InterNACHI


Go Back   InterNACHI Inspection Forum > Specific Inspection Topics > Electrical Inspections

Notices

Electrical Inspections Contains discussions about electrical systems. This includes receptacles, panels, wiring, etc.

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 8/25/07, 10:49 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell
Marc The ENT terminated in a plastic box that totally enclosed the device. There was nothing to bond.
Good to go, then. I just noticed it, is all. Could be right or could be wrong. In your case, it's a-o-k. Groovy.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 8/25/07, 10:58 PM
Richard L. Bennett Richard L. Bennett is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Frostproof, Fl
Posts: 2,304
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Greg -Marc

Thanks for the knowledge

I would also say on a + side "good eng. practices were used"

rlb
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 8/25/07, 11:11 PM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

There is one slam dunk violation there and one questionable thing but nobody has come up with them yet here. "Iwire" (Bob Badger) picked up one over on ECN but it wasn't the slam dunk violation (although somewhat pedantic).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 8/25/07, 11:31 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell
There is one slam dunk violation there and one questionable thing but nobody has come up with them yet here. "Iwire" (Bob Badger) picked up one over on ECN but it wasn't the slam dunk violation (although somewhat pedantic).
Got a link to a better pic? Wasn't really looking at it for other violations, but I do notice that jam packed ENT on the left and the missing second mounting screw on the PK_GTA ground bar. Looks like a bunch of various sized NM cables through one big connector near the left too.

Last edited by Marc D. Shunk; 8/25/07 at 11:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 8/26/07, 12:00 AM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

The ENT is within the "fill" rule but you are on it. (solid #8 EGC 310.3 violation). This has been in there for 15 years and it was not worth pulling it out to fix it.

The ground bars only have one mounting hole in the tubs but they have 2 raised nubs to stabilize it. I do have them jumpered to the bar with the GEC but I always like to do that.

This was where I ended up at 9PM thursday night after installing the new panel. My wife said wrap it up and get the AC running again. I am going back and clean up a few things next week.
BTW The other one is the 2 big Romexes coming through the big connector in the upper left. I don't have "the box" (per the white book) but I bet it didn't say "1 or 2 cables". That was like that when I got here too. I need a 3/4" KO punch for that one and I didn't have one handy.
I also have a low voltage/audio/video cludge next to this panel that needs some attention.
I really should have taken a "before" picture but it might have made the NACHI hall of fame.
This was a real clusterf*k when I bought the house and I patched and put bandaids on it for years. It was "hold your nose" legal/safe but really ugly. I finally decided it needed fixing for real.
I guess you guys here gave me a guilty conscience.
We are doing a remodel down at the other end of the house and I did want some breathing room in my panel. The one I replaced was the 100a shortie SqD that had several piggy back breakers in it that it was not rated for (don't ask). Now I have plenty of slots and a little easier place to work.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Reference for Wood Shake Roof krichardson Exterior Inspections 5 1/17/06 6:59 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 5:52 AM.


Popular Sections

:

All Sections

Inspection News

InterNACHI Membership

Inspection Standards

Inspection Education

InterNACHI Inspectors

Inspection Links

 

 

 

NACHI.ORG Statistics

 

 

no new posts