Residential - Rough Inspection

[mltech]

I just had a rough inspection on a residence turned down for not having the sub feeds pulled to the interior panel? before that a different inspector told me that I had to have all the breakers installed for a wall rough? What constitutes a rough inspection when clearly these items could be looked at later during a service inspection or temp for test? These fees are killing me and it seems that they are purposely trying to defer the inspection?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

It's common practice to complete everything possible at the rough. If you ran conduit for the sub-panel, why not get as much done as you can at the rough?

Why did you run conduit, anyway?

At any rate, it's not covered under the NEC. You'll generally avoid headaches if you just complete as much as possible at the rough.

before that a different inspector told me that I had to have all the breakers installed for a wall rough?

This I strongly disagree with. Making it easy to energize exposed conductors is a good way to get people shocked (drywallers, etc.)

 

[mltech]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

Why did you run conduit, anyway?

This installation has a 200amp metermain service with feed thru lugs to a 200amp interior 42 circuit panel. We run 2"pvc conduit from the service to the interior panel as a normal installation and pull 3/0 conductors. Just seems like a typical installation to me.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

Different standards for different folks, I guess.

'Round here, it's pretty common to just run SER from the outside metermain to an interior panel. Seems as though conduit would be pretty labor intensive for not too much of a payoff, IMO.

To each his own!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

Geroge,

Seems as though conduit would be pretty labor intensive for not too much of a payoff, IMO.

A study was done in area near me about 15 years ago as to the cost of the "pipe" codes. It was found that the use on EMT in place of NM adds 12-15% to the cost of the dwelling unit electrical installation.
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

Don, by "payoff" I meant "benefit."

The only benefit I can see is the conductors can be replaced without damaging the finish of the garage inside. In my short time, I've not seen that benefit to be a compelling one.

What was the reasoning to require EMT in Chicago, anyway?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

What was the reasoning to require EMT in Chicago, anyway?

I don't really know. While NM is a safe wiring method, I think that metallic conduit is safer and that may be the reason.
Don

 

[stars13bars2]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

Don
Who did that study anyway the federal government? There are guys around me that do residential with service, phones and cable tv for under $2 a square foot. Are you telling me that it is possible to do an EMT installation for say $2.30 a square foot?

PS Maybe a more telling answer would be to know who paid for the study. Like they say "you get what you pay for".

[ February 13, 2006, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: stars13bars2 ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Residential - Rough Inspection

This is not related in any way to Instructors or to teaching. I am moving it to the Contracting and Estimating topic area.