What do you guys do... (rant alert)

[romex jockey]

Most state inspection agencies have a complaint form, followed up by official investigation

i've used them to enter a formal complaint , and on my own installs

~RJ~

 

[electrofelon]

Regarding the specific point of whether it is one's job to teach the electrical inspector..... It's sort of a mixed bag. On one hand, it is important that inspector learns he is mistaken so he doesn't cite others for the same thing (I think the vast majority of electricians don't know the code well enough and/or will just do what the inspector says). OTOH, yeah, it's not my job to train the electrical inspector. In a perfect world, I think the inspection agency/department should have a complaint form where the chief electrical inspector or whoever will address and resolve the misunderstanding (and of course it will actually get done and not just throw in a pile ).

Recently on a resi job, had an inspector comment that I could only have two NM cables going through a bored hole. I said no I can have up to nine current carrying conductors or generally four cables. He said no you have to derate after 2. I then tried to explain the de-rating process, the whole 90° thing...... He just said you can't use the 90-degree column. At that point I gave up, as he let the *violation" go anyway.

 

[Fred B]

a few years ago I received a violation for an undersized EGC wire. I sent the inspector table 250.122 from Article 250 as proof that it was sized correctly based on the breaker size. His email response, and i remember it word for word because it was so shocking: "I don't care what the code says, and i don't care what you say!!!" I was in shock, and my Project Manager couldn't help but just laugh. So the client had to pay extra money for the additional work to replace the ground wire.

Don't know particular circumstances or sizes but table 250.122 can be or is modified by conditions included in Article 250.122(B) where the ungrounded conductor size is modified or increased in size, or 250.122(A) not larger than ungrounded conductor, or 250.122(C) where multiple circuits are involved.
Inspector's reply is unprofessional at best. If he had justification from Article narratives that would modify the table minimum size requirements he should have responded with the references. The code is in writing so that we can avoid the "Because I said so" response. I'm open to someone questioning my interpretation of code so long as they can provide code reference substantiation supporting their position ("I've always done it this way" doesn't cut it), and I would hope others would be as open to my suggestions from the codes. There are times the code is sufficiently vague that interpretations can vary, then erring on the side of safety first or the more safe installation should be the preference of all. If either interpretation could be equally safe or effective should be willing to "let it go" pending any modification for clearification of codes.

 

[Grouch1980]

Don't know particular circumstances or sizes but table 250.122 can be or is modified by conditions included in Article 250.122(B) where the ungrounded conductor size is modified or increased in size, or 250.122(A) not larger than ungrounded conductor, or 250.122(C) where multiple circuits are involved.
Inspector's reply is unprofessional at best. If he had justification from Article narratives that would modify the table minimum size requirements he should have responded with the references. The code is in writing so that we can avoid the "Because I said so" response. I'm open to someone questioning my interpretation of code so long as they can provide code reference substantiation supporting their position ("I've always done it this way" doesn't cut it), and I would hope others would be as open to my suggestions from the codes. There are times the code is sufficiently vague that interpretations can vary, then erring on the side of safety first or the more safe installation should be the preference of all. If either interpretation could be equally safe or effective should be willing to "let it go" pending any modification for clearification of codes.

it was a dedicated circuit, and the EGC did not need to be oversized because of voltage drop. the inspector just got mad that I questioned him by sending a code section.

 

[Fred B]

it was a dedicated circuit, and the EGC did not need to be oversized because of voltage drop. the inspector just got mad that I questioned him by sending a code section.

I would welcome a question that the EC attempts to substantiate with a code reference vs just argue he doesn't think it's right.
I'll again say the inspector's response was unprofessional, a code reference response from the EC should be replied to with a code reference to substantiate his original claim, anything less just causes hard feelings on both sides. If the inspector provides code reference that can support his view even if it from a vague code open to interpretation, is it worth the battle? Going to war with the inspector can sometimes cost more than any good will you can acheive by submitting to his whim.
I've had an inspector that several GCs called a PIA, occasionally would make requirements that by code interpretation maybe unneeded, but didn't make a difference to me, but by complying with these over time and he is now very reasonable to me to the point that if I bring up a different code interpretation he will many times concede to me acknowledging it's an open interpretation. Other guys still call him a PIA.

 

[kwired]

a few years ago I received a violation for an undersized EGC wire. I sent the inspector table 250.122 from Article 250 as proof that it was sized correctly based on the breaker size. His email response, and i remember it word for word because it was so shocking: "I don't care what the code says, and i don't care what you say!!!" I was in shock, and my Project Manager couldn't help but just laugh. So the client had to pay extra money for the additional work to replace the ground wire.

As long as you were right, that one is totally uncalled for.

Unless it was some small town municipal inspector where there is pretty much nobody above him to appeal to, he is not getting away with that without a fight if I am the installer/contractor.

If it were simple easy thing to do his way and we wanted to get the projected finalized, might just do it, but unless never planning to work in that jurisdiction again, would not be the end of the discussion on this. I can't stand inspectors with a god complex. What good is the code book and/or the local amendments and other rules if they are going to make up their own? They are there to enforce those rules not make up their own. Understandable they might need to make a decision at times when code is kind of gray on the subject. That decision should be subject to being made by them along with their peers and not just the one individual on the spot on his own feelings. If it is a situation that has come up before there should be consistency in what is allowed.

There should never be comments like "because I said so" or "I prefer....".

 

[kwired]

Regarding the specific point of whether it is one's job to teach the electrical inspector..... It's sort of a mixed bag. On one hand, it is important that inspector learns he is mistaken so he doesn't cite others for the same thing (I think the vast majority of electricians don't know the code well enough and/or will just do what the inspector says). OTOH, yeah, it's not my job to train the electrical inspector. In a perfect world, I think the inspection agency/department should have a complaint form where the chief electrical inspector or whoever will address and resolve the misunderstanding (and of course it will actually get done and not just throw in a pile ).

Recently on a resi job, had an inspector comment that I could only have two NM cables going through a bored hole. I said no I can have up to nine current carrying conductors or generally four cables. He said no you have to derate after 2. I then tried to explain the de-rating process, the whole 90° thing...... He just said you can't use the 90-degree column. At that point I gave up, as he let the *violation" go anyway.

he let it go because he too proud of himself and his authority to admit he might been wrong. He maybe realized you likely knew what you were talking about somewhere along the line and later did further research on it. So maybe you did teach him something even though he won't admit it.

 

[ggunn]

Unless it was some small town municipal inspector where there is pretty much nobody above him to appeal to, he is not getting away with that without a fight if I am the installer/contractor.

That happens in big towns, too.

 

[Grouch1980]

Unless it was some small town municipal inspector where there is pretty much nobody above him to appeal to, he is not getting away with that without a fight if I am the installer/contractor.

Ah! the city i work in can't get any bigger lol. it was no small town inspector. and by his response, yes that was a god complex!! we didn't argue with the guy. and yes, what good is the code book if guys like him come in and make up their own rules. it's nonsense.

 

[__dan]

On the bright side, Building Dept is usually last after Health, Zoning, Wetlands, (, ... depending on where you are), so most of their customers are already foaming at the mouth, and the inspector (must be used to it).

You can be in a jurisdiction were they like that sort of thing, and then only if they cause it. That does happen. Or the inspector can sometimes take a quick and durable liking to you, have had that happen also ...

Letter writing I've always been good at, imo and I've seen some stuff I wrote that was still unreadable. I've sent that kind of stuff, can do both the litany and brief and to the point. Don't know anything about solar so cannot help you there. But I could get in the crowd chewing on his ankles, that can be fun I'm sure. Then if you came later and pretended you had accidentally run me over in the parking lot coming in ... would be my guess. But it's too far for me to drive.

Hey welcome back.

 

[kwired]

Ah! the city i work in can't get any bigger lol. it was no small town inspector. and by his response, yes that was a god complex!! we didn't argue with the guy. and yes, what good is the code book if guys like him come in and make up their own rules. it's nonsense.

But you likely have someone higher up to possibly appeal to, the small town with only one inspector that isn't even possible.

 

[ggunn]

<deleted>