# Our electrician is embarrassing.



## MASSDRIVER

Brent

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jar546

No, he is not embarrassing.  What he is, is a hack.  That is NOT the work of an electrician.  Demote him.


----------



## chris kennedy

At the very least we have 352.30 issues and possibly 352.24.


----------



## steveray

On the bright side...there is a vaccuum breaker on the silcock.....Maybe he is a better plumber?


----------



## mmmarvel

I'm thinking he just a lazy workman.


----------



## jar546

Let us not forget that the hose bibb creates another violation due to its location below the panelboard


----------



## steveray

True enough...I was going with the "It's been there forever therefore we must have approved it at some point theory"....



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Let us not forget that the hose bibb creates another violation due to its location below the panelboard


----------



## MASSDRIVER

There has been one inspection for final. Those items were not on the correction page. I had to ask about it because inquiring minds want to know, and was told Sparky took a heatgun to it.

I have the reinspect tomorrow which I'm standing, and spent half of today securing MC (not watertight) to the house, putting correct boxes on exterior outlets, etc. I had some unistrut on me and was going to tackle this abortion but got called off it.

It's a weird situation when it's not your own job to control. The guys I work for aren't bad, and have good reps and been around for years (cslb# in the 300000's) but they have a "let them find it" attitude.

In general they listen to me and let me preface all inspections to get them passed, but got over ridden this time for various reasons. They want this job out of their hair so bad it's not funny.

I'm actually sort of stunned at all the things the inspector missed as this guy is usually by the book. Maybe this is just round one. (?)

Oh well. Tomorrow ought to be a hoot.

Brent


----------



## jar546

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> There has been one inspection for final. Those items were not on the correction page. I had to ask about it because inquiring minds want to know, and was told Sparky took a heatgun to it.I have the reinspect tomorrow which I'm standing, and spent half of today securing MC (not watertight) to the house, putting correct boxes on exterior outlets, etc. I had some unistrut on me and was going to tackle this abortion but got called off it.
> 
> It's a weird situation when it's not your own job to control. The guys I work for aren't bad, and have good reps and been around for years (cslb# in the 300000's) but they have a "let them find it" attitude.
> 
> In general they listen to me and let me preface all inspections to get them passed, but got over ridden this time for various reasons. They want this job out of their hair so bad it's not funny.
> 
> I'm actually sort of stunned at all the things the inspector missed as this guy is usually by the book. Maybe this is just round one. (?)
> 
> Oh well. Tomorrow ought to be a hoot.
> 
> Brent


Fill us in.  I would be surprised and disappointed if this passed inspection.


----------



## Dennis

I have seen a lot worse.  I would tell him to strap the conduit and walk away-- yes it is ugly


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:
			
		

> Let us not forget that the hose bibb creates another violation due to its location below the panelboard


Shirley you jest.


----------



## jar546

Dennis said:
			
		

> I have seen a lot worse.  I would tell him to strap the conduit and walk away-- yes it is ugly


That is why we continue to see work like that.  The inspector's willingness to look past obvious violations.  Why is that?  Why do inspectors feel entitled to grant passes for the violations that exist?  What authority do we have to do that?

Our company would tell them to move the panel or the hose bibb and correct the rest of the crap.  Do it right or don't do it and let someone who knows what they are doing do it.


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:
			
		

> That is why we continue to see work like that.  The inspector's willingness to look past obvious violations.  Why is that?  Why do inspectors feel entitled to grant passes for the violations that exist?  What authority do we have to do that?Our company would tell them to move the panel or the hose bibb and correct the rest of the crap.  Do it right or don't do it and let someone who knows what they are doing do it.


Just because it looks fugly is not reason enough to fail it.  The conduit isn't so deformed that it didn't work out for the application. As far as the hose bibb is concerned....yes it is a violation....yes they should know better....now what's the big deal....it's a stinking hose bibb under a residential panel....it's no simple thing to move it and the expense far outweighs the benefit.

Now you probably could fail it because the conduit isn't schedule 80.


----------



## jar546

ICE said:
			
		

> Just because it looks fugly is not reason enough to fail it.  The conduit isn't so deformed that it didn't work out for the application. As far as the hose bibb is concerned....yes it is a violation....yes they should know better....now what's the big deal....it's a stinking hose bibb under a residential panel....it's no simple thing to move it and the expense far outweighs the benefit.Now you probably could fail it because the conduit isn't schedule 80.


There are clear code violations that need to be addressed.  It has nothing to do with how fugly it looks.

My point is that we must be consistent and apply the code evenly to everyone and we have NO LEGAL jurisdiction to simply not enforce obvious codes.

What is so hard and difficult about doing one's job and writing up deficiencies?  It's their problem unless you don't enforce it.  It then becomes your problem.


----------



## steveray

I think the problem alot of us have Jeff is that CT (and assumedly other areas) has only had a State Code since about 1971....if it looks like it was installed before then, how can I call it a violation? Or if it is a like for like swap (replacement) unless I feel it is actually a dangerous condition, I am not going to make them change something major....New service or AMP upgrade I would be looking for full compliance....


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Amazing. Crap work officially accepted as is,

Job finaled.

Another victory for the hacks.

Brent


----------



## steveray

Could probably get him on 110.26 A 3 for that conduit sticking out more than 6" too...


----------



## jar546

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Amazing. Crap work officially accepted as is, Job finaled.
> 
> Another victory for the hacks.
> 
> Brent


Another fine example how poor code enforcement enables the hacks to compete with quality contractors who do good, code compliant work.  The inspector should be ashamed of him/herself


----------



## MASSDRIVER

This is interesting to me.

First inspectigator generates his correction list. This other one went only by the list, and on the honor system at that. Label panel, smokies, co detectors, gfi label, etc. tailgate inspection.

Now I have had dudes use the honor system before, but we had developed a relationship and former work was taken into account.

If it were my job the conduit would not even have made it this far. Either sparky redoes it to my liking, or I do and hold the cost, or maybe use it as an ace on another job.

Fortunatly this one won't be returning.

Part of the problem is all the subs that were used are old time friends and whatnot and they take advantage of the marriage, as it were.

What they are doing now is turning supervision over to me as I don't care about the friendships. I'm way more disconnected. Once they started that, they also backed my plays and the work has improved 100%

I made the new electrician buy a labeler to mark breakers, and that small think has actually cleaned the rest of his work up as well.

Homeowners appreciate it too.

I guess you just hold the line as best you can without sabotaging your employer.

Brent.


----------



## mmmarvel

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> This is interesting to me. First inspectigator generates his correction list. This other one went only by the list


Hmmm, interesting.  I was taught that if I was going in for a re-inspection that I was ONLY to look at that correction (unless there was a life/safety issue which was glaring).  If some other voilation(s) were seen, but they had been signed off on; that it was protocol to get together with the inspector who signed off on it and talk about what I'd observed.  Very interesting discussion - how do all of you handle it?  Me?  I'm the facilities administrator at an airport now, I get to play different games than this particular one.


----------



## ICE

My jurisdiction gets way twisted when I write corrections on top of another inspector's corrections.  I doesn't matter what the corrections are. I do it anyway.  Especially when I return from vacation or fill in for another inspector.  My feeling is that if it is okay to ignore a particular violation, why bother ever writing the correction.

I should add that I don't go for picayune corrections and it's not a competition to see if I can one up another inspector.


----------



## ICE

I licensed electrical contractor did this.


----------



## Keystone

Whats the _itching about, atleast the electrician re-used the flashing & nail.


----------



## Kearney.200

I'm the only inspector in town so if I missed it the first time its on me but most of the contractors in town are good to work with I just tell them "hay I missed x last time we need to get it fixed" it has not blown up in my face yet


----------



## steveray

Is that an Air Jordan covered in tar?....He does get green points for recycling....


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:
			
		

> That is why we continue to see work like that.  The inspector's willingness to look past obvious violations.  Why is that?  Why do inspectors feel entitled to grant passes for the violations that exist?  What authority do we have to do that?Our company would tell them to move the panel or the hose bibb and correct the rest of the crap.  Do it right or don't do it and let someone who knows what they are doing do it.


Well then come out here and deal with the crap I see.  After a few weeks of that I think you might develop and eye for what's worth doing over.





This was done by a general contractor.  The lath was installed at the first inspection.  There is an el permit for a service upgrade and a plumbing permit for a kitchen sink.  That's because in Ca. a general contractor can't take out a single specialty permit....no, he has to have a minimum of two and they must be  unrelated trades.  When I asked him about the sink, he said that the lady changed her mind and there won't be a new sink.  I said, bummer now your permit is void.  Well the lady changed her mind again...or I should say she found out that she was getting a new kitchen sink.

One of the corrections was to provide a second ground rod a minimum *6'* from the first rod.  This time around it says provide a third rod a minimum *6 feet *from any rod.





So back to the lath...I made them remove it and this is what I found.  Now seriously Jeff, can you see that a misplaced hose bibb isn't such a big deal?


----------



## fatboy

Oh my...........again, I am so happy I live in CO............we see some crap.......but typically not to that level.........


----------



## ICE

I can count on writing a butt load of corrections every day.  Not all of California is as bad as my area.  As a matter of fact, 99% of the state is way better than my area.  I just happen to be in a low income, completly Mexican, community.  Half of the time, I am the only person there that speaks English.  The other half of the time, I am the only person there that speaks English. Why they send me is anybody's guess.

Inspecting in some bucolic (that's not an eating disorder fatboy) Colorado town would bore me.  I would probably lose the ability to do what I do.


----------



## north star

*= + = + =*



ICE,

Are you the only sagacious \ observant \ picture taking Inspector working for your company ?   :-o





*= * = * =*


----------



## ICE

Tigers are solitary creatures.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Your lucky. It could be Irish. You would still be the only one speaking English.

Brent


----------



## Builder Bob

Look what I found, can you identify the issue(s)


----------



## steveray

How bout this plumber?...Wait till tomorrow for some real doozies!


----------



## e hilton

ICE said:
			
		

> One of the corrections was to provide a second ground rod a minimum *6'* from the first rod.  This time around it says provide a third rod a minimum *6 feet *from any rod.


Why a second ground rod 6 ft away?  And then I suppose the third one is because the second was not placed correctly?  Surely a simple hacienda can't need three ground rods.  When I build a new out-of-the-ground bank, the electrical plans call for three ground rods 10 ft into the ground spaced 20 ft apart, all tied together and the resistance has to be tested and certified.  Sometimes they place them in a triangle, more often they are in a straight line along the back of the building.   And then there is a (I think) #4 solid going to the main inside panel.  Why do you require the grounding condustor to be in flex?  One reason could be that in the event of a short to ground, the ground wire carries all the current so you're trying to prevent someone from coming in contact with a temporarily energized wire.  Ok, but it looks like the flex sheathe is bonded to the ground rod, so doesn't it also carry the current?


----------



## steveray

You need 25 ohms or less or you add another rod....we accept 2 regardless of what it might meggar out to be actually.....


----------



## e hilton

So is it just easier to install 2 rods than test the first one?


----------



## ICE

e hilton said:
			
		

> So is it just easier to install 2 rods than test the first one?


The test can cost upwards of $1000.00.  I have never had anyone do that instead of another rod.


----------

