Inspection Judgement

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwjrw said:
Me too. Please explain what you saw when you walked up.
Click to expand...

A service for a manufactured home. The service entrance conductors were protected by Schedule 40 PVC (plumbing pipe).

Violation of 230.50(A) to 300.5(D)(4).

This was an existing service getting re-connected. Codes in place at the time of my inspection. 2005 NEC.

This is a clear violation but it is 'grandfathered' unless it is unsafe. Nothing was codified when this was originally installed. No code in place no violation of the code.

I found no reason to turn the service down, no safety concerns. POCO refused to connect the power. Forget that this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Would you have approved or dis-approved the service.
 
jxofaltrds said:
A service for a manufactured home. The service entrance conductors were protected by Schedule 40 PVC (plumbing pipe).

Violation of 230.50(A) to 300.5(D)(4).

This was an existing service getting re-connected. Codes in place at the time of my inspection. 2005 NEC.

This is a clear violation but it is 'grandfathered' unless it is unsafe. Nothing was codified when this was originally installed. No code in place no violation of the code.

I found no reason to turn the service down, no safety concerns. POCO refused to connect the power. Forget that this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Would you have approved or dis-approved the service.
Click to expand...

Now, this is getting interesting.

Codes were adopted in VA in 1973, my house was built in 1971. The SE in my house violates 230.71(A)(1) big time.

The inspector is allowing me to leave it, if I want to, under these same conditions when I swap my panel.

I have elected to change it, but I am grandfathered in a similar situation.
 
I would advise anyone that is professionally involved in the use or enforcement of an legally adopted code obtain, read, and re-read often the ICC publication, "Legal Aspects of Code Administration."

It's a real eye-opener and will likely change the way you look at everything. It did for me.
 
bphgravity said:
I would advise anyone that is professionally involved in the use or enforcement of an legally adopted code obtain, read, and re-read often the ICC publication, "Legal Aspects of Code Administration."

It's a real eye-opener and will likely change the way you look at everything. It did for me.
Click to expand...


NYS has a LAW, of which Article 18 Executive Law is the reference.

The is also Title 19 NYCRR Part 434 - This sets "Minimum Standards for Code Enforcement Personnel in the State of New York.


There are also other references, of which most electrical inspectors in NYS have some idea, but do not know the specifics.
I keep a copy within an arms length...;)
Why - this law protects both the consumer and the inspector.
 
jxofaltrds said:
A service for a manufactured home. The service entrance conductors were protected by Schedule 40 PVC (plumbing pipe).

Violation of 230.50(A) to 300.5(D)(4).

This was an existing service getting re-connected. Codes in place at the time of my inspection. 2005 NEC.

This is a clear violation but it is 'grandfathered' unless it is unsafe. Nothing was codified when this was originally installed. No code in place no violation of the code.

I found no reason to turn the service down, no safety concerns. POCO refused to connect the power. Forget that this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Would you have approved or dis-approved the service.
Click to expand...


What year was the origanal in stall?
 
jxofaltrds said:
A service for a manufactured home. The service entrance conductors were protected by Schedule 40 PVC (plumbing pipe).

Violation of 230.50(A) to 300.5(D)(4).

This was an existing service getting re-connected. Codes in place at the time of my inspection. 2005 NEC.

This is a clear violation but it is 'grandfathered' unless it is unsafe. Nothing was codified when this was originally installed. No code in place no violation of the code.

I found no reason to turn the service down, no safety concerns. POCO refused to connect the power. Forget that this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Would you have approved or dis-approved the service.
Click to expand...

Even in 1981 NEC this would be a violation 347-17(a) Marking and also 110-21
White Plumbing pipe is not rated for Electrical wires.
1981 NEC.
110-21. Marking. The manufacturrer's name , trade mark, or other descriptaive marking by which the organizatoin responsable for the product may be identified shall be placed on all electric equipment.
Other markings shall be provided giving voltage, current,wattage, or other ratings as are specified elsewhere in this code. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.
 
In IN. some of the large rual counties with no inspections department. I see plumbing pipe used quite a bit. Generally it is just pushed in to a knock out with out a connector.
A handy man guy told me that you can use plumbing pipe on electrical. But you can't use electrical for plumbing. Thus you only need to carry one type of pipe on the truck. :grin:
 
Buck Parrish said:
In IN. some of the large rual counties with no inspections department. I see plumbing pipe used quite a bit. Generally it is just pushed in to a knock out with out a connector.
A handy man guy told me that you can use plumbing pipe on electrical. But you can't use electrical for plumbing. Thus you only need to carry one type of pipe on the truck. :grin:
Click to expand...

Look at 110.21
 
LEO2854 said:
Even in 1981 NEC this would be a violation 347-17(a) Marking and also 110-21
White Plumbing pipe is not rated for Electrical wires.
1981 NEC.
110-21. Marking. The manufacturrer's name , trade mark, or other descriptaive marking by which the organizatoin responsable for the product may be identified shall be placed on all electric equipment.
Other markings shall be provided giving voltage, current,wattage, or other ratings as are specified elsewhere in this code. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.
Click to expand...

The question is: How can there be a violation if the code was not adopted at the time of the installation?
 
jumper said:
The question is: How can there be a violation if the code was not adopted at the time of the installation?
Click to expand...

This is probably the most important part. Second how you inspect existing installations.

Unsafe installations are not grandfather so the inspectors have to take extra care in their duties.

Sorry for the bad start to the thread.
 
jxofaltrds said:
This is probably the most important part. Second how you inspect existing installations.

Unsafe installations are not grandfather so the inspectors have to take extra care in their duties.

Sorry for the bad start to the thread.
Click to expand...

This is a good question.

What exactly were you inspecting if this was existing service?

I am still amazed that POCO gave a hoot about this feeder. As long as their meter and the first connect are to their specs, around here they could care less about the feeder going into the dwelling.
 
jumper said:
This is a good question.

What exactly were you inspecting if this was existing service?

I am still amazed that POCO gave a hoot about this feeder. As long as their meter and the first connect are to their specs, around here they could care less about the feeder going into the dwelling.
Click to expand...

The law changed in Ohio a few years back because all manufactured homes have to be inspected per Federal mandated. New installs and any 'moving' of one of these units (resale). Someone explained the new rules to the POCO employees in an effort to help them not connect installations that may violate the code. The employees are well intentioned but are not code officials.

A home was on the site, then removed and a new home installed. For what reason I do not know the power was disconnected. So before the meter could be installed it had to be inspected.

I deemed the existing installation safe so I had to approve it regardless of how I would have installed it.

Some may say new home so the new rules apply. I could not justify that view. Some of us view that disconnect as a seperate structure. Some may not.

Existing installations are tricky to inspect. While most of the time the code takes judgement out of our hands there are times when we have no choice but to use our judgement.
 
Just paint the PVC gray and you are good to go. Seriously, I heard that an inspector in our area told this to a homeowner after he used plumbing pipe. :roll:

I am with the other- it is existing and I don't see what the POCO has to do with it since it is not their jurisdiction. I would also find out if this was done with a permit or not. If not then , IMO, it is subject to redo.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Just paint the PVC gray and you are good to go. Seriously, I heard that an inspector in our area told this to a homeowner after he used plumbing pipe. :roll:

I am with the other- it is existing and I don't see what the POCO has to do with it since it is not their jurisdiction. I would also find out if this was done with a permit or not. If not then , IMO, it is subject to redo.
Click to expand...

Slightly OT : Ever wonder what the real difference is in the PVC between electrical and plumbing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top