Chicago Inspection

[69gp]

Just looking for some info on inspecting a project in Chicago. I know that this area can from my understanding be a little confusing. I need to look at a project that was constructed in 2013 and looking for some help as to what is used for an electrical code. The plans and or specs call out to follow the 2002 NEC. I am not sure if by law you must follow the most current code if it was adopted at the time this was constructed. Also is there a Chicago code that was in effect in 2013 that is available to follow during construction.

thanks

 

[cowboyjwc]

If it was built to a code or standard that was enforced at that time, if you don't change anything then, it stays in compliance and if you are doing a safety check then you would inspect it per the code it was build under.

 

[69gp]

If it was built to a code or standard that was enforced at that time, if you don't change anything then, it stays in compliance and if you are doing a safety check then you would inspect it per the code it was build under.

That I understand. What I am trying to find out is what Chicago used for reference to the code for 2013. I don't believe that they follow the NEC. Even though the site was built in 2013 the construction documents say that it must meet the 2002 NEC. I dont even know if the NEC had a section for code back then. This is for a rooftop solar system

 

[cowboyjwc]

That I understand. What I am trying to find out is what Chicago used for reference to the code for 2013. I don't believe that they follow the NEC. Even though the site was built in 2013 the construction documents say that it must meet the 2002 NEC. I dont even know if the NEC had a section for code back then. This is for a rooftop solar system[/QUOTE

There was an article 690 in the 2008 NEC, and I believe you are correct that there wasn't an article in 2002. Was the house built with the solar or was the solar on a separate permit?

The problem with the construction documents is the date. All the law says is that you must adopt a building code for your jurisdiction, but it does not say that it has to be the most current one. So yes it could have been built in 2013 under the 2002 code. I would check the address file. Since there was no code concerning solar in the 2002 NEC you might have to write a disclaimer that it can't be inspected for compliance.

Very interesting question actually.

 

[jaggedben]

The NEC has had an article 690 for solar systems since I think the late eighties. If you can find a copy of the 2002 NEC then that will inform your work, there was definitely an article 690 in that code and in the 1999 NEC.

I understand from Google that Chicago just updated to the 2017 NEC after having previously had a code based on the 1999 NEC.
https://www.bomachicago.org/advocacy/codes-standards/chicago-passes-new-electrical-code

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Prior to the 2018 Chicago electrical code their code was totally independent from the NEC. It was just the Chicago Electrical Code. For 2018, Chicago has adopted the 2017 NEC with their amendments...some 150 pages of amendments.

 

[cowboyjwc]

The NEC has had an article 690 for solar systems since I think the late eighties. If you can find a copy of the 2002 NEC then that will inform your work, there was definitely an article 690 in that code and in the 1999 NEC.

I understand from Google that Chicago just updated to the 2017 NEC after having previously had a code based on the 1999 NEC.
https://www.bomachicago.org/advocacy/codes-standards/chicago-passes-new-electrical-code

You are correct, I found it as far back as '84. No one was really doing solar back then though.

 

[69gp]

Thanks for your help. Guess i should not have thrown out all my old code books. And I just missed out on the Amazon Prime big event.

 

[esox39]

The previous edition of the Chicago Electrical Code was adopted in 2000, loosely based on the 1999 NEC. It was re-written and adopted in 2018 based on the 2017 NEC so in 2013 the code in effect was from 2000.

 

[liquidtite]

Chigaco is a great city with very strong locals .

i know that some of their ahj specs are that all
or most branchcircuits have to be in conduit

what a great code !!!!

creats a lot of skilled workers instead of just throwing up
roamed and mc everywear .

 

[69gp]

The previous edition of the Chicago Electrical Code was adopted in 2000, loosely based on the 1999 NEC. It was re-written and adopted in 2018 based on the 2017 NEC so in 2013 the code in effect was from 2000.

The trouble I am having is the following.

Job was constructed in 2014 the specs said to follow the 2002 code. if what you are saying is correct then the most recent code would be the 1999. The permits were pulled in 2014 but were never fully paid as there is only a record of $35,000.00 paid with a balance of $37,000. So even if it was signed off is it a valid permit if not fully paid. The job was one of the poorest examples of work that i have ever seen.

 

[69gp]

Chigaco is a great city with very strong locals .

i know that some of their ahj specs are that all
or most branchcircuits have to be in conduit

what a great code !!!!

creats a lot of skilled workers instead of just throwing up
roamed and mc everywear .

Well guess a few people never made it through electrical 101. Very poorly constructed job one of the worst that I have ever inspected. If running 100' runs 1-1/2" rigid conduit directly on a roof with no support or secured then i must have missed that lesson when I was an apprentice. I mean just lay it on the roof and pull your wires through.

Chicago can talk about how safe they are by using emt and rigid conduit but if they allow the crap I witnessed then im surprised they have not had another great fire.

 

[jaggedben]

... The permits were pulled in 2014 but were never fully paid as there is only a record of $35,000.00 paid with a balance of $37,000. So even if it was signed off is it a valid permit if not fully paid. ...

That is seriously the permit fee?

 

[69gp]

That is seriously the permit fee?

yes that was the permit fee.

 

[Adamjamma]

Permit fee probably was more than the materials