Inspectors... again... ugh

Status
Not open for further replies.
garbo said:
Clown failed me for splicing one wire in new panel in order to reach a 15 amp breaker .
Click to expand...
I'm not extremely familiar with NEC but what is the violation saying you can not splice a wire to reach a breaker? Or was this inspector just being a jerk?
 
micabay said:
I'm not extremely familiar with NEC but what is the violation saying you can not splice a wire to reach a breaker? Or was this inspector just being a jerk?
Click to expand...
There is no NEC reference. The point of the post is indeed that the inspector was being a jerk, but accepted it after an explanation, yes?

It is a case of the "no splices allowed in a panel enclosure" pocket rule.
 
GoldDigger said:
There is no NEC reference. The point of the post is indeed that the inspector was being a jerk, but accepted it after an explanation, yes?

It is a case of the "no splices allowed in a panel enclosure" pocket rule.
Click to expand...
I call it the "Urban Legend Code". :D
 
norcal said:
I call it the "Urban Legend Code". :D
Click to expand...
I think it is just lazy code reading left over from the 2008 code where the first sentence in 312.8 said that you could not use the enclosure as a junction box...they stopped reading there....even though it went on to say "unless adequate space for those purposes is provided. The next sentence described what would be adequate space. The 2011 changed the language to positive language saying that the enclosure shall be permitted to contain splices and feed through conductors and followed with the conditions that would permit that

Many readers of the older code just stopped after reading "shall not be permitted".
 
Update:
The inspector has un-decided to approve the custom-built raceway sections because they're not listed, because he doesn't remember the phone conversation we had where he approved them. Even though Type 1 only has to be approved; they exceed NEC requirements for sheet metal enclosures. It was on the plans, but he only "releases" drawings, but "does not approve them."

He also doesn't know when bonding bushings are actually needed.

And, he doesn't know the difference between bonding the gas piping in the structure, and using the gas piping as an electrode. Even when I showed him the dielectric union at the gas meter.

I've about had it.


SceneryDriver
 
Last edited:
Personally speaking, I would send an e-mail to the DCA if you want something in writing to show bring to the EI or bldg. dept. and to prove your position.

NJ DCA Code Assistance Unit
codeassist@dca.nj.gov

If you want to call :
609-984-7609

If you're right and you know you're right I would take action and not put up with the crap IMHO. :cool:
 
Problem is electrical permits should be filed with different department and be mostly independent from other building related permits. Electrical permits here are completely separate from those other things. I can apply on line (24/7) and have a permit within minutes.

Getting an inspector scheduled isn't that fast, but they mostly promise you they will be able to come out within five business days of when you request and are pretty decent at fulfilling that.
 
SceneryDriver said:
Update:
The inspector has un-decided to approve the custom-built raceway sections because they're not listed, because he doesn't remember the phone conversation we had where he approved them. Even though Type 1 only has to be approved; they exceed NEC requirements for sheet metal enclosures. It was on the plans, but he only "releases" drawings, but "does not approve them."

He also doesn't know when bonding bushings are actually needed.

And, he doesn't know the difference between bonding the gas piping in the structure, and using the gas piping as an electrode. Even when I showed him the dielectric union at the gas meter.

I've about had it.


SceneryDriver
Click to expand...
There is a provision in the NJ UCC 5:23-3.8 (d) (2) i

The inspector might be falling back on it regarding the custom raceway.

Part of it states " Approval is to be based on tests and listings of testing laboratories such as UL, FM..."
 
Ken_S said:
There is a provision in the NJ UCC 5:23-3.8 (d) (2) i

The inspector might be falling back on it regarding the custom raceway.

Part of it states " Approval is to be based on tests and listings of testing laboratories such as UL, FM..."
Click to expand...
He stated that he didn't remember the phone call we had, and "would never approve it." Even though he did. And they were on the plans I submitted. That he reviewed to generate the permit. But he says he must've missed the note...

The raceways exceed the requirements in 314.40 (C) regarding the construction of metal boxes, and also meets the requirements set forth in UL508A. He's just being pedantic. Somehow the magic sticker will make it OK though.

I'm going to propose a PE sign off the the raceways; yes, they are boxes that hold wire.

He can't or won't make the distinction about bonding the water and gas lines VS them being grounding electrodes. He keeps calling the #4 wire I ran to them a GEC, even though the water line outside the house to the well is nonmetallic, and the gas line has a dielectric union. He insists that I need bonding bushings on both ends of the conduit carrying the bonding wire, even though it's not a GEC. For the record, I used a combo fitting on the field end, and stripped the insulation back at the clamp. The other end lands on the ground bar.

I'm going to file a complaint with the state. This entire process is been nothing but a slow motion clown show.



SceneryDriver
 
ramsy said:
As economic trends, like the 2008 great recession foreclosed property / taxes, busted municipal budgets, and forced de-funded building departments to sequester qualified inspectors, more AHJ's have adopted corporate Welchism. Building departments are replacing the cost of skilled inspectors with indemnity affidavits against liability, from historically negligent general-contractor laborers, and owner-builders doing DIY electrical.

It doesn't help that panel flippers lurking everywhere mislead people to believe upgrades without permits or inspections will go undiscovered. Then install 200 Amp upgrades with old 50 or 100 amp utility wire, so drive by code-enforcement won't see the new construction without permits. When new tankless water heater, car charger, hot tub, or air conditioners burn up old service wire, these jokers can't be found.

Unqualified flippers typically fail to match breakers to box, violate listings, omit electrodes (GEC) to earth, or bond GEC to new boxes, which allows lighting strikes to destroy the building interiors.

During remodel work these jokers don't check for smoke detectors, or AFCI's required for replacement plugs, but do provide an over abundance of legal causes for insurance cancellation & non-renewal.

Municipal inspection records are public, for insurance to check missing building permits & safety inspections. Real-estate law follows property sellers missing the resale declaration for any construction defects, and electrical-code violations happen to get blamed for most damage claims.

Since the great majority of residential trade persons are illegal laborers, or home owners that answer the robocall for unqualified remodels without permits, most existing dwellings in the US are poison pills, which void property insurance claims for future buyers, and the liable party is not easily pinned down after this poison is sold.
Click to expand...

You got that right ! ... You go in and take a number, make sure it's not Monday or Friday they are closed. The inspectors are "Combination" inspectors. Each time I go in the permit price changes, with new fees. After COVID they don't come out ... they now ask you to take pictures.
 
Its not as if these " Panel Flippers " are holding a gun to the clients head. If the homeowner's were to do some due diligence and not be lazy/ignorant, then the " Panel Flippers" would not get the jobs.
Two sides to a Coin.
I do hate " Panel flippers" though takes money out of my pocket. Don't get me started ON DYI !!!! They make "Panel Flippers" look good.
 
SceneryDriver said:
I'm going to file a complaint with the state. This entire process is been nothing but a slow motion clown show.
SceneryDriver
Click to expand...
Don't make it a "complaint" just yet. Make an inquiry to the DCA and make sure they are on your side with e-mails or other documentation. Once you have that you can then make an appeal to the EI or the bldg. dept. to get satisfaction. This is usually a tedious process and you have to be patient. Don't act on this while you're pissed off. If making that appeal doesn't work you can then go further by filing an official complaint with the township. Just know at that point you'll probably be burning the bridge IMHO.
 
SceneryDriver said:
He stated that he didn't remember the phone call we had, and "would never approve it." Even though he did. And they were on the plans I submitted. That he reviewed to generate the permit. But he says he must've missed the note...

The raceways exceed the requirements in 314.40 (C) regarding the construction of metal boxes, and also meets the requirements set forth in UL508A. He's just being pedantic. Somehow the magic sticker will make it OK though.

I'm going to propose a PE sign off the the raceways; yes, they are boxes that hold wire.

He can't or won't make the distinction about bonding the water and gas lines VS them being grounding electrodes. He keeps calling the #4 wire I ran to them a GEC, even though the water line outside the house to the well is nonmetallic, and the gas line has a dielectric union. He insists that I need bonding bushings on both ends of the conduit carrying the bonding wire, even though it's not a GEC. For the record, I used a combo fitting on the field end, and stripped the insulation back at the clamp. The other end lands on the ground bar.

I'm going to file a complaint with the state. This entire process is been nothing but a slow motion clown show.



SceneryDriver
Click to expand...
AFAIK he is correct on needing to bond both ends if it is a ferrous conduit. If you don't it turns into an inductor when carrying current. The idea is to keep impedance as low as possible.
 
AC\DC said:
Its not as if these " Panel Flippers " are holding a gun to the clients head. If the homeowner's were to do some due diligence and not be lazy/ignorant, then the " Panel Flippers" would not get the jobs.
Click to expand...
Private owners are also activists that avoid property taxes, who may prefer false hope of collecting fire insurance from any construction defect.

Just like renters pay for repairs to avoid rent increases, owners may avoid municipal inspections that expose occupancy or living space additions that increase property tax.

Regardless of their negligence, panel flippers may be perceived as Robin Hoods who keep the poor garage & patio conversions, or other renovations, from the Sheriff of Nottingham.
 
kwired said:
AFAIK he is correct on needing to bond both ends if it is a ferrous conduit. If you don't it turns into an inductor when carrying current. The idea is to keep impedance as low as possible.
Click to expand...
Understood. The conductor is effectively bonded on both ends. At the panel end, it lands in the ground bar. Electrically, there is no difference between a bonding bushing and the ground bar 6" away; they are enclosed in the same ferrous volume - the electrons don't know the "enclosure" changed shape from the box to a pipe. It's all the same internal volume. He keeps insisting this is a GEC, even though there is no metallic pipe underground. The house has a well, and the underground pipe is PEX / poly. I drove two ground rods for the electrode - this is only the piping bond.

That said, I'll change it. He doesn't seem to understand electrical theory very well, and this isn't the part worth fighting over. It's just frustrating knowing the difference between correct and "I said so."



SceneryDriver
 
SceneryDriver said:
He keeps insisting this is a GEC, even though there is no metallic pipe underground. The house has a well, and the underground pipe is PEX / poly. I drove two ground rods for the electrode - this is only the piping bond.
Click to expand...
He's wrong about it being a GEC it is a bonding jumper but doesn't a bonding jumper need to follow the same rule as a GEC when installed in a ferrous raceway?

250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Metal.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section.
(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to any of the following:
(1) Service equipment enclosure
(2) Grounded conductor at the service
(3) Grounding electrode conductor if of sufficient size
(4) One or more grounding electrodes used, if the grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper to the grounding electrode is of sufficient size
The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), 250.64(B), and 250.64(E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
Click to expand...
 
SceneryDriver said:
That said, I'll change it. He doesn't seem to understand electrical theory very well, and this isn't the part worth fighting over. It's just frustrating knowing the difference between correct and "I said so."
Click to expand...
I feel your pain. Inspectors with a tenuous grasp on electrical theory as well as on code are very frustrating to deal with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top