inspecting the permit

[jwelectric]

From time to time we see a thread on this site about just what the code official should be looking at. Should he only look at what the permit was purchased for or can he go beyond the scope of the permit.

A permit was issued for a gas pack change out. The same size gas pack was replaced as was the original. A simple disconnection of the electrical at the whip and then a reconnection of the whip to the new unit was as much as the contractor was doing electrically.

Now I ask should the inspector look past the gas pack at any other issues that anyone can see by looking at these poctures?

As an inspector would you sign off on this installation? Remember the permit was issued for a gas pack change out of the same size and it was replaced in the exact same spot as the original gas pack.

 

[infinity]

IMO the new unit should have been moved. Why would replacing a non-compliant installation with another non-compliant installation be allowed?

 

[One-eyed Jack]

I agree with Infinity. At some point the work space was impinged upon and the should not go back that way.

 

[raider1]

IMO the new unit should have been moved. Why would replacing a non-compliant installation with another non-compliant installation be allowed?

I agree. As an inspector I would not allow the install as done due to the fact that the original install was not code compliant.

Chris

 

[iwire]

I could leave that in place here.

I am not required to correct exiting violations.

I would be signed off and the inspector would notify the property owner if they felt an actual hazard exists.

(Or at least that is what the laws says)

 

[cowboyjwc]

You cannot create a violation with new work even if it was an existing violation. My guess would be, that something, either the panels or the unit were never permitted or signed off to begin with.

 

[stew]

does not meet 110.26a and therefore would need to be moved away from the front of the panels. Also I do not see a disconnect?

 

[stew]

also where is the strap on the flex??

 

[pete m.]

Also I do not see a disconnect?

The disconnect is probably a breaker in the panel to which there is no access.

Pete

 

[e57]

I had an Electrical Inspector tell me this once - "I'm a 'Department of Building Inspection Services Official' - not a whats in your scope official. I do the electrical portion of the building..." While I aggree and disagree with that at the same time - I would not have put that in front of the service like that existing or not. Sure the existing was a violation - but recreating it is another. While you may not have even touched the service, and it was not in scope or on your permit - your actions created a violation outside of your scope and permit. It would be no different than if you did a brand new service - just fine - and the plumber put a water heater in front of it - which happens... But it is still a violation.

 

[augie47]

Had the permit been for installation of a new dishwasher it might be a different story (this violation might still be addressed as a separate issue)but since this permit involved the gas pack and it's involved in the violation, I would not accept it as is.

 

[Steviechia2]

There are some things that I will let go if it is not a safety issue. But this unit in front of the service equipment is definitely a safety hazard for an electrician servicing the panel! I agree with E57 that even though it was in pre existing violation doesn't give you the right to make it a violation again. Once the gas unit was removed there was no violation! By installing the new one you have a new violation

 

[jxofaltrds]

I had an Electrical Inspector tell me this once - "I'm a 'Department of Building Inspection Services Official' - not a whats in your scope official. I do the electrical portion of the building..." While I aggree and disagree with that at the same time - I would not have put that in front of the service like that existing or not. Sure the existing was a violation - but recreating it is another. While you may not have even touched the service, and it was not in scope or on your permit - your actions created a violation outside of your scope and permit. It would be no different than if you did a brand new service - just fine - and the plumber put a water heater in front of it - which happens... But it is still a violation.

All inspectors need to know the codes that may effect their trade.

Example: cutting or drilling in the bottom third of a floor joist is not in the NEC but an electrical inspector should know this and inform the building (structural) inspector before signing off his inspection.

 

[cschmid]

This is not a yes or no answer. Because if it was simple you would say sorry move it. It was done before you got there and the permit was for a repair. Was the original install done with the current owners involvement, did they pull a permit then? Do you have the authority to make this install an issue and do you have the legal grounds to do so. So no there is no black and white here..I would say the repair was done correctly but I have questions on everything else..

 

[eric7379]

From time to time we see a thread on this site about just what the code official should be looking at. Should he only look at what the permit was purchased for or can he go beyond the scope of the permit.

A permit was issued for a gas pack change out. The same size gas pack was replaced as was the original. A simple disconnection of the electrical at the whip and then a reconnection of the whip to the new unit was as much as the contractor was doing electrically.

As an inspector would you sign off on this installation? Remember the permit was issued for a gas pack change out of the same size and it was replaced in the exact same spot as the original gas pack.

This is not a yes or no answer. Because if it was simple you would say sorry move it. It was done before you got there and the permit was for a repair. Was the original install done with the current owners involvement, did they pull a permit then?

This was not a repair. As the OP stated, the permit was for a "change-out". If the permit and subsequent inspection were to insure that the installation was code-compliant, wouldn't the fact that it is in directly in front of the service, with no regard for clearance distances, make it non-compliant?
I would not pass it, but that is just me. Granted, I am not an inspector, so my opinion isn't worth much.
What I would have done, is have the inspector take a look at it before-hand to see what their thought on it was. Now you are in a situation where you are hoping that it will pass. If it doesn't pass, who pays to make it right?

 

[Cavie]

I could leave that in place here.

I am not required to correct exiting violations.

I would be signed off and the inspector would notify the property owner if they felt an actual hazard exists.

(Or at least that is what the laws says)

Two wrongs make it right?? The first install was probibly done without a permit. I know it would be very expenscive moving the ductwork but it is what it is. A violation.

 

[Regularkevin]

does not meet 110.26a and therefore would need to be moved away from the front of the panels.

110.26 (A) also states​

minimum clearances are not required if the equipment is such that it is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized. However "sufficient" access and working space are still required by the opening paragraph of 110.26

Perhaps this is how the AHJ read into working space and clearances. IMHO, I feel that this is a violation of the NEC and possibly Local Bldg Codes.

 

[e57]

All inspectors need to know the codes that may effect their trade.

Example: cutting or drilling in the bottom third of a floor joist is not in the NEC but an electrical inspector should know this and inform the building (structural) inspector before signing off his inspection.

It is clearly a violation of the NEC and there are no bones about it. If the service came after the HVAC thingy there - it would have the inspectors laughing for years to come... (The fact an electrician was involved in putting the HVAC thingy there might too...)

I don't see this as a chicken and egg and what came first issue - it is a violation pure and simple. Who violated it and when matters not... The fact that this violation is recreated - instead of corrected says a number of other things... Others might - but I don't see a defense for it...

 

[petersonra]

And you guys wonder why people go to such lengths to avoid permits and inspections. Trivial nonsense like this is just another reason to hire someone who will just do the work and not expose yourself to thousands of dollars worth of unneeded extra costs.

It would be one thing if there was an actual definable hazard, but a possible minor and fairly trivial code violation?

 

[petersonra]

You cannot create a violation with new work even if it was an existing violation. My guess would be, that something, either the panels or the unit were never permitted or signed off to begin with.

What happened in the past is not an issue.

The possible violation was not created by the work, it already existed.