230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel

[stars13bars2]

David
We just can't inspect from the aspect of what might happen at some future date or you would never be able to pass any installation. The jacklegs can add non code compliant additions at any time. A true electrician will not go back and violate the six switch rule. If the installation in question has one main and a mlo section, you would only have five breakers left to use as mains. This would cause you to limit the installation to a four circuit panel because I don't know of any five circuit panels and they might install single pole breakers at a later date. If it is proven in court ( from a record of your inspections ) that you see it as your job to inspect with this view of what may happen to this installation at a later date, that could make you or whoever you work for liable for any hackjobs that occur later. I am sure your employer would not like this exposure. Not trying to come down on you, just offering my view on this situation. Please let us know what the final decision on this one is.

 

[jwelectric]

You're not on the right track here.

Should a jurisdiction in Ohio what to amend the Electrical Code this is the required procedure that must be taken.

122-1-01 Public notice of rules

The method of giving public notice as to the adoption, amendment, or rescission of rules under division (A) of section 119.03 of the Revised Code, with respect to matters on which the director or department of development is authorized by law to adopt, amend, or rescind rules, is that the public notice in the form required by that section shall be:
(A) Published at least once not less than thirty days prior to the date set for public hearing in the register of Ohio.
(B) Provided to any person who requests it and pays a reasonable fee, not to exceed the cost of copying and mailing, as applicable
(C) Mailed in addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person requesting the notice

Should a code enforcement official behave badly this is what might happen.

? 3783.07. Investigation of inspectors; revocation of certificate

The board, upon its own motion or upon a written complaint of any person affected by enforcement, may investigate the actions of any electrical safety inspector and may revoke or suspend the certificate of any electrical safety inspector for reasons that shall be established by regulations adopted by the board. Hearings shall be held and appeals permitted on any such proceedings for revocation or suspension of a certificate of competency as an electrical safety inspector as provided in section 3781.101 [3781.10.1] of the Revised Code for other proceedings of the board of building standards.

4101:2-93-08 Electrical safety inspectors and trainees, complaints and revocation or suspension of certificate.

Are we getting on the right track yet?
I am not trying to be a smart ass here just trying to get you to see the error of what you are saying.
There is a procedure in every aspect of law that must be followed. To say that if I turn you down it would be cheaper for you to do as I say than to fight is just plain wrong and I don?t know of a state that would allow this to take place.

3781.04 will point out the AHJ for amended codes.

I know that there is a lot to read in all of the links found in these two statutes but it is clear that this type of conduct is not allowed in Ohio.
You must cite a rule not an opinion or the introduction of the NEC.

 

[dnem]

I would like to add to this discussion the example of Ohio because what?s going on here speaks directly to the issues raised on this thread.

On May 27, of this year Ohio instituted a new 1,2,+3 family residential state code and also changed its AHJ structure. Before May 27 every municipality in the state [city, village, + county] had their own building code requirements. And I?m not just talking about electrical. All trades had to follow the local municipality code. In the county just north of me [Cuyahoga], there was the city of Cleveland surrounded by dozens of little cities and villages, all of which had their own codes. A contractor working in just that one county had to tip-toe thru dozens of different requirements, some of which were in complete contradiction to those in another city/village next door.

That structure that has been in place in Ohio for all these years has fostered a bad attitude among a small minority of inspectors that are of the personality type that lean in the direction of thinking more of themselves than they should. Our past situation for those inspectors was like pouring gas on a fire.

Starting on May 27, we have a new code with a new structure. We?re in the middle of a one year transition period. By May 27, 2007 any municipality that attempts to enforce anything that beyond state code will be in hot water with the state and can be decertified and out of business. Building, plumbing, and mechanical inspectors have to go thru an application to be certified under the new code with residential and commercial being different categories and different certifications. Electrical inspector certification will not change.

There are levels within this new streamlined whole state AHJ pyramid structure. On the bottom of the ?food chain? is us local ESIs [Electrical Safety Inspector] that walk the individual jobsites. Next level up, for some building departments, is the chief ESI. Above that is various levels of appellate bodies. I had to testify once in the lowest level of the appeal process.

Altho there was an appeals process in past years, this new arrangement has made inspectors much more accountable. In the past an appeal would be looking at the inspectors application of the local rules that he himself may have a big hand in writing. It just looked at that one situation before the appeals board and didn?t usually have information to consider whether or not the requirement had been evenly applied to all permit holders. It was possible to pass local requirements that were way overboard and then ignore them unless you didn?t like the contractor/person.

As a contractor, I suffered under that old system. There were some communities that were fiefdoms with little barons and princes prancing around and dictating according to whim. One particular ESI has earned my lasting contempt for his total abuse of his position and complete lack of intelligence.

That has all changed. There is a definitive AHJ pyramid structure with concrete universal rules for the whole state. Every inspector is required to follow the NEC and any other requirements from the state building code. While inspectors have the authority to make calls of interpretation, there is an easier process for appeals which can either overturn or confirm the inspectors ruling.

David

 

[dnem]

First let me say that, to me, an engineer, this discussion is way over the top as far as being adversarial, and David, most of it seems to be coming from your direction.

I think you should look back over this thread and see who has said that they would tear up an inspection report that they don't agree with. You?ll find it on page #1.

Look at who said this:

?Before anyone else posts on this thread, please note that the very fact that I chose to post this situation shows that I am interested in more information and opinions. The questions that I have asked are what I am continuing to debate in my mind.

If you're looking for an a-hole inspector or a stand-in to abuse instead of confronting your own local inspector that you are upset with, please look elsewhere. I am not interested in providing anger therapy for anyone.

For those of you that have answered with thoughtout replies, I thank you for taking time to respond. I have read every word everyone of you has posted and will reply as much as time will allow me to.?

You?ll find it on page 2.

Look at who tried to say that the debate was about me complaining ?that folks are not answering the question 'correctly' ? This happened when I objected to the refusal to answer.

You asked four questions. The bottom line is that there is only one answer: the NEC allows 6 disconnects in a service (let's not include fire pumps for the moment). The NEC doesn't say "provisions for 6 disconnects". It says "6 disconnects". All the variations on a theme in your questions don't matter -- 6 disconnects is the rule, and the number of prepared spaces means nothing in this context. If the NEC dealt with provisions most switchboards (ie., commercial services) would be in violation -- a single vertical section will hold far more than 6 switches. Those who have posted that an inspection is to be for what is, not what may be, are absolutely correct.

Did you see this post from page 3 ?

?It has been my experience that when I run across an inspector that tries to play hard ball I just butter him up until I can get him to let something be substituted and then ask for this permission in writing. I haven?t found one yet that would put their name on something in writing as outlined in ?special permission? in article 100. I then ask if they are not the AHJ and have the power to sign, but they never answer nor do they sign anything. I guess they don?t want to be the AHJ at that point in time.?

The point made by the poster was that he allowed the situation to go far enough that the inspector had an opportunity to commit himself fully or show that he really wasn?t totally committed to the position that he had taken.

My questions are doing the same thing.

If you can answer this question with a ?yes?,
3] Now taking it one step further. Do you think a 42 space push-in breaker type MLO should be accepted for a main if only 6 breakers are in at the time of inspection and there's no issue with wire sizes ?, then I know that you are confident that you have considered all of the implications of the stand that you are taking. If that is the case, then your answer has more meaning to me and I will spend more time thinking it thru.

Iwire / Bob made some statements early in this thread that I wanted to really think about. But up to this point they have been pushed aside by a ton of arrogant posts from various posters. I still hope to get back to his points because they appeared, at least on the surface, had some body and substance to them.

This is not an anger therapy session or at least it?s not supposed to be one.

As to the sentence quoted above, I have to respond, "Maybe", and would point out that "can be bound" is far different from "is bound".

I know ! I know !
I wanted to say ?is? but that would have been pretty bold to assume that all 50 states have laws that are like Ohios. So I said ?can? even tho I wanted to say ?is bound?. In Ohio the inspector is bound.

Was this project done to engineered plans? A portion of the governing policy in my home state reads, "...a nonregistrant may not require modification of a professional document submitted for review, unless that modification is supported by reference to an applicable code or standard. In other words, a nonregistrant shall not modify, in any manner, a document embodying the discretion or judgement of a registrant, unless the nonregistrant can cite a specific code or standard to support that modification." While this is directed at plans reviewers, the inspector's job is to see that the project is built "per approved plans" so the same standard would apply.

There are never engineering or architectal electrical plans for residential projects in my department. We have 2 requirements that must be met for residential projects, NEC and manufacturers specs. We have 3 requirements that must be met for commercial projects, NEC, manufacturers specs, and approved prints/plans.

I think the meter/main in question would be the MC0816B1400RLTM, http://www.sea.siemens.com/speedfax05/05 Speedfax/05Speedfax_02/02_18-19.pdf

That?s not it. It is a 3 section panel with a sideways 200a breaker in the top section, a sideways 200a breaker in the middle section, and KOs for 2 rows of 6 slots each of standard push-in sideways breakers. The cabinet has a dead front and an outer cover with a foot and a side hinged door.

David

 

[dnem]

David
Your response reminds me of an intelligent "kid" who twists the language so he sounds correct, at least to himself.

You made this all too complicated. The answer is this is a code compliant installation today, not lets worry about tomorrow. If we did that, there is no reason to go to work today.

To your first part:
See my answer to hmspe and then you might finally understand the reason for the questions. It's amazing how offended so many here get because they are asked to answer 4 questions while others have jumped right in ans answered without feeling defensive.

http://www.mikeholt.com/code_forum/showthread.php?p=605027#post605027

Also you said
"The answer is this is a code compliant installation today"
If that is truely the final answer then the discussion would be over, now wouldn't it ?
I've shown these posts to many of my coworkers and emailed some to other IAEI members. Their feedback is generally opposite of your opinion.

Don't be so sure of yourself without putting in effort to confirm your opinions. It could come back to bite you. The fact that I don't want to take a stand without being totally sure is the reason that I started this thread.

David

 

[dnem]

Let's take a state that has a central AHJ for the entire state as an example. If that AHJ has published rules and interpretations that go beyond the NEC, and the installor has violated them, then 90.4 would be the proper writeup by the inspector.

No it isn't. There is no way I as an installer can violate 90.4, I can be in violation of many other articles and you have to cite them, but not 90.4. But if you want to insist on citing me for it how do I comply with just 90.4? What would you like to see?:smile:

proper writeup
I said proper writeup not violation of the NEC

Electrical inspectors in the state of Ohio are certified by the state of Ohio not by the NEC. We enforce Ohio rules. Some of them are NEC. Some are not. 90.4 is referring to rules and authority that are not from the NEC.

"But if you want to insist on citing me for it how do I comply with just 90.4?"
My writeup would say the reason for not approving the "equipment or material". There no guessing on my writeups and if there's a question, I have a phone number you can call.

David

 

[don_resqcapt19]

David,

I've shown these posts to many of my coworkers and emailed some to other IAEI members. Their feedback is generally opposite of your opinion.

You asked a question and it was answered. If you don't like the answers you get on this forum, try another one, or start your own.
Don

 

[jwelectric]

David
If you read the post that I made to the General Statutes of Ohio you will see that the conduct of the inspector goes all the way back to 1955.
The law or the procedure for notifying of amendments dates back several years.
All have the dates of revision.

Yes I will throw away any notice based of 90.4 in any state that it is cited as a violation simply because it is not a rule. It can not be made into a rule no matter how hard you or any other person tries.

A state trooper in Ohio stops me and gives me a speeding ticket and states the GS that I violated was the fact that each city is allowed to post speeds in their cities.
I then ask, ?Sir, what is the posted speed??
His answer is, ?wait until you get to court and the judge will tell you.?
This is how you are saying that you do your inspections.

 

[Johnmcca]

proper writeup
I said proper writeup not violation of the NEC

Electrical inspectors in the state of Ohio are certified by the state of Ohio not by the NEC. We enforce Ohio rules. Some of them are NEC. Some are not. 90.4 is referring to rules and authority that are not from the NEC.

"But if you want to insist on citing me for it how do I comply with just 90.4?"
My writeup would say the reason for not approving the "equipment or material". There no guessing on my writeups and if there's a question, I have a phone number you can call.

David

So in other words you are refrencing 90.4 to remind us that the State of Ohio has the right to modify the NEC? We already know that there are local codes and that they legaly binding on us, and if we are in violation of them then that is what we should be cited for. But there has to be a violation at the present, not a potential violation sometime in the future. If the MLO in your OP was listed for service use, and there were no more than 6 means of disconnect, there is no problem as I see it. The NEC doesn't prohibit extra spaces in a panel, and being a permissive document, therefore would allow them.

 

[George Stolz]

Quite the shoot 'em up going on here.

I just breezed through the thread, the posts were too long to spend much time on, but I think I've got the gist of it.

David, I agree with Don, Bob, and the others who have made their opinions known that if there are less than 6 handles per 230.71, and the panel is not being used as a Lighting & Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard per 110.3(B) and 408.36, then the installation should pass.

There are many compliant options for adding to this panelboard at a later date. There are many MLO panelboards (Siemens included) that are convertible to MDP by removing the main lugs and simply installing a breaker. Line-to-line loads such as a pair of A/C's could be added to the panelboard and still have less than six handles.

My point is, there are as many compliant ways to add to the system as there are non-compliant ones, so your concern (while understandable) is not justified to the point where you can red-tag the job. The section you're citing to fail the installation does not say what you want it to say.

It refers to handles, not spaces, as Bob stated on the first couple of pages. This is key. This is what pulls the rug out from under your opinion.

Think of yourself as a judge. You are to use the code to determine what's right or wrong, and aspire to be impartial. You're human, you're going to have an opinion, there's no shame in it. But your opinion is not an asset to your chosen profession, it's a liability. Always take your opinion to task with the words of the code.

I know you're a logical person, and this is coming off as a sermon from a junior member of the industry with a big mouth. It's intended as a gentle reminder from someone 800 miles away that you need to step back and rethink your approach to become even better at what you do than you already are.

My opinion, take it or leave it.

 

[dnem]

David,

You asked a question and it was answered. If you don't like the answers you get on this forum, try another one, or start your own.
Don

When did I say that I didn't like the answers ?
or even one of the answers ?
Please provide me with the link because I can't find it.
Could that be that it can?t be found because it never happened ?

Look for yourself before posting, I've only objected to the arrogance of some posters. If I object to someone saying that they think tearing up an inspection writeup is a legitimate answer, or if I object to someone being so unwilling to reason anything out that they refuse to answer any questions

that has nothing to do with like or not liking the answers
that has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the answers, does it ?

 

[dnem]

David
If you read the post that I made to the General Statutes of Ohio you will see that the conduct of the inspector goes all the way back to 1955.
The law or the procedure for notifying of amendments dates back several years.
All have the dates of revision.

Yes I will throw away any notice based of 90.4 in any state that it is cited as a violation simply because it is not a rule. It can not be made into a rule no matter how hard you or any other person tries.

A state trooper in Ohio stops me and gives me a speeding ticket and states the GS that I violated was the fact that each city is allowed to post speeds in their cities.
I then ask, ?Sir, what is the posted speed??
His answer is, ?wait until you get to court and the judge will tell you.?
This is how you are saying that you do your inspections.

Mike,

You are really really struggling here and I can't figuye out why you can't get it. 90.4 is not a rule. 90.4 is not a rule. 90.4 is not a rule.

Now if I've said it 3 times does it sink in now ?
You apparently were so intent to get your post in that you didn?t bother to read the post that was one away from the end of the thread. In the post I said:

?proper writeup
I said proper writeup not violation of the NEC

Electrical inspectors in the state of Ohio are certified by the state of Ohio not by the NEC. We enforce Ohio rules. Some of them are NEC. Some are not. 90.4 is referring to rules and authority that are not from the NEC.

"But if you want to insist on citing me for it how do I comply with just 90.4?"
My writeup would say the reason for not approving the "equipment or material". There no guessing on my writeups and if there's a question, I have a phone number you can call.?

Please read before you post.

And also think about what you?re advocating.

If you read the post that I made to the General Statutes of Ohio you will see that the conduct of the inspector goes all the way back to 1955.
The law or the procedure for notifying of amendments dates back several years.
All have the dates of revision.

You want the electrical inspector to cite a state law by number ? And how many books do you want us to carry around with us on our inspection route ? Who?s going to be doing the inspections while us inspectors are sitting in our vehicles pouring thru law books to find the numbers to write on the report ?

If you want further information beyond what we cite from the NEC, you?re going to have to call.

A state trooper in Ohio stops me and gives me a speeding ticket and states the GS that I violated was the fact that each city is allowed to post speeds in their cities.
I then ask, ?Sir, what is the posted speed??
His answer is, ?wait until you get to court and the judge will tell you.?
This is how you are saying that you do your inspections.

Your example doesn?t work because we?re not because we?re not talking about what the speed limit is, we?re talking about the code numbers that are written next to the citation for speeding. You?re objecting to the numbers written. You?re objecting to the writing of 90.4.

I leave NEC numbers at my inspections. I only carry the NEC around with me. 90.4 is telling them that the objection is not based on a NEC code violation. I clearly write down what the violation is. Further detail will have to be handled over the phone I have dozens of inspections to make and I?m out the door. Or if the contractors on-site we will be talking even before paper and pen comes out.

David

 

[allenwayne]

It has to do with you thinking you`re right ,because you`re right that is quite obvious.It was obvious in the OP when you brought up 90.4 is going to cause a rift.The install at the time of the inspection was compliant but you want to look into the future for violations ????I agree with Don open a forum ,for inspectors that make up the rules as they go along.

 

[mpd]

david

there are many jobs that could become a violation after you leave, if you think this is one of those jobs, make a note on your tech card what was there at the time of your inspection and make the contractor give you an as built (if needed) so if any problems happen in the future you have a record of what you inspected, how many times have you failed a house for ceiling fans or closet lights, and at reinspection they are removed and blanked off, I make a record they were removed at reinspection pass it and move on, if they get reinstalled after I leave, not my problem.

 

[petersonra]

You can only inspect what has been installed, not what may be installed in the future. If the panel is service rated, and has 6 or less breakers installed, there is no code violation. A red tag here would be like a cop giving you a speeding ticket just because you could make the car go faster than the permitted speed limit.
Don

Amen. There is no violation. It is not the inspectors job to consider potential future violations of the code.

I would argue that even installing a dryer outlet next to a generator is not a violation unless a suicide cord is plugged in when the inspector is present.

It would be good to point out to the person doing the install why something might be a future issue, but if it is not a violation at the time of inspection, it is not a violation.

 

[hmspe]

that has nothing to do with like or not liking the answers
that has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the answers, does it ?

I will not prolong this after this message, but your posts came across exactly as if you didn't like the answer(s). Brett and Don and Treavor and Mike and Andrew answered the underlying question in a civil and accurate manner. Starting about post #15 your responses looked to me to get personal. You apparently wanted yes or no answers to a specific set of questions. This is not a courtroom on TV -- you can't demand yes or no answers here. The root answer to all four was the same, and that was the answer given. To answer four specific questions does not necessarily give a complete answer. [I'm thinking of all the times I asked the kids what their evening plans were back when they were in high school -- sometimes very difficult to get a complete picture by playing "20 questions".]

I'm not sure if it's that you don't like the answer, if you don't like the way the questions were answered, or if it's that the regulars here didn't agree with your call. If it was a case where you truly didn't understand that Don's original answer covered all the bases you could have just asked for clarification. Instead you started arguing and picking nits about every post. After that, it really went down hill.

If my posts offended you I apologize. At the same time, please keep in mind that "shooting the messenger" when someone has volunteered their time to try to help is not going to make friends or make people want
to help in the future.


Martin

 

[petersonra]

Inspectors must be robots.

You got it brother. As an instrument of the state, you have only the powers granted to you by the state. The power is to inspect the installation to ensure it meets the applicable requirements of whatever code(s) apply.

You have no power to make it up as you go, regardless of how well intentioned you may think you are being.

I would call this an abuse of power since you obviously know you are in the wrong on this.

The contractor ought to put in an official complaint over you making up stuff and trying to make him comply.

 

[jwelectric]

David

I was the first person in this thread that answered you questions posting each question and following each with an answer.

I then made a comment that I stand by that a citation for 90.4 I will disregard and throw in the trash. I will not take the time to make a call nor will I return one. I will wait until you make a move that will have you under the gun before I will acknowledge your citation.

Now several times you have said that I am arrogant by making such a bold response. With the most of respect I must say that when an inspector gets to the point of thinking that they have such powers of holding a job and basing this action on the fact that they are the authority with jurisdiction this in arrogance in its fullest.

And in Medina County Ohio all that would get you was a house that the power company would refuse to energize. You wouldn't get a meter without a passing inspection.

Now rather than acting like a child would you rather have an intelligent adult discussion ?
David

Now that you think that I should just roll over and accept that you have the power to hold my job and mess with my income with a unfounded code citation I took the time to research the General Statutes of the state of Ohio and the procedure for the inspector to follow.
These are very clear that you CAN NOT just quote unfounded code articles and decide how you think that an installation should be made. There is action that an electrical contractor can take for retribution in such cases in Ohio.

These same statutes state that you are to base you inspection on facts and not to leave me unfounded code sections so I will call you for a response. This is not how it works.
If you don?t want to carry around all the codes that pertain to your job and spend the needed time to write a violation in the proper manner then quit, but don?t expect me to do the work for you. As a contractor I only get paid when I am making an installation and paying your salary. You on the other hand get paid when things are slow and you are sitting under a shade tree somewhere taking a nap instead of studying the material that you need to know to perform your job.

You keep saying the PROPER WRITE UP would be to reference 90.4 leading me again to believe that you are the all elusive authority having jurisdiction instead of writing the statute that is in violation.
As pointed out in Ohio GS 122.1.01 and 119.03 these Ohio rules have to be part of public record and cited if in violation as outlined in Ohio GS 4101:2-93-08 (conduct of the ESI)

Now if you want to think of me as being arrogant that is just fine with me because I am, just ask some of the older members of this forum. You can think of me as being bull headed, stubborn, insulting, and just plain mean because any of this fit me perfectly. Cite me for being in violation of 90.4 and I promise you will get to see each and every one of these traits in me.

 

[dnem]

david

there are many jobs that could become a violation after you leave, if you think this is one of those jobs, make a note on your tech card what was there at the time of your inspection and make the contractor give you an as built (if needed) so if any problems happen in the future you have a record of what you inspected, how many times have you failed a house for ceiling fans or closet lights, and at reinspection they are removed and blanked off, I make a record they were removed at reinspection pass it and move on, if they get reinstalled after I leave, not my problem.

"how many times have you failed a house for ceiling fans or closet lights, and at reinspection they are removed and blanked off, I make a record they were removed at reinspection pass it and move on, if they get reinstalled after I leave, not my problem."

That is a damn good point !

On my rough inspections I list the rooms that have fan rated boxes and then later on the final see where the fans are installed. If there's a fan in a location that isn't on my card as a rated box, then it has to come down but if there's a blanked off box, let's say in the center of the room right where it would be perfect for a fan, but the room also has a switched plug or another installed light in that room, the inspection passes. The inspection passes with the blanked off box that is perfectly located for a fan but that does not have a fan box.

mpd your point is well taken.

David

 

[dnem]

Please let us know what the final decision on this one is.

On the original inspection there were the two 200amp breakers that were each feeding a 42 space subpanel that were both empty [the rough install was yet in the future]. In the double column push-in section of 12 KOs there was a two pole 100, a two pole 60, a two pole 40, and a two pole 30, and four KOs still not knocked out. No labeling on the panel. No contractor on site. No loads calcs or prints on residential projects in my building department.

So we have 200, 200, 100, 60, 40, & 30 which equals 630 amps of breakers.
The service conductors werre parallel 4/0 AL.

I red tagged it. My explanation stated the max 6 disconnect rule and listed 230.71 and inadequate protection on the service entrance conductors [for which I didn’t list any code book numbers which I’m sure will cause a couple of people here to blast off straight thru the roof into a tirade of legal jargon after which I’m planning on ignoring them completely so that we don’t get another 5 pages of back and forth that accomplishes absolutely nothing.]

90.4 wasn’t listed on my writeup. As a matter of fact, I have never listed 90.4 on any writeup in the past. The discussion about 90.4 was just something that was in one of my original 4 questions, it was never on any write-up.

Regardless of how long and hard Mike wants to argue against it, at that point the service was failed by the AHJ. The “ball” then moved to the contractors “court”. It was his move. His first move was the most logical, he called me and tried to talk me into changing the call. “Ball in my court”.

I asked for input from Seimens. “Ball back in the contractors court”.

It took 3 to 4 days of calls that rolled into voice mail and emails from both me and the contractor to get a Seimens rep to call me. I talked to several reps and was quite surprised at their lack of any response of substance. Their central point was basically: “We send them out this way at the time” which didn’t strike me as particularly helpful. I didn’t think I should change the call, so I didn’t. “Ball back in the contractors court”.

He went to the next level in the Ohio AHJ pyramid, the chief ESI in my department. As a matter of fact, I suggested to him that he should do that. That move was also verbal over the phone. I transferred the call to the chief ESI right then and there.

The contractor made his case to my department chief ESI who was very adamant [and still is] that this is a violation of 230.71. The chief added the point of 90.4 that he was not going to accept MLO service equipment with more than 6 KOs. At that point the failure of the service was upheld by the second level up of the AHJ. At this point it was also out of my hands and beyond my authority. Even if I had decided that I had made the wrong call, I couldn’t do anything about it, other than talk to the chief. I was “out of the loop” officially. It was now again up to the contractor to decide his next move. “Ball back in the contractors court”.

The contractors next move “up the pyramid” would have been simple and quick. The next level is an appellate panel hearing held right in the building department building. I know the panel has at least one engineer and one contractor [GC], so it opens up the process to input from a greater number and types of sources. I can't remember anything else specific about the panel. I believe they get that meeting scheduled very quickly, if it is requested. For this level the contractor would have to make a request for an appeal in writing. It could also be expedited by him delivering it directly, emailing it, or faxing it to our department or the office of the county commissioners and skipping the US mail.

I really wish he had taken that step because I really would have liked to find out how they would have decided. But the contractor called me Friday to say that he had changed the panel and wants another inspection on Monday. I’ll see when I get there if it has a main or is a MLO with only a max of 6 disconnects possible.

Because the contractor didn’t take the next appeal step, even if I change my mind about 230.71 being max 6 installed and not max 6 capability, this will have no effect on the other ESIs in my department nor any effect on the chief ESI. In conversation with my fellow ESIs, two of them [one of whom is the chief] have already stated that they will fail commercial MLO service equipment MDP if there is a capability of more than 6 disconnects.

I feel very uncomfortable with that stand because I don’t see adding a commercial MDP bolt in disconnect/breaker and constructing a conduit run thru the building as being equal to a homeowner sliding in another breaker or two or even a half dozen more. This discomfort with their position was the reason that I started this thread.

I wonder if me explaining all of this helps anyone understand why it would help me to hear answers to my 4 questions and any reasoning that would go with those answers.

I’m also planning on bringing this up for open discussion at the next local IAEI meeting.

David