# Using tools is optional! (AKA Spot the Violations)



## sbrn33

Well, it looks like you scratched the piss out of the wall taking it out. Another unhappy customer.


----------



## BBQ

480sparky said:


> What other problems can you spot?


The cleaning lady is not doing a good job.


----------



## B4T

All that packed in a Carlon blue box.. the myth lives on.. :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## shannonm1

Too much jacket in the box..


----------



## 480sparky

sbrn33 said:


> Well, it looks like you scratched the piss out of the wall taking it out. Another unhappy customer.



No, it looks like I moved a chest freezer away from a wall covered with spider webs. Nice try... please play again.


----------



## 480sparky

shannonm1 said:


> Too much jacket in the box..


Code reference, please. :whistling2:


----------



## shannonm1

Around here, inspectors will fail you for having more than 1/4" - 1/2" jacket in the box.


----------



## backstay

shannonm1 said:


> Around here, inspectors will fail you for having more than 1/4" - 1/2" jacket in the box.


As long as you have enough free conductor, jacket length is only a minimum requirement.


----------



## 480sparky

shannonm1 said:


> Around here, inspectors will fail you for having more than 1/4" - 1/2" jacket in the box.


Sounds like a 'shirt-pocket' rule enforced by inspectors overstepping their legal bounds. If they cannot cite a code reference, then they cannot fail the installation.

They are _in_spectors, not _ex_pectors.


----------



## shannonm1

I do agree! But in the NEC book,summarized, it does cite that local jurisdiction does have final say..


----------



## 480sparky

shannonm1 said:


> I do agree! But in the NEC book,summarized, it does cite that local jurisdiction does have final say..



"Final say" means they can _enforce a rule that has been adopted by legal process._ Not just_ make stuff up_.

If a city street's speed limit is 35, the local cops can't give you a ticket for doing 30 because they think the speed limit should be 25.


----------



## Speedy Petey

shannonm1 said:


> Around here, inspectors will fail you for having more than 1/4" - 1/2" jacket in the box.


This is just SAD!




shannonm1 said:


> I do agree! But in the NEC book,summarized, it does cite that local jurisdiction does have final say..


Too many inspectors take this as they can just ask for whatever they want. Too many contractors and DIYers simply bow to this, which just perpetuates the problem.

Far as I know PA is almost parallel to NY as far as codes go. My guess is that you have a bunch of inspectors that have been allowed to get what they want without anyone questioning them.


----------



## shannonm1

Very true. I'm in south central pa, but most if the work we do is in md. Mostly around baltimore. The inspectors around there are extremely picky and strict. Once we even had an inspector going through a job measuring the distance between every support!


----------



## 3xdad

Other problems?

.carlon- ET no no.
.12/2 circuit- ET no no.
.weird pigtailing
.old school twist on the grounds
.damaged insulation on white
.general garbage work


----------



## 360max

480sparky said:


> "Final say" means they can _enforce a rule that has been adopted by legal process._ Not just_ make stuff up_.
> 
> If a city street's speed limit is 35, the local cops can't give you a ticket for doing 30 because they think the speed limit should be 25.


...I would also add that any local amendments have to be in writing. So when the inspector says that it is a local code or thats how we like things done around here,* it has to be an accepted change that was made by the AHJ and it has to be in writing prior to inspection, and available for public to view.*


----------



## Big John

shannonm1 said:


> ...The inspectors around there are *apparently total idiots*. Once we even had an inspector going through a job measuring the distance between every support!


 Yeah, I fixed your quote. The day you get a guy measuring the distance between supports, you know the number of feet on his tape measure is higher than his IQ.

-John


----------



## 480sparky

360max said:


> ...........So when the inspector says .......thats how we like things done around here,* ...........*


I would interrupt him at this point and say, "I'd like to spend the weekend with insert favorite hot female Hollywood star here........ can you make that happen too?"


----------



## shannonm1

Lol! I could go on for hours about the inspectors.. but if we don't make them happy, they make us miserable.


----------



## TOOL_5150

shannonm1 said:


> Around here, inspectors will fail you for having more than 1/4" - 1/2" jacket in the box.


and you let them fail you? hahaha


----------



## shannonm1

Nope, I haven't failed an inspection yet. I do mostly commercial, but some residential and industrial. If anything seems to be in a gray area, I ask the inspector what he wants to see.


----------



## 480sparky

shannonm1 said:


> Lol! I could go on for hours about the inspectors.. but if we don't make them happy, they make us miserable.


Must suck to be so submissive.


----------



## shannonm1

Not really.. gotta keep the boss happy.


----------



## 480sparky

If your boss doesn't have a pair, then demand a raise. :whistling2:


----------



## B4T

shannonm1 said:


> Not really.. gotta keep the boss happy.


Don't listen to him... sometimes the "elevator" doesn't reach the top floor.. :laughing:


----------



## ponyboy

480sparky said:


> Must suck to be so submissive.


great post. are your cats submissive? i bet not


----------



## Nebelectrician

I think Shannon referring to NEC 314.17 C for the length of jacket in box, does only set a min no max for length


----------



## 480sparky

ponyboy said:


> great post. are your cats submissive? i bet not


Great post. Are they all so useless?


----------



## frenchelectrican

480.,

Did you snag a other farmer's special again ??

That is pretty nutty they do that.

I bet they did hook that up without turning the circuit off :blink: 

Merci,
Marc


----------



## RePhase277

I have heard the 1/4" rule quoted backwards for years. It is one of those code myths that gets passed down and no one bothers to check it.


----------



## Chris1971

This thread is educational.


----------



## Magnettica

B4T said:


> All that packed in a Carlon blue box.. the myth lives on.. :thumbup::thumbup:



It sure does! :whistling2:


----------



## pudge565

480sparky said:


> "Final say" means they can _enforce a rule that has been adopted by legal process._ Not just_ make stuff up_.
> 
> If a city street's speed limit is 35, the local cops can't give you a ticket for doing 30 because they think the speed limit should be 25.


Actually they technically can, at least in PA anyway.



PA MVC said:


> § 3364. Minimum speed regulation.
> (a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.


----------



## 480sparky

pudge565 said:


> Actually they technically can, at least in PA anyway.



Um, that's _not _what it says. In fact, it says the _exact opposite_.


----------



## pudge565

480sparky said:


> Um, that's not what it says. In fact, it says the exact opposite.


Ah but in your instance he could claim you were going too slow creating a hazard there is anther section he could use as well that I will post when back on my laptop.


----------



## 480sparky

pudge565 said:


> Ah but in your instance he could claim you were going too slow creating a hazard there is anther section he could use as well that I will post when back on my laptop.


"Going too slow and creating a hazard" just isn't anywhere _near_ "I think the speed limit should be 25 instead of 35". They're not even in the same _galaxy_.


----------



## pudge565

480sparky said:


> "Going too slow and creating a hazard" just isn't anywhere _near_ "I think the speed limit should be 25 instead of 35". They're not even in the same _galaxy_.


That has no bearing on him being able to claim that that is the reason he decided to ticket you.


----------



## 3xdad

..frigg'n cops.


----------



## Spirit Crusher

I was in a house last week, they used hockey tape instead of marettes. Canada, eh?


----------



## btharmy

shannonm1 said:


> Once we even had an inspector going through a job measuring the distance between every support!


Like this "violation". The support (bx4m snapped into factory hole in steel stud) was 12 1/8" away from the box. He measured every single one on the job until he found this one and made me "correct the violation". I guess I should be proud he had to try so hard to find something to complain about.


----------



## Rollie73

I know an inspector who just might be eating a measuring tape for lunch.:laughing:


----------



## ce2two

backstay said:


> As long as you have enough free conductor, jacket length is only a minimum requirement.


The lady expects min. 6 inchs so does the inspector and 1/4 inch sheath in the box..


----------



## Novel Solutions

@480sparky

A very interesting post. I think it would be neat to have a weekly puzzle of "Spot the violations".

I cannot quote the various NEC regs, because some a-hole stole my NEC handbook, but I will tell you what I see. Please note that the pictures are pretty good, but several more would have been nice.


As previously mentioned, too much jacket in the box.
It appears that a neutral has slipped out of the wire nut.
In photos 3 and 4, referring to the top hot, the wire loop appears to have the wrong direction of rotation.
In photo 2, the top neutral appears to have more than one complete wrap around the screw.
In photos 3 and 4, referring to the top hot, unless you loosened that screw, it has not been properly tightened.
The receptacle is being used as a splicing device.
The electric box is filled with debris.
Too much wire exposed at the screw terminals.
Bruce 
EDIT: And the work has not been performed in a workman like manner.


----------



## 480sparky

Novel Solutions said:


> .......
> 
> 
> As previously mentioned, too much jacket in the box.
> It appears that a neutral has slipped out of the wire nut.
> In photos 3 and 4, referring to the top hot, the wire loop appears to have the wrong direction of rotation.
> In photo 2, the top neutral appears to have more than one complete wrap around the screw.
> In photos 3 and 4, referring to the top hot, unless you loosened that screw, it has not been properly tightened.
> The receptacle is being used as a splicing device.
> The electric box is filled with debris.
> Too much wire exposed at the screw terminals.
> Bruce
> EDIT: And the work has not been performed in a workman like manner.


When you get to your Codebook, look up the violations. Then list the Articles and Sections here.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Seriously you jest, if not, then you do not know your code book very well.

EDIT: I see you changed your post.


----------



## 480sparky

Novel Solutions said:


> Seriously you jest, if not, then you do not know your code book very well.
> 
> EDIT: I see you changed your post.



Then provide us with the Code violations you claim. Code sections and articles, please... not just a list of 'violations'. Back 'em up.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Please replace the post you removed, so everyone can see the lunacy


----------



## 480sparky

Novel Solutions said:


> Please replace the post you removed, so everyone can see the lunacy



Something to the effect of "all but #2 are not violations."

Now prove me wrong.


----------



## Novel Solutions

> Something to the effect of "all but #2 are not violations."
> 
> Now prove me wrong.


Okay


----------



## Novel Solutions

Just so you know, your comment shows that you are unqualified.


----------



## Wirenuting

It's a violation of article 110.12

Since I am the first to answer correctly do I get 5 extra thanks for my button?


----------



## 480sparky

Novel Solutions said:


> Just so you know, your comment shows that you are unqualified.



Huh? By asking for Code refences means I'm 'unqualified'?

How about Code references for your list?


----------



## Wirenuting

480sparky said:


> Huh?


Is that a formal "Huh" with a rising pitch?
Or an informal "Huh" with a decreasing pitch?


----------



## Novel Solutions

> Huh? By asking for Code refences means I'm 'unqualified'?
> 
> How about Code references for your list?


No, but saying that #2 in my list is the only violation, shows you're are unqualified.

As mentioned in my first post of this thread, someone stole my handbook and I must wait for the library to open.

Bruce

EDIT: I said that wrong... It should read:

No, but saying that #2 in my list is the only non-violation, shows you're are unqualified.


----------



## Novel Solutions

I imagine the hardest regulations to locate will be items 1 & 6 of my list.


----------



## 480sparky

Novel Solutions said:


> No, but saying that #2 in my list is the only violation, shows you're are unqualified.......



Try reading. I said "all but #2 are *not* violations."

This means I don't think you will find a Code violation for 1, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 8.


----------



## Novel Solutions

> Try reading. I said "all but #2 are *not* violations."
> 
> This means I don't think you will find a Code violation for 1, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 8.


I agree that is what you meant.


----------



## Novel Solutions

> This means I don't think you will find a Code violation for 1, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 8.


And once again, I say, surely you jest.

And don't forget my EDIT of that post which is an extra violation



> EDIT: And the work has not been performed in a workman like manner.


----------



## Novel Solutions

@480sparky

I realize that you were probably getting impatient waiting for answer, so I came back to respond.

Considering that yesterday was the first time that I ever looked at the 2011 NEC and that the NEC has changed quite a bit since I last seriously studied it, it took me a while to find information and formulate a partial response. I am providing a partial response, because I am still looking for some items.

Please note that in previous versions of the NEC, the regulations of violations that I mentioned were better defined.


I am still looking for a good answer to this one and I could be wrong about a specific regulation. However, if I were inspecting this job and I found numerous boxes with excess NMC sheathing, at the bare minimum, I would cite 110.12. Excess sheathing takes up box fill space and it makes the device more difficult to work on if a repair becomes necessary. However, I will look for more specific information pertaining to this item.
110.14(B)
This item could be covered under a couple different regulations, which are 110.3(B), 110.14(A), and 110.12. The best application would be 110.3(B). Any instructions I have ever seen pertaining to terminating wires underneath the screws of a device, instruct you to wrap the wire clockwise. If necessary, I can include a link to a leviton video, in which they instruct to wrap the wires clockwise.
This item could be covered under a couple different regulations, which are 110.3(B), 110.14(A), and 110.12. The best application would be 110.3(B). Any instructions I have ever seen pertaining to terminating wires underneath the screws of a device, instruct you to wrap the wire approximately 75% around the diameter of the screw, additionally, most devices include a wire stripping guage, whose length would not permit multiple wraps.
This item could be covered under a couple different regulations, which are 110.3(B), 110.14(A), and 110.12. The best application would be 110.14(A)
For this particular item, I could be wrong or I could be right. From the photos, this does not appear to be a multi-wire branch circuit, but it could be. If it was established that it was a multi-wire branch circuit, I would cite 300.13(B).
For this item I would cite either 110.12 or 110.12(B).
I am still looking for the most applicable code violation, but since I am currently lacking it, I will cite 110.3(B). Any instructions I have ever seen pertaining to terminating wires underneath the screws of a device, instruct you to wrap the wire approximately 75% around the diameter of the screw, additionally, most devices include a wire stripping guage. By using the provided wire stripping guage and wrapping 75% of the diameter of the screw, that excess bare copper would not exist.
AND MY EDIT 110.12

For the most part, me and the electrician of that work would have serious issues.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Additionally, from the photos, it appears that two of the neutrals have nicks in the insulation and bare copper is exposed. You can look that one up yourself


----------



## Jlarson

Novel Solutions said:


> 110.12


:laughing:

I'd tell you to take your ball and go home. That's a BS call.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Oh yea, and why is it BS? It is all accurate.


----------



## Novel Solutions

And from your comment, I would imagine that type of work flies in your neck of the woods.


----------



## 480sparky

According to the NEC Style Manual, "Neat" and "Workmanlike" may not be enforceable terms.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Okay, lets assume that is the case.

So then Item 1 is shot down the tubes
And lets's say Item 6 is not a multi-wire branch circuit, since that is a stretch, because I cannot verify one way or the other.

For item 7, I would then apply 110.12(B)
And the rest still remain


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## Novel Solutions

I figured I would be wasting my time. People that perform or permit sub-standard work, should not be allowed to practice the trade, because a life may be at risk. In my twenty years, I have seen a lot of sloppy work, fired sloppy workers, and have had to repair other peoples dangerous work. I do not have a tolerance for poor craftsmanship.


----------



## 480sparky

Seriously... if that's all you got, you wouldn't last long as an inspector.

Sloppy? Yes. But far from the Titanic you tried to make it out to be.


----------



## Novel Solutions

LOL You wouldn't last long in my area, because red tags are handed out like candy. In my early years, I have received a red tag for every item listed.

When I got a red tag several years ago for a little drywall dust in the bottom of the panel, it blew my mind. There was more debris in that Carlon box.


----------



## Novel Solutions

Furthermore, Las Vegas is also pretty darn strict, but when you perform work at the airport, they are really strict.


----------



## guest

Where's my popcorn eating smilie when I need it? :whistling2:

I always love it when a noob comes on here with his chest out and balls clicking together and challenges a member with more experience than most of us combined. :laughing: You show that kind of attitude to the EC's I've worked with in So Cal neither you or your car would ever be seen again. :whistling2: I know first hand of two jurisdictions where inspectors with that attitude lost their jobs in short order. 

As for the issues in the pics, Sloppy work but the only real ENFORCABLE Code violation would be the improper installation of the conductors on the screw terminals not in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread program....


----------



## Novel Solutions

I would have to disagree.

The topic included AKA Spot The Violations

I pointed out valid points and if you guys want to ignore them, then I guess you have that right.

I am going to ask Mike Holt to visit this thread. I don't know if he will or not, but I am going to ask.


----------



## HawkShock

Novel Solutions said:


> I would have to disagree.
> 
> The topic included AKA Spot The Violations
> 
> I pointed out valid points and if you guys want to ignore them, then I guess you have that right.
> 
> I am going to ask Mike Holt to visit this thread. I don't know if he will or not, but I am going to ask.


I'm gonna ask President Obama to visit. I don't know if he will or not, but if we are dropping names I'll go all out.


----------



## aftershockews

480sparky said:


> Added a couple receps to this circuit. Removed the existing recep to tie on to and found out that using a screwdriver and linesmans is optional!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other problems can you spot?


Box fill?


----------



## 3xdad

To Mike Holt and President Obama...

"Hey guys, how's it going? Wat'cha been up to lately?


----------

