ECN Forum
Posted By: AZSam Ideas? - 12/22/04 07:56 PM
I have been asked by the Mayor (small town, 5,500 population), to arbitrate a problem between his housing inspector and the installing EC. The inspector does it all, general building, electrical, plumbing, sewage disposal, grading, etc. BTW, there is an animosity between the two that goes back in time.
I have known both of them for 10-12 years, and that is why the Mayor requested my assistance. He doesn’t want the city to be involved in litigation which the EC has implied.
Here is the gist of the controversy in an unfinished basement:
1. Security system, dedicated circuit, instructions say “Not recommended for GFI protected circuit”.
Inspector wants GFI.
2. Satellite TV distribution system, dedicated circuit, again GFI circuit not recommended.
Inspector wants GFI.
3. Satellite Internet service distribution center w/wireless network system, dedicated circuit, no GFI.
Inspector wants GFI.
4. Water softener, dedicated circuit, no GFI.
Inspector wants GFI.
5. Three double-duplex general use recepts on GFI CB.
Inspector wants GFI feed-thru outlet in first box.
6. Five duplex on GFI CB.
Inspector wants GFI feed-thru outlet in first box.
7. Sump pump, dedicated circuit, no GFI. County health says No GFI.
Inspector wants GFI.
8. Central Vacuum system, dedicated circuit, no GFI.
Inspector wants GFI.
9. One double duplex for two treadmills and TV. Booklets say no GFI for treadmills.
Inspector wants TV removed from recpts supplying treadmills and placed on GFI circuit.

My first opinion is that the housing inspector is incorrect but I would like to get these two gents to an amicable agreement without assigning blame to either. Any ideas would be appreciated. (Meeting scheduled for 29 December @ 2:00 P.M.)
Sam
Posted By: NJ Wireman Re: Ideas? - 12/22/04 08:23 PM
Well if its on a gfi breaker its protected case closed it does not state how it must be gfi protected (breaker or recpt.) so there for its good in my eyes.
Posted By: SolarPowered Re: Ideas? - 12/22/04 08:36 PM
I too think the inspector is wrong, except perhaps for item #9.

There is good reason for much of that stuff not being GFCIed. You don't want the sump pump getting shut off during a storm, for example.

I don't see that there's a lot of room for an "everybody wins" compromise. Somebody needs to straighten out this inspector, or he's just going to keep going around making people do stuff that's not reasonable. Unfortunately, it looks like it's fallen to you to be that "somebody."

I'd think the best way to proceed would be to carefully document each issue with the code sections that permit things to be done the way they've been done. If necessary, you could also illustrate the points with what various handbooks have to say.

I note that many of the points you list are really the same issue, so you can probably get this down to a list of three or four issues that are really under dispute.

I would avoid the "assigning blame" approach, and instead take the approach of, "OK, here's issue #1. The Code says "xxx" about this. So, under the Code, what Mr. EC is doing is acceptable." Then see if you can get the inspector to agree on that point, or get him to prove, from the Code, why you're wrong. (He won't be able to.) Then move on to the next point, and repeat the process.

Good luck!



[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 12-22-2004).]
Posted By: DougW Re: Ideas? - 12/22/04 08:56 PM
Dedicated, single - receptacle circuits for all the "no GFI recommended" applications... like I do for sump pumps, and as the Code allows for refrigerators and pumps in otherwise GFI areas.

I'd give him #9, if he'll exclude the treadmills from his GFI requirement.

While I complement the inspector for his safety-mindedness, I think he's a little overboard on this one, especially given the manufacturer installation info that specifically lists "no GFI", and the same safety provided by GFI breaker v. receptacle.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: Ideas? - 12/22/04 09:45 PM
1. Security system, dedicated circuit
A1)210.8(A)(5) Exception #3
2. Satellite TV distribution system
A2)May meet 210.8(A)(5) Exception #2
3. Satellite Internet service distribution center w/wireless network
A3)May meet 210.8(A)(5) Exception #2
4. Water softener, dedicated circuit
A4)210.8(A)(5) Exception #2
5. Three double-duplex general use recepts on GFI CB. Inspector wants GFI feed-thru outlet in first box.
A5)Code does not specify type of GFCI protection required.
6. Five duplex on GFI CB.
Inspector wants GFI feed-thru outlet in first box.
A6)Code does not specify type of GFCI protection required.
7. Sump pump, dedicated circuit, no GFI. A7)210.8(A)(5) Exception #2
8. Central Vacuum system, dedicated circuit, no GFI.
A8)210.8(A)(5) Exception #2
9. One double duplex for two treadmills and TV. Booklets say no GFI for treadmills.
Inspector wants TV removed from recpts supplying treadmills and placed on GFI circuit.
A9)This circuit does not meet any of the exceptions and requires GFCI protecion. The manufacturer's instructions not to use GFCIs does not change the code rule.

Note that where Exception #2 is used only a single receptcle is permitted. If the installed receptacle is a duplex, then GFCI protection is required.

Don

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 12-22-2004).]
Posted By: AZSam Re: Ideas? - 12/23/04 10:35 AM
Code issues are not the prime focus. The aim is to get these two to compromise and into an acceptable relationship where both are respected for their expertise. Code paragraphs can be quoted infinitesmilly with no result other than more animosity. Common sense needs to prevail.
BTW, this housing inspector refused to inspect my home when I built as he suggested that I was more cognizent of the NEC than he was. That is why the Mayor called upon me. I am a retired EC, Registered Professional Engineer, still hold EC licenses in 17 jurisdictions, and Master Electrician rating in 9 jurisdictions. The Mayor and I met last evening and one proposal the Mayor suggested was that I would inspect installations by the EC in the city. This is due to the animosity between the EC and the inspector. Personally, I don't like this approach. I would like to see these guys work together. I would still appreciate ideas, no matter how far reaching they may appear to you.
Sam
Posted By: iwire Re: Ideas? - 12/23/04 10:52 AM
As an electrician I would say code articles have every thing to do with it and I do not have to compromise. I might if it is cheaper.

If the EC is stubborn it will go to court and cost the city money when the EC prevails on the parts of the job that do meet the NEC.

Unless of course there are local amendments.

IMO this inspector needs to stick with the code.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: Ideas? - 12/23/04 12:10 PM
Sam,
If this is an ongoing issue between the contractor and the inspector, the contractor should sue for economic damages and ask the courts to issue a restraining order so that this inspector is never again permitted to inspect this contractors work.
don
Posted By: goodwill Re: Ideas? - 12/23/04 02:16 PM
my first thought reading this is that the inspector just plain wrong. you would like the 2 men to work this out, but even if they agree on this one at some point, somewhere down the line something else will come up and it'll start up all over again. how can someone be an electrical inspector with little understanding of the NEC. I think you SHOULD be the inspector just for the electrical, if you can. even though this time the inspector is going "over board", who's to say that next time he won't miss a potentially dangerous red tag because of his lack of knowledge. that being said....
maybe there can be a happy medium on some of this stuff. for example, for the security and satellite stuff, have the EC put the outlets at 7'6" or higher, therefore not "readily accessible". that's what I do anyway, because a lot of the security systems have heavy plug-in transformers that are required to be screwed into the center of a duplex outlet. just my thoughts.
Posted By: e57 Re: Ideas? - 12/24/04 02:25 AM
So where are all of these recept's? Over a sink between a hot tub, and a pool, outside? In a garage? All of the above? Unless this Inspector has some reason to justify it, he's just throwing his wieght around, and thats not cool!

5,6, and 7 are no brainers! He's wrong!
Many of the other items (1-4, and 8) sound like they might be in a garage, and with Ded. circ's and single recept's are fine. And I don't readily see a reason for #9.

Maybe the reason these two dont get along is that this EC wont apease his power-trip. Maybe others are.... I would go and talk to a few other EC's in the area. Maybe he does this with everyone, and this is the only one who has stood up to him.
Posted By: harold endean Re: Ideas? - 12/25/04 02:59 AM
In my opinion it seems very simple. Is the NEC a legal code in your area? If so, and if the job meets the NEC then it must be OK! No matter who wants what. If the NEC is legal code, then the NEC must be followed. IF the NEC is not legal code, then you must find out what (If any) rules/laws cover these issues. Then you would have to follow the rules/laws that do cover ths job.
Posted By: maintenanceguy Re: Ideas? - 12/25/04 12:29 PM
Follow the local code. You're not a therapist. You can't make these guys work well together. All you can do is decide who's right and who's wrong on each issue.

There is no finding middle ground. It's right or it's not. Period.

It's best when the inspector and EC can get along and work with each other to come up with a safe installation. But that ship's sailed. Now you've got to nail them to the code book or a judge will later...with damages awarded.
Posted By: beaman Re: Ideas? - 12/26/04 04:39 AM
Hi men, after reading these responses to the original post, I am curious about what the NEC is exactly. I know what the letters stand for, but let me tell about the NSPI so you'll know what I'm getting at.

NSPI stands for National Spa and Pool Institute. It is/was a national body that wrote standards concerning pool and spa safety at far as construction and use guidlines. Recently, NSPI was sued and was forced to re-organize under a bankruptcy filing and actually will cease to exist as NSPI. Certain standards were followed and yet accidents happened, so the orgainization was named in law suits and then forced to pay when courts found that the standards didn't protect the consumer in these specific cases.

Is the NEC similarly liable when it's standards are followed? Is it even an organization/entity that has assets or asset protection making it a deep pocket?

I'm not trying to hijack the topic here, but am wondering if AZSam is opening himself up to liability later if he lessens the protection advocated by the inspector[who I agree seems to be on a power trip, or is just trying to hide his ignorance]. Or, if he cites the NEC, is he aligning himself with a significant partner if libility issues come up.

Brad
Posted By: sparky66wv Re: Ideas? - 12/26/04 04:46 PM
NEC = National Electrical Code
Posted By: beaman Re: Ideas? - 12/27/04 05:26 AM
"NEC = National Electrical Code"

Obviously, but what/who is behind it?

Government agency?

Industry spokes organization?

Private organization?

And, do they, or, does it have any teeth to defend it's standards against an attack from legal challenges if liability issues come up?

Brad
Posted By: CharlieE Re: Ideas? - 12/27/04 03:28 PM
Brad, the NFPA is the organization that publishes the NEC but it is up to the local jurisdiction to adopt it into law. The NFPA is not responsible for the content of the NEC but 19 Code Making Panels and a Technical Correlating Committee write the Code. Proposals are submitted and the various Code Making Panels accept or reject those proposals.

The Panels are made up of various representatives from inspectors, NRTLs, manufacturers, utilities, labor, construction, etc. Each panel has a group of Article assigned to it so that the entire Code is covered and they deal with only those proposals that effect those Articles. There is a lengthy process to go through to get each proposal approved or rejected and then published.

After all that, it is up to the local jurisdiction to adopt the new Code or to make amendments to it. Indiana has several amendments so you have to be aware of what they are so you will not get a red tag for following the Code.

The process is much more complicated that I outlined but it is close. [Linked Image]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy
Posted By: maintenanceguy Re: Ideas? - 12/27/04 05:28 PM
And municipalities, counties, or states adopt the NEC as law. Most areas of the country have done this. That's where it gets it's authority. But it may have no authority where you are, depends on whether it was adopted or not.

Lots of organizations write "model" codes for electrical, fire protection, heating, structural, etc, etc. and they make these available to governments to adopt as law.
Posted By: John Steinke Re: Ideas? - 12/28/04 04:09 AM
What the heck, make the triple threat happy....the new (two year old) GFI standards are intended to reduce nuisance tripping problems, so there's probable no harm in it.
As for the breaker issue, he ought to be happy if his push-button tester works.
Get the inspector to start visiting this forum before he gets contentious. It can get lonely when you're the only official "expert".
Another idea....have mayor "deputise" someone else -perhaps inspector from another town- to remove the issue of personal animosity from the inspection.
Posted By: BuggabooBren Re: Ideas? - 12/29/04 04:14 PM
It sounds like there are really two issues at hand in this scenario. One is the technical details of a specific job. The other is the larger issue of a potentially longer-term and larger-scope dynamic where one person (the inspector) will interface with multiple people (EC's, homeowners, govt entities, etc.) toward common goals (hopefully) of safe installations and operating conditions.

With that in mind, you may have some working details of a negotiating dynamic:

a) Common ground or interests (the community, the electrical industry & all its activities, etc.).

b) Common goals (the community's welfare as well as the safety of the specific location, the govt's risk mgmt viewpoint of preventing disasters rather than dealing with the aftermath, etc),

c) Differences of opinion which give you opposing or disparate points on a spectrum that also are fortified by each entities 'basis of power or influence' which may include expertise, reputation, official authority, etc. (Meaning that they have an opinion and their opinion has the ability to either push progress forward or prevent progress if a disagreement ensues.)

On this last 'line' of the triad you may find the nuts & bolts of the process to accomplish your mission - finding out how to have disparate points join efforts to meet the needs in a) & b).

Start by identifying the following:

1) where on the spectrum each entity seems to be 'stuck' or standing firm - their opposing or disparate points. NEC references are one way to describe their position - "meets NEC" or "exceeds NEC", for example. Identify as many points as necessary.

2) where the entities agree. This gives you some rapport-building points that allow each entity to agree that they agree and that there are points which build respect between the two entities.

For the disparate points identify the following:
A) where or upon what specific issue each entity draws their position
(like "GFCI" for safety in the event of xyz which pushes outside the normal operating limits of the system or equipment)
B) where each entity 'draws the line' - meaning what will they absolutely not give up or give in to and,
C) where there may be room for (healthy) compromise.

If you can find even some small ways to bring the disparate points to closer agreement you may find that the men have more in common than they realize or more reasons to respect one another's opinion and that with common goals in mind, working out the relationship issues is a worthwhile endeavor. If done well, neither party sacrifices their dignity or reputation or the quality of their work and they both get credit for increasing the quality of effort that goes into meeting the common goals.
© ECN Electrical Forums