25C-084 (8) After discussing the complete installation with Mr.Portelada, I said that I would not
pass the installation due to the fact that our department had not seen or inspected any of
the below grade installations. I am the only on site inspector of record, and the only
contact I knew of before was with George Fournier, Electrical Inspector about filing
procedures, for a permit to be filed and the inspection process.
I was informed at that day of the requested final inspection that an engineer
contracted by the State of Massachusetts,had approved all the underground installations
and allowed the final burial and grading to be done. I managed to find some one
representing the engineering firm named Steve Girard. He assured me that he inspects
state contracts all the time and knew nothing of a need of our department to inspect all
installations. I proceeded to inform him of the fact that at any location in the Municipality
of Northampton, all electrical installations are to be inspected and approved by our
department. This was substantiated by my call to Richard Fredette, acting Executive
Director of the Board of State Examiners of Electricians in Boston.
I notified him at this point in time, that we would accept a written letter from his
department that all work was installed according to minimum requirements according to
the NEC and all appropriate Mass amendments
E) March 20, 2002 this office received a letter, dated 3/13/2002, documenting their
installation with attachments of the site drawing and a specification sheet. Richard
made a call to the Portelada office and left a message citing a need for the
engineer's statement of inspections and also a final on site inspection to visually
verify depths of conduits with opening manholes.
F) March 25, 2002, a letter from Mass highway Department, from the District
Highway Director, Mr. John Hoey, stated, "the work was inspected and
approved by MassHighway's Resident Engineer for conformance to these
standards" (referring to the contract, etc).
G) A final inspection was performed with the electrical contractor present Friday
March 29, 2002. . I passed the work after looking in a manhole on a pole and
interior of an in-ground manhole. Richard Adams called in the service approval to
Mass Electric the same day. Mr. Portelada was very upset about this procedure at
the time of re-inspection and felt that this whole procedure was unfair considering
that when he was installing underground conduits,the bulldozers and"State
Approved Inspector"were pressuring him to continue, assuring him that they had
the authority.
Sincerely,
Richard A Adams
Electrical Inspector
Grit� of Xort4anipton
kC,
C,
ARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
INSPEC M
APR 4 02 i!� i Main Street • Municipal Building 14_��T
NorthvnPton,MA 01060
40-whomes-May-ean April 03, 2002
Subject: Bridge St. Park and Ride Lot Lighting and Service at Shelden Field
Reporting Inspector of Wires
Richard A Adams
A) In the fall of 2001, Portelada Electric contacted this office and spoke with George
Fournier about the requirements of Permit filing and procedures. George informed
Mr. Portelada that an Application for a Permit to Perform Electrical work was
required to be filed and that a fee was waved due to the fact that the installation is
on"City property". George was very clear that all normal inspections would be
required.
B) Work begins in the fall of 2001 and no permit is filed. (It was pointed out that an
attempt to fax a form to us was done by the electrical contractor, even though we
were never contacted to verify the receipt.)
Q February 13, 2002, this office receives a permit application by Portelada Electric
with a request for a final inspection.
D) February 15, 2002, an onsite inspection is performed at the location, meeting with
the General Contractor, A. Pereira's Representative and David Portelada,
representing Portelada Electric.
1. The Service,rated 100 amperes, was complete with a ground rod driven,on a
pedestal. Typical USE/URD conductors were apparent.
2. Four lampposts on concrete bases were installed. Pipes supposedly entering
stubbing into the concrete bases. Proper type conductors rated for wet locations in
the pipes installed.
3. Two pull boxes (man-holes) were installed in the ground. Pipes entering and
exiting these boxes were supposedly installed at a minimum 30" depth, and was
conforming to required burial depths.
4. A riser was at the utility company pole awaiting final hookup. This service rated
cable was installed in PVC pipe from under the service pedestal and sweeping to
the pole. Alleged burial depths were minimal 30" as required and supposedly
warning tape was installed at the usual burial depth 12" below finish grade. All I
saw was what could be seen at the finish above grade.