Temp Pole Violations?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

luke warmwater

Senior Member
The following is a temp pole on a job that we are doing. It was installed by the E.C. that did the demo on the job. That was Not us!

It was inspected, passed and has a Utility Meter installed, and is energized.
Should it have passed inspection, and therefore been energized?

This 'temporary' has been in place and energized for a year now.

th_NormansTempPoleByOthers01.jpg
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

By the way,
Sorry about the size, Photobucket re-sized it.

There is no inspection sticker on the service.

Also there are four violations that I found on the temp. One of which can't be seen in a photo, the GFCI was wired to the load side and would not trip.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

My guess is the pole was placed in the ground and the plug was added later. I couldnt see any AHJ I know passing that.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Well, there's no bubble cover and the romex is probably exposed to physical damage. It appears to be regular yellow NM and not UF. It's hard to tell in such a small pic what all else might be going on. It's not the worst t-pole I've ever seen, but I wouldn't have wanted to be the proud inspector who passed it. I know from experience that some t poles get inspected over the phone, if you know what I mean.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Originally posted by aelectricalman:
My guess is the pole was placed in the ground and the plug was added later. I couldnt see any AHJ I know passing that.
Click to expand...
Yes, that sounds perfectly logical.

In my area we can't have any new service inspected without at least one connected circuit. This is probably one of the reasons why.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Originally posted by mdshunk:
Well, there's no bubble cover and the romex is probably exposed to physical damage. It appears to be regular yellow NM and not UF.

Yep.

It's hard to tell in such a small pic what all else might be going on.

There is a regular romex connector in the top of the box. Non-W/P.

It's not the worst t-pole I've ever seen, but I wouldn't have wanted to be the proud inspector who passed it.

I've seen worse too. I've been seeing more and more of this. Why have regulations if noone is going to enforce them?

I know from experience that some t poles get inspected over the phone, if you know what I mean.

You read my mind. Hence the 'no sticker'.
The owner of the property has been around since the day this was installed, and said it has not been changed or modified in any way.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Now I see:
NM where UF should be
3/8 romex connector used in top of bell box where weatherproof conn should be
NM exposed to physical damage
Ground wire exposed to physical damage (grey area?)
Unsecured SE cable
No bubble cover.

Again, not the worst, but shouldn't have passed.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Where is the service disconnect for this installation?
NM cable is permitted for temporary installations. Yes the connector/device cover are the wrong choices. How about securing the SE cable.
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

why not just run carflex from panel to bellbox put in two circuits because you know that brick saw needs its own. we typically come from meter to 4 ckt panel witr cflex then to gfi circuits. I wasnt aware of the bubble cover requirement thanks they will be changed tomorrow
 
Re: Temp Pole Violations?

Where is the service disconnect for this installation?
Click to expand...
Is a service disconnect required if there are 6 or less circuit breakers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top