LETS PLAY INSPECTOR...Again

[Pierre C Belarge]

I was called to this job today. Before I contact the contractor tomorrow, I will see what you all have to say about this inspection. Be a good, fair inspector.

Scenario:
1. Whole house renovation.
2. The service had been installed a year ago...not inspected by me.
3. These pictures are just 3 of the many areas of concern...not to overwhelm you.



A) The panel is in the basement, not part of the rough inspection.
What would you as the inspector say to the contractor. Remember, whatever you say has to be backed up with a code section(s).

B) A looksee to see the orientation of the circuit breakers.

C) I was a little surprised to see this - in the basement

D) This I thought was interesting.

E) A closeup of the previous picture - NM "buttons" used as a grommet

 

[peter d]

The guy who did this install was from Connecticut, right? Because only someone from CT would fire caulk a hole like that.

 

[C3PO]

For the panel I would say violation 240.33 and 240.81

 

[norcal]

240.81 would be the section prohibiting sideways mounting a panel,the installer could not even attempt to weasel out(still wrong IMO) of that by not using the top row of breakers because the main is still "ON" in the down position.

A Murray or Bryant/Westinghouse/Cutler-Hammer BR panel is a good sign of a cheesy installation. Since we no longer have Zinsco/Sylvania/Challenger somebody had to take up the tail end.

 

[1793]

I was called to this job today. Before I contact the contractor tomorrow, I will see what you all have to say about this inspection. Be a good, fair inspector.

Scenario:
1. Whole house renovation.
2. The service had been installed a year ago...not inspected by me.
3. These pictures are just 3 of the many areas of concern...not to overwhelm you.



A) The panel is in the basement, not part of the rough inspection.
What would you as the inspector say to the contractor. Remember, whatever you say has to be backed up with a code section(s).

B) A looksee to see the orientation of the circuit breakers.

Same person must have moved to my area

 

[nakulak]

where's the pic of the red sticker or the stop work order ?

 

[r_merc]

Lets see here

Lets see here

As for the pushbutton connectors..... as an Inspector if it were the only thing I would let it go. Not listed for what it was intended for but it is doing the job of protecting the cable from damage.... I'm going to assume that there is a grommet (pushbutton) under the fire caulk?? The panel.... NO! Not happening, how did it pass last time. If you can permanently mechanically limit the breakers installed to be oriented where on is up. and can get the manufacturer to sign off on it then maybe.

You seem to run into this kind of thing all the time.


Rick

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I was called to this job today. Before I contact the contractor tomorrow, I will see what you all have to say about this inspection. Be a good, fair inspector.

Scenario:
1. Whole house renovation.
2. The service had been installed a year ago...not inspected by me.
3. These pictures are just 3 of the many areas of concern...not to overwhelm you.



A) The panel is in the basement, not part of the rough inspection.
What would you as the inspector say to the contractor. Remember, whatever you say has to be backed up with a code section(s).

B) A looksee to see the orientation of the circuit breakers.

C) I was a little surprised to see this - in the basement

D) This I thought was interesting.

E) A closeup of the previous picture - NM "buttons" used as a grommet

WOW! 240.81 is one that I thought I would never see in my life-time

 

[Cow]

Is that panel shown the service panel you mentioned or a subpanel? Are you sure it was ever inspected? If it was inspected and it passed, personally, I'd leave it alone unless you want to make enemies, contractor and fellow inspectors alike.

Other than the panel, I'd probably just stick him for lack of Romex straps and bushings.

 

[augie47]

I'd keep my pictures, of course, meet the contractor on the job and if he did indeed install what you show, we would meet at the licsening board.

 

[C3PO]

Is that panel shown the service panel you mentioned or a subpanel? Are you sure it was ever inspected? If it was inspected and it passed, personally, I'd leave it alone unless you want to make enemies, contractor and fellow inspectors alike.

Other than the panel, I'd probably just stick him for lack of Romex straps and bushings.

IMHO the panel needs to be changed. Doing the right thing is more important then making enemies.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I would take the pictures to the license department and see about pulling it. Just what inspection were they even after ? The biggy of course is the panel but the rest of the work is garbage. No staples any where,missing cover,etc. Why did they turn the panel ? Try and be nice and not laugh at him.

 

[iaov]

There is a video on U-Tube of a dude installing a panel sideways like this. They are all smiling at the end like they've done something good!

 

[e57]

WOW!


Is that bubble gum?

If it were me.... I would opt for the consumer protection element of inspecting - go direct to the property owner and have the guy flogged.

 

[iaov]

And then flogg the asses at the big box store who sold him the parts and told him"You can do it and we can help"!

 

[Cow]

IMHO the panel needs to be changed. Doing the right thing is more important then making enemies.

Where do you draw the line though, is my point? A panel sideways, yes it's a code violation, but is it dangerous? The main has been labeled "off-on," is this truly a hazard or just simply a code violation.

Should inspectors always require code violations in plain site not related to the inspection at hand to be fixed or should they make a determination on a case-by-case basis using their experience and the potential danger factor?

It's wrong and looks terrible, but I just don't see the hazard.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

If inspectors would go after guys like this we would all have more work and higher pay. Anyone that does this kind of crap work needs to find a job doing something else. If a stop work order is put on this then someone will pay attention. What other violations are there ?
There is no way my name would go on this inspection.

 

[Volta]

Why can't a panel be mounted sideways? Sure, this one might be upside down, and that is a violation, but a 40 circuit panel that only has 20 OC devices installed and the main in the right direction can be compliant.

240.81 only refers to circuit breakers, not panelboards.

Strapping, and 250.81 in this case are problems. I'd let the NM connectors go. They do need to be listed bushings or grommets per 300.4(B)(1), and could even be violating some White Book description as 110.3(B), but are probably serving the purpose well enough.

Not my style, though . . .

 

[iaov]

I agree with Jim. Sic em Piere!!

 

[C3PO]

Why can't a panel be mounted sideways? Sure, this one might be upside down, and that is a violation, but a 40 circuit panel that only has 20 OC devices installed and the main in the right direction can be compliant.

240.81 only refers to circuit breakers, not panelboards.

That is where 240.33 comes into play