LETS PLAY INSPECTOR...Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of the responses kind of make me laugh...a little.

Opinions of installations are not going to make you guys a good inspector, especially since you seem to get so mad when an inspector does it to you.



1. Remember, the contractor inherited the panel. For the time being forget about the loose wiring around the panel, I think he was waiting for me to inspect the panel and make a determination as to whether it is grandfathered in or has to be relocated.
(I will let you know what I am going to tell the contractor...later)

2. Fire stopping/caulking is not required, this is a dwelling, and draft stopping is in order. Generally speaking, the only fire rated assemblies in a dwelling are the boiler/furnace room walls/ceiling and the attached garage common wall/ceilings with the living space of the dwelling.

3. The "buttons" used as grommets/bushings satisfies me. 300.4(B)(1)


I am really curious as to the ruling on the panel by you guys. Not an opinion, but a code that prevents the new contractor from being able to use the panel or permits him to use the panel. One person has provided a section number.
Does that section number prevent one from installing a panel horizontally?
 
240.81 says Up is the On posistion. I asked my wife wich way is ON and she said up. Its intuitive because the world is full of switches that are ON in the up posistion. I'm not convinced that there is no real danger here either. You have to hold this door open in order to inspect and or reset these breakers. This may cause someone to be more likely to stand directly in front of the panel while reseting a breaker wich could be an arc fault hazzard. This whole install violates my sense of aesthetics and I'ld throw a 110.12 and a 110.3(B) violation in there too.
 
I understand that he "inherited" this violation. I have also "inherited" lots of violations over the years, and I fixed them. I still still vote it needs to be changed. If I was the EC on this job, it would have already been changed before I called you in for the rough-in. Just my two cents

Let us know what you decide to do.
 
Pierre, I was not clear from the original post that you were aware this was not the present contractors work. That was what I would have wanted to confirm. Thus my post.
As far as the panel, as noted 240.81. This doesn't prohobit a horizontal panel, but does make all those top breakers a violation. The color of the Romex indicates to me the panel, or its circuits were installed during a Code cycle that would include 240.81
In this jurisdiction, if this contractor did not do that install,a rejection notice would be issued to the homeowner to have corrections made.
There are obvioulsy 334 violations. The "grommets" are, in my mind, a close call, ,maybe 110.3 depends on mfg instuctions.
As far a the "board". If the installer is licensed they need to asorbe the load
 
We can not get past the main breaker. That must be up for on. Grandfathering is fine as long as it was legal at the time of install. You can not ignore what never was to code just because it was already there,that is not what grandfathering is about. I agree the buttons are ok. Maybe he didnt care to buy a box of them red snap ons. I know many branch breaker go sideways for on and off and just checked my own cutler hammer and even my main goes sideways. Without going to shed to get codebook i do recall something about ON must be UP.
 
Didnt read all of the post, but at a glance, the installation would probably function within the intent of the code (excluding UL issues). I think it looks terrible,very un-workman like, and I would not want my local inspector approving it, because I have to compete with it,:D although the installer probably took more than average labor units ......But functional and safe? I'd say yes.....need a cover on those duplex's....heck the panel in my $70,000 RV is installed horizontal........:smile:
 
My first thought was 240.81 before reading any other posts.
The bushings are funny but I don't see them as a violation.
The fire caulk no big deal. Plate for recept above panel easy fix.

Your 100% right ,no personal opinions ,just cite NEC violations.

Why didn't you post pictures with the panel cover removed?
 
Mule said:
Didnt read all of the post, but at a glance, the installation would probably function within the intent of the code (excluding UL issues). I think it looks terrible,very un-workman like, and I would not want my local inspector approving it, because I have to compete with it,:D although the installer probably took more than average labor units ......But functional and safe? I'd say yes.....need a cover on those duplex's....heck the panel in my $70,000 RV is installed horizontal........:smile:
Click to expand...

Thats so if you ever roll the rv over it will be facing right direction.
Many install will work and even safe but that does not mean they comply with nec.
 
augie47 said:
Pierre, I was not clear from the original post that you were aware this was not the present contractors work. That was what I would have wanted to confirm. Thus my post.
As far as the panel, as noted 240.81. This doesn't prohobit a horizontal panel, but does make all those top breakers a violation. The color of the Romex indicates to me the panel, or its circuits were installed during a Code cycle that would include 240.81
In this jurisdiction, if this contractor did not do that install,a rejection notice would be issued to the homeowner to have corrections made.
There are obvioulsy 334 violations. The "grommets" are, in my mind, a close call, ,maybe 110.3 depends on mfg instuctions.
As far a the "board". If the installer is licensed they need to asorbe the load
Click to expand...


Augie, I will start this with a comment about my respect for your knowledge and responses that shows you are a person who has integrity and a desire to do what is correct and helpful at the same time. Not easy to do.
What really ticks me off about the existing panel is that last year this installation passed an inspection. So much for credibility of inspectors in our area.
And yes, I can see how other contractors find competing in the industry as very tough when inspections are less then should be.
I write plenty of violations to building/property owners. Tomorrow morning I have a meeting in the building department with a very large property owner. They are upset my inspection of work performed on their property is not a violation to the contractor, but a situation where their maintenance people have performed very bad electrical work creating a safety issue that will lead to a very, very large $$$ figure to repair. It will be hot tomorrow morning. I cannot wait to see the results of this meeting.

I can deal with the "buttons" they are doing what a grommet would do...choose your battles is what I hear from time to time.
 
C3PO said:
If I had to bet though on is in the up position which would be ok.
Click to expand...

sure and Im sure its listed to be installed that way.........but I've seen older MCC equipent that the handles operated lef to right....

Not saying this installation its right, but most installers that are obviously not electricians make alot worse violations.......violations that render it truely unsafe....

Like the Pierre said, he has to aproach this with code, and with that he has to turn it down. But I do have to admire a un-advised installers attempt to be creative to do the obvious with the buttons and fire caulk, anyone with common sense would know that sheetmetal will work through the insulation..
 
Our inspectors here would never allow a tie-in to this panel until it was turned upright. It is understood by the local contractors, and they would have told the owner that they were adding that cost to the job. It is not an issue who absorbs the cost, the inspectors don't base decisions on that. There was an electrocution here about 15 years ago because someone thought up meant on and down meant off on an incorrectly installed 2 pole breaker. On a similar note if we replace a panel here we are required to bring the entire house up to current codes with few exceptions. It makes for very difficult and expensive upgrades, but it has been that way for many years. Also, I questioned the installer on Utube video about 18 months ago and he told me he was in Canada, and it is legal to have a panel sideways there.
 
ZZZ said:
Our inspectors here would never allow a tie-in to this panel until it was turned upright. It is understood by the local contractors, and they would have told the owner that they were adding that cost to the job.
Click to expand...

Luckily for us electricians here in MA that we have an amendment that makes that the inspectors problem to notify the property owner of existing volitions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top