Yet another whine about inspectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
I just got a report from an inspector informing me of a failure with one comment: Comply 250.122(G) NEC.

C'mon, man; would it kill you to tell me which conductor you consider to be out of compliance?
 
There was a discrepancy in the item count between the fire alarm tech card and the electrical tech card. We also needed to supply the electrical tech card for our sub who was doing the power for us. This required my getting up at o'dark thirty to get into Jersey City for an 0730 appointment with the electrical sub code. Total time burned in travel and waiting around: 3 hours. Total time talking to the guy who took my cards: 3 minutes. Of course, I couldn't just FedEx the stuff into the office, now could I. :rolleyes:
 
This is one very good reason to be present for inspections. Small stuff can be corrected and passed on the same trip.

Something debatable can be discussed on the spot, and a supervisor called if there is a difference of opinion to settle.

Inspectors who know me will trust me to correct things without having to come back, and I always do to maintain trust.
 
ggunn said:
I just got a report from an inspector informing me of a failure with one comment: Comply 250.122(G) NEC.

C'mon, man; would it kill you to tell me which conductor you consider to be out of compliance?
Click to expand...
How many feeder taps do you have in the installation?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
How many feeder taps do you have in the installation?
Click to expand...
Just one, and it is in compliance with 250.122. It turns out that the AHJ has an additional rule that specifies an oversized ground in that type of circuit, so it's not even a violation of the article he quoted. He knew that, and he could have told us, <John Belushi voice> but nooooo... :D
 
ggunn said:
Just one, and it is in compliance with 250.122. It turns out that the AHJ has an additional rule that specifies an oversized ground in that type of circuit, so it's not even a violation of the article he quoted. He knew that, and he could have told us, <John Belushi voice> but nooooo... :D
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Do you have to correct something or not. Inspector can't make up his own rules.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I don't understand. Do you have to correct something or not. Inspector can't make up his own rules.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. You say they can't but they do, or at least they come up with, um, unique interpretations of the code that fly in the face of common sense and fundamental understanding of electrical theory. I'm not sure if this one is a codified amendment to the NEC or just an inspector's whim, but I'm just going to make the change and get on with my work.

Some battles are not worth fighting; changing a short run of EGC from #8 to #6 is no big deal. It took me longer to find what his problem was, which I had to do because he didn't just tell me, than it will take to make the change.
 
ggunn said:
Just one, and it is in compliance with 250.122. It turns out that the AHJ has an additional rule that specifies an oversized ground in that type of circuit, so it's not even a violation of the article he quoted. He knew that, and he could have told us, <John Belushi voice> but nooooo... :D
Click to expand...
What is the rating of the OCPD on the line side of the feeder tap, and what size EGC was installed?
 
Thanks, don. Actually, it was my error in reading the code that made me think it was a special rule. I know a lot but I don't know everything, and I hope to learn something every day. I guess I can knock off for the day now. :D
 
Fyi, any NJ NEC amendments can be found in NJAC 5:23-3.16

And there are no amendments to article 250

They can't just make up code
 
Ken_S said:
Fyi, any NJ NEC amendments can be found in NJAC 5:23-3.16

And there are no amendments to article 250

They can't just make up code
Click to expand...
As I said, this time it was my error, but yes they can and they do.
 
Ken_S said:
I know there's a reluctance to fight city hall, but there is a process for it
Click to expand...
Two things...

Around here, anyway, depending on the AHJ involved there may or not be a winnable way to contest an inspector's decision to fail a project.

...and even if there is...

Some battles are not worth fighting.

I picked a bad example; this one I would have lost, and rightfully so. The inspector was correct.
 
CPorter said:
AHJ says it must have an oversized ground compared to what the NEC requires. Inspector isn't making up his own rules, the AHJ is.
Click to expand...
Seems to me instead of stating compliance with 250.122(G) it should have stated whatever local ordinance that it in violation then.

sounds like 250.122(G) itself was not violated.
 
kwired said:
Seems to me instead of stating compliance with 250.122(G) it should have stated whatever local ordinance that it in violation then.

sounds like 250.122(G) itself was not violated.
Click to expand...
I reiterate: the inspector in this case was correct. The EGC was sized for the OCPD on the tap, not the OCPD on the feeder. I was wrong this time.

There's a first time for everything. :D
 
ggunn said:
I reiterate: the inspector in this case was correct. The EGC was sized for the OCPD on the tap, not the OCPD on the feeder. I was wrong this time.

There's a first time for everything. :D
Click to expand...
I guess I missed that somehow, I understood you thought you were in compliance, until they brought up some local amendment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top