pictures gain

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esthy

Senior Member
It is me again with the same pictures. We are fixing the whole problem, but I am having some discussion with the electrical inspector where he said there are not violation and that there is only poor workmanship (referring to photos) and maybe only Art 110.12 talks about workmanship. What about the "green" wire? what about the double and triple neutral in one lug? What about the exposed conductors in the conduit? How about the non-identification of the multiwiring? How about the hanging conduit from the subpanel?

Is the inspector correct? Common sense tell me there are violations, but I am having difficult time in pointing the articles ... Any input please and thanks

DSC00755.jpg



DSC00756.jpg



[
DSC00760.jpg



DSC00761.jpg
 
but I am having some discussion with the electrical inspector where he said there are not violation and that there is only poor workmanship (referring to photos) and maybe only Art 110.12 talks about workmanship.
Click to expand...

You need to ask the inspector for their certifications, and how they were able to obtain them.:rolleyes:

Picture #1

352.30(A) for securing and supporting of PVC conduit.

352.48 the joint needs to be made by an approved method. The joint after the 90 does not appear to be properly glued.

300.5(A) for required burial depth.

Picture #2

300.18 Raceways shall be installed in complete runs.

Picture #3

I agree with Walton

250.119 & 110.14 (A).

Chris
 
Whoa you really made my day. The electric inspector really confused me. I get along with all inspectors and specially him, I have a high opinion of him, he also teaches most of the IAEI classes. When he stated that there was not violation I was so confused that my mind didn't find anything in the book. You opened my eyes, this is why this forum is so important.

Thanks,

Louis
 
Esthy, everyone has a supervisor. Don't hesitate to climb the food chain if you need to; that's why it's there.
 
Esthy said:
Whoa you really made my day. The electric inspector really confused me. I get along with all inspectors and specially him, I have a high opinion of him, he also teaches most of the IAEI classes. When he stated that there was not violation I was so confused that my mind didn't find anything in the book. You opened my eyes, this is why this forum is so important.

Thanks,

Louis
Click to expand...

Wow, he teaches IAEI classes and found nothing wrong in the pics, that's pretty scary.
 
Esthy said:
... he said there are not violation and that there is only poor workmanship (referring to photos) and maybe only Art 110.12 talks about workmanship.
Click to expand...

I still like this part of the OP best. only poor workmanship and only Art 110.12 makes me giggle. The inspector directly referred to their workmanship as a direct violation of the NEC. :grin:

Even if there was no other violation: 110.12 is a real part of the NEC. Make them do it over entirely. Some crews don't know enough to be embarrassed until the paycheck doesn't come. Stop Payment.
 
Last edited:
pfalcon said:
I still like this part of the OP best. only poor workmanship and only Art 110.12 makes me giggle. The inspector directly referred to their workmanship as a direct violation of the NEC. :grin:

Even if there was no other violation: 110.12 is a real part of the NEC. Make them do it over entirely. Some crews don't know enough to be embarrassed until the paycheck doesn't come. Stop Payment.
Click to expand...
While it is a real part of the NEC it is not really enforceable. It is too vague and subjective. There is no reason to ever cite 110.12 as there will always be a "real" code violation to cite. Here there are a number of them.
 
raider1 said:
You need to ask the inspector for their certifications, and how they were able to obtain them.:rolleyes:


Chris
Click to expand...


It never ceases to amaze me how quickly we attack someone for something another has said.
The OP himself is having issues finding the code citations, yet, do we firmly believe that maybe he misunderstood the inspector????

If the inspector is teaching for the IAEI, maybe, just maybe there is some confusion in the inspection.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear guys say they thought I said " XYZ", when I really did not say "XYZ" at all. In their confusion they misunderstood.


On the otherhand, if the inspector did blow this inspection, I for one would not antagonize him, it will not get you too far. Just follow the procedures set up.
 
Well here the correspondence. I blackened for obvious reasons

Well here the correspondence. I blackened for obvious reasons

violations.jpg
 
DSC00755.jpg


Most of the raceway is properly supported. What's the problem?




DSC00756.jpg


This is what is known as an inspectors' section. A clear section of raceway so the inspector can see what's inside.


[
DSC00760.jpg


Who is taking photos at 8:01 AM? We don't start work until 9:00!!!!




DSC00761.jpg


Can I get some meat-flavored Ragu and parmeson cheese with that?
 
Esthy said:
It is me again with the same pictures. We are fixing the whole problem, but I am having some discussion with the electrical inspector where he said there are not violation and that there is only poor workmanship (referring to photos) and maybe only Art 110.12 talks about workmanship. What about the "green" wire? what about the double and triple neutral in one lug? What about the exposed conductors in the conduit? How about the non-identification of the multiwiring? How about the hanging conduit from the subpanel?

Is the inspector correct? Common sense tell me there are violations, but I am having difficult time in pointing the articles ... Any input please and thanks

DSC00755.jpg



DSC00756.jpg



[
DSC00760.jpg



DSC00761.jpg
Click to expand...

Is this in AZ if this is well boys we are talking about cracker jack certification! I was a electrician in AZ for 10 years and most of the time I failed inspection from telling the inspector I still needed to BLANK BLANK?...
Those inspectors would pass nob and tube in a nursery!
 
Your in a hick town and the guy that did this work is a friend or relative. Good luck with this mess. Back off or he will be a problem for you. Keep the pictures but your not going to win over BOSS HOG
Trust me i growed up in one of them towns and if you know the right people you get away with almost anything, i sure did.
 
Last edited:
It sure does look like its here in AZ.
Well I'm not the smartest guy, but I try to be real stickler about the work I perform. I have been doing electrical work now for 15 / 16 years now. I have only did it in one state as a professional (VT) since I don,t have a business in AZ or License(there isn't one SCARY). The inspections I have seen in AZ are scary and terrible. Things that are passed in AZ would NEVER PASS in VT.
In the FA industry here in AZ if I'm correct the city of Phoenix and Peoria require a "Competent Person" be on site while the FA system is being installed. I have yet to be asked for my credentials except at an inspection.
In VT, if the inspector knew there was work going on at a site, he would stop go in and ask to see the License on site. If there wasn't one he would close the site down electrically. He would also check to make sure the Ratio of License holders to apprentices fit the criteria or some one would go home!
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While it is a real part of the NEC it is not really enforceable. It is too vague and subjective. There is no reason to ever cite 110.12 as there will always be a "real" code violation to cite. Here there are a number of them.
Click to expand...

Post #14 came in after your post so you hadn't seen it yet. Clauses such as 110.12 are not enforceable because no one ever puts them in writing ... Oh, wait, check out post #14 :grin:

The inspector specifically says the poor workmanship leads to hazards and dangers. That is sufficient to win in court. One last letter to the EL contractor for correction is now required citing the inspector for 110.12 violation. On refusal the EL contract can be abandoned without compensation and a new contractor hired to correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top