Was I Wrong ?

[goldstar]

I made a statement in this thread earlier that if you are upgrading an electrical service you are not required to put MWBC's on a 2-pole breaker (at least it's that way in NJ as far as I know).

2017 code cycle and AFCI for panel replacement

I have a pretty good handle on AFCI requirements for 2017 but have a question related to panel and service changes our area uses 2017 code. There are many jobs in the area for aerial service changes due to age. If you change from the weather head down and replace old panel with new are you...

forums.mikeholt.com

WELL, an EI at a residential inspection today said I was wrong and stated that as long as l upgraded from 100A service to a to 200A service I was required to do so. I stated my case that I did not change the existing wiring and that the MWBC was originally on separate breakers. I was replacing like with like. Here's the kicker - he said that the KEY word was UPGRADE. I went from 100A to 200A service. If I had merely REPLACED ALL the service equipment and installed a new 100A service I would not have to install a 2-pole breaker - That's not considered an UPGRADE. You can't make this stuff up folks.

I also used SE cable and installed the weather-head about 16-18" above the porcelain insulator on the rake of the house. My intent was to keep the drip loop at least 3' away from the window below. He stated that the weather-head had to be no more than 12" from the point of attachment (he said it's in the NEC - I can't find it). Anyway, not to burn a bridge with this guy I installed a new porcelain insulator about 6" away from the weather-head.

Finally, I had installed a #4 ground wire to the water main. Here in NJ we are required to bond across the water meter. So, I installed a CONTINUOUS #4 wire through the 1st pipe clamp which was on the house side of the meter and then to the pipe clamp on the street side of the meter. He stated that I had to hit the street side first and then the house side. So, I high-press crimped another piece of # 4 to the existing wire on the street side of the water main and then to another pipe clamp on the house side. Now my installation officially looks like crap.

 

[infinity]

Finally, I had installed a #4 ground wire to the water main. Here in NJ we are required to bond across the water meter. So, I installed a CONTINUOUS #4 wire through the 1st pipe clamp which was on the house side of the meter and then to the pipe clamp on the street side of the meter. He stated that I had to hit the street side first and then the house side. So, I high-press crimped another piece of # 4 to the existing wire on the street side of the water main and then to another pipe clamp on the house side

The inspector was incorrect, the GEC can land anywhere within 5' of the entry of the water pipe into the structure on either side of the water meter. A jumper across the meter is required regardless of which side the GEC is connect to.

 

[mtnelect]

I agree ... See attached.

 

[infinity]

The words "street side of the water main" were removed from the NEC a few decades ago.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

I personally would tie MWBC breakers anytime I could.

Im doing a remodel right now, and when I was doing the electrical rough in, one of my guys was using a MM in another room.

I was rerouting a dead circuit, and every time he would turn his tool on, I’d get shocked.

 

[SSDriver]

I have always added handle ties or used a two pole breaker. I never really thought about it as being required if the old panel was before the NEC rule came out. Like above I've been zapped by MWBC's before in panels that are so full you cant see what circuits are sharing a neutral. Cost of a two pole breaker is almost the same as two single pole breakers.

 

[goldstar]

I have always added handle ties or used a two pole breaker. I never really thought about it as being required if the old panel was before the NEC rule came out. Like above I've been zapped by MWBC's before in panels that are so full you cant see what circuits are sharing a neutral. Cost of a two pole breaker is almost the same as two single pole breakers.

It's not about the cost. I had a 2-pole breaker in the truck so I replaced it just so I wouldn't end up in an argument with the EI. I also think using 2-pole breakers for MWBS's is a good idea. However, the question is "Are they required on a service upgrade?" Every CEU instructor that I've had since this Code change came out SPECIFICALLY stated that they are not required when you upgrade an electric service. And as if that wasn't enough, the EI's are getting trained by the same instructors as we are.

Here's my gripe, if using 2-pole breakers for MWBC's is an accepted and mandatory State-wide rule - no problem. As such, I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules. But, having rogue EI's making up their own rules just because they believe they can and because they are an AHJ is just wrong.

 

[infinity]

Every CEU instructor that I've had since this Code change came out SPECIFICALLY stated that they are not required when you upgrade an electric service. And as if that wasn't enough, the EI's are getting trained by the same instructors as we are.

I hate to bash inspectors but for some I would use the term training loosely. I've sat in many NJ electrical inspector seminars and I'm really shocked at how little some of these guys actually know. And the stuff that comes out of their mouths is sometimes frightening, they brag about how I made this guy do this and that guy do that. Requiring things that are not in the code because they want it done their way. The local CEU training guru Bob Frangipane always said something to the effect that you enforce what's written not the way you would have done it.

Part of the problem is that these EI's don't get challenged enough by EC's who get bogus violations for code compliant installations.

 

[goldstar]

I hate to bash inspectors but for some I would use the term training loosely. I've sat in many NJ electrical inspector seminars and I'm really shocked at how little some of these guys actually know. And the stuff that comes out of their mouths is sometimes frightening, they brag about how I made this guy do this and that guy do that. Requiring things that are not in the code because they want it done their way. The local CEU training guru Bob Frangipane always said something to the effect that you enforce what's written not the way you would have done it.

Part of the problem is that these EI's don't get challenged enough by EC's who get bogus violations for code compliant installations.

I made the changes he asked for just not to make it an issue. The cost for the corrections was miniscule. I always tell people "I'm going until I drop." But, in all fairness I'm approaching the end of my career as an electrician who crawls through attics and crawl spaces (especially with my weak knees). That said, this is not over. I've already written to the NJ Code Assistance Unit for some clarification. Once I have enough information to support my positions I will write a letter to the EI, state my case and we'll see where we go from there. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for your replies.

 

[infinity]

That said, this is not over. I've already written to the NJ Code Assistance Unit for some clarification. Once I have enough information to support my positions I will write a letter to the EI, state my case and we'll see where we go from there. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for your replies

Good for you. Inspectors need to be challenged when they're wrong. The problems arise when their inflated ego gets in the way of rational thinking. Just out off curiosity for which things are you requesting clarification?

 

[SSDriver]

It's not about the cost.

Here's my gripe, if using 2-pole breakers for MWBC's is an accepted and mandatory State-wide rule - no problem. As such, I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules. But, having rogue EI's making up their own rules just because they believe they can and because they are an AHJ is just wrong.

I totally agree. I don't think it's required. I just do it. I also hate Rouge inspectors and have fought them on some issues that I didn't "need" passed right away to force them to read the code and learn.

I will never understand the ones that refuse to change their mind on an issue when the code is presented to them and is clear. I have learned so much in the past by being wrong and then having to fix my mistake. I will fight a small code violation if I know I'm right and it will come up again with that inspectorstor or if it's a safety issue to do it their way.

 

[kwired]

Other than any local rules, I think inspector was wrong on all three items mentioned in OP.

 

[goldstar]

Good for you. Inspectors need to be challenged when they're wrong. The problems arise when their inflated ego gets in the way of rational thinking. Just out off curiosity for which things are you requesting clarification?

These are the answers I received from the Code Assistance Unit today :

Thank you for reaching out to Code Assistance.

The thing I would like you to do, is reach back out to the inspector and ask for code citations, actual article numbers. If he can't point to a specific article, then he can not cite it. "You can't write it, if you can't cite it!"

The answers to your questions:

1. I know of no such requirement in the NEC. Maybe the utility company's installation guide?
2. I do not agree with your position. If there were mismatched breakers in the panel, would you mix and match? If a 20 amp breaker was on a #14 wire, would you replace like for like? Regardless of whether you just replaced a 100 amp panel, or you upgraded the service, nothing in 5:23-6.8 deletes the requirements of 210.4(B). Whether an upgrade or just replacement, the OCPD's are included in the permitted work and thus, must comply with the NEC as adopted by 5:23-3.16.
3. This is why it is so important to ask for code citations. I know of no such code article that requires the GEC to hit the "street side" first. Without seeing your install, but based on how you describe your work, I would have to say you that you had already met code.

 

[goldstar]

I totally agree. I don't think it's required. I just do it. I also hate Rouge inspectors and have fought them on some issues that I didn't "need" passed right away to force them to read the code and learn.

I will never understand the ones that refuse to change their mind on an issue when the code is presented to them and is clear. I have learned so much in the past by being wrong and then having to fix my mistake. I will fight a small code violation if I know I'm right and it will come up again with that inspectorstor or if it's a safety issue to do it their way.

These are the answers I received from the Code Assistance Unit today :

Thank you for reaching out to Code Assistance.

The thing I would like you to do, is reach back out to the inspector and ask for code citations, actual article numbers. If he can't point to a specific article, then he can not cite it. "You can't write it, if you can't cite it!"

The answers to your questions:

1. I know of no such requirement in the NEC. Maybe the utility company's installation guide?
2. I do not agree with your position. If there were mismatched breakers in the panel, would you mix and match? If a 20 amp breaker was on a #14 wire, would you replace like for like? Regardless of whether you just replaced a 100 amp panel, or you upgraded the service, nothing in 5:23-6.8 deletes the requirements of 210.4(B). Whether an upgrade or just replacement, the OCPD's are included in the permitted work and thus, must comply with the NEC as adopted by 5:23-3.16.
3. This is why it is so important to ask for code citations. I know of no such code article that requires the GEC to hit the "street side" first. Without seeing your install, but based on how you describe your work, I would have to say you that you had already met code.

I plan to submit a formal request for Code citations from the EI and we'll see where we go from there. I'll keep you all posted.

 

[infinity]

The answers to your questions:

1. I know of no such requirement in the NEC. Maybe the utility company's installation guide?
2. I do not agree with your position. If there were mismatched breakers in the panel, would you mix and match? If a 20 amp breaker was on a #14 wire, would you replace like for like? Regardless of whether you just replaced a 100 amp panel, or you upgraded the service, nothing in 5:23-6.8 deletes the requirements of 210.4(B). Whether an upgrade or just replacement, the OCPD's are included in the permitted work and thus, must comply with the NEC as adopted by 5:23-3.16.
3. This is why it is so important to ask for code citations. I know of no such code article that requires the GEC to hit the "street side" first. Without seeing your install, but based on how you describe your work, I would have to say you that you had already met code.

I agree with the responses. The Rehab code does not exclude handle-ties or multi-pole CB's so it really depends on how you interpret what's in the NEC. If I remove an existing MWBC from one panel and install it in another panel IMO the handle-tie/multi-pole needs to be installed.

 

[mtnelect]

I was cited for not having "Handle Ties" recently on a service upgrade. It was the City of Glendale. Several years ago, the city had an Electrical Inspector that everyone respected, he had a pair of coveralls in his trunk. He would crawl on every inspection, whether it was in the attic or under the house.

 

[goldstar]

I agree with the responses. The Rehab code does not exclude handle-ties or multi-pole CB's so it really depends on how you interpret what's in the NEC. If I remove an existing MWBC from one panel and install it in another panel IMO the handle-tie/multi-pole needs to be installed.

Regarding the CB's, let me be up-front by saying that I have no problem installing 2-P CB's for MWBC's on a service upgrade. If that's the rule or Code section so be it. My issue comes from many CEU classes where instructors tell us that we are NOT REQUIRED to install 2-P CB's for MWBC's (unless they already existed in the original panel) on a service upgrade. I know we are required to install them on new construction. Many of the same EI's are getting their CEU's from the same instructors we are. I should be able to work anywhere in the State and be subject to the same rules.

Regarding the CAU's response to my second question, I can't tell if they misinterpreted my question when I stated replacing like with like. If no 2-P CB existed in the original panel why whoud I now have to install a 2-P CB ? I'll have to write back and get clarification.

 

[infinity]

Regarding the CAU's response to my second question, I can't tell if they misinterpreted my question when I stated replacing like with like. If no 2-P CB existed in the original panel why whoud I now have to install a 2-P CB ? I'll have to write back and get clarification.

IMO their interpretation is that the NEC requires them so it has nothing to do with the rehab code or whether or not they existed prior to the panel change. Also how would the inspector know if the original panel had them or didn't have them? I would like to see what they have to say also because you're correct that some CEU classes have mentioned that they're not required.

 

[kwired]

A CEU instructor does not normally represent NFPA and is not an official interpretation of NFPA content. Often isn't representing any specific AHJ either. No different than Mike Holt's materials not being official interpretation of any NFPA or specific AHJ content.

That said if the local inspectors are taking same CEU courses why aren't they speaking up when something contradicts with what they are enforcing? Other than they get some sort of pleasure in rejecting things, which is just wrong to have that attitude.

 

[infinity]

That said if the local inspectors are taking same CEU courses why aren't they speaking up when something contradicts with what they are enforcing? Other than they get some sort of pleasure in rejecting things, which is just wrong to have that attitude.

Part of the problem is that the issue is not clearly defined in the NEC. Ask 10 inspectors and you'll get 5 who say it's required and 5 who so it's not required. IMO it's required. If you took a 3-wire MWBC cable from one panel and installed it in another panel it would require the handle-tie or multi-pole CB.