Inspectors rant again

[iwire]

I thought about it after someone brought it up. We didn't originally because they were only required in the bed rooms and since you could wire the house anyway you wanted who knew what was on those circuits. I also haven't made them do it yet on service changes since most of the AFCI's would have to be two poles, but I could see that coming.




I think I may see where we are having an issue. I'm not making them change any down stream wiring as around here all of our main panels are all-in-ones. If they change out the main panel and it only has a main and a breaker for a sub panel, I don't make them do anything to the sub. Does that make sense?

No comment about using a branch circuit citation when no branch circuits have been installed?

How about TR outlets at the other end of these circuits?


I just don't see it as black and white as you do.

 

[cowboyjwc]

No comment about using a branch circuit citation when no branch circuits have been installed?

How about TR outlets at the other end of these circuits?


I just don't see it as black and white as you do.

Guess because I don't see anything that says "new" or an exception that says "existing".

If they replace it, yes.

That's because I'm a black and white kind of guy.:happyyes:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Guess because I don't see anything that says "new" or an exception that says "existing".

If they replace it, yes.

That's because I'm a black and white kind of guy.:happyyes:

I think if you look at the intent of the afci and the proposals and what they accepted you would see that a panel change was not a reason for afci. In that light I would say the same for multiwire branch circuit. Of course the latter is cheaper and not a big deal.

If this is the direction the department wants to go then IMO a re-inspection fee should not be charged unless the contractors have already been told or if emails have gone out to all the contractors reminding them of such a requirement on change outs. It will take a while for all to get used to it but they will.

For myself who does not ever use multiwire branch circuit I can see accidentally overlooking this on a change out.

 

[iwire]

Guess because I don't see anything that says "new" or an exception that says "existing".

I did not say anything about new or existing.

I am pointing out that no branch circuits where installed and you are citing a branch circuit requirement. I think that is at best borderline.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I think if you look at the intent of the afci and the proposals and what they accepted you would see that a panel change was not a reason for afci. In that light I would say the same for multiwire branch circuit. Of course the latter is cheaper and not a big deal.

If this is the direction the department wants to go then IMO a re-inspection fee should not be charged unless the contractors have already been told or if emails have gone out to all the contractors reminding them of such a requirement on change outs. It will take a while for all to get used to it but they will.

For myself who does not ever use multiwire branch circuit I can see accidentally overlooking this on a change out.

LOL, we don't even charge a penilty fee for working without a permit anymore.:happyno:

 

[cowboyjwc]

I did not say anything about new or existing.

I am pointing out that no branch circuits where installed and you are citing a branch circuit requirement. I think that is at best borderline.

Remember what they, "if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes."

 

[ptonsparky]

LOL, we don't even charge a penilty fee for working without a permit anymore.:happyno:

Probably costs more in required paper work than any penalty.

 

[jumper]

.... I still have not touched an arc fault breaker.

Slacker, I have installed two already,.............. since the the time the 1999 IRC/NEC required them.........

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I have had my hands on an afci receptacle and most manufacturers won't have them till May. Levioton already has them but most places don't stock them yet.

 

[svemike]

SAME REASON

SAME REASON

Same reason EC's connect both 3-wire circuit hot leads to the same pole in quad breakers sharing 1 neutral. No clue. Comment on CA and down the road adoption of codes: Here we are in 2013, and still using 2008 NEC. Lazy bureaucrats too busy collecting campaign contributions. (legalized bribery). State Licenses are no guarantee of competence.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I think this may be a regional thing.

The way it is enforced for me; a panel change only changes the panel. The wires land right back on the same slots, or the same relative position. Any new circuits get handle ties. Existing circuits don't.

So what code are you supposed to use on the upgrade?
The year the house was built?
The year a circuit was added?
What are you supposed to do if the previous yahoo or DIY did the job not to code.

 

[sparkyrick]

Personally, I wish 210.4(B) would be taken out of the next edition and stay out.

 

[PowerSupportElec]

I guess it is unclear that to me whether it is required on a service change. Same thing- you do not req. afci on a service change.

That being said I see no reason not to either put ties or dp breakers

From my own experience, when pricing a service change, I do not research if any of the circuits are MWBC. Heck (<---you like that, huh? ), many times during the estimate I don't even take the panel cover off.

If I started getting busted for this issue, then I would start researching it beforehand. However, as you said, it's not something that should be worried about during a service change.

 

[jumper]

Personally, I wish 210.4(B) would be taken out of the next edition and stay out.

Too late for the 2014, but you could try for the 2017.

Personally, I think the rule is not going to go away.

 

[PowerSupportElec]

I think this may be a regional thing.

The way it is enforced for me; a panel change only changes the panel. The wires land right back on the same slots, or the same relative position. Any new circuits get handle ties. Existing circuits don't.

One thing that I have to do often when changing a panel or service is put the #14 conductors on 15A breakers instead of 20A breakers like many of them were on in the old panel. I think everyone would agree about doing that.

 

[jumper]

One thing that I have to do often when changing a panel or service is put the #14 conductors on 15A breakers instead of 20A breakers like many of them were on in the old panel. I think everyone would agree about doing that.

Depends on what the #14 is feeding. Motors, HVAC, etc....need to know why #14 is on a 20A breaker.

 

[building2]

It's not the law yet.

It's not the law yet.

California adopted the 2011 NEC as the 2013 California Electrical Code which is not effective until 1/1/2014. It can't be legally enforced yet.

 

[PowerSupportElec]

Depends on what the #14 is feeding. Motors, HVAC, etc....need to know why #14 is on a 20A breaker.

408.4(A) requires us to find out anyway. 99.9875% of the time a #14 is on a 20A it's because that circuit feeds the receptacles and lights in the kitchen, bathrooms, living room, 2 bedrooms, half of the garage, and the sump pump in the basement.

 

[ActionDave]

So what code are you supposed to use on the upgrade?
The year the house was built?
The year a circuit was added?
What are you supposed to do if the previous yahoo or DIY did the job not to code.

In a house wired with NM it may not be a big deal to group the hots with correct noodle and add handle ties, but in a commercial building you don't always know. Circuits may be bounced all over the panel. I used to do it all the time.

Go out to the farm to do a panel change and there is no way to know what has been done to what, who did it, why some one would do it that way, how it ever worked....
But is has been working for 35 years and your not there to solve all the problems of the world, just change out the panel and add a few circuits.

 

[ActionDave]

Personally, I wish 210.4(B) would be taken out of the next edition and stay out.

I agree, but I also agree with Jumper, it's here to stay.