90.4 hard lesson

Status
Not open for further replies.

coulter

Senior Member
Ah ha - got it. I might have even known that:-? Yes, Nema C84.1 defines 120/240 as single phase, and 240/120 as 3ph D.

But I thought one used 7jaws for 3ph - 4w.

PS: Just in case you couldn't tell, I am clear out of my element

carl
 

gndrod

Senior Member
Location
Ca and Wa
coulter said:
Ah ha - got it. I might have even known that:-? Yes, Nema C84.1 defines 120/240 as single phase, and 240/120 as 3ph D.

But I thought one used 7jaws for 3ph - 4w.

PS: Just in case you couldn't tell, I am clear out of my element

carl

Hey carl, You are not alone, I am in your club. rbj
 
gndrod said:
Hi Buck,

Was this an L+I inspection, obviously not in Tacoma because the bypass is required there and N.Pierce installs. Just happen to have a 2007 Tac Pwr handbook in front of me. rbj

Gndrod
Yes...an L+I inspection out on the coast. I have to admit, I did think about the PUD requirements concerning meterbase style and should'nt have assumed a bypass would be required. I had no idea that they would'nt want one. It seems to be standard with the other utilities. I wont make that mistake again.

edited to add: Grays Harbor PUD.
 
Last edited:

sandsnow

Senior Member
Somehow "interpretations of the rules" has been transformed into make it up as you go.

The AHJ does approve equipment, but I would like to know if this inspector was enforcing the written policy of the chief building official.
 

radiopet

Senior Member
Location
Spotsylvania, VA
jwelectric said:
90.4 is not a code rule. How could a code official even quote in on a rejection.
Mike,

I would quote it if I am having to give the OK for something to be used that is in a previous code cycle but is not out just yet.

Example would be 210.12, If they pulled a permit ( Richmond Mind You ) and we required them to bring something up to code but they did not redo the panel....lets say a bedroom...and none of the new combination breakers are available yet for lets older replacements....we might use 90.4 to ok the use of a branch/feeder AFCI versus a combination and to cover our BUTT do so under the guidance of 90.4....remember we are still in 2002 NEC

Just one example.....Cutler Hammers Classified series fits older model panels ( ITE, Gould and so on...many others ) but none of the Classified AFCI breakers are compliant with the Jan 1, 2008 Combination requirement....

In the city if they remodel a bedroom they have to bring it up to code....but that does not mean a 1980 installed panel needs to be.....so finding older AFCI breakers would lead us to the Classified AFCI's cutler hammer makes...and none of those meet the Jan 1, 2008 compliance as of this date.
 

mthead

Senior Member
Location
Long Beach,NY
90.4 hard lesson

90.4 hard lesson

While I agree that that 90.4 may seem vague-and I have never used that as a reason for citing a defect nor could I imagine doing so-I would also be reluctant to give anyone the idea [even joking] that it should be tossed off as an"FPN".
In some locations the inspector may have to view an installtion with an eye that has addt'l requirements beyond what the NEC requires--You'll find that you can never be required to do less than what code requires,but you can often be required to do more than what code requires by a locale .
If you want to think of 90.4 or 90 in general as being an FPN than figure it's saying be aware of any addt'l local requirements where ever you're working-
count on nothing and you won't be disappointed-it's a sad state of affairs but that seems to be where we are these days.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
mthead said:
In some locations the inspector may have to view an installtion with an eye that has addt'l requirements beyond what the NEC requires--You'll find that you can never be required to do less than what code requires,but you can often be required to do more than what code requires by a locale .

You need to read 90.4 again to see what it allows.

It does not give an inspector the authority or right to require more (additional) than is required by any article and section in the code, what it does allow is, an inspector to accept an alternate means of achieving the same level of safety, no more no less.

Roger
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
In the original post the inspector made this statement using 90.4:
buck33k said:
A couple of days go by and I learn I have been red tagged on that job by the electrical inspector. 90.4 "Additional requirements may be imposed by another AHJ ... incorrect meter base"
I would have called that inspector and ask him just who he was working for, the city, county, state or the power company?
Where does it say in the NEC that a 100 amp meter base without a disconnect is required? Can someone point that part out to me in 90.4?

As Paul and Roger has pointed out 90.4 will allow an alternate method but there is nothing in that section that could be quoted to turn anything installed down.

If you think that there is something in there that could be quoted to turn down a job please point it out.
 

mthead

Senior Member
Location
Long Beach,NY
90.4 hard lesson

90.4 hard lesson

I agree-an inspector should not make up any addt'l requirements of his own--what I did mean is that from one area to another the accepted equipment,wiring methods allowed etc., may not be the same-it behooves the electrician to find out if there are special requirements befoore starting the work.For example--here on Long Island if you do work in the town of Brookhaven you follow 2008 nec,anywhere else on Long Island you are, as of jan1,'08,to follow the New NYS code which applies 2002nec for residential and 2005 for commercial work as well as any ammendments that the state chooses to add-except if you work in the city of Long Beach where only MC wire may be used on the blocks bordering the ocean,and except if you work in Freeport where all services must be piped all the way to the meter[no SE],and if you do work in Rockville centre where all services are required to have full size conductors only .
I could go on-"I'm not proud-but I'm not tired either".
My point is that these aren't special requirements that the inspector has come up with but rather requirements specific to the various towns and municipalities here on the Island.
They are requirements that are specific to electrical installations here and as such the electrical inspector considers them when viewing an installation.
 

radiopet

Senior Member
Location
Spotsylvania, VA
However...90.4 does allow the AHJ to form an INTERP......and depending on that INTERP. of that inspector it might not be "MAKING CODE" but enforcing it ot the best of their ability......so 90.4 has a place and why it is in the code...to inform the Electrician of the AHJ's limits and allowances...

Anyone who has ever been to one of my seminars KNOWS my stance on creating code in the field......Not Gonna Happen.....BUT depending on the level of experience and training of the Inspector the INTERP. could be a basis for a 90.4 as a rejection but it MUST also come with the Section reference as Mike W. has stated.

We need to train our fellow inspectors to not hide behind the CLOAK of not knowing and using 90.4 and 110.3(b) when it does not really apply...but we are doing our best to train them..I know in Mr. Fines areas we are doing that...lol ..on a daily basis.....;)
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
coulter said:
Is it common to put in a 5-jaw if the service is 240/120?

carl


Around here we're required to use 5 jaw meters bases on all single phase, 120/240 volt services.
 

cadpoint

Senior Member
Location
Durham, NC
coulter said:
I got that from 480's post 7. The part I didn't get is if it is normal to install a 5 jaw base on a 240/120 service.

carl

Well one can see that they don't even label there own work in there own technical illustration.
5thjaw.gif


I went out there with you in thought ! Then I keep reading ! :roll:
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
tom baker said:
The NFPA handbook states that Article 90 has no enforceable rules.....


For sale: 2005 and 2008 NECs, both print and CD versions. Not needed as structures listed in 90.2 no longer needed to be wired to these standards. PM me for price and details.


I'm free! No more teachers, no more books, no more inspectors' dirty looks!
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
480sparky said:
For sale: 2005 and 2008 NECs, both print and CD versions. Not needed as structures listed in 90.2 no longer needed to be wired to these standards. PM me for price and details.

I'll give you $1 for both if you pay the shipping. :wink:

Roger
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
tom baker said:
The NFPA handbook states that Article 90 has no enforceable rules.....

But since everyone knows the handbook is not enforceable, it creates a double negative (a nonenforceable saying another is nonenforceable) and therfore Article 90 is indeed enforceable!:grin:

Since some here believe article 90 is not enforceable, this must mean they do not believe there is any enforceable purpose 90.1 or intention 90.1( C ) or scope of what is covered or not covered 90.2.

So why bother opening the book? :-? :rolleyes:

EDIT: spelling
 
Last edited:

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
much a do about nothing

much a do about nothing

I think we are too fixated on the "90.4" thing.
POCO has a right to set what ever requirement they wish before connectiong power. In one of my jurisdictions, POCO requires all external conduit to be metallic.. NO PVC PERIOD! It's on POCO. specs, but guys come from out of town doing it "their way". I red tag it with a note "Does not meet POCO specs". I don't cite 90.4 but it would make little diffference if I did. This inspector, or I could just walk away and let you wonder why you never get power. We can argue about his use of the reference, byt the facts remain the same. POCO set rules for power.
I can see why Buck is upset, but it should not be at the inspector. He didn't make the rule, POCO, did. Perhaps be upset with POCO, but in the end be upset with they guy in the mirror who didn't check with POCO first for "special" requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top