New inspector,new problems...........

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Here`s a situation im sure we have all endured.
A new ahj with his shiny new code book..........
I just took over as area manager for my company,Pasco county,Florida.On a residential
rough in inspection the other day i got a call from superintendant that i needed to meet the inspector...1st he tells me that the telephone wires were not protected as required (L.V. was done by others )We are under 99 code....He sited 800.6 I read into it and then the 02 code book in 02 there is a direct article in regards to this 300.4 d but in 99 this is not part of the code.
Even though the phones were done by others he stated that he would tag any other rough inspections if the phone wires were not stood off the furring or nail plated,since the voltage had the potential of being over 50 volts.I asked him to show me where in the nec in 99, phone wires were to be installed in accordance with 300.4 d
he told me that it was part of the nfpa and that he could site 800.6 as article for red tag.I argued that even if this was a valid article, the contractor worked for the builder and was not doing work under our license.He insisted that that didn`t matter that since we were the electrical contractor that any and all installations in the structure were our responsibility.....Since there is no license in our area for L.V. contractors other than a $35.00
occupational license.The jury is still out on this matter,just wanted to throw this out there...
Has anyone encountered a simular situation .......
thanks Allen

 

[sparkmantoo]

Re: New inspector,new problems...........

in VA we are still in the 96 code. we have problems with the same thing here. we have people who rough in houses for phone, data, etc. and are not responsible for their installation as far as being code compliant. they do some freaky stuff. technically the inspector is correct about being responsible. so in order for you to pass your inspection you must make the house code compliant. either ask the installer to correct it or correct it yourself by removing the violation. explain this to the general contractor that you cannot get a rough in inspection until this problem is corrected. let the general make that decision. me i would give the installer the chance to correct it and if they don't want to, i would rip it out. thus the house is code compliant. i have been standing exactly where you are right now many times, usually the general can remedy the problem real quick.

 

[rrrusty]

Re: New inspector,new problems...........

I agree with sparkmantoo about contacting the General and having who ever installed the phone lines redo it and have the lines installed to make the inspector happy or you will not be able to get your inspection; Does this new inspector have a supervisor that you or the general can dicuss this with? Even though you are under the 99 code; Has your state adopted the 2002 code and the local AHJ is still on the 99?

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: New inspector,new problems...........

Allen, IMO there is no way that this should fall under your license. The inspector can only inspect what is on your application. If your work deserves a Green sticker, then you should get one. If the inspector feels the other system deserves a Red sticker, then it should get one, but it should not affect you. It should affect the G.C. and the installer of the system.
We run into this sometimes with a well/septic system, where the G.C. will hire a company that tells the G.C. that they will take care of the wiring. We don't include it on our application and if that system fails, they have to fix it, or pay us to. And if they don't have a license to do the work, that's a bigger can of worms...Ty

 

[jmc]

Re: New inspector,new problems...........

HI Wayne, the inspector has missed one of the most important sections of the 1999 NEC. Section 90-3, the second paragraph, makes it clear that Chapter 8 is independent of the other chapters except WHERE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THEREIN. Section 800-7 is the only place that another article and chapter are mentioned, and it is not Article 300. Article 300 does not apply to Article 800.
Regards, John M. Caloggero

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: New inspector,new problems...........

Thanks for all the responses,I think i got it straightened out today.1st i called the chief inspector well he is as bad if not worse then the inspector,so that was a lost cause.I finally went to the gc and told him that we weren`t going to have our jobs held up by some fly by night contractor,I told him that if the sub didn`t come into the new millenium and comply and that if we got tagged (that`s another issue)then we would send a service crew to make ths corrections and backcharge him at the rate of $65.00/man to make whatever corrections were needed!!! he sat there jaw on his lap and asked if i was serious,as a heart attack i responded.So we will see if this has an impact.
John I agree that was my reasoning that in the 99 book there is no referance to 300.4 d,That is in the 2002 book and at the end of paragraph it specifically states and must comply with.......
I can`t wait till it is required to have an actual license issued by a board to do L.V. installations.When we do adopt the 2002 code,800.6 and 300.4 d will be an issue that will be a big problem.well Thanks again for the responses