Wire pulled before roof dried in

[tmoore@klent.net]

On a commercial freezer under construction, I allowed our crews to begin rough-in and pull wire before a roof was installed and the City of Arlington Texas instructed us to remove everything due to NEC code violation. Since it is a freezer, specifications call for raintight fittings and boxes and was installed as such and since it is raintight we pulled all wire, made joints. I do not know of any such violation, can anyone direct me on this? What I originally told the owner of the facility was this is no different than an exterior conduit system with thwn wire, what's the problem?

 

[infinity]

So like a far reaching inspector to me. What code section did the inspector cite as the "NEC code violation"?

 

[tmoore@klent.net]

So like a far reaching inspector to me. What code section did the inspector cite as the "NEC code violation"?

She would not say, asked her directly or to quote any city ordinance.

 

[ceb58]

What was the violation? They must provide code reference. As long as the wire had the W designator like you said it is no different than an outdoor installation

 

[roger]

Sounds like she shouldn't be inspecting before getting some code classes. Point her to the definition of "Location Dry" in article 100 if it's moisture she's worried about.

Roger

 

[LarryFine]

She would not say, asked her directly or to quote any city ordinance.

I would politely decline, and speak to her supervisor.

 

[Fred B]

Dont remove without validation, Ask for specific code section she sees as a violation explaining that you need to know so you don't make a similar violation in future. (Its kind of sucking up, but). And if she still refuses there is likely no violation and @LarryFine suggestion sounds good.
Additionally you might preemptively find justification for your installation as you've done it, quoting codes that allow your installation as it stands. I've done that in the past and when AHJ tried to say such and such can't be done and I simply asked "what about this code section that appears to validate the installation", he did not admit being wrong but said "well if you did it that way I'll let it go". That inspector hasn't tried to pull one over since, he will now substantiate any comment with specific code reference.

 

[infinity]

I think that this is about as close as the inspector will get as far a code section that may be violated. IMO this doesn't apply to the OP.

110.11 Deteriorating Agents. Unless identified for use in the operating environment, no conductors or equipment shall be
located in damp or wet locations; where exposed to gases, fumes, vapors, liquids, or other agents that have a deteriorating
effect on the conductors or equipment; or where exposed to excessive temperatures.
Informational Note No. 1: See 300.6 for protection against corrosion.
Informational Note No. 2: Some cleaning and lubricating compounds can cause severe deterioration of many plastic materials used for insulating and structural applications in equipment.
Equipment not identified for outdoor use and equipment identified only for indoor use, such as “dry locations,” “indoor use only,” “damp locations,” or enclosure Types 1, 2, 5, 12, 12K, and/or 13, shall be protected against damage from the weather during construction.