I Thought You Would like This

Status
Not open for further replies.
This actually reminds me of a service call years back - 'I think the fence is electricfied - if you get out of the hot tub and touch the fence you get a tingle...' Turns out the water to fence was something short of 120 ~70v??? From the water - not the fence. If I remember right it was the heater tube....
 
iwire said:
I certainly agree, but looking at the job in total I think it was a poor job to start with.

At any rate it is, as shown, very scary and I would not step foot in that tub.
Click to expand...

I would. In fact, inside the tub is probably the safest place to be, if you have to be anywhere near that installation.
 
LawnGuyLandSparky said:
I would. In fact, inside the tub is probably the safest place to be, if you have to be anywhere near that installation.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but people do not fly so I will choose to stay out. :grin:
 
ItsHot said:
Where's the Mods???
Click to expand...

At home enjoying Easter I imagine, but many of us are 'here'. :smile:

Anyone at any time can use this
report.gif
link at the top right of each post to report a post, or they can PM us.

Placing a post in the open forum "Where's the Mods???" is not how to handle a problem.

Now all that said, I am not seeing any issue with Growlers post, if you care to explain what I am missing please do it via PM.
 
iwire said:
680.42 sends you to Parts I and II of 680.

680.21(A)(1) requires the use of an insulated EGC, that rules out UF cable.

However 680.42(C) allows the use of a cable on the interior portion of the supply.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, that's what I was looking for.

It's one thing to look at a job and just say that looks like crap but another to state exactly why it's unsafe. The fact that staples have been removed or the fact that the UF is not underground has no bearing on the arguement. Even properly stapled or run underground the job would still be illegal, it would just look better. Even if they had run conduit and pulled romex inside the pipe ( seen that done) it would still be illegal.

I got so caught up in defending the fact that his work had been tampered with that I overlooked the most obvious code violations. ( it happens).
 
growler said:
I overlooked the most obvious
Click to expand...

That happens to me often, I have certain things I focus right in on and forget the rest.

BTW, I had not picked up on the siding swap until you mentioned it. :)
 
growler said:
I got so caught up in defending the fact that his work had been tampered with that I overlooked the most obvious code violations. ( it happens).
Click to expand...


I knew it was illegal, I was just wondering if anyone else was going to notice it or just go with how crappy it looked...:grin:
 
The trouble with exposed UF in the bigger gauges is that nobody makes a real good strap to hold it neatly. I've used 60, 100, and 200 amp SE cable straps from M&W (now, the same strap is coming from Arlington) to fix bigger UF cable in an exposed work situation. Best I've found to make it at least semi-neat.
 
growler said:
Where does it say that you can't? Even seal tight is not permitted where subject to physical damge.

What code reference would you use to red tag the job?

Just something to think about?
Click to expand...

In New York State, I would look in the Residential Code at Table E4102.1 "Wiring Methods", and scan down column 1 to row #7 "Packaged or self-contained outdoor spas and hot tubs without underwater luminaire: from branch circuit OCPD to spa or hot tub" and I would look under the "UF" column which refers to footnote "b" which states: "Limited to use within buildings".:smile:
 
If you look at my first post, I mentioned that I am not the inspector of record for this job. I was brought in to consult on an entirely different issue on this property.
The EC could not wait to show me this. I did ask him what the other inspector who had inspected his work said about the Hottub...I was told he shrugged his shoulders and moved on to the other work.

Regardless of what may have been there before these pictures, this method is not permitted, and the work is not going to make the Easter Bunny very happy. :grin:

I for one want to know who performed the work, I have the EC asking the homeowner, lets see what we hear.

Remember though, I have 0% purview over this job.
 
pierre

I would have to assume the work was done without a permit, if it was done by electrical contractor & inspected, theres two people who's licenses should be looked at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top