344.30

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread closure. Customer is back up and running.


Existing GEC leaving the bottom of the wireway. Someone needed some cash.

Adamsservice004.jpg


Hustling.

Adamsservice006.jpg


Done by noon, five guys started at 5am.

Adamsservice007.jpg
 
Nice work. did you add the missing bushings inside the trough too?

Can't believe the original install got past the inspector and POCO
 
ivsenroute said:
did you add the missing bushings inside the trough too?
Click to expand...

No, at a 9AM courtesy inspection we discussed the scope of work in the wireway, correct grounded conductor taps, bonding and GEC and were in agreement. But I am curious Jeff, as an inspector would you have requested the bushings? There are more nipples to the right out of the picture and this would have added a ? hour to the repair.
 
chris kennedy said:
No, at a 9AM courtesy inspection we discussed the scope of work in the wireway, correct grounded conductor taps, bonding and GEC and were in agreement. But I am curious Jeff, as an inspector would you have requested the bushings? There are more nipples to the right out of the picture and this would have added a ? hour to the repair.
Click to expand...

Actually Chris, i would have. Here is why:

1) The original installation was not code compliant and contributed to the failure of the mast system. Any visible defects at this point need to be addressed because we don't want to approve a service with defects twice.

2) The lack of bushings with that size wire is a code violation and with power cut to the building, now is the time to make that simple repair.

Who am I to pick and choose NEC violations?

Your repair job looks great and is compliant. The lack of bushings will probably never cause a problem but that rule is there for a reason.

It is one thing for an inspector to have some latitude with the location of a disconnect where a service first enters the building because there are no hard and fast numbers to go by for distance. Very subjective. It is another thing to intentionally overlook something that is very clearly written and has no subjectivity to it such as the word "approved".

Jeff
 
ivsenroute said:
Who am I to pick and choose NEC violations?
Click to expand...

Where I am that would not be an issue. :)

Rule3-4.jpg



now is the time to make that simple repair.
Click to expand...

I would not call it a simple repair, that simple repair may turn very costly if something breaks while I am taking it apart and putting it back together, strip a lug etc.

If I was there to fix that mast and get the place back online I would have done exactly what Chris did. :)
 
iwire said:
Where I am that would not be an issue. :)

Rule3-4.jpg





I would not call it a simple repair, that simple repair may turn very costly if something breaks while I am taking it apart and putting it back together, strip a lug etc.

If I was there to fix that mast and get the place back online I would have done exactly what Chris did. :)
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. If it was that big of a concern on the existing repair one could simply split some thhn insulation and cushion the conductors against the connectors.
 
iwire said:
Where I am that would not be an issue. :)

Rule3-4.jpg





I would not call it a simple repair, that simple repair may turn very costly if something breaks while I am taking it apart and putting it back together, strip a lug etc.

If I was there to fix that mast and get the place back online I would have done exactly what Chris did. :)
Click to expand...

So we utilize #4 of the MA rules and the owner has to have power shut down a 2nd time in order to correct the violation?
 
ivsenroute said:
So we utilize #4 of the MA rules and the owner has to have power shut down a 2nd time in order to correct the violation?
Click to expand...

Heck no,:) you only exercise Rule 4 'where an actual hazard exists'. The inspector of wires has the authority to make that determination. I think an inspector would be on shaky footing claiming the lack of the above bushings was an actual hazard.
 
That depends on the definition of hazard in your book.

Ultimately, this situation is not likely to create a problem.

My point is that inspectors should not pick and choose what they want to enforce, simply write up violations that exist. When we start picking and choosing the ECs start whining and complaining.
 
iwire said:
But we do that anyway:grin: and I could point out that your recent flood of threads seemed almost like a bit of whining and complaining on your part. :D
Click to expand...

Nope, no whining, just sharing of information for debate and learning to elevate our industry towards a profession.

Inspectors whine to each other, not to ECs.

When I stopped playing hockey and started as a referee, my eyes were opened. Wearing different shoes gives you a different perspective.

When I started inspecting, the same thing happened. When your career is based on inspecting the work of others and assuming liability each and every time you pull up to a jobsite you will understand. As long as your career is based on running jobs and making a profit, you will not completely understand.

I have worn both pairs of shoes, I have walked on both sides of the fence. Believe me, it is a wakeup call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top