The house is 40 years old.The contracter replace the old seu cable and install a ground rod.We have a policy that if you touch the service we check all of the service,water ground,rod,and branch circuit protection.We do not ask for afci when inspecting a service change.Do you feel this is a good policy to have?? It does stop confussion.
Where should an inspector stop????
- Thread starter neal
- Start date
- Status
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I'd only go this far in the case of an upgrade.neal said:
Minuteman
Senior Member
- Location
- The Sooner Nation
neal said:
I guess, as the AHJ, y'all can do 'bout anything you want. However, I would say it ought to be in writing. Possibly voted on by the local governing board.
I would suppose y'all could require a complete rewire if you want, but I would think that your main concern would be the scope of the permit and any obvious safety violations.
e2me2
Member
- Location
- South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
Are police here is if you do anything on the service all the bonding and grounding must be done. Once you cross to the branch circuits now you getting margianal.
We have had for many years if you replaced the service you updated the house to existing code rule This was a very bad code.Due to the cost to homeowners (change the service get ride of the no fuse direct wire or penny under fuses or 5 wires under one fuse and the house is 50% safer)homeowner will do this at lower cost but update the whole house spend 2 days fishing wires and now the homeowner wont do it . So do we make it 50% safer and accept that, or to we do nothing .We finaly got the head of all inspectors on our side here and he fought with us to change it this year(against the wrath og the electrical inspectors) to only need to have seperate furnace,washer and a 20 a kit circut nothing else. And like we thought we are changing out panels like crazy .so at some point you need to draw a line between need and want
South Dakota
neal said:
Are police here is if you do anything on the service all the bonding and grounding must be done. Once you cross to the branch circuits now you getting margianal.
We have had for many years if you replaced the service you updated the house to existing code rule This was a very bad code.Due to the cost to homeowners (change the service get ride of the no fuse direct wire or penny under fuses or 5 wires under one fuse and the house is 50% safer)homeowner will do this at lower cost but update the whole house spend 2 days fishing wires and now the homeowner wont do it . So do we make it 50% safer and accept that, or to we do nothing .We finaly got the head of all inspectors on our side here and he fought with us to change it this year(against the wrath og the electrical inspectors) to only need to have seperate furnace,washer and a 20 a kit circut nothing else. And like we thought we are changing out panels like crazy .so at some point you need to draw a line between need and want
macmikeman
Senior Member
- Location
- Planet macmikeman
Thats good because the code only requires them when you are installing 15 and 20 amp, 120 volt outlets in bedrooms of dwellings (at this time)(and unless your jurisdiction has an ammendment requiring more)
resistance
Senior Member
- Location
- WA
******but I would think that your main concern would be the scope of the permit and any obvious safety violations.*********
I'm with minute on the above.
I'm with minute on the above.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
When you go past the point they want and can afford you stop people from doing anything or just not pulling a permit.Would rather they fix what they must and make it a bit safer than not touch it.But thats up to the AHJ
JohnE
Senior Member
- Location
- Milford, MA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Inspector
Jim W in Tampa said:
I'm with Jim, all except the part of it being up to the AHJ.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Neal
I think you guys are right on. If I understand you make sure that the branch circuit OCP is correct size for the conductor and stop there.
That sounds just right.
The scope of what has to be done in a case like this is up to the AHJ as it is not covered in the Code. It is a matter of the AHJ being reasonable. It should be in writing so all players know the rules up front.
I think you guys are right on. If I understand you make sure that the branch circuit OCP is correct size for the conductor and stop there.
That sounds just right.
The scope of what has to be done in a case like this is up to the AHJ as it is not covered in the Code. It is a matter of the AHJ being reasonable. It should be in writing so all players know the rules up front.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
In NC it is pretty open and shut.
The Code Enforcement Official learns what the law expects of them in his/her Laws and Admin class and the contractor gets a little of the law in the booklet s/he receives in the application packet.
Once a permit is obtained permission is given to the Code Enforcement Official to enter the job site at any time they deem necessary to insure a safe and compliant installation.
As to how far a Code Enforcement Official can go when doing an inspection, I would hope that every state has a life safety hazard clause in their statutes allowing the inspector to examine the entire electrical system each and every time.
As to the electrical contractor, I would hope that the licensing board would have a disciplinary clause in their statutes that would force the electrical contractor to address a life safety hazard that was existing instead of just licking the gravy with the attitude of, “I didn’t include that in my bid”
Case in hand
Electrical contractor obtains permit for an AC change out.
Inspector is called out and the inspector observes a service riser that is frayed and the ungrounded conductors are exposed.
Some would say that the inspector was not called to look at the service riser so he shouldn’t do anything.
NC law says that this inspector is to obtain an administrative warrant and have the meter removed until this life safety hazard is repaired. This action in no way says that the electrical contractor is required to make this repair for free. What this action does say is, this problem will be addressed before power is restored to the building.
Where should the inspector stop?
When s/he is sure that the entire system is free from hazard.
What should the electrical contractor do?
Make sure the entire system is free from hazard before calling the inspector.
The Code Enforcement Official learns what the law expects of them in his/her Laws and Admin class and the contractor gets a little of the law in the booklet s/he receives in the application packet.
Once a permit is obtained permission is given to the Code Enforcement Official to enter the job site at any time they deem necessary to insure a safe and compliant installation.
As to how far a Code Enforcement Official can go when doing an inspection, I would hope that every state has a life safety hazard clause in their statutes allowing the inspector to examine the entire electrical system each and every time.
As to the electrical contractor, I would hope that the licensing board would have a disciplinary clause in their statutes that would force the electrical contractor to address a life safety hazard that was existing instead of just licking the gravy with the attitude of, “I didn’t include that in my bid”
Case in hand
Electrical contractor obtains permit for an AC change out.
Inspector is called out and the inspector observes a service riser that is frayed and the ungrounded conductors are exposed.
Some would say that the inspector was not called to look at the service riser so he shouldn’t do anything.
NC law says that this inspector is to obtain an administrative warrant and have the meter removed until this life safety hazard is repaired. This action in no way says that the electrical contractor is required to make this repair for free. What this action does say is, this problem will be addressed before power is restored to the building.
Where should the inspector stop?
When s/he is sure that the entire system is free from hazard.
What should the electrical contractor do?
Make sure the entire system is free from hazard before calling the inspector.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Are you saying exposed ungrounded conductor insulation, or exposed conductor?jwelectric said:
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
LarryFine said:
Either, And, Or; What would it matter?
Either way it would need to be addressed.
What about the #6 going to the rod, what if it was loose?
What if it was a bursted receptacle that was spotted through the window of a bedroom or a light fixture hanging by the conductors?
Any to all of the above should be enough for the inspector to take some type of action for these hazards to be addressed or loss of power although he was there to inspect an AC change out only.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
It matters! I can see pulling a meter if it means deenergizing exposed conductors.jwelectric said:
Yes, but exposed rubber can wait a day or two longer. Make a note; only pull the meter for failure to comply.
Again, it's not a life-threatening issue right now, especially with the what-good-is-it debates going around.
That's an issue, of course, but it doesn't require killing the entire house. Note and reinspect, if the electrician can't correct on the spot.
Even failed final (powered) inspections don't usually entail pulling a meter because something isn't in compliance.
No argument; just don't pull a meter for every infraction. There's reasonable and there's extreme.
My point: there's a great difference between exposed insulation and exposed conductor. I've seen plenty of frayed older service cable, and I've never, ever seen exposed ungrounded conductors from this condition.
Sometimes customers give me a shocked (pun intended) looks when I touch the exposed strands.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
jwelectric said:
With a rule like that i would never want a permit pulled.They just spend all they had to replace the ac and now your yanking out the meter.Sounds like HITLER.
resistance said:
I agree !
obvious safety violations
scope of the permit
Scope of the permit has to be defined.
For a piece of equipment, such as adding AC, the inspection should be limited to the installation itself only, from the breaker out to the unit.
For a SE and meterbase replacement, I wouldn't look any further than the cable and meterbase.
If the SE is changed all the way to the main panel, I?d stop at the panel connection.
I don?t think you get into a ?mission creep? situation until you replace the main disconnect. At that point you would need to confirm that all electrodes have conductors at the panel to be connected to the new main, add conductors to all electrodes that are present in the building if conductors are missing, and add a ground rod if necessary. Hotwater to coldwater bonding jumper, watermeter bonding jumper, and bonding metal pipes that aren?t part of an electrode.
But the ?mission creep? on a service main upgrade/replacement should not be required to include changes to any of the branch circuits. As long as the proper size breakers are used for the HR wires, there shouldn?t be a requirement to correct mistakes in circuiting of restricted load circuits [210.11(C)] or adding AFCIs or other circuit changes. Feeders would have to have separate grounding and neutral conductors connected to and leaving the main but their termination and separation in preexisting feeder panels is beyond the scope of the permit.
I don?t believe 210.63 should be required unless there is new equipment being installed. I don?t think 210.52(G) should come up either unless there was new walls, new equipment, or new/extended branch circuit work going on in that room.
As far as obvious safety violations that are seen but that don?t involve the scope of the work. Because they don?t involve the scope of the work, these should be handled with the property owner and not required to be performed by the contractor that is there for other work. His permit and inspections shouldn?t be held ?hostage? for problems on the site that are beyond the scope of his work. He has the right to bid on only part of a job just as the property owner has the right to choose to use one electrical contractor for all of the work or split up the work into several pieces, each piece with it?s own limited scope.
Each contractor is only responsible for the scope determined by his contract. The property owner is responsible for the whole thing.
David
Atricaudatus
Member
- Location
- Eastern NC
dnem said:
Well said, David.
The earlier suggestions about pulling meters for things unrelated to the contractor's scope of work didn't pass the common sense test for me. If there's an obvious life threatening situation noticed, but unrelated to the scope of work, then it's between the HO and the AHJ.
- Status