Failed my inspection today…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Might I suggest that for the 24" thing kind of reverse things and ask his explanation of the 210.52(C)(1) requirement. And not be being disrespectful but say you want to learn. Kind of K.A. but gets away from butting heads, and feeding his EGO.
AFA the SER cable touching the concrete, only thing I could think of that would be a issue is if you were unable to secure the cable within 12" of entry to the box, 230.51(A)
 
Bad inspectors need to be challenged. This guy is a bad one. Within 24" of the sink is 2nd year apprentice stuff. Unless the state has given him the authority to make up his own code I would go over his head and not fix violations that don't exist.
 
Can you talk to him ? Sometimes there is a misunderstanding. Considering where the job is located (travel time) I would not pick this one to be confrontational at first. Follow Fred's advice in Post #28, ask him to "'splain it to you"
Keep local regulations in mind. TN has a State regulation requiring SE to be in conduit when mounted on masonry..perhaps they have something similar.
 
augie47 said:
Can you talk to him ? Sometimes there is a misunderstanding. Considering where the job is located (travel time) I would not pick this one to be confrontational at first. Follow Fred's advice in Post #28, ask him to "'splain it to you"
Keep local regulations in mind. TN has a State regulation requiring SE to be in conduit when mounted on masonry..perhaps they have something similar.
Click to expand...
Meet him at a restaurant and let him splain, then let him get the check!:p
 
I have delt with this before my self. One thing I would do is be sure to get the violations in writing. Then email him what correction you intend to do and get him to sign off other than a pass on the roughen.
This way he can not come back at you on final. I would also include a comment ( state your case) and ask for a response to why he feels this is a good idea versus what the NEC says. Doing all verbal to get ya by may cost you on the back side. I would also do a drive around and look at other work going on and see if he is being consistent or singleing you out.
If you feel he is, document go down and ask who is the city attorney. Be sure to let who ever you ask just who you are.
Or just do it walk away and let him continue to be a I'll informed inspector.

None of us are perfect.
Personally I like to give them the benefit of doubt untill they proven other wise.

Be sure to ask him why he feels 24" of clearance from the sink is a good idea.

If he think it is safer than being within 24 due to cord length have him look cord length according to UL.

My final thought is what I have said before. When ever I work in a new area I make it a point to pull permits in person and ask to talk to the AHJ. Let him know what I am doing and where. And ask is there anything amendments or any anything other than NEC you like to see. That way it be discussed prior to install. Usually over a cup of coffee.
In most case it does make a difference at least it has for me. I even let them know it ok to come by and take a look while I work.

Good luck.
 
electrofelon said:
If you wont take stand against this BS, could you at least file a complaint after your final? This sort of behavior needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...
If on an island, unfortunately the same guy that failed him might be who he has to file the complaint to, but I'd probably still let him know my opinion at least after he finalized the permit.
 
macmikeman said:
If I had an inspector try to fail me for having an outlet within 24" of a sink, he is going to leave the property instantly or else. And his boss would hear from me right after that. I don't expect inspectors to get everything 100% right all the time, but that measurement is electrical 101 level. I don't tolerate inspectors who are not real electricians.
Click to expand...
If I was in that position we would be looking at code book together, if he still insisted it was wrong or refused to even look at code then I very well go with the actions you mentioned.
 
infinity said:
Bad inspectors need to be challenged. This guy is a bad one. Within 24" of the sink is 2nd year apprentice stuff. Unless the state has given him the authority to make up his own code I would go over his head and not fix violations that don't exist.
Click to expand...
More like after 6-8 months of apprenticing I would think, especially if you do a lot of dwelling work.
 
augie47 said:
Can you talk to him ? Sometimes there is a misunderstanding. Considering where the job is located (travel time) I would not pick this one to be confrontational at first. Follow Fred's advice in Post #28, ask him to "'splain it to you"
Keep local regulations in mind. TN has a State regulation requiring SE to be in conduit when mounted on masonry..perhaps they have something similar.
Click to expand...
Any idea what the justification for that is? Besides it just doesn't look that great in many cases - particularly on say exterior side of a masonry wall. It is subject to same physical abuse regardless of what the attachment surface is made of, outside of anything with sharp edges anyway.
 
sparky1118 said:
I’ve been wiring a house on an island for the past few weeks. Turns out I failed the rough inspection. For two reason first one was the kitchen counter outlet was within 24” of the kitchen sink. The second one was I used SER cable for the service. The ceilings in the basement are fairly high for around here. They are about 8’ ceilings. I came in with my SER installed plywood to the wall and secured the SER before it entered the panel. However since it is in about 2-3’ of contact with the cement foundation before it hits the plywood that is against code and said I need to install a 2x4 going vertical to protect the SER from touching the foundation…. I knew he would find something to fail me for since I’m an out of town electrician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
At least the inspectors are actually inspecting your work so you know if you did something wrong. Better than them just not doing anything because you're an "out of town" electrician and leaving all the liability on you.

I would rather inspectors be hard as nails on me, than not be. Then I could correct any mistakes I'm making for the future.
 
Jerramundi said:
At least the inspectors are actually inspecting your work so you know if you did something wrong. Better than them just not doing anything because you're an "out of town" electrician and leaving all the liability on you.

I would rather inspectors be hard as nails on me, than not be. Then I could correct any mistakes I'm making for the future.
Click to expand...
Hard as nails is one thing, but failing on a legitimately correct installation is totally different.
 
Fred B said:
Hard as nails is one thing, but failing on a legitimately correct installation is totally different.
Click to expand...
what he said.

Failing inspections can cost money and hold up other trades and ultimately the project, and when it is because of an incompetent inspector failing something that isn't wrong or even with an inspector that tends to make up his own rules that just isn't right or fair. If you adopt the code as the law then whatever that code says is what it says (Charlie's rule here). If you have amendments to the code, those better be in the law books or they aren't valid amendments.
 
Fred B said:
Hard as nails is one thing, but failing on a legitimately correct installation is totally different.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Based on the limited information I'm seeing in the OP, his installation is correct. There is nothing that I can think of that would push a receptacle OUTSIDE of 24". I always remember it as the 2ft, 4ft rule.

If anything, it might have to be CLOSER if the sink were on an island and getting the receptacle within the first 9 sq. ft. on a deeper counter would require you to put one closer to the sink.

I was just commenting on the idea of inspectors being hard on you for being an "out of towner," which I would prefer, as opposed to them not caring and leaving all the liability on the EC.

To be fair, as EC's, we should know "everything," but that's not realistic and would entirely negate the purpose of inspectors/inspections.
We do our best to know and implement what we're required to, but EI's are supposed to be that extra safety net, that added layer of protection.

I'm just saying I would rather an EI be hard as heck on me, than not be. I might regret saying that, but yeah, lol.
 
Ok, even though the commentary in the Handbook is not code (this Bozo probably doesn't know it though) there is an illustration "Exhibit 210.29 (2014) that relates to this.
 
roger said:
Ok, even though the commentary in the Handbook is not code (this Bozo probably doesn't know it though) there is an illustration "Exhibit 210.29 (2014) that relates to this.
Click to expand...
Why would commentary in the Handbook even be relevant to this discussion?

Unless you're alluding to possibility that the inspector misinterpreted Comment #3 of Exhibit 210.29 in the 2014 NEC Handbook that mentions a "...long dimension of at least 24"..." when referring to the min. dimensions of an island, peninsula countertop that would require a receptacle.
 
roger said:
Notice the receptacle to the left of the sink.
Click to expand...
Well the receptacle to the left of the sink would prove the inspector wrong. I don't see how that could be misinterpreted.

Unless you're saying he misunderstood the receptacles by the stove in the exhibit that show a 2ft spacing and thought that meant a minimum, whereas it's actually a maximum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's common knowledge that most countertop appliances feature a 2ft cord and that's the reason for this requirement... so that an appliance placed anywhere on countertop can reach a receptacle. At least, that's how it was explained to me way, way back in the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top