Ponder this:




I have omitted some parts of the above mentioned codes but here is my question..
Does the code reference mentioned exempt FDOT (Florida dept of transportation) from electrical inspections or any requirements of the National Electric Code? The case in question involves the installation of street lighting along US 19 in Pasco County. The contractor has installed a 480 volt service with main disconnect feeding a control panel controlling the lights. The control panel is not listed at all from any NRTL and consists of a shop made control box including panel guts from a square D I line panel and breakers, contactors and remote on/off switches and photo cells. It also has a parallel neutral conductor from the disconnect to the control panel. EGC paralleled with neutral.We have been told we do not have jurisdiction over this and to just inspect the service and that's it.
In another installation of 7 lights with metal poles being installed on a street going to a new school, we found the light poles were only being grounded by a driven ground rod to the pole without any EGC attached to the metal pole. All of this seems to be of concern for safety, what say you all??
We did get the grounding taken care of properly. When I asked the installers who met me on the job who was the licensed electrician they said they didn't have any.

I agree for the us 19 deal - inspection of "supply" conductors only, the whole "qualified personnel" thing.?

The school road? Is the street part of the site? What are you guys doing on a school job? All that said - I cringe at the lack of an EGC, seen it too many times, what would be worse is having a green wire used as a neut. or hot!

I agree with the EGC. The road to the school is a public road not on school property. It was redone to accomodate the school buses.

I think the (B) would apply - not covered. How did you guys even get wrapped up in this stuff?

The service needs to be permitted and this was brought up back in 1995 in regards to traffic signal light controls when an inspector wanted the bonding jumper in the control panel (load side bonding of the neutral)removed between the ground bar and the neutral bar. I wasn't here then but my predecessor lost that battle with our traffic department and the FDOT. I have read their specs and codes and see where that jumper is required by them and they do not see the shock hazard. I understand it can cause interference with the signal monitor tripping during electrical storms creating a hazard in traffic situations. So we do not inspect those control panels only the service but when this street lighting situation came up I thought It was my right to inspect the control panel.

The battle, as you say, was primarily with the building official's boss, who legally had no right to tell me what to do or how to inspect electrical work. If I remember correctly the company that was the subcontractor who actually installed the equipment agreed with my position, and removed the bonding jumpers. Heck, it's basic electricity 101. So to those who say I lost a battle, go on thinking that, what they don't know will not hurt them. Before I was there, permits were not even being issued for traffic lights so I think it has come a long way.

Now it is up to you to build upon what was there when I left, which I believe you are doing.

According to Florida Statute 489.503, this work is exempt from licensing/inspection only if it is being performed by an authorized employee of the State of Florida.

If the control panel is not listed, then the question becomes who or whom is liable in case of an accident wherein bodily harm or death is involved. Is the FDOT exempt from law suits in this case ? I think not ! Lawyers in this state would have a field day with this type of scenario. The real question becomes, if it is in the general interest of the public to allow unlisted or uninspected equipment to be used on public/state right of way. Perhaps a query to the FDOT about how they have protected their liabilty in this matter may be appropriate.

And yes, the State of Florida can be sued if something happens in this scenario. Florida court history has many examples of the State having to defend a practice that is not in the general interest of the public.

When I was working the only thing I was inspecting was jobs within the Florida state government and DOT had their work inspected if it was a building or other structure. I never saw a permit for anything that was hanging on a light pole or serving the pole. I did sewer lift stations, toll booths and the maintenance buildings.

My only guideline from Florida DMS (the agency that handled all permitting/inspection) was to enforce the NEC and when something was in a gray area, "make it safe".

Do you see anything inside that cabinet that looks particularly dangerous or outside standard trade practice?
I assume it does get locked up to keep the public out.

Nick, I wasn't referring to you, I was going back even further to your predesessor in 1995 of which I have all the paperwork involved in that situation. I remember when I first started with the county and was inspecting my first traffic control panel and was in a battle with the traffic department, you calmed me down and brought up the previous ruling by our higher ups and you did agree with me. I should have said predessor's, predessor LOL

Greg, I have posted pics in the picture gallery.

I tried to leave paper history whenever I could because I knew the issue would not simply die. I can remember the traffic guy how he never says hello to anyone and when he is walking in every day he will only stare at the ground! What a place.

Paul those pictures look like a different setup. I remember a meter socket, going to a disconnect, then going to the traffic light equipment. In the picture there seems to be no disconnect...


??

Don't look too hard at the FDOT. It will scare you! We have inspected up to the meter socket. Have not been invited lately. Schools, universities, community colleges are all under the Florida Building Code. FDOT stays out on its own.

Next time you enter a school zone check out the flashing light. On one end is a controller with a time clock (that does not know when it is summer and school is out) and 1/2 mile down the road is a metal pole holding the "SCHOOL ZONE" sign for the other direction, with a flashing light on top. Usually a cross walk there that encourages people to lean on the metal pole. The feed down the 1/4 mile is mounted on the poles, a piece of duplex; Neutral and Hot. No grounding conductor. No ground at the remote light.
FDOT is big on driving a bunch of ground rods trying to get a low resistance ground; but not pulling a 'green wire' to the other side of the street, etc


Lynn Adams
Cheif Electrical Inspector, Escambia County
Past president of Panhandle IAEI

Mr. Cameron,
We are examining the issue of permits for the FDOT work in our area as well. It seems that the FDOT lost their exemption from permits and inspections at the same time the schools, universities, and community colleges lost theirs. But it has not been common practice to permit and inspect their projects. (See my post at the end of this thread...)

I cannot find any specific exemption for FDOT. I cannot find any reference to exemption for the oft quoted "on the right-of-way" comment made in this thread.

Can you help me find the specific allowance or requirement that this work be inspected? I know that the State does have inspectors, but they are NOT necessarily licensed inspectors under FSS 468; so it would not seem they could say they were providing the oversight. And the work is not being done by the state, but by contractors and sub-contractors working on a project for the state.

Thank you for your comments.

Lynn Adams

Lynn,
I was not aware that the state school board lost their exemption from local ahj intervention.
Where is that statement located at?

Lynn,

The FDOT "inspectors" typically inspect soil conditions, layering of material, etc., they are not inspectors as we know them under 468, like you say. My catch was that the entity installing the traffic light services was a subcontractor. They need the power company to "energize" and they were told that only the county had the power to release power. So it trickled down from there.

A good place to begin is with FDOT specifications for traffic control devices. Their page for this can be found here:

Traffic Systems — Product Specification...Signal Devices)

The specifications for the electrical service, complete with references back to NEC, can be found here:

SECTION A639
ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE ASSEMBLY

The design standards page can be found here:

Design Standards

And the diagram for the electrical service can be found here:

Electrical Service Diagram


The FDOT website is LOADED with information and it could literally take days to go through it all. I reference it frequently when I am involved with ADA related work. It is very helpful, and their goal seems to be to have all the information online.

To answer your question though, there would be an exception if they were exempt. I can find no such exemption in F.S. 553, or any other statute, the FBC, nor the NEC. Seems like if there was an exemption, we would be able to locate it. If someone knows of an exemption from permitting requirements or NEC please post back and let us know.

For the disciplines regulated by the CLIB state inspectors have been required to be licensed just like everyone else since 1996. That was why I had my job. In 1995 I was sent the request to bid precisely because I was one of the relatively rare people who had a BN license and not working for a municipality. The state also required permits but they were writing them in house. (DMS)
Once the Florida building code was in place, they stopped internal permitting through DMS. Some agencies were planning to keep doing their own permitting tho. I am not sure how that worked out.
Juvenile Justice was one that was looking at it. Do you get permits from them?