Inspections

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glirosi

Member
I have an inspector that failed my service inspection and refused to write the failure notice. He siad it did not violate any NEC codes. He just doesn't like the installation.

Can he do that?

What's can I do?
 
glirosi said:
He siad it did not violate any NEC codes. He just doesn't like the installation.

Can he do that?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't stand for it.

Does he have a supervisor?

The reason he gave is no reason. Is there more to the story?
 
Welcome to the Forum.

Sorry to hear this. What are some of the details, without the names. . .single family home or large building (commercial or industrial)? . . .your profile suggests to me that it might be the latter.

Is the inspector a lone ranger covering a large area or is this in a metropolitan setting where the inspector is part of a department with a supervisor?
 
glirosi said:
I have an inspector that failed my service inspection and refused to write the failure notice. He said it did not violate any NEC codes. He just doesn't like the installation.
Click to expand...


What doesn't he like about it? I have never herd of this before, you would need some clue as to what needs to be corrected and why.

Did you put 20's where the 100's normally go? :-? Talking money here folks.
 
Inspections

This service is on an assited living home (80 units) in orange county florida. The issue is mostly over the service entrance conductors. They enter the electric room (which is nearest to the utility transformer) underground directly into a wire way. The conductors then nipple into the top of 4 different main disconnects. Approx 6 feet of unprotected conductors inside the room. He just wants the unprotected conductors to go directly into the disconnects. He plainly said we do not violate any NEC codes. Just change it , I don't like it!

Do I have any recourse?
 
His approach is obviously questionable, however, he might have valid concern
Please help me/us with this "picture". Underground from the utility transfomer ? In conduit ? Entering the electric room-- in conduit ??
then into a wireway and nipple to the dosconnetcs, correct?
When you say "unprotected" conductors, are you speaking no ovecurrent protection or no physical protection?
 
Last edited:
Inspector

Inspector

Directly from the pad mount untility transformer in Schedule 80 pvc underground, up thru the concrete slab in schedule 80 pvc to a wireway approx 6' off the floor. Unprotected?
 
C3PO said:
If by "unprotected" you mean no over current protection then it could be a 230.70(A)(1) issue.
Click to expand...

I agree, he could hold the job up based on 230.70(A)(1).

That said I would go over his head and try to rectify the situation.
 
IMHO going into a wireway that is 6' off the floor and then nippling into disconnects is nowhere close to "nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors" unless Florida has a local amendment to that requirement.

Or I may be pictureing this wrong in my head. :smile:
 
C3PO said:
IMHO going into a wireway that is 6' off the floor and then nippling into disconnects is nowhere close to "nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors" unless Florida has a local amendment to that requirement.

Or I may be pictureing this wrong in my head. :smile:
Click to expand...

In my area they would agree with you. :cool:

However in many areas they do not allow any length inside, the conductors have to enter directly into the service disconnect or the service disconnect has to be outside.

The NEC supports either installation it is entirely up to the local AHJ.
 
230.70(A)(1) could certainly be an issue. By necessity "neareast the point of entrance" is often an AHJ call. Location, possibility of physical damage, enclosure type, all often determine the acceptability.

Other possible things he's considering:
metallic or NM wirewy ? Bonded ?
Metallic nipples to disconnects ? Nipples Bonded ?
Any conductors in the raceway other than service conductors?

I am still not condoning his statement, but sometimes experience will make you realize there is something you don't "like", but you don't immediately recognize the problem.

The fact that he didn't pass or reject it may mean he is going to seek additional advice himself. He obvioulsy missed a meeting or two at his dale carnige course.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I agree, he could hold the job up based on 230.70(A)(1).
Click to expand...
If that was the intent, he should have said so. But to declare that it does not violate the code, and insist it be changed anyway, is unprofessional, unethical, and downright unamerican.
 
charlie b said:

If that was the intent, he should have said so. But to declare that it does not violate the code, and insist it be changed anyway, is unprofessional, unethical, and downright unamerican.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points.
 
Now you say 6' to the wireway.....so it sounds like to the service disconnect might be even more than 6'. The nearest point of entry could be 1',3' or 6' depending on the local AHJ's allowance.

Some will agree the nearest point is back to back in code language....so the only thing that puzzles me is him saying its no violation yet wants you to change it.......If he does not like the 6' or more he should right it up as 230.70(A)(1) and tell you if you want it more than that to submit for a code modification and let the AHJ decide.
 
Code issues or not the inspector is unprofessional. How can he enforce something that he doesn't believe to be a violation? If it is a legitimate violation how are you to know what you violated if he doesn't give you a code reference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top