Failed inspection with no violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
augie47 said:
the deer in the headlight look :)
"when did they put that in the book?" (answer 1993)
(previous inspector didn't want to walk too far past the front door)
Click to expand...

Gus for the life of me I thought it was added in 90' NEC:grin: Seriously we had, and note "HAD" an inspector with that look on jobs when he was with me.
 
sfav8r said:
This is the first panel from the 400a main (there are several panels feed from the main in parallel), so I believe it qualifies under 310.15(b)(6), but this really isn't my main point. I'm mainly talking about his comment about installing a panel rated for the loads (based on feeling the feeder) without their being an over loaded condition.
Click to expand...

Yeah - feeling a conductor is now acceptable determination of load - big joke.... Even if there was a temp rise and he did it with an IR thermometer it still would be. Even for that matter used a set of current clamps and a scope over time - it would still be wrong. I suggest having a load calc on paper in hand for your next inspection.

Now - while everyone is on the bash parade here saying this is misuse of 310.15B6 there should have been some thought in it before jumping to conclusions IMO.
400a main (there are several panels feed from the main in parallel)
Click to expand...
Could this be a condo, or apartment? - If so, IMO the use of this table is OK.

And since this code has changed in wording in the last few code cycles there obviously some things wrong with the wording in someones opinion. Each time the wording changed it attempted to clarifify ambiguous wording. IMO the wording in the 99 code code have been interpeted as allowing its use for all feeders in residential after a main. In the 08 the wording is somewhat clearer... (FTR - we're still on the 05)
 
Hopefully the calcs we faxed will get the card signed...as to the side issue of 310.15.(B)(6), SF is on the 2005 code cycle. For that cycle, the code reads as follows:

310.15(B)(6) Conductor types and sizes for 120/240-volt, 3-wire, single-phase dwelling services and feeders, conductor types, RHH, RHW, RHW-2, THHN, THHW, THW, THW-2, THWN, THWN-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, SE, USE, USE-2

We used THHN and this panel is feed from the service and is a sub panle feeding lighting and general circuits in a residential dwelling. It happens to be fed with a 70a breaker that was existing, but I believe it would be compliant with a 100a as well.
 
dcspector said:
Hey John I hear this everyday in DC. All my citations have a code reference SOP here. It is kinda funny that Electricians beat up on Inspectors but in the reverse.......???
Click to expand...

Not so much here since most members are electricians but take a look at some of the inspector code forums or sit in on any weekly staff meeting...you'll hear plenty.

I think the reason there is more emotion on the side of the electricians is simple. We are the ones who suffer with bad calls. If the inspector makes a bad call, even if it is later reversed, we have to wast time for which we are not paid...ever. In many cases we have had to pay reinspection fees to "correct" something that wasn't a violation in the first place. We do this to keep the job moving, make it easier for the client, or whatever. It's a business decision. on the other hand, if someone does poor work that an inspector might complain about, sure he has to come back and reinspect, but he gets paid for every minute. It's his/her job. So while I won't justify lousy work, I do think it makes sense that inspectors would be less likely to complain for the reasons just mentioned.
 
sfav8r said:
Not so much here since most members are electricians but take a look at some of the inspector code forums or sit in on any weekly staff meeting...you'll hear plenty.

I think the reason there is more emotion on the side of the electricians is simple. We are the ones who suffer with bad calls. If the inspector makes a bad call, even if it is later reversed, we have to wast time for which we are not paid...ever. In many cases we have had to pay reinspection fees to "correct" something that wasn't a violation in the first place. We do this to keep the job moving, make it easier for the client, or whatever. It's a business decision. on the other hand, if someone does poor work that an inspector might complain about, sure he has to come back and reinspect, but he gets paid for every minute. It's his/her job. So while I won't justify lousy work, I do think it makes sense that inspectors would be less likely to complain for the reasons just mentioned.
Click to expand...

I have been on this Forum for awhile. I was and always will be an Electrician. It is sad that there are a lot of so called Inspectors out there making up their own rules.....Trust me when I was wiring I dealt with a lot of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top