separate Article (550), which implies to me that the situation (and therfore the need for 4-wire feeders from service pedestal to mobile home) is altogether different than the ones covered in Art 230.
As to the OPs problem, I've seen inspectors that are out of sync with the interpretations of their fellow inspectors (and with the opinions of authorities in the field like Mike Holt). It happens a lot with multi-trade inspectors (a little knowledge being a dangerous thing).
Whether an inspector can be convinced to change his mind depends on a lot of factors--whether he can look at the issue with an open mind, whether you give him a way to change their mind and save face, whether his boss cares about consistency with generally accepted interpretations.
In addition to my reading of the Code, the fact that the former inspector/electrician and a local electrician believe a three-wire feeder is O.K. is strong evidence to me that the inspector is wrong, i.e., not enforcing the Code as written or intended. This all changes, of course, if the AHJ has adopted a Code addendum to the NEC requiring a 4-wire feeder.
That said, I prefer to run a four-wire feeder if the budget can handle it. Two grounding electrode systems linked together is better. And I prefer wire in conduit, not direct bury cable. But it's your job and your money.
Good luck,
Cliff
Edited 3/13/2006 6:14 pm ET by CAP
Edited 3/13/2006 6:18 pm ET by CAP
So you've looked at some of Holt's work eh. I too have taken some of his course work and in fact, our electrical code class was almost entirely from his software and books. Definitly knows his way around code issues.
Are you sure your on the correct post? How do you know he isn't an electrical contractor doing his own construction or maybe a contractor with multiple ratings?When we spoke of buildings here, we meant "In a electrical sense" not literally or in terms of what the code defines as a separate building.We're here on this forum to discuss and exchange ideas and maybe learn something in the end. If you read the intro you will clearly see that is what this whole discussion page is about, exchange of thoughts and ideas. If that doesn't square with your thoughts then don't read it or leave.4lorn1 ...loosen up the underwear it's got your thinking all messed up.
Hey,
Give 4 a break I tell ya.
He's damn near our resident electrical expert even if he doesn't give short answers. ;
He for sure is our resident essayist. Is that a word?
While he is NOT known for short, succinct replies, he does know his shlt about electricity and if he doesn't get it right the first time he'll come around eventually.
And yes, his undies are a wee tight from all that coffee.
I'll tell ya where to send the check 4lorn.[email protected]
It's Never Too Late To Become What You Might Have Been
I myself will not question 4lorn, I learned my lesson, his word on electrical is law.. 2+3=7
nuff said![email protected]
It's Never Too Late To Become What You Might Have Been
I think what I'll end up doing is simply disconnecting power from the house rather than try to confront the inspector. I really don't want to run a 4th wire anyway, since the combo meter/panel will end up being replaced with a regular meter when we're done. (The only reason for the combo in the first place is to power our trailer - which was run w/ 4 wire since the telco's NID is currently mounted on the pole & the phone line creates a path between the pole & the trailer)
The inspector passed my trench (which was the main purpose of the inspection), he simply said that if I want to power the house at this point, he would require a 4th wire. My main goal at this point was to have an inspection to keep my permit current.
Since we're building this on our own spare time, it's going very slow (which was expected)
Edited 3/14/2006 6:29 am ET by Soultrain
Y'now, might not be a bad idea to let the inspector know you "appreciate his advice" and you've decided to do what you just said, etc., etc. Might help to keep him on your side when time comes to inspect your panel.
For petes sakes, if the inspector has an attitude like some I've seen (not naming any names) do everything you can to keep him on your side. ;-)
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
the inspector is right, you should not have power to the house till the permnant panel is ready fo on the wall. Then run it the right way, I was always tols, everything south of meter three wire , everything north 4 wire, no matter what.. 2+3=7
I've seen plenty of sub panels run w/ only 3 wire - provided there is no continuous metal path between the structures. Not to mention that the previous inspector said I'd have no trouble with what I planned - to bad he retired in the middle of my project - he's got some nerve :)
Besides, there are plenty of farm houses in my area with the meter on the pole & only three wire running from the meter to the house.
brownbagg: I agree with you. Chapter 250 (think it's Article 250.32 or thereabouts -- don't have the codebook in front of me at the moment) is pretty clear on that point and there's no "special dispensation" for temporary power on that point.
On the other hand, Chapter 527 does have some allowances for temp power and (vaguely recall some dispensation on branch circuit wiring 'cause it has to be GFCI protected) so there is some recognition in the code for a smidgen of latitude on temp wiring.
Anyway, it's all academic. All I'm saying is in addition to following the inspector's directive, let the inspector know that you followed his directive. If you're going to take the pain, might as well try to get some milage out of it with the inspector.
What do you think? Can't hurt, right.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
That's a good idea.
Even though I know I'm right, it's not worth alienating a person who will ulitimately be able to decide if I can live in my house or not over something that would be temporary anyway.
4Lorn1, you seem to be overooking the fact that the original inspector approved this installation.
Otherwise, I believe every word you said!
blue
We've solved that problem in the past by simply requesting a new inspector be assigned to the permit. If you're lucky, the next guy will be less specific.
Update:
I just got off the phone with the inspector and I told him that I planned to disconnect power to the house.
He said that he'd give me a sticker with the OK to cover the trench (which is really what I was after at this point) & that in his opinion, it wasn't safe with the three wire & that he would not be able to give me a final approval that way (which it wouldn't be since the setup is temporary - as I said the combo will be replaced by a regular meter can when we move in & get rid of the trailer).
However, he also that he doesn't think anything would happen & that he wouldn't actually make me disconnect it since it was a temporary setup.
I thanked him for his time & taking my call this morning & everything was good.
I didn't bother bringing up the issue of there being no parallel path or the exception in 250.32B2 to see his interpretation of it since it wouldn't accomplish anything further & could only have resulted in making an enemy.
Thanks all for your input
My experience dealing with code officials that are wrong, and maybe somewhat challenged to boot (the smart ones are very easy to reason with) is that if you plead ignorance and "ask" for their "help" interpreting the section of the Code that contradicts their inspection comments, in a very friendly way, you will do several things. One, by appealing to their authority and great knowledge, you fluff the moron's ego to the point that they are "on your side" as opposed to you. Two, by asking for their help to interpret the section of the Code that applies, you give them the opportunity to save face by "discovering" an out to "help" their new friend, namely you. This is assuming that you have interpreted the Code correctly and he's not right. Either way, butting heads will only make your noggin sore.