MENU
Who's Online
0 registered (), 13 Guests and 14 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fiddler, manchestersparky, gnuuser, Jaime, BrightRedster
610 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Nick Sasso 6
Paul J Cameron 2
hotsparks1 1
Today's Birthdays
ronwampler (68)
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1052 - 07/08/04 03:23 PM Service cable through attic
Paul J Cameron Offline
Mechanic Member
***

Registered: 11/04/03
Posts: 442
Loc: Pasco County Florida
Got a duplex house, Home A and Home B. The meters for both houses are on home A. The service for Home B runs up and throught the attic of home A into the garage of Home B and into the panel. The garages they run through are typical accessible type.They have supplied a disconnect at the meter for home B.These home are classified town homes and are individually owned. The fire wall rating is two hours. The service to home B is SER cable.
My question: Is this legal? Would it not require an easment attached to the deed of Home A? What says every one?
_________________________
Paul Cameron
Chief Electrical Inspector
Pasco County
Past President IAEI Suncoast



Top
#1053 - 07/08/04 07:35 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Anonymous
Unregistered


I can't think of a code issue since this is a feeder not service conductors. I do think the guy in the 2d home has to trust the first guy not to tap his feeder ;-)

Top
#1054 - 07/08/04 08:38 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Electricman,
Town homes are very tricky. If they are true town homes, they are fee simple and they have a zero lot line. You may have a fire wall issue, and that would be something the structural plans examiner needs to catch at plan review. Was the service shown on the plans? See 215.5 because that is what your department can use at plan review to catch this problem before it happens.

Since the feeder originates, outside the building, I think you can consider this an outside branch circuit or feeder and go to Article 225. Read the scope of Article 225 and see if part II helps you any.

This situation is hairy, because now you have electric going through someones house that supplies another house. In my opinion, this is a legal nightmare. I would probably at least require conduit run under the building, maybe even 18 inches below the slab, and brought up in the home that it was intended.

Got to run, I'll try to post again soon.
_________________________

Top
#1055 - 07/09/04 10:53 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
OK back with more:

For a townhome, take a look at the 2001 Florida Building Code, section 704.4.1. Basically, it says that each townhome is considered a SEPARATE building. A two hour wall is OK if it complies with 704.4.2. 704.4.2(1) says:

"Plumbing, piping, ducts, electrical, or other building services SHALL NOT be installed within or through the 2 hour wall, unless such materials and methods of penetration have been tested in accordance with 701.2"

In reality, there are three issues simultaneously going on here:
1)The legal issue of someone else's feeder travelling through another person's house (if I owned the town home, I would not want this)
2) the issue of fire wall penetration. Code clearly states that a test must be performed to allow the penetration, and that data must be made available to the building official. This is an issue that the building inspector needs to be aware of before he passes his inspections
3) NEC code issues.

I will paste the codes I quoted:

...................................

704.4 Townhouse fire separation

704.4.1 Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated from adjoining townhouses by a party wall complying
with 704.4.2 or by the use of separate exterior walls meeting the requirements of Table 600 for zero clearance from property lines as required for the type of construction. Separate exterior walls shall include one of the following:

1. A parapet not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the roof line.

2. Roof sheathing of noncombustible material or fire retardant treated wood, for not less than a 4 ft (1219 mm) width on each side of the exterior dividing wall.

3. One layer of 5/8 inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board attached to the underside of roof decking, for not less than a 4 ft (1219 mm) width of each side of the exterior dividing wall.

704.4.2 When not more than 3 stories in height, townhouses may be separated by a single wall meeting the following requirements:

1. Such wall shall provide not less than a 2-hour fire resistance rating. Plumbing, piping, ducts, electrical or other building services shall not be installed within or through the 2 hour wall, unless such materials and methods of penetration have been tested in accordance with 701.2.

2. Such wall shall be continuous from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing or shall have a parapet extending not less than 18
inches (457 mm) above the roof line. When such wall terminates at the underside of the roof sheathing, the roof sheathing for not less than a 4 ft (1219 mm) width on each side of the wall shall be of noncombustible material, or fire retardant treated wood, or one layer of 5/8 inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum wallboard attached to the
underside of the roof decking.

3. Each dwelling unit sharing such wall shall be designed and constructed to maintain its structural integrity independent of the unit on the opposite side of the wall.

EXCEPTION: Said wall may be penetrated by roof and floor structural members provided that the fire resistance rating and the structural integrity of the wall is maintained.

.............................................

I don't even see how the permit could be issued in this case, because if it is a town home then there would be a permit for one side (owner #1) and a permit for the other side (owner #2). But some of the work for owner 2's home is on the permit for owner 1. Get the point?? eek Ugly - huh?

Without seeing the plans first hand, I'd say it's legally incorrect, aside from the electrical code issues. NEC issues: I'd say that the 2nd home needs a main closest to the point of entry per 225.32, irregardless of the main that is outside by the meter. I don't think exception 1 applies when the main is located on someone else's property. "Elsewhere on the premises" doesn't mean someone elses property, in my opinion. Also, you would need to comply with 225.37, but as I said you have a legal issue here. I think if I start to rattle off NEC issues like I am doing now, I am putting the cart before the horse.

Please post back and let us know the outcome. Other opinions are needed, too.


PS - If it's a condo, apartment, or 1 owner for both sides, then please disregard everything I just said. Here's the FBC definition:

TOWNHOUSE. A single family dwelling constructed in a series or group of attached units with property lines separating each unit.
_________________________

Top
#1056 - 07/15/04 10:52 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Paul J Cameron Offline
Mechanic Member
***

Registered: 11/04/03
Posts: 442
Loc: Pasco County Florida
Nick, This is a townhome, individually owned with a property line right down the center. Right now I am requesting the building contractor supply me with the technical information per FBC 704.4.2 (1)
to show that such materials and methods of penetration have been tested in accordance with
FBC 701.2. As per NEC 225.31 and 225.32 that require a disconnecting means inside or out and made readily accesible to a location nearest point of entrance of the conductors. In my original post I didn't mention they also had a main breaker in the panel of Unit B,does this not sastify the article? The homeowner fighting this got an interpretation from another county, using NEC art 230.3, which I don't agree with as these are not service conductors but considered feeders.
Do you agree?
_________________________
Paul Cameron
Chief Electrical Inspector
Pasco County
Past President IAEI Suncoast



Top
#1057 - 07/15/04 03:56 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
They are feeders, no doubt about it.

But like I said, you can't have owner A's property running through owner B's house. All the code issues come secondary.

The main in the panel B in my opinion does not comply unless you utilize 225.32 Exception No. 1.

Really, the job is wrong, and the homeowner is correct to make a fuss (I'm not saying it's your fault it turned out this way, I'm just saying it's not right). Take a look at the last sentence in 225.32. "For the purposes of this section, the requirments of 230.6 shall be permitted to be utilized." So really, the only way to properly have done this job, as I see it, would be 230.6(4).

Article 230.3 would only apply to service conductors. That won't work.

Article 230.6 would apply because Article 225.32 allows you to go there.

At this point (but you don't want it to get to this point) I know this sounds crazy, but you may have to encase the feeder in concrete or brick, in order to have it be considered "outside the building." (230.6) But I still don't like it - it really needs to have been 18 inches under the slab and in conduit, and brought up in the right location.

230.6(2) option may be the best one at this point, but the owner may still have legal recourse, and I'm no lawyer.

Just my opinion, hope it helps.
_________________________

Top
#1058 - 07/15/04 05:50 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Another thought:
Doesn't the power company have an obligation to provide service to each individual owner?


confused
_________________________

Top
#1059 - 07/16/04 09:17 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
1. The installation is legal.
2. There is no NEC code section that prohibits the way it is installed.

IT is one service per NEC 230.2. Article 225 does not apply. All the stuff in the FBC doesn't apply, except for Firewall penetrations.

The only concern is to have the design professional provide the UL Penetration Firestop System detail from the Fire Resistant directory for the fire wall penetration.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1060 - 07/16/04 11:05 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
How is it legal to have someone else's property in my home?
_________________________

Top
#1061 - 07/16/04 11:32 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Another question:

Why doesn't 225 apply?
There is a feeder, running on the outside of building A, supplying building B.
_________________________

Top
#1062 - 07/16/04 12:35 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
1. Again there is no NEC code section that will prohibit that installation. NEC permits it .

2. NEC 225 only applies to outside branch circuits or feeders that supply buildings or structures that are separated from each other by location. Local building codes may by separating or subdividing with firewalls determine each unit to be a building, but by 225 its still one structure, and those rules do not apply until a branch circuit, or feeder leaves that structure, runs outside maybe underground or overhead to another structure.

3. The FBC permits it as long as the proper fire stop penetration system is used as shown below:
704.4.2 When not more than 3 stories in height, townhouses may be separated by a single wall meeting the following requirements:

1. Such wall shall provide not less than a 2-hour fire resistance rating. Plumbing, piping, ducts, electrical or other building services shall not be installed within or through the 2 hour wall, unless such materials and methods of penetration have been tested in accordance with 701.2.

The only thing you may be able to get them on is if in your local LDR (Land Devolvement Regulations) you have a local ordinance or easement that would have stricter requirements.

Again, what code section makes it not legal?
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1063 - 07/16/04 01:55 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
1.These are townhomes with a zero lot line. You own the home and the lot. There are two distinct legal parcels. There is no possible way that the feeder from unit B, travelling through person A's home and through person A's LOT (someone else's PROPERTY) is legal. "Get your wiring off my property."

2.I would have to disagree and I think 225 can apply. It is an outside feeder, run between buildings. It is no different than running from one building to another, as you say "structures that are separated from each other by location." In this case the structures are separated from each other by location, and in this case it happens to be a zero lot line that separates them.

3.We agree on item 3.


Also-
I don't see how you can say that it's one service. If it is, then from what electricman is describing, the mains for this one service clearly are not grouped.

This is an issue of ownership. Like I kept on saying, you can't get into the code issues because you have a legal issue. Or, are you saying that owner A owns a part of owner B's feeder?
_________________________

Top
#1064 - 07/18/04 10:05 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Lets go back to this discussion for a moment:

If you say that owner A owns part of owner B's feeder.........than I think you would be correct.

In Florida, there are many ways in which a person can own real estate. The most common form of ownership is fee simple absolute. Fee simple means the owner has the right to sell the property, use the property as security for loans, improve the land or IMPROVE THE BUILDING, possess the property and pass the property on to his or her beneficiaries as part of the estate. A fee simple absolute is considered the most complete form of ownership. There is commentary from the Building Officials Association of Florida, the Florida Building Commission, and DCA that all agree to the fact that townhouse ownership includes the interior and exterior components and property within the boundaries established by the common property lines.


Now, if the townhome is constructed as electricaman is describing, the owner of townhome A would be able to at any time apply for a building permit to remodel. Owner A legally has the right to alter or modify any or all building systems contained therein. And, the jurisdiction by issuing such a building permit is giving owner A the "license to proceed with the work." Perhaps owner A is doing some major remodeling. I would not want to be the building official when owner Bs electrical system is down for 5 days, until owner As electrical contractor can come out there and make some makeshift temporary connection. frown

If you consider the service on the building to be one service, then I would say that the mains must be grouped. However, to group the mains would leave owner B's main on owner A's property, as it is now. frown

With all this being said, although the construction may or may not involve a code issues, this type of design set up involves questions as to ownership of the contents. In my opinion, this type of construction should be avoided because instances can arise where the builder can get sued. And somehow, the jurisdiction that permitted the construction always gets thrown into the mess. If there are units being built this way and if I was the building official, I would call a meeting with the builder to see if another electrical system design can be agreed upon.

If I had to cite a code to support my concern, I would use this one from the Florida Building Code:

101.3.1 General. This code is hereby declared to be remedial and shall be construed to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof, which are public safety, health and GENERAL WELFARE through structural strength, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, and
safety to life and property from fire and other HAZARDS attributed to the built environment INCLUDING ALTERATION, repair, removal, demolition, use and occupancy of buildings, structures or premises, and by regulating the
installation and maintenance of all electrical, gas, mechanical and plumbing systems, which may be referred to as service systems.
_________________________

Top
#1065 - 07/18/04 05:18 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
I don't understand what the problem is. We have already established that the FBC 704.4.2 (1) Permits electrical, plumbing, piping, ducts, or other building services to penetrate the o-lot line townhouse firewall separating tenant units, as long as the penetrations and materials used are tested and properly sealed based on the hour rating of the wall per UL design.

Based on that code section, it doesn't matter who owners what, the FBC permits it, so there is no problem or liability for the contractor, owners, inspectors, plans examiners, etc.

Now, do I think its a good idea? Would I do that if I was the electrician? NO! But thats my personal opinion.

The fact is, the code permits it, so as a inspector, and plans examiner I would have to approve it cause the code does. FBC & NEC.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1066 - 07/18/04 06:49 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Ok maybe I'm stretching it a bit with that code I quoted, but it could be a legal nightmare if a department issues a permit for renovation to owner A. It can happen.

More:

How are you getting around the grouping of the mains? Right now, there is only one set of service entrance conductors that go into unit A, I think. If you say it's two services, then you can get around it, but still owner B's main would be owned by owner A, because it's on his house.

Take this scenario:

Lets say the neighbors get into a feud. Happens - not always but it happens. Owner A could shut off owner B's main, and put a lock on it. And there would be nothing that owner B could do, because owner A owns the darn thing. frown Then you would have a violation because the main is not readily accessible. So, I think the electrical design can result in a violation of 230.70, since the occupant does not have legal ownership or control of the main disconnect.

Agree?

You are assuming that there is a readily accessible disconnect, but how can you assume that if it's on someone else's property and it IS someone else's property?
_________________________

Top
#1067 - 07/18/04 07:36 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Or, how about 240.24(B)?
_________________________

Top
#1068 - 07/19/04 07:19 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
A single-occupancy building can have up to six disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors. Multiple-occupancy buildings (residential or other than residential) can be provided with one main service disconnect or up to six main disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors.

Multiple-occupancy buildings may have service-entrance conductors run to each occupancy, and each such set of service-entrance conductors may have from one to six disconnects (see 230.40, Exception No. 1).

Therefore the 6 disconnects are permitted at any one location. So with a 6 unit building you can have up to 6 means of disconnect grouped in each unit...so...with a 6 unit building and the disconnects located in each unit that building may have 36 total disconnects.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1069 - 07/19/04 08:16 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Somehow I knew you would say that.

Before we talk about the service, how can you say (as a plans examiner or inspector) that someone has ready access to what they don't own?
_________________________

Top
#1070 - 07/19/04 08:27 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
I can't find a code section to require that the wiring method must be accessible. The disconnects are accessible to each unit.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1071 - 07/19/04 09:32 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Well, I guess we will never agree.
But, owner B needs access to his main overcurrent device and he doesn't have that because he doesn't own it. It's someone else's property.
_________________________

Top
#1072 - 07/19/04 09:54 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
I thought the panels were in each garage, and the disconnect is outside? If its outside why isn't it accessible? Now thats another issue, if each occupant doesn't have access to the disconnect than he doesn't comply 230.72(c) or 240.24(b).

Look I agree with you that the installation is not a good thing. But its like I said I can't find a code section that prohibits a feeder that runs through one attic space to another no matter who owns what, so that as a plans examiner or inspector that I can reject the job with something that is legal.

I think this should be an amendment to the FBC.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1073 - 07/19/04 10:14 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
My point is that I'm saying it's not accessible because the owner can lock it OFF, or even lock it ON, and that could be a bad situation as well. As a plans examiner, I can't say it's accessible to owner B when owner A has the right to put a lock on it.

I agree it should be an amendment of some sort.

I am curious - electricman can you tell us what the fire resistant design on the wall is? Check the plan and/or then check the fire resistant directory. We are assuming that it is a 2 hour wall as referenced in 704.4.2. But if we look at FBC 704.4.1, they can use separate exterior walls meeting the requirements of table 600 for zero clearance from property lines. Boy I wish I had that plan.
_________________________

Top
#1074 - 07/19/04 04:56 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
If the disconnects are accessible to the respective owner and not locked out by someone else at the time of inspection than the job meets code.

We don't make inspections or plan reviews based on what may or may not happen in the future. We inspect by code. If it meets code we are required to pass the job.

And that may be my opinion for all that its worth, but that is the way I look at it. But I think all the things you brought up are valid problems and as I said may need a code ammendment.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1075 - 07/20/04 07:05 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Paul J Cameron Offline
Mechanic Member
***

Registered: 11/04/03
Posts: 442
Loc: Pasco County Florida
Boy I see this one stirred a lot of debate. Nick,
The wall separating both homes is of a 2 hour rating per FBC 704.4.2 (2) I don't think I have much recourse other than making sure the fire rating is approved.
_________________________
Paul Cameron
Chief Electrical Inspector
Pasco County
Past President IAEI Suncoast



Top
#1076 - 07/20/04 07:50 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
I would suggest bringing it up with your building official because really it's wrong. All town homes I see down here in South Florida have the meters and main disconnect remote from the buildings.

Like I keep stressing, anything on or in a townhome is that owner's property.
_________________________

Top
#1077 - 07/20/04 06:40 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Mike Timpanaro Offline

Post-A-Holic Member
****

Registered: 04/10/01
Posts: 1161
Loc: Ocklawaha FL.
Now if the meters and main service dieconnects are installed remote form the building now you have a code violation, since now article 225 comes into play and requires a disconnect to be installed on the building with a grounding electrode system, and the building is only to be supplied by one feeder. See 225.30 to 40.

Seems like your back to the same problem, as you have disconnects installed on the building again. If we are going to require that ownership becomes part of code or inspection (which it doesn't) than no matter where you install a remote service it will always be on someones property and not the others. Something doesn't add up.
_________________________
Michael J Timpanaro
Inspector, Plans Examiner, CE Instructor
mjtimpanaro@gmail.com




Top
#1078 - 07/20/04 09:42 PM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Disagree. The place where the service is - isn't owned fee simple by a single property owner. And there are disconnects on the building.

Another point: Although electricman stresses a 2 hour wall, I haven't heard what the fire resistant design number was yet. Most so called "2 hour walls" for townhomes are EXTERIOR walls under table 600 (Florida Building Code) which requires a 0 - 3 foot separation. But they are exterior walls. In that scenario, the feeder would exit one exterior wall from owner A, travel a short distance (maybe 4 - 6 inches) and penetrate the other exterior wall for owner B, and then you would have to agree with me on 225.

You are totally correct that ownership isn't part of code inspection. That is because it is part of the PERMITTING PROCESS. Plans examiners are not part of the inspection process (although they do have foresight into that, and they are the preliminary checkpoint). On each permit application, there is a parcel number. You must examine the proposed construction for that parcel number. Having the required disconnect on another parcel (another permit application) would not, in my opinion, warrant the issuance of a permit.

In my opinion, the cart is being put in front of the horse. Take this scenario: You are the plans examiner. You are handed a permit application and a plan that shows a proposed underground PVC feeder - travelling from the owner's parcel onto his neighbors parcel, and then back again on to the original owner's parcel. Although it may be 18" deep, I would reject the application. AND Mike, you would, TOO! I know that you would. It's no different in this townhome deal. The jurisdiction has no right to grant permission to build on someone elses property. Please don't tell me that you would sign off because it meets code, because I know you wouldn't.

Now, you will probably quote 468 to me, and yes, it doesn't say that your responsibility is in anything else but CODE. OK. I know. I agree. But you know what I'm saying here. If I have to I will search for case law or an advisory opinion.
_________________________

Top
#1079 - 07/21/04 06:58 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Paul J Cameron Offline
Mechanic Member
***

Registered: 11/04/03
Posts: 442
Loc: Pasco County Florida
Nick, I am going to get a set of the plans for this house,they are under the inspection of our private provider, and I will let you know about the fire rating method
_________________________
Paul Cameron
Chief Electrical Inspector
Pasco County
Past President IAEI Suncoast



Top
#1080 - 07/21/04 08:07 AM Re: Service cable through attic
Nick Sasso Offline

Needs-A-Hobby Member
****

Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1576
Loc: West Palm Beach
Cool. Thanks. I am so curious now.
_________________________

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Moderator:  Mike Timpanaro, Nick Sasso 
Active Topics
SPDs - Less than 1000v
by Nick Sasso
12/18/14 06:09 PM
Article 517
by Paul J Cameron
11/05/14 11:21 AM
Featured Member
Registered: 12/10/03
Posts: 0
Forum Stats
610 Members
14 Forums
1353 Topics
8215 Posts

Max Online: 82 @ 06/02/14 11:04 PM