Resolving dispute with AHJ

Status
Not open for further replies.

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Dennis,

In a recent post regarding bonding of gas pipes you wrote

As long as the gas piping has an appliance that has an electrical circuit then it is not necessary. 250.104(B) allows the egc to be used to bond the pipe.

In my jurisdiction the AHJ interprets this section to mean that all gas piping must be bonded with an unspliced #8 conductor back to the service. I have argued this with them many times and given up. I just run the wire. But their interpretation is so wrong. Any advice on how to make them "see the error of their ways?"

Jerry

It may not help but you could show them the illustration below and tell them that is pretty much how the rest of the world interprets it.

1100205853_2.jpg


Roger
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
FWIW, even though the NEC say "LIKELY to become energized by the circuit..." I always go one step beyond the minimum NEC requirement and bond the GAS/COLD/HOT using a #12 at the water heater.

What code article would allow bonding the above piping with a #12?

The circuit that may likely energize the gas piping is either the furnace, gas cooktop or gas dryer. Either case the gas piping system will be bonded via the circuit EGC. But a habit that i have is to bond the gas/cold/hot pipes with an additional #12AWG. I don't have to, there is no requirement per NEC and there is no EGC sizing per NEC.
 

templdl

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
just be careful to pick your battles. You may have to play politics if you have to work with the AHJ on a regular basis. If yoi do win could he be a pain in the butt of the next job? You don't want to win the battle and then loose the war. What may you be loosing in over the long hall if he is over ruled?
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
just be careful to pick your battles. You may have to play politics if you have to work with the AHJ on a regular basis. If yoi do win could he be a pain in the butt of the next job? You don't want to win the battle and then loose the war. What may you be loosing in over the long hall if he is over ruled?


Loosing small battles on nonsense will eventually get to you. If it is nonsense it is nonsense.
If one keeps giving in without any opposition then what????? They may ask you to install a 200Amp panel with 500MCM. just doesn't make sense.

Up to what point can the AHJ exercise 90.4?
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I agree there are times when "The inspector wants it" stuff has to end. If it is a code section that is arguable then I would give in but when it is clearly stated I will go to the head state guy and get an official ruling.
 

hillbilly1

Senior Member
Location
North Georgia mountains
Occupation
Owner/electrical contractor
I agree there are times when "The inspector wants it" stuff has to end. If it is a code section that is arguable then I would give in but when it is clearly stated I will go to the head state guy and get an official ruling.

Sometimes that doesn't work either, I had a state inspector that swore up and down that the neutral terminations on the LOAD side of a 2000 amp 480 volt service rated transfer switch had to be bonded to the GEC. That would effectively nullify the ground fault protection of the service.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I agree there are times when "The inspector wants it" stuff has to end. If it is a code section that is arguable then I would give in but when it is clearly stated I will go to the head state guy and get an official ruling.

For us in MA I think it is $175.00 to file an appeal to the state, in the meantime the job stays failed. This is usally unacceptable for the customer. That being the case this would be a battle I would be fine with ignoring.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
For us in MA I think it is $175.00 to file an appeal to the state, in the meantime the job stays failed. This is usally unacceptable for the customer. That being the case this would be a battle I would be fine with ignoring.

Sounds like MA does not encourage arguing with the AHJ. Do you get your money back and lost time if you win. :lol:
 

templdl

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
When I said that it may be best to pick your battle so that you don't loose the war if you go to the next step with the battle in the long run will you win the war is the issue.
One thing that I have learned whether it comes to a supervisor of "boss", politician, inspector, AHJ, anybody that has the authority to rule over another there are those that let the power go to their heads. It's these types of people that are cause for concern. Some cover up their stupidity by exerting their authority. They are bull headed and will not listen and/or discuss view points that are contrary to their own. As the authority their knowledge is called into question which they can't handle which is and indication of an insecure individual.
But, regardless, pick your battles and look for what the long term relationship will end up to be. Will it be worth it?
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
If you are addressing the inspector here the answer is not at all. 90.4 is in the introduction and is not enforceable
Edward, I agree with Mike and if you read 90.4 you will also see there is nothing stated in 90.4 that gives an inspector permission to make up their own rules, it simply gives them permission to accept an alternate method.

Roger
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Edward, I agree with Mike and if you read 90.4 you will also see there is nothing stated in 90.4 that gives an inspector permission to make up their own rules, it simply gives them permission to accept an alternate method.

Roger

but 90.4 does give them the authority to interpret the rule.

At any case, it was vague to me if article 90 is enforceable. Now I know that it is not.
 
Last edited:

RICK NAPIER

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Here in NJ the latitude afforded an inspector in 90.4 is removed and a formal application for a variation is required. Further more there was earlier a discussion as to whether the electrical inspector should inspect csst bonding, here the ICC codes that require it are put under the responsibility of the electrical inspector as solely his inspection. And as for a local inspector being intransigent we are state licensed and a contractor can go to them for aid in an issue with the local inspector.
 
Last edited:

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
but 90.4 does give them the authority to interpret the rule.

At any case, it was vague to me if article 90 is enforceable. Now I know that it is not.

It gives the authority having jurisdiction the responsibility for interpreting the rules not the inspector.

In most cases the authority having jurisdiction with the responsibility for interpretation is not one person but instead it is a governmental body. Here in good ole NC if it can?t be produced in writing then it can?t be enforced. In other words the code enforcement official can?t make his own interpretation but it must be done by the body of the government of that jurisdiction or the state.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Here in NJ the latitude afforded an inspector in 90.4 is removed

Pretty much the same here.

90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:

90.4 Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising
legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement
of the Code shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in
accordance with instructions included with the listing or labeling. The authority shall have the
responsibility for deciding upon the approval of unlisted or unlabeled equipment and materials,
and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top