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?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?
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 thatI call it the "Urban Legend Code".
There is a provision in the NJ UCC 5:23-3.8 (d) (2) iUpdate:
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.
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...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..."
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.
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.I'm going to file a complaint with the state. This entire process is been nothing but a slow motion clown show.
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.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.
Private owners are also activists that avoid property taxes, who may prefer false hope of collecting fire insurance from any construction defect.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
I feel your pain. Inspectors with a tenuous grasp on electrical theory as well as on code are very frustrating to deal with.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."