jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
I would not say "He approved it", I am inclined to see it as "He had no grounds to disapprove it and therefore had to pass it"
I think he made the right call.
Inspection Judgement
- Thread starter jxofaltrds
- Start date
- Status
I would not say "He approved it", I am inclined to see it as "He had no grounds to disapprove it and therefore had to pass it"
I think he made the right call.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Yep. Thats what I meant.
mikeames
Senior Member
- Location
- Gaithersburg MD
- Occupation
- Teacher - Master Electrician - 2017 NEC
I get it now....... Thanks for that note.
Mike,
Were you or another inspector contacted to inspect the "change" that the homeowner made or paid to be made after the utility refused to energize the service?
The other part that gives me heart-burn is that the utility had connected this same service scheme prior and now they are deeming it unsafe?
Even without an adopted code in place PUCO rule 4901: 1-10-05(E) requires;
(E) Metering installation METERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED BY THE METER OWNER'S AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL. Before initial service to a CUSTOMER'S service location is energized, each electric distribution company METER OWNER shall verify that the installation of the customer's meter base and associated equipment:
(1) Has been inspected and approved by the local inspection authority; or
(2) In any area where there is no local inspection authority, has been inspected by an electrician.
So if the uitility had energized this service prior it appears that the PUCO rule was not followed.
Pete
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Pete
I was the ESI for the AHJ.
I was the ESI for the AHJ.
Earlier I thought you had posted that when the original service was energized that there was no adopted code in place? Maybe I misunderstood?
Pete
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Nope you have it correct.
No code at first install. Code in place for my inspection (2nd install if you will).
Consider this a service inspection only not a final.
Parts of the installation where grandfathered. POCO was using what they where told were the new state standards.
I guess what I was driving towards was that by the PUCO rule someone (electrician I guess) had to certify the original installation to the POCO. I'm curious why the original acceptance of the service is now being taken away. Just like you and I have no authority to reject an existing approved installation unless there is an imminent hazard? But, we are talking about the utility here... sometimes it seems they make their own rules:roll:
FWIW I don't disagree with the decision you made I just disagree with the utility.
Pete
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
Poco rules for northern NYS
Poco rules for northern NYS
When I was doing inspections ( a few years ago) the POCOs required schedule 80 coming down their pole and also at the meter stub. It was written right into their bulletins they published for installers and inspectors. An agreement that inspection agencies sign when they contract with POCOs states that inspectors shall adhere to the POCO rules and the NEC rules. We always used 300.5 and 110.3 to bolster our purpose, since the POCO deemed conductors emerging from ground in conduit at poles and stub poles to be subject to physical damage. Plumbing pipe was not listed for electrical conduit.
Also, since the meter had been removed in the example cited in this thread, the POCO would have required the entire service to be brought up to the code in effect at the time of the new request for inspection.
Poco rules for northern NYS
When I was doing inspections ( a few years ago) the POCOs required schedule 80 coming down their pole and also at the meter stub. It was written right into their bulletins they published for installers and inspectors. An agreement that inspection agencies sign when they contract with POCOs states that inspectors shall adhere to the POCO rules and the NEC rules. We always used 300.5 and 110.3 to bolster our purpose, since the POCO deemed conductors emerging from ground in conduit at poles and stub poles to be subject to physical damage. Plumbing pipe was not listed for electrical conduit.
Also, since the meter had been removed in the example cited in this thread, the POCO would have required the entire service to be brought up to the code in effect at the time of the new request for inspection.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Agreed. I just wanted to show that inspectors have to make calls in the field.
PS Pete you know this but others may not. There is no residential license in the state of Ohio so in areas with no certified (residential) building department (requiring a state license to perform residential work) ANYONE, acting as the electrician, could sign the POCO form.
And, as you know, Ohio has no "defined" electricians. I wonder how long it will be before Ohio starts certifying and/or registering electricians...:roll:
Until then, in combination with the PUCO rule, anyone can build a service (where there is no inspection authority) and certify that it is safe to be energized...
Pete
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I got in on this one late as I don't always check this forum.
90.4 is there for just such instances, you as an inspector can approve pretty much anything you're willing to put your name on. The code gives you a way to CYA. If it comes up in court, if you followed the code you will have no issues.
Remember, it's not wrong, until something goes wrong.
The inspectors creed should be, "It was right when I signed it".
90.4 is there for just such instances, you as an inspector can approve pretty much anything you're willing to put your name on. The code gives you a way to CYA. If it comes up in court, if you followed the code you will have no issues.
Remember, it's not wrong, until something goes wrong.
The inspectors creed should be, "It was right when I signed it".
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
"I have proof: my signature."
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Exactly, I don't let them stray to far as a rule.
- Status