inspectors doing electrical- learned something new

[gadfly56]

If he put (2) 1p breakers in the panel with a handle tie, how would that put him over?

JAP>

It wouldn't, but there's no information to suggest a handle tie will be installed. Asking for two "single" breakers in fact points away from that assumption.

 

[jap]

It wouldn't, but there's no information to suggest a handle tie will be installed. Asking for two "single" breakers in fact points away from that assumption.

While we're assuming, one could assume the homeowner could have had one of the circuits trip and he didn't want the 2p breaker taking out both circuits.
Regardless, this whole thing sounds fishy to me.

JAP>

 

[flatlander]

Did he offer up all this information when he came and asked if you had 2 1p breakers to spare or did you go look at it yourself?

JAP>

They were adding a new circuit. New wire, new devices, new boxes more than a days work.
The panel was full
there is no main.
the overcurrent devices are far from the nearest point , actually the other side of the home
The service is only #8
The panel had six handles already.
The panel had a 2 pole breaker with only one pole used, so one pole vacant. Placing to singles with a tie is the same result less common trip.
You cannot do new wiring without a permit in California period.

Again what a great example he is doing.

 

[flatlander]

While we're assuming, one could assume the homeowner could have had one of the circuits trip and he didn't want the 2p breaker taking out both circuits.
Regardless, this whole thing sounds fishy to me.

JAP>

That is exactly what they said. Don't want both circuits to turn off when one trips. The inspector / contractor told me it was against code to have a 2 pole serving single pole circuits.

Again I am this close to call the city's building department he works for and talk to his boss.

 

[jap]

That is exactly what they said. Don't want both circuits to turn off when one trips. The inspector / contractor told me it was against code to have a 2 pole serving single pole circuits.

Again I am this close to call the city's building department he works for and talk to his boss.

Seems if they're tripping any breakers at all they have bigger fish to fry.
There would be no reason to separate them if one of them wasn't tripping.

I'm just curious if this is the case, what was tripping to begin with to bring on the need of having to separate the circuits?

JAP>

 

[jap]

They were adding a new circuit. New wire, new devices, new boxes more than a days work.
The panel was full
there is no main.
the overcurrent devices are far from the nearest point , actually the other side of the home
The service is only #8
The panel had six handles already.
The panel had a 2 pole breaker with only one pole used, so one pole vacant. Placing to singles with a tie is the same result less common trip.
You cannot do new wiring without a permit in California period.

Again what a great example he is doing.

You seem to know a lot about this house.
Have you done work there before?


JAP>

 

[rudiseldb]

I am not sure what you are trying to support with your section of the code, but it states int he first sentence "may not get paid to perform..."

That's just the conflict of interest, we also have permit rules that only a EC or homeowner may do his own work and that's if it's not for sale lease or rent. The owner must pull the permit and the only one legally who can work under that permit is immediate family member. So not your buddy, paid or not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rudiseldb]

That is exactly what they said. Don't want both circuits to turn off when one trips. The inspector / contractor told me it was against code to have a 2 pole serving single pole circuits.

Again I am this close to call the city's building department he works for and talk to his boss.

As an inspector, please do call his boss. This should not happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mwm1752]

I'm the head inspector running the second largest program in the state of Oregon. We have laws that as inspectors we cannot do work while being an inspector. I would check with your state and turn him in if they have rules. Also in Oregon you must be a licensed contractor or work for one to do work. Of course you are required to have permits and if your state allows him to work he can't inspect his own work. Please go after him, those inspectors give the rest of us a bad name. I take great pride in mine and my inspectors doing the job right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree -- Inspectors are not above the law

 

[mwm1752]

That is exactly what they said. Don't want both circuits to turn off when one trips. The inspector / contractor told me it was against code to have a 2 pole serving single pole circuits.

Again I am this close to call the city's building department he works for and talk to his boss.

Multi-conductor circuits sharing a neutral -- conveinience over safety is a serious offense

 

[rt66electric]

18 circuit panel without main allowed under 6 handle rule...

18 circuit panel without main allowed under 6 handle rule...

I know of an inspector that will allow....

A 18 circuit panel 3Ph no main, allowable

because you can push three breakers at a time for each throw.

or (6) 3-pole breakers

 

[flatlander]

That's just the conflict of interest, we also have permit rules that only a EC or homeowner may do his own work and that's if it's not for sale lease or rent. The owner must pull the permit and the only one legally who can work under that permit is immediate family member. So not your buddy, paid or not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

actually pretty obvious what is going on.
I was asked about the breaker. I followed them into the home past the meter to the only sub-panel, where I see six handles and no main. Asked if there was another location with a main switch. Answer No.
I said no need to change the breaker as it had a spare pole and the correct amperage for what they were doing. ( roll of 12-2 on the floor) The inspector/contractor replied with " it's against code to use a 2 pole for single pole circuits"
I told him it was legitimate. I said nope. He said hew was an Electrical inspector and he knew the code. After he saw me count up the handles he knew where I was going next. He said that only applies if there is no main. I said you just confirmed to me there was no main.

You could see the steam coming from this guy's head.

Again this guy said " I'm a inspector for the city of xxx xxxxo I know what I am doing. ..... rurr ......

On that note I saw a pissing match comming on and quickly left

 

[flatlander]

I know of an inspector that will allow....

A 18 circuit panel 3Ph no main, allowable

because you can push three breakers at a time for each throw.

or (6) 3-pole breakers

I think that technically that is legit barring any other code violations other than six handle rule.
the rule is six handles not circuits!

 

[jap]

actually pretty obvious what is going on.
I was asked about the breaker. I followed them into the home past the meter to the only sub-panel, where I see six handles and no main. Asked if there was another location with a main switch. Answer No.
I said no need to change the breaker as it had a spare pole and the correct amperage for what they were doing. ( roll of 12-2 on the floor) The inspector/contractor replied with " it's against code to use a 2 pole for single pole circuits"
I told him it was legitimate. I said nope. He said hew was an Electrical inspector and he knew the code. After he saw me count up the handles he knew where I was going next. He said that only applies if there is no main. I said you just confirmed to me there was no main.

You could see the steam coming from this guy's head.

Again this guy said " I'm a inspector for the city of xxx xxxxo I know what I am doing. ..... rurr ......

On that note I saw a pissing match comming on and quickly left

Subpanel ?

 

[jap]

I know of an inspector that will allow....

A 18 circuit panel 3Ph no main, allowable

because you can push three breakers at a time for each throw.

or (6) 3-pole breakers

This could just as easily be in a 42 circuit panel.

JAP>

 

[jap]

If the Panel wasn't directly behind the meter, how far did the service conductors travel inside the home before they landed in this panel?


JAP>

 

[rudiseldb]

actually pretty obvious what is going on.
I was asked about the breaker. I followed them into the home past the meter to the only sub-panel, where I see six handles and no main. Asked if there was another location with a main switch. Answer No.
I said no need to change the breaker as it had a spare pole and the correct amperage for what they were doing. ( roll of 12-2 on the floor) The inspector/contractor replied with " it's against code to use a 2 pole for single pole circuits"
I told him it was legitimate. I said nope. He said hew was an Electrical inspector and he knew the code. After he saw me count up the handles he knew where I was going next. He said that only applies if there is no main. I said you just confirmed to me there was no main.

You could see the steam coming from this guy's head.

Again this guy said " I'm a inspector for the city of xxx xxxxo I know what I am doing. ..... rurr ......

On that note I saw a pissing match comming on and quickly left

To me it's too bad there are ones like him out there. Please turn him in. On code though realize inspectors are human and make mistakes too. That's why in Oregon we also have if you site it you must include the NEC section that shows your correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flatlander]

If the Panel wasn't directly behind the meter, how far did the service conductors travel inside the home before they landed in this panel?


JAP>

A good guess would be 30 plus feet. The opposite side of the house. I don't see how under any circumstances it could be considered immediately adjacent to.

 

[jap]

A good guess would be 30 plus feet. The opposite side of the house. I don't see how under any circumstances it could be considered immediately adjacent to.

So he argued a 1p circuit being tied to a 2p breaker but overlooked 30 feet of service conductors penetrating the interior of the house ?

Is this all serious ?


JAP>

 

[jap]

Multi-conductor circuits sharing a neutral -- conveinience over safety is a serious offense

Multi conductor circuits sharing a neurtral have been used for years and years and yes there are many advantages and conveniences of doing so.
It's wasn't until late and inexperienced people that made it become a safety issue.


JAP>