new building: drawings show service on back of building and no mention of a local ordinance for flood mounting heights.Inspector rejected service stating service must be mounted 3'0" higher due to flood ordinance, this will violate NEC 404-08 6'7" to switch handle. building design did not provide for any platform to allow compliance with NEC: electrical inspector stated the he would accept extended poles to operate switch as long as fuses do not exceed 6'6". Can 90-4 supercede mandatory code rules and allow this? based on building design drawings no consideration was made to where compliance with flood level and NEC codes could be met. Presently if we mount the equipment to clear flood level we will be in violation of NEC 404-8. many questions here. any suggestions?
service equipment height in flood zones
- Thread starter timceps
- Start date
- Status
hmspe
Senior Member
- Location
- Temple, TX
- Occupation
- PE
Re: service equipment height in flood zones
There's probably no good solution except to move the equipment and provide a platform. If the service used circuit breakers you might be able to argue that the 6'7" limit did not apply because the breakers are not used as switches, but even then the devices would have to be readily accessible, and most of us can't reach much higher than 6'7" without a ladder. Adding extensions to the switch handles could be a problem -- it would likely require modifying the handles to attach the extensions, which could void the UL label on the equipment. In 1999 NEC 380-8 [they haven't adopted the 2002 NEC here yet] there is an exception for hookstick operation, but that would require demonstrating that the switches could be reliably operated by a hook switch and would require some means to assure that the hookswitch was readily accessible.
To answer your question, in my opinion the inspector is within his authority to reject the installation based on flood zone requirements, but I disagree with his suggestion for handle extensions unless thay are available from the gear manufacturer.
There's probably no good solution except to move the equipment and provide a platform. If the service used circuit breakers you might be able to argue that the 6'7" limit did not apply because the breakers are not used as switches, but even then the devices would have to be readily accessible, and most of us can't reach much higher than 6'7" without a ladder. Adding extensions to the switch handles could be a problem -- it would likely require modifying the handles to attach the extensions, which could void the UL label on the equipment. In 1999 NEC 380-8 [they haven't adopted the 2002 NEC here yet] there is an exception for hookstick operation, but that would require demonstrating that the switches could be reliably operated by a hook switch and would require some means to assure that the hookswitch was readily accessible.
To answer your question, in my opinion the inspector is within his authority to reject the installation based on flood zone requirements, but I disagree with his suggestion for handle extensions unless thay are available from the gear manufacturer.
- Status