renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
I don't know how long this link will be good: http://www.couriernews.net/story/2002473.html I thought we should discuss it in some detail.
I find one comment of particular interest: "He informed me that I could not use the old breaker box and add an additional 100 amp unit, a method that would have been a much cheaper cost and material job than the installation of a 200 amp meter base, new material and labor." Of course, the speaker goes on to assert that the other electrician did exactly that, and was passed.
The inspector is reported to have explained: "He noted Moody took it apart during the inspection and showed Ash it indeed met code requirements." The story also reports: "The electrician is responsible to make sure everything is up to code," Ash said. "Not myself, I'm merely the inspector. I look at it and make sure that it does meet code. As a matter of fact, I'm not even supposed to open the box. The electrician is supposed to do that. On this particular box, I walked up and I opened the bottom cover and there was no cover on it and that's the first violation. When I looked at it, I could see a burnt area in the box. I did not pull the breaker out. I assumed that the bus bar was out. That tells me you have to replace this box. I made a fatal mistake here, I assumed that the bus bar was bad."
I find it interesting that BOTH contractors wanted to have the inspector look at the job before proceeding. Comments?
Considering other expenses involved in a service change, does the price difference between the the panels really matter? (Also, please note that local ordinance would have required the upgrade to include an outside means to disconnect. Many homes here have NO way to disconnect, short of pulling the meter.)
Regarding the race issue, while the inspector is white, the city has a black inspector as well - and a black mayor. The named inspector is a longtime fixture in local government.
Finally, does the "cheap" method used strike anyone as a hack job?
I find one comment of particular interest: "He informed me that I could not use the old breaker box and add an additional 100 amp unit, a method that would have been a much cheaper cost and material job than the installation of a 200 amp meter base, new material and labor." Of course, the speaker goes on to assert that the other electrician did exactly that, and was passed.
The inspector is reported to have explained: "He noted Moody took it apart during the inspection and showed Ash it indeed met code requirements." The story also reports: "The electrician is responsible to make sure everything is up to code," Ash said. "Not myself, I'm merely the inspector. I look at it and make sure that it does meet code. As a matter of fact, I'm not even supposed to open the box. The electrician is supposed to do that. On this particular box, I walked up and I opened the bottom cover and there was no cover on it and that's the first violation. When I looked at it, I could see a burnt area in the box. I did not pull the breaker out. I assumed that the bus bar was out. That tells me you have to replace this box. I made a fatal mistake here, I assumed that the bus bar was bad."
I find it interesting that BOTH contractors wanted to have the inspector look at the job before proceeding. Comments?
Considering other expenses involved in a service change, does the price difference between the the panels really matter? (Also, please note that local ordinance would have required the upgrade to include an outside means to disconnect. Many homes here have NO way to disconnect, short of pulling the meter.)
Regarding the race issue, while the inspector is white, the city has a black inspector as well - and a black mayor. The named inspector is a longtime fixture in local government.
Finally, does the "cheap" method used strike anyone as a hack job?