You can't fight city hall

[ishium 80439]

So about a month ago I posted a thread in the NEC forum regarding a residential service upgrade I did. This was a situation where the utility service drop came in over a covered porch. The inspector did not leave a correction notice but told he wanted the drop raised to 5'.

I spoke with him asking where this number came from. He responded that they did not require 8' because the local utility would not connect when it was terminated that high above the roof (this is a through the roof mast situation). My response was that he was correct and since the POCO owned the drop he didn't have jurisdiction as to how high or low it was (90.2). He responded that yes he did because of 230.24. This went back and forth with noone convincing the other.

I asked him why 5' as seemed pretty random. His response was that a lot of the distances in the code were random "Why 18"? Why 3'? [for other conditions]" I asked if there was any written documentation requiring this 5' and he sort of chuckled and said no. His entire logic in this is "I've been here for 13 years and that is the way we've been doing it".

I called the state electrical board and spoke with someone there. Before I could even get all of the details out about the situation he brought up 90.2 and told me the pervasive interpretation was that the local AHJ did not have jurisdiction over the height of the drop. He called the inspector and tried to convince him that his interpretation was flying in the face of what they (the state) had put out a policy paper on and of the interpretation of every other jurisdiction in the area. Unfortunately the way things are structured here the state has no real authority to supercede the local AHJ.

So the punch line is I need to rebuild half a service because this guy is unwilling to listen to logic. I guess I could go so far to fight this legally but that would cost me far more than rebuilding this. Chalk up one more for lazy thinking and bureaucracy.

 

[Riograndeelectric]

Did you call and talk to Tony Lopez ? He is Denver chief electrical inspector.
I have had several jobs recently that I Had to appeal to Tony Lopez after tony my self and the inspector had a conferance call tony had the inspector paas the work

On a kitchen remodel I installed the GFCI outlet on the kitchen knee wall to protect the counter top and island . Inspector rejected this saying GFCI outlets have to be installed on the counter tops.

the second was on a service change & basement sub panel replacement upgrade from FPE.
I installed a my new basement sub panel nippled to the old and converted old panel to J box , extend circuits to new panel which was only 6" form original.
Inspector rejected the work saying I needed ti Install AFCI for all the circuits I had relocated to new panel.

which inspector was this?

 

[ty]

I installed the GFCI outlet on the kitchen knee wall to protect the counter top and island

I have to ask, how is an outlet on the kneewall protecting an Island? Was this maybe a peninsula?

 

[electricmanscott]

I have to ask, how is an outlet on the kneewall protecting an Island? Was this maybe a peninsula?

Probably off the load terminals.

 

[ty]

Probably off the load terminals.

Doh. was thinking one outlet on knee wall and none on island. but if off load side, then i agree :0

 

[ishium 80439]

Did you call and talk to Tony Lopez ? He is Denver chief electrical inspector.
I have had several jobs recently that I Had to appeal to Tony Lopez after tony my self and the inspector had a conferance call tony had the inspector paas the work

On a kitchen remodel I installed the GFCI outlet on the kitchen knee wall to protect the counter top and island . Inspector rejected this saying GFCI outlets have to be installed on the counter tops.

the second was on a service change & basement sub panel replacement upgrade from FPE.
I installed a my new basement sub panel nippled to the old and converted old panel to J box , extend circuits to new panel which was only 6" form original.
Inspector rejected the work saying I needed ti Install AFCI for all the circuits I had relocated to new panel.

which inspector was this?

This was in Englewood.

I too once had to contact Tony over a call one of his inspectors made. He tried to side w/ his guy but in the end saw that what he was asking for was not reasonable. I think Tony is a stand up guy.

In Englewood there is only 1 electrical inspector.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

This was in Englewood.

I too once had to contact Tony over a call one of his inspectors made. He tried to side w/ his guy but in the end saw that what he was asking for was not reasonable. I think Tony is a stand up guy.

In Englewood there is only 1 electrical inspector.

That's gonna be your best option. Go straight to the top. I recently had to do this in Louisa county. I had to schedule a round table meeting with the inspector, the chief electrical/building official and myself. We all sat down and hammered out the items at hand. Have your ammo ready.

 

[ishium 80439]

That's gonna be your best option. Go straight to the top. I recently had to do this in Louisa county. I had to schedule a round table meeting with the inspector, the chief electrical/building official and myself. We all sat down and hammered out the items at hand. Have your ammo ready.

The problem is I think I've reached the top. The situations rio grande and I were discussing were in Denver. I'm working in a suburb. The State electrical board tried talking to the inspector but they have no power to overrule them. There is only 1 electrical inspector in this jurisdiction. From what I could find out his boss just defers back to his judgement (he's apparently been down this road before). So I think I'm stuck.

The other problem with trying to fight this is that the POCO keeps telling the HO that they will cut power unless they get a completed inspection. I've already received 2 extensions from them after explaining the situation. At some point I need to cut my losses.

 

[Riograndeelectric]

I have to ask, how is an outlet on the knee-wall protecting an Island? Was this maybe a peninsula?

knee wall was part of kitchen . the knee wall was next to the basement stairs. this was on a 1920s house total remodel. the knee wall is part of the kitchen ans is directly to the left of the counter and to the right of the Island. . I feed the Hr to the GFCI then came out of the box twice once to feed one of the counter tops

 

[Riograndeelectric]

This was in Englewood.

I too once had to contact Tony over a call one of his inspectors made. He tried to side w/ his guy but in the end saw that what he was asking for was not reasonable. I think Tony is a stand up guy.

In Englewood there is only 1 electrical inspector.

I have dealt with the Englewood Inspector . I have had no problems with him although I have very limited work in Englewood. normally it is Arapahoe county is the worst Jurisdiction.

 

[zappy]

This kind of crap makes a guy want to quit contracting

This kind of crap makes a guy want to quit contracting

And go work for someone instead.

 

[zappy]

So about a month ago I posted a thread in the NEC forum regarding a residential service upgrade I did. This was a situation where the utility service drop came in over a covered porch. The inspector did not leave a correction notice but told he wanted the drop raised to 5'.

I spoke with him asking where this number came from. He responded that they did not require 8' because the local utility would not connect when it was terminated that high above the roof (this is a through the roof mast situation). My response was that he was correct and since the POCO owned the drop he didn't have jurisdiction as to how high or low it was (90.2). He responded that yes he did because of 230.24. This went back and forth with noone convincing the other.

I asked him why 5' as seemed pretty random. His response was that a lot of the distances in the code were random "Why 18"? Why 3'? [for other conditions]" I asked if there was any written documentation requiring this 5' and he sort of chuckled and said no. His entire logic in this is "I've been here for 13 years and that is the way we've been doing it".

I called the state electrical board and spoke with someone there. Before I could even get all of the details out about the situation he brought up 90.2 and told me the pervasive interpretation was that the local AHJ did not have jurisdiction over the height of the drop. He called the inspector and tried to convince him that his interpretation was flying in the face of what they (the state) had put out a policy paper on and of the interpretation of every other jurisdiction in the area. Unfortunately the way things are structured here the state has no real authority to supercede the local AHJ.

So the punch line is I need to rebuild half a service because this guy is unwilling to listen to logic. I guess I could go so far to fight this legally but that would cost me far more than rebuilding this. Chalk up one more for lazy thinking and bureaucracy.

Just curious, are you saying that the drip loop conductors are 8' above the roof and he wants you to drop it to 5'? I'm lookin in 2008 NEC handbook exhibit 230.19 says 3' min. Am I missing something?

 

[ishium 80439]

Just curious, are you saying that the drip loop conductors are 8' above the roof and he wants you to drop it to 5'? I'm lookin in 2008 NEC handbook exhibit 230.19 says 3' min. Am I missing something?

It is not the drip loop that is in question, they have the proper clearance. It is the clearance over the roof (less than 4/12 pitch) for the service drop from the utility. While 230.24 says 8' there are 2 issues with this:

First, 90.2 specifically says that anything owned or controlled by the utility is not covered in the NEC- therefore the AHJ does not have the authority to make a call on this (after talking w/ the state they endorse this interpretation and issued a policy paper on this several years ago- they interpret 230.24 as only applying to customer owned wiring).

Second, the local POCO has specifically said they will not connect services that are eight feet above the roof as there is no safe way to access the termination point.

Every other jurisdiction where I have encountered this has essentially said that the POCO wins and they don't have any special requirements. This inspector has randomly chosen that 5' is a good random number to require. After speaking with him personally and hearing about the conversation he had w/ the state inspector, he can't offer any justification of this benchmark. He could offer no written documentation, no logical sense, no practical safety issue. His entire justification is "I've been here 13 years and that is what we require".

Certainly part of this for me is not wanting to rebuild half of the service (that will now require guy wires to hold up the mast etc), but I would have a much easier time with it if I saw even a little bit of logic. It is an utterly random ruling with no back up that flies in the face of state (and every other jurisdiction I've encountered) practice for no discernable gain. Yet I'm going to be forced to change it.

 

[zappy]

It is not the drip loop that is in question, they have the proper clearance. It is the clearance over the roof (less than 4/12 pitch) for the service drop from the utility. While 230.24 says 8' there are 2 issues with this:

First, 90.2 specifically says that anything owned or controlled by the utility is not covered in the NEC- therefore the AHJ does not have the authority to make a call on this (after talking w/ the state they endorse this interpretation and issued a policy paper on this several years ago- they interpret 230.24 as only applying to customer owned wiring).

Second, the local POCO has specifically said they will not connect services that are eight feet above the roof as there is no safe way to access the termination point.

Every other jurisdiction where I have encountered this has essentially said that the POCO wins and they don't have any special requirements. This inspector has randomly chosen that 5' is a good random number to require. After speaking with him personally and hearing about the conversation he had w/ the state inspector, he can't offer any justification of this benchmark. He could offer no written documentation, no logical sense, no practical safety issue. His entire justification is "I've been here 13 years and that is what we require".

Certainly part of this for me is not wanting to rebuild half of the service (that will now require guy wires to hold up the mast etc), but I would have a much easier time with it if I saw even a little bit of logic. It is an utterly random ruling with no back up that flies in the face of state (and every other jurisdiction I've encountered) practice for no discernable gain. Yet I'm going to be forced to change it.

Service drop conductors, drip loop conductors are the same thing right? How do you figure out the slop of a roof? My protractor has something on the back, but I never understood it, or never needed too. So the roof isn't sloped enough to use the 3' rule? So then it sounds like you have to have it at 8'? POCO doesn't want it at 8'? Then it's up to them to decide what height. They have there own codes, they don't use the NEC. Why don't the inspector and the POCO talk to each other?

 

[stars13bars2]

In most locations whether they adopt the NEC or the IRC into local code, once they do that they are bound by the appeals process provided in each. Unless local government specifically omitted the sections, the inspectors are bound by the decision of an appeals board which is comprised of members associated with trades and building etc... You must appeal within 15 days of notice of non compliance. If it hasn't been 15 days you need to use the appeal as I have had to on two occasions and I am 2 for 2 so it works sometimes anyway. The best part of it is how mad it makes the inspectors to be publically humiliated when the decision doesn't go their way.

 

[Mgraw]

Englewood says 30 days on their website. I don't know how you could win though. NEC says 8 feet, the POCO says 8 feet is too high, so the inspector says 5 feet is OK. How do you win an appeal?

 

[mcclary's electrical]

Englewood says 30 days on their website. I don't know how you could win though. NEC says 8 feet, the POCO says 8 feet is too high, so the inspector says 5 feet is OK. How do you win an appeal?

You win an appeal by the inspector staying out of it. The NEC does not apply to utility owned wiring

 

[Mgraw]

POCO website says installation to be NEC compliant and jurisdiction approved.

 

[stars13bars2]

You have to appeal when the inspector oversteps his authority, and refuses to go by the rules that apply to the situation in question.

You win an appeal by using one of the reasons they will hear appeals for, one of which is: the provisions of the codes or ordinances do not fully apply. If this is a service drop, it is owned by the utility and the NEC rules do not apply, period.

 

[satcom]

We always look the site over really good before we pull the permit on any service new or upgrade, and we follow all the utility guidelines which are found in their guide book, some have their books in print and online, they all have great examples to follow for almost every situation, including service drops, and required measurements, the utility requirements and all local requirements will usually apply, if we had a situation where the call was close, we would meet with both the utility inspector, and the local inspector to be sure before we started the job. if you don't do that then you may find yourself re doing a service!