Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 09/14/2015 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at 4:00 p.m., September 14, 2015, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Brad Heemstra, Larry Brandt, Nathan Werstein, David Carnes, Chuck Haselhoff, and Dan Nutini. Staff members present were Seana Perkins, Scott Ripperger, Adam Ostert, and Jessica Spoden. Guests present were Appellants Jerry Nelson and Chris Nelson from Nelson Electric, Dwight Kramer, Mat Miller, Brian Thompson, and other electrical contractors. Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Brandt, to approve the minutes of July 6, 2015 with a correction on page 2, paragraph 6, to change 4000 parcels to 400 Vote on Motion: 7-0 Motion passed unanimously Old Business None New Business A. Appeal of 2014 National Electrical Code, Section 90.7: Examination of Equipment of Safety, Section 110.2: Approval, and Section 110.3: Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment at 526 Main Street by Jerry Nelson, Nelson Electric Company Appellant Jerry Nelson gave a power point presentation for his appeal. According to Nelson, the true intent of the code has been incorrectly interpreted and the provisions of the code do not apply to the work Nelson Electric did at 526 Main Street. Nelson Electric did a professional job and did their due diligence when they did the taps. He believes they made a professionally competent analysis of the situation and came up with a solution, and the modification should be considered minor and not subject to third party analysis. Nelson explained that there were three code infractions from City staff. In regards to Section 90.7, the internal wiring and the equipment that come from the manufacturer are UL listed. The AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) does not have to worry about whether it is safe or unsafe because that determination is already taken care of by the UL listing. They on ly thing the AHJ has to do is detect alterations or damage to the equipment. Nelson does not consider Section 90.7 relevant to this situation. Nelson continued with Section 110.2 describing it as a general catch all and saying a specific code was not violated, therefore, it is not applicable. Section 110.3 is the basis for the appeal and Nelson asserts they have met the requirements. Nelson stated the electrical inspector never saw what work was actually done nor did the inspector ask for pictures of the work. 2 Nelson provided an overview of the job at 526 Main Street. There are five tenants in the building plus a house meter. After work progressed and the new tenant came in with more electrical equipment than was expected, the job required a second service. The existing service had a 200 Amp meter, so a second meter was needed. The existing service is 21 years old and is an obsolete piece of equipment, so a transition piece was required to connect a new meter socket onto the old service. The transition piece was ordered correctly, but arrived backward, which Nelson found out 10 days before the customer wanted to open the restaurant. The piece is made in Mexico and has a six week reorder timeframe. They reordered the part, but needed to find another code compliant option to get the restaurant open. They decided to tap the busbar and use the 10 foot tap rule to set another meter socket . Nelson stated they used the appropriate conductors, the appropriate main switch, and the appropriate main box, and that there were no code issues with those items. Nelson shared that they could have made the tap on the line side, which is outside the jurisdiction of the AHJ, but t hey felt the safer tap was on the load side of the fuses. The issue at hand is with the tap that they made - specifically the ¼” hole in the bus. Nelson said he computed the load from the tenant on both panels and the impact it had on the main service. He provided an example of the kind of busbar used. Brad Heemstra asked where the hole was located. Nelson replied that there were three holes: one hole in each busbar. Nathan Werstein asked if the busbar example was an accepted modification from the manufacturer. Nelson responded that is the question at hand. Discussion was held about electrical current. According to Nelson, they made the cut over at 5:30 a.m., and got the okay to get a meter at 9:00 a.m., but then the issue became that they could not get a meter because the modification they made was a code violation. Without a meter, they could not turn the service on. The options they had at that point from the City were: (1) Call the manufacturer and get written approval that the tap was safe. (2) Get an electrical engineer to give written approval that the tap was safe. Nelson said they called the manufacturer, two factory engineers, and two electrical engineers. “Both” of them said what Nelson did was not an issue in their eyes. They told him off the record that what Nelson did was fine, but they would not provide a written statement because they do not want the liability. Nelson’s options then became: (1) Wait six weeks to get the correct transition piece. (2) Use the bus tap as a temporary installation, which was not acceptable. (3) Take the matter to the Building Board of Appeals. Nelson referred to an article that he provided to the Board, “To Tap or Not to Tap?” (Electrical Connections/The Code Authority, April 2010), and said they followed all the recommendations in the article. Nelson stated he spoke to the author of the article, John Taecker, who commented, “The article does not really say that third party testing is required.” Nelson had taken pictures of the job and when reviewing the pictures, he came across a picture that showed two fuses taken out and found unplugged holes from the manufacturer behind 3 each screw. Nelson speculated that the manufacturer must not have been concerned about an empty hole in the busbar. Nelson described a scenario in which his project manager, who used to work in Des Moines, had a project at the Des Moines Airport that had an 800 Amp tap onto a busbar, and an engineer had instructed him to make the tap the same way Nelson did it on the busbar in Ames. An engineer from Square D also informed Nelson that the type of modification they made is routinely used at Iowa State University on their obsolete equipment rather than changing out the entire gear. Nelson concluded by stating Nelson Electric did a professional and competent analysis of the work they performed and the solution they had. The modification they made was a minor tap, so it was not subject to a third party analysis. In Nelson’s opinion, the electrical inspector did not do his due diligence in researching the topic or make any effort to see if they met the criteria for 110.3(A) and the UL recommendations. Nelson asked the Board to overturn the findings of the inspector on all three of the Sections. Discussion was held about the timeline of the work. Larry Brandt stated that when he went to the job site for his own inspection of the work, the taps and lugs were gone, so the point is moot. He added that it sounded like the appeal was an emotional issue rather than engineering logic. Chris Nelson agreed that it is a moot point, but they are looking for validation or a clearing of the record that this happened. Larry Cormicle asked if there were any more questions of the appellant for the Board to understand their presentation. He also wanted to make sure the Board underst ood the inspector’s perspective. He referred to the memo in the agenda packet dated August 3, 2015 from Scott Ripperger. Cormicle said the Board should hear the Inspection Division’s perspective and interpretation of the National Electrical Code and pointed out that, although the point might be moot, the Board should hear from both sides as always. Ripperger summarized that what started the whole thing was that the appellant drilled and tapped a busbar. In the opinion of City staff, under 90.7, 110.2, and 110.3, that action rendered the listing of that equipment void. In the meantime, City staff received an appropriate fix from the Square D manufacturer. The remedy was performed and approved by the City for the fix of the drilling and tapping of the busbars. Since the filing of the appeal, the transition piece came in and was installed. The installation was inspected and approved. The permits for the project were finalized and the Certificate of Occupancy issued because there was a fix for the drilling of the busbars and the rest of the installation with the transition piece was code compliant. What the appellant wanted to do was use a previously drilled and tapped hole in the busbars for the installation of the lug and bolt connection to make the new tap, but the City received nothing from the manufacturer or any documentation from a third party that it would be an approved 4 installation so staff could not approve it. If Nelson had not drilled the busbars in the first place, we would not be in this situation using the transition piece. Nelson concurred that Ripperger’s summary was “pretty close”, but the whole discussion is about whether the tapped holes were approved or not. Cormicle asked City staff about their interpretation of the National Electrical Code that requires any field modification to existing equipment to have a manufacturer’s sign off. He asked if the 2014 NEC requires it. He explained that he was trying to understand where the code requires the manufacturer to review and approve or is it all the AHJ. Adam Ostert explained that the code requires all equipment to be listed and labeled by a third party so one does not have to go through that with every piece of equipment. In part of that listing label it says “one cannot alter, change, or damage”. In this situation when it came to the field, it was then noticed that it was altered. At that point in time, it was up to the AHJ to decide what to do with it next, which is where the electrical inspector stepped in and said the City would like a judgment on it or something from the manufacturer. Seana Perkins stated that it is a policy of the Inspection Division that if there is existing equipment that has been modified, rather than having City staff make a determination on where that line is, a third party or manufacturer approval is required. Chuck Haselhoff added the policy is common practice in any type of construction. For example, if one cuts a floor joist, the contractor needs an engineer to stamp off stating the patch is fixed or it has to be replaced. The City wants a written approval that the patch or repair is engineered correctly to withstand. Heemstra asked what is meant by a “transition piece”. Jerry Nelson explained that because the equipment is obsolete, the transition piece is needed to connect the two pieces. Haselhoff shared that it was his understanding that everything was signed off on and had been approved. Ripperger replied that it has been approved and that most of what had been shown in the presentation has since been removed. Haselhoff questioned again whether the permit had been closed and the job had been finalled. Ripperger replied that it had. Haselhoff stated confusion about what the Board was doing. Did the appellant want to reuse the hol es? Ripperger said that was no longer the case because the appellant now had the transition piece. David Carnes recounted that the patch had been made and the transition piece had been installed and approved, so he questioned what the Board was to be approving going forward. He asked if they were validating the actions of the appellant. Perkins replied that the Board can also make a determination on the actions that were presented to give staff an understanding if that is a policy and movement forward that the Board would like to see continued or if there is something that the Board sees in the code that should be interpreted differently by staff. Even though a very specific item was being discussed, 5 it begs a larger question of decisions made along the way and whether those were the right decisions. In different jurisdictions, one is going to get different answers even though they are under the same code. The AHJ can make different determinations. Cormicle stated that he appreciated what Nelson Electric brought to the table and that is how other jurisdictions have made their call, but in the end, it is the City of Ames Inspection Division who has the authority to make the call. He asked if any of the guests present representing the trade and the profession would like to speak. Mat Miller from Miller Electric shared that he had a similar situation earlier this summer. He was trying to add a meter to a meter bank. The idea was easy enough: a tap. He had done it in the past and had always done it with engineering approval. He said they never just go out and tap. He spoke to Mark Imhoff at Electric Administration who referred him to Nick Patterson. He spoke to Patterson who told him straight up that he could not do it unless he got the proper attachment pieces for the busbar. Patterson told him he could not just drill a hole and tap it. So Miller purchased the appropriate equipment to attach to it and then completed the service , and it was approved. Miller continued by saying working in the City of Ames is nice because one can just call an inspector and they will give you a heads up and let you know if you should look at a different option. He emphasized consistency. Nelson asked Miller if he got approval from someone when he tapped it. Miller responded t hat he did not tap it. He purchased a special piece and modified the service. Dwight Kramer, licensed electrician for the State of Iowa, stated that they see people trying to tap like this quite often across the state. And, as Jerry Nelson said, it probably happens all over the country all the time. However, people speed all over too even though there are rules saying not to. In the inspection world, inspectors probably only see 10 percent of what happens out there. He thinks Nick Patterson did the right thing. If someone wanted to do this in Dwight’s world, they would be asked for third party or manufacturer’s paper work. They have never had a problem with most manufacturers coming up with it. Otherwise, there are parts one can buy to do it right. Nelson did the right thing in the end and got the right part, so Kramer was at a loss about what was being debated at the meeting since the whole question is gone. The question to tap or not is gone. He did not understand why everyone had not just moved on. He said he agreed with Brandt that the issue seemed to be more of an emotional one. The job is passed and done with, so it should be a moot point. Haselhoff asked where Nick Patterson was, noting he was not at the meeting. Perkins replied that the issue is not about Nick, but more about what the process was and how they handled it. Nick represents the AHJ – herself - so he was not joining the meeting. It is not what he did or did not do. It is more of the policy of how City staff moves forward. Kramer pointed out that the State does licensing and inspection laws. They have adopted the 2014 NEC, which allows political subdivisions, such as Ames, to have their own inspection division. The City of Ames has to enforce the code at least to the minimum standards of what 6 the State requires. They can be more restrictive, but they cannot let things go that have not been done by the State. Heemstra asked if it was fair to say that a scenario of running into obsolete electrical equipment that has to be field modified comes up fairly often, but that other electricians work through the department to figure out what the best solution is and then implement it. He asked if this situation was asking for forgiveness versus permission or not necessarily. Nelson responded that it was not asking for forgiveness because they think they did the right thing. In doing the research on this issue, they tried to figure out the disconnect between what goes on out in the electrical world and inspections. There are not a lot of third party evaluations done, so the only conclusion they could come up with was that the AHJ must be looking at it and passing it. The UL says it is the responsibility of the AHJ to determine if the modification is acceptable or not. The AHJ can accept it and be fine. Heemstra read the last sentence from the article provided by Nelson, “A UL field evaluation can provide assistance to the code official in particular cases, but not all.” Chris Nelson added that the AHJ needs to make the determination. As far as the code issue of more restrictive or less restrictive, if one is going to take the decision making authority away from the AHJ in every case, then that would be a code revision to the 2014 NEC. Carnes asked what the liability is to the City to approve UL modifications. Spoden replied that she believes liability is the reason for the policy. The City errs on the side that they are not exempt from liability by approving something that could potentially end up causing injury or property damage. The way Spoden reads 90.7 is that it speaks to a particular instance of when one does not need approval, and she agreed it does not say when exactly one needs approval. It only speaks to when one does not need approval. So if the City chooses to have a policy of when one does need the additional third party approval, then that would be something that would come out of the Inspection Division. She could not say exactly what liability the City would have. The City has not been made exempt from liability. Brian Thompson from Thompson Electric asked what happens if this goes through and people want to come in and do more. Where does the City start and stop on allowing taps throughout the city? Maybe he would want to come in and do it somewhere else, but if he does not get preapproval from the electrical inspector then he could be liable. If he gets preapproval, then at least there is no problem. Getting preapproval would be the best way to go or get the written manufacturer’s recommendation. Thompson asked where we go from here. Cormicle asked Brandt, as the Board’s electrical expert, if he had any comments or opinions he wanted to share from his professional perspective. Brandt stated that the code is very specific and there are transition kits and special field modification kits, and if one gets the correct the kit, then a contractor can do almost whatever he wants in the field. Cormicle asked if the kits are all designed and manufactured by the manufacturers and are UL rated modifications to existing old equipment. Brandt replied that they are, and in some cases, certain breakers from 7 different companies, i.e., GE or Siemens, will all fit in certain panels. But if a contractor tries to make the modification using the wrong equipment without getting approval from the electrical inspector, then he will not pass the inspection. One has to work with the AHJ to work out what can be done. Heemstra asked what exactly the Board was voting on. What would a decision to deny the appeal imply? Spoden answered that in a similar situation if alterations were made, it would require a letter from the manufacturer or a third party approval, as written in the report to the Board by Scott Ripperger. Nelson responded that in the real world that does not happen. Contractors will not be able to get a letter from the manufacturer or engineer stating the modification is okay because of liability. That is something that is not on option. Brandt stated that he agreed with the City’s interpretation. He completely backs the electrical inspector in what he did. The inspector tried to do the right thing, he did what he has done f or others, he did what the State does, and he was correct. Moved by Brandt, seconded by Haselhoff, to deny the appeal Vote on Motion: 6-0 (Dan Nutini left the meeting prior to the vote) Motion passed unanimously Board or Staff Comments Perkins shared there will be a Building Board of Appeals meeting on October 5, 2015. Adjournment The Board adjourned at 5:30pm. ____________________________ Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary