backfill 300-5 F

[don_resqcapt19]

How much feedback do you want?

Sounds like another contractor who just wants to complain to me! :rant:

And it sounds like an over reaching inspector to me.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

How much feedback do you want?

Sounds like another contractor who just wants to complain to me! :rant:

And it sounds like an over reaching inspector to me.

Don there is not enough info for you to jump to that conclusion.

We have limited info from the OP.

I think many questions here are asked without ever asking the AHJ why he 'asked' for something.

Maybe there is a lot of bentonite in the soil and the sand helps drain the water away.

Fastest thing I could find:
http://canadianclay.com/sealant.htm

 

[iceworm]

I'm wondering if it isn't a third party inspector hired by the owner and the fill is in the specs.

ice

 

[Little Bill]

How much feedback do you want?

Sounds like another contractor who just wants to complain to me! :rant:

And it sounds like an over reaching inspector to me.

Don there is not enough info for you to jump to that conclusion.

We have limited info from the OP.

I don't have an opinion on the OP's question without knowing more about the conditions.

But as an onlooker, I think if Don jumped to a conclusion, you certainly did as well with your comment. Especially since you admitted the info was limited from the OP.

Just my observation!

 

[kwired]

Don there is not enough info for you to jump to that conclusion.

We have limited info from the OP.

I think many questions here are asked without ever asking the AHJ why he 'asked' for something.

Maybe there is a lot of bentonite in the soil and the sand helps drain the water away.

Fastest thing I could find:
http://canadianclay.com/sealant.htm

AHJ is not participating in this thread as far as we know, though it is often true that people ask here before asking their inspectors such questions, the reasons why may not be all that simple though.

If there is bentonite in the soil just where is the water going to go once the depth of the sand is filled, and underground wiring methods are supposed to be rated for wet locations anyway so it still doesn't matter if it drains away or not.

I don't have an opinion on the OP's question without knowing more about the conditions.

But as an onlooker, I think if Don jumped to a conclusion, you certainly did as well with your comment. Especially since you admitted the info was limited from the OP.

Just my observation!

I have to agree with you here.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

Seeing this on post #5 just rubbed me wrong. Hence my comments.

So I will apologize for my sarcastic remark.

 

[kwired]

Seeing this on post #5 just rubbed me wrong. Hence my comments.

So I will apologize for my sarcastic remark.

I saw it as no more than a post to bump the thread back to the top of search requests and not so much of a complaint.

 

[petersonra]

I do not see anything in the code that would prohibit what the contractor did. Therefore, I see no reason an inspector for the AHJ has any legitimate reason to reject it.

There was a statement made by a poster that said the AHJ "could" be an individual. While from the NEC perspective that is possible, it is not possible in a legal sense. There is no state in the union that would allow an individual to be appointed as an AHJ. It would have to be a legal entity either created for the purpose of enforcing the NEC or assigned to an existing legal entity (such as a department, board, or commission) to act as the AHJ.

All states also require some form of administrative review for decisions made by employees or agents of an AHJ, as well as providing for some form of judicial review of those decisions if the administrative review is not acceptable to the complainant.

 

[kwired]

I do not see anything in the code that would prohibit what the contractor did. Therefore, I see no reason an inspector for the AHJ has any legitimate reason to reject it.

There was a statement made by a poster that said the AHJ "could" be an individual. While from the NEC perspective that is possible, it is not possible in a legal sense. There is no state in the union that would allow an individual to be appointed as an AHJ. It would have to be a legal entity either created for the purpose of enforcing the NEC or assigned to an existing legal entity (such as a department, board, or commission) to act as the AHJ.

All states also require some form of administrative review for decisions made by employees or agents of an AHJ, as well as providing for some form of judicial review of those decisions if the administrative review is not acceptable to the complainant.

That kind of clears up some of what I was trying to say earlier. Yes from an NEC perspective there can be an individual that is the AHJ, but that may very well be the designer, the owner, or just about anyone with some kind of authority to decide some things, but from a legal entity AHJ (the AHJ who exists to create common laws for everyone in the jurisdiction) what you said is exactly what happens, and if it doesn't, somebody effected does have a legitimate case for lawsuit against said AHJ, or organization not in compliance.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I do not see anything in the code that would prohibit what the contractor did. Therefore, I see no reason an inspector for the AHJ has any legitimate reason to reject it.

The inspector did not reject anything from what the OP said.

Unless the OP tells us why the inspector 'suggested, recommended or plain required it' we will never known.

My reference was to explain why it is required at times.

 

[kwired]

The inspector did not reject anything from what the OP said.

Unless the OP tells us why the inspector 'suggested, recommended or plain required it' we will never known.

My reference was to explain why it is required at times.

Inspector did not reject anything, yet, but sounds as though he is requesting sand fill and may reject it if that is not done. If OP told us why inspector is requesting it, this conversation is likely pointless unless the inspector has no good justification for doing so.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Inspector did not reject anything, yet, but sounds as though he is requesting sand fill and may reject it if that is not done. If OP told us why inspector is requesting it, this conversation is likely pointless unless the inspector has no good justification for doing so.

Yep.

 

[mwm1752]

That kind of clears up some of what I was trying to say earlier. Yes from an NEC perspective there can be an individual that is the AHJ, but that may very well be the designer, the owner, or just about anyone with some kind of authority to decide some things, but from a legal entity AHJ (the AHJ who exists to create common laws for everyone in the jurisdiction) what you said is exactly what happens, and if it doesn't, somebody effected does have a legitimate case for lawsuit against said AHJ, or organization not in compliance.

While I agree the AHJ is the defined as the final decision maker of the entity ( that would be in fact the Mayor in most townships). There was a case in the county in which individual inspectors were charged with "negligence" per decisions made in the field. So I wonder, since they are only a representation of the AHJ with limited power. Should not the entity be responsible for it's employee? The decisions made in the field were not out of the ordinary and were never proven to be so but the fact an inspector is abled to be charged is is a bit unnerving. In what I'm reading in the post"s the inspector is only a pawn in this game and his decisions in the field are the responsibility of the entity. Not true in real life.

 

[kwired]

While I agree the AHJ is the defined as the final decision maker of the entity ( that would be in fact the Mayor in most townships). There was a case in the county in which individual inspectors were charged with "negligence" per decisions made in the field. So I wonder, since they are only a representation of the AHJ with limited power. Should not the entity be responsible for it's employee? The decisions made in the field were not out of the ordinary and were never proven to be so but the fact an inspector is abled to be charged is is a bit unnerving. In what I'm reading in the post"s the inspector is only a pawn in this game and his decisions in the field are the responsibility of the entity. Not true in real life.

Well that is where the court system can decide in situations like you describe. The smaller the governing entity the more likely this kind of thing becomes common it seems. But an inspector that is doing things right in that kind of situation has the advantage, all he has to do is bring in testimony from other professionals that will support his side of the case, and those that employ him that don't really know anything about electrical otherwise are likely going to lose their case. Chances are they don't like a decision that was made based on technicalities they don't understand, and are calling that negligence. Now if the inspector is not doing things the right way by the standards of other professionals then he may have a tough battle in front of him if he decides to take things to court.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don there is not enough info for you to jump to that conclusion.

We have limited info from the OP.

I think many questions here are asked without ever asking the AHJ why he 'asked' for something.

Maybe there is a lot of bentonite in the soil and the sand helps drain the water away.

Fastest thing I could find:
http://canadianclay.com/sealant.htm

There is for me...I see no need for any special backfill if a raceway is being used, however it may require screening to prevent large rocks from damaging the raceway when the trench is being backfilled.
Where is there a requirement to drain the water away from an underground raceway?

 

[petersonra]

While I agree the AHJ is the defined as the final decision maker of the entity ( that would be in fact the Mayor in most townships). There was a case in the county in which individual inspectors were charged with "negligence" per decisions made in the field. So I wonder, since they are only a representation of the AHJ with limited power. Should not the entity be responsible for it's employee? The decisions made in the field were not out of the ordinary and were never proven to be so but the fact an inspector is abled to be charged is is a bit unnerving. In what I'm reading in the post"s the inspector is only a pawn in this game and his decisions in the field are the responsibility of the entity. Not true in real life.

The AHJ is not the final decision maker in any state I am aware of. You are still entitled to judicial review.

A lot depends on just what the inspector may have done, and what you mean by "charged". Anyone who engages in criminally negligent behavior is still a criminal, even government employees.

Not everything that he or she might have done is the responsibility of the employer, although it often is.

Usually, a government employee found merely negligent is still negligent but is not liable personally for damages. At least some states do not allow a government entity to pay punitive damages on behalf of an employee who is sued.

They well could be found negligent (and maybe should be) for making decisions outside of their actual authority.

 

[renosteinke]

You don't say what the trench is for, or where it is located - and that might affect what standards are applied.

For example, the PoCo will likely have far more specific requirements than the NEC. My PoCo requires a specific (non-compressing grey colored sand made of decomposed granite) sand be used under and over lines, as well as specific warning tapes at specific depths.

Likewise, it has been typical for the local AHJ to require a 'trench inspection' before you fill anything in. That 'inspection' will likely be more detailed if the trench is across a parking lot, rather than across a flower garden.

Look at it this way: How many times do you want to have to dig that trench? The surest way to require a re-dig is to allow something to damage the cable. A bit of sand around the cable is a cheap protection against sharp objects (like stones) damaging the cable as you backfill.

 

[mwm1752]

The AHJ is not the final decision maker in any state I am aware of. You are still entitled to judicial review.

A lot depends on just what the inspector may have done, and what you mean by "charged". Anyone who engages in criminally negligent behavior is still a criminal, even government employees.

Not everything that he or she might have done is the responsibility of the employer, although it often is.

Usually, a government employee found merely negligent is still negligent but is not liable personally for damages. At least some states do not allow a government entity to pay punitive damages on behalf of an employee who is sued.

They well could be found negligent (and maybe should be) for making decisions outside of their actual authority.

Charged -- lawyers were retained - 2 years of proceedings - some individuals lost their homes -- only for the case to be dismissed -- Have you never had an inspection? making decisions is part of the gig and within the scope of authority -- "Anyone who engages in criminally negligent behavior is still a criminal" Really? inspections are not criminal behavior -- I saw what happened and is nothing I would wish on anyone

 

[petersonra]

Charged -- lawyers were retained - 2 years of proceedings - some individuals lost their homes -- only for the case to be dismissed -- Have you never had an inspection? making decisions is part of the gig and within the scope of authority -- "Anyone who engages in criminally negligent behavior is still a criminal" Really? inspections are not criminal behavior -- I saw what happened and is nothing I would wish on anyone

If individuals were "charged", as in criminally charged, their employer has no standing regardless of the employer being a government entity.

It is hard to comment on the specifics of a case w/o knowing anything about the case.

I agree that normal inspection work is no more criminal than any other normal work, but it seems unlikely that they were charged criminally for doing their normal work in a legally authorized and appropriate way. Perhaps a link to a newspaper account is in order if you really want a comment on it.

To be blunt, inspectors generally have no actual authority whatsoever to decide anything beyond determining whether the minimum requirements of whatever applicable code(s) they are inspecting to were met. That is the full extent of their decision making authority.

 

[GoldDigger]

To be blunt, inspectors generally have no actual authority whatsoever to decide anything beyond determining whether the minimum requirements of whatever applicable code(s) they are inspecting to were met. That is the full extent of their decision making authority.

Under parts of the Code, AHJs are given the latitude to make exceptions if, in their judgement, the situation is equally safe.
Not sure just where in that decision making process the individual inspector stands, and I would expect it to vary from one AHJ to another.
Not every provision of the NEC is black and white, although it would be easier for the inspector if it were.