Electrical at the theater

From: Scott & Martha Eby <redacted>
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Electrical at the theater

Hi Gala,

The Phase 1.2 Electrical document was written by me in my capacity as a registered professional engineer in the state of Washington doing pro bono infrastructure design work for the Mountaineers. The original wet-stamp drawings were turned over to club staff upon the completion and successful inspection of the project. They are also on file with the WA L&I office which is the AHJ for electrical inspections in the state of Washington.

My official knowledge of the electrical infrastructure ends at the electrical panel in the Kitsap Cabin bathroom building. The feeder to the theatre and the electrical infrastructure in the theatre are outside of my professional purview and was designed and installed by club volunteers. My understanding of the design intent was to upgrade the existing feeder to the theatre to a 60 Ampere circuit which could reasonably be expected to supply up to 11.5 KVA of usable power.

There are susceptibilities with this design. Given the extremely long run from the panel to the theatre, the voltage drop at high demand times will not be insignificant. My understanding is that the conductors were sized according to the ampacity tables in the then current NEC, which assumes an installation in a dwelling or other structure, not a run of several hundred feet to the load. The other major consideration is load balancing. Since all of the conductors in the feeder are the same size, the load must be equal on both legs of the two phase power source at the theatre so that the neutral carries only nominal return current. If the load at the theatre is not balanced, the neutral is forced to carry a large return current with the associated voltage drop which reduces power quality at the theatre.

There are several solutions to the power issues at the theatre. The least expensive of which is to assure that the load is balanced between the two legs of the incoming two phase power feeder and make sure that the load does not exceed the capability of the feeder. Greg’s suggestion has the merit of reducing the impacts of voltage drop and imbalanced load, and is relatively inexpensive and easy to implement, but I would caution that it must be done according to the current edition of the NEC and WA L&I regulation. Next, in order of expense and inconvenience would be to pull new, larger wire from the panel to the theatre and up-size the breaker, again assuring that the changes meet current code since any upgrade change may require a larger feeder from the lodge property service panel and a new panel at the bathroom facility. Finally, there is the option of bringing a new service from PSE to the theatre. This is the most expensive option, but has the potential to provide high quality power for the future. There are two routes that this option could take: Direct burial from the pole transformer at the Wymer (sic) parcel to a pad transformer at the theatre, or similarly direct burial from a pole transformer on Seabeck Highway to a pad transformer at the theatre. The Wymer parcel option has several negatives since it crosses an adjacent nature conservancy under management by an independent entity and is within the state defined boundary for protection of salmon bearing streams (Chico Creek). The Seabeck Highway option would cross only Mountaineers owned land and would not negatively impact the conservancy values of the property. It would, however, be a quite expensive undertaking and would leave a line of de-forested land from the highway to the theatre.

-Scott