# Electrical or structural violation?



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

How would this be treated in your area?
This picture is poor but here you see what looks to be a porch being built and now the service drop is running just above it.


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

This.


> 230.24 Clearances. Overhead service conductors shall not be readily accessible and shall comply with 230.24(A) through (E) for services not over 1000 volts, nominal.
> (A) Above Roofs. Conductors shall have a vertical clearance of not less than 2.5 m (8 ft) above the roof surface. The vertical clearance above the roof level shall be maintained for a distance of not less than 900 mm (3 ft) in all directions from the edge of the roof.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> This.


I know the service drop is now in violation of code. I am just wondering what a building inspector would do if they walked up on this.


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

I guess I'm confused. Are you asking when a violation may not be a violation? Because I don't know how to answer that. Seems like you've posed a trick question with no answer.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

This is something I never thought about and I do not think our local inspectors know



> Exception No. 2: Where the voltage between conductors
> does not exceed 300 and the roof has a slope of 100 mm in
> 300 mm (4 in. in 12 in.) or greater, a reduction in clearance
> to 900 mm (3 ft) shall be permitted


So as long as the roof has a 4/12 pitch, only 3' clearance is required.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> I guess I'm confused. Are you asking when a violation may not be a violation? Because I don't know how to answer that. Seems like you've posed a trick question with no answer.


Ok. Let us say this new porch is going to be inspected. No electrical will be installed so no electrical permit. And I do not even know if a building permit is required, but let us say there is.
Would it pass building inspection and the inspector inform the electrical department?
Would it fail building inspection because of the violation on the electrical?


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> Ok. Let us say this new porch is going to be inspected. No electrical will be installed so no electrical permit. And I do not even know if a building permit is required, but let us say there is.
> Would it pass building inspection and the inspector inform the electrical department?
> Would it fail building inspection because of the violation on the electrical?


It should, but if you have a dedicated electric inspector and a dedicated building inspector, I doubt it. A specialized inspector doesn't need to know everything. In my small towns, one inspector does it all, and he/she should certainly cite the violation. 
I personally think the 8' rule is there to protect people who are standing on the roof, thus the exception you cited. The 4-12 pitch makes it much harder for standing on normal circumstances, so 3' is adequate.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> It should, but if you have a dedicated electric inspector and a dedicated building inspector, I doubt it. A specialized inspector doesn't need to know everything. In my small towns, one inspector does it all, and he/she should certainly cite the violation.
> I personally think the 8' rule is there to protect people who are standing on the roof, thus the exception you cited. The 4-12 pitch makes it much harder for standing on normal circumstances, so 3' is adequate.


How would you think it would be cited?
Would the GC need to alter the structure or would the GC be required to now have an EC pull an electrical permit and correct the violation that was caused by the new structure?

Kind of like the "which came first? the chicken or the egg?"


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

So much of our code book was written by people who never who never got much further away from Manhattan Island than maybe a daytrip to the beach in NJ. In New York they used to spend a lot of time up on the roof in the summer, take the family for a vacation up to the roof to look at the pidgeon collection.........


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> How would you think it would be cited?
> Would the GC need to alter the structure or would the GC be required to now have an EC pull an electrical permit and correct the violation that was caused by the new structure?
> 
> Kind of like the "which came first? the chicken or the egg?"


Either way it's now the GC's problem, and coming out of his pocket. If he was smart he would stop work and get estimates for both changes. As an EC, I would hope that I would be more cost effective.


----------



## Mshow1323 (Jun 9, 2012)

I would bet that this will go unchanged and the service will stay exactly like it is though.

If I was a betting man.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Mshow1323 said:


> I would bet that this will go unchanged and the service will stay exactly like it is though.
> 
> If I was a betting man.


You are correct. Unless I inform the code office.:whistling2:

I see this quite a bit in my area.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Mshow1323 said:


> Either way it's now the GC's problem, and coming out of his pocket. If he was smart he would stop work and get estimates for both changes. As an EC, I would hope that I would be more cost effective.


I agree with this. The GC changed a compliant situation into a non-compliant.

But I also agree that it will most likely go without correction.

Pete


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Depends on the jurisdiction. I had a kitchen reno where the GC opened up the ceiling for new recessed lights. There were no structural modifications and no building permit was required (or so we thought...). Two of those recessed lights were in an insulated ceiling. The electrical inspector demanded a building inspection over two lousy pot lights. That meant a building permit and a separate inspection. Delayed the job by three days.


----------



## Hired Hand (Nov 29, 2014)

Around here, if that was the poco's drop, then we couldn't touch it anyways. If that were load side of the main though then it'd be an EC doing it.. If anyone catches it that is.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> I agree with this. The GC changed a compliant situation into a non-compliant.
> 
> But I also agree that it will most likely go without correction.
> 
> Pete


For some reason in my area, no permit would be required to build a small lean-to porch or screened in porch. 

Technically, electricians can't so much as add 1 receptacle without pulling a permit, but yet carpenters can build jobs like this ($3k or less I think), and never have to worry about what am inspector would say.

With that said, this would stay like it is for several decades. At least until a large remodel took place at the property.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

I would say the entire conversation is null and void due to 90.2 (b) (5)


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Hired Hand said:


> Around here, if that was the poco's drop, then we couldn't touch it anyways. If that were load side of the main though then it'd be an EC doing it.. If anyone catches it that is.


Amen, hence the above post.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Before you question me, seek the definition of service entrance conductor, and service lateral.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

aftershockews said:


> How would this be treated in your area?
> This picture is poor but here you see what looks to be a porch being built and now the service drop is running just above it.


When our largest poco had a meter reading dept, they'd rat these deals out, and the main office would send nastygrams to the residents. 

These_ 'smart meter' _days, it'd last until there was an incident with it

~CS~


----------

