- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?
When you write a red tag, someone has to deal with it. Either by talking on the phone, driving out there, or physically doing the remedies you require. You are compensated for your time, even when it is addressing the people you tag about the event.
We don't. I do, because I am a peon. But my employer sees no return for the time spent with failed inspections. If we genuinely screwed up, we have it coming. If it's bogus, money just flew out the window unecessarily that will never be seen again.
As an inspector, you must rely on your experience, you eyes and your instincts in your work. You walk in, your eyes come to, in this case, a panel with lots of spaces and a single breaker, and your experience and instincts seize on it. That's good.
Your next reflex is to grab the tag and write it up: That's bad. Your first reflex should be to grab the NEC and verify that there is a violation before grabbing the tag.
The section you would use to cite actually permits the installation. Right there, you have saved the GC and the EC money, and have spared the installer the hassle of defending his work. You have done your job well.
I commend you for standing your ground and admitting to what you'd normally do, and for being honest. Being honest about unpopular behavior may bring in a few arrows, but it is how I have learned from some of my easiest to recall mistakes. Being willing to be unpopular for the sake of learning is admirable, IMO.
I ask that you take my solution into consideration in your work in the future.
Now, the thread has progressed to the point where the code violation is more accurate: instead of citing the wrong code for the wrong reasons (225.33), you see the real potential violation: 225.36, 110.3(B).
IMO, and in the opinions of some others (as evidenced by the shrapnel flying around), we consider it to be an abuse when you make something up that looks good.
When you write a red tag, someone has to deal with it. Either by talking on the phone, driving out there, or physically doing the remedies you require. You are compensated for your time, even when it is addressing the people you tag about the event.
We don't. I do, because I am a peon. But my employer sees no return for the time spent with failed inspections. If we genuinely screwed up, we have it coming. If it's bogus, money just flew out the window unecessarily that will never be seen again.
And more and more time and money flies out the window at hurricane force as that road is travelled. There is a better solution.
As an inspector, you must rely on your experience, you eyes and your instincts in your work. You walk in, your eyes come to, in this case, a panel with lots of spaces and a single breaker, and your experience and instincts seize on it. That's good.
Your next reflex is to grab the tag and write it up: That's bad. Your first reflex should be to grab the NEC and verify that there is a violation before grabbing the tag.
The section you would use to cite actually permits the installation. Right there, you have saved the GC and the EC money, and have spared the installer the hassle of defending his work. You have done your job well.
I commend you for standing your ground and admitting to what you'd normally do, and for being honest. Being honest about unpopular behavior may bring in a few arrows, but it is how I have learned from some of my easiest to recall mistakes. Being willing to be unpopular for the sake of learning is admirable, IMO.
I ask that you take my solution into consideration in your work in the future.
Now, the thread has progressed to the point where the code violation is more accurate: instead of citing the wrong code for the wrong reasons (225.33), you see the real potential violation: 225.36, 110.3(B).
