why get an inspection?

[Gary Smith]

:rolleyes:

all from the same house

[Kevin Barre]

Well...at least you could take some small comfort in the fact that an unattached temp and pressure valve discharge line is marginally better than one going uphill. ;)

[Shannon Guinn]

:rolleyes:

all from the same house

Agreed. At least you had the satisfaction of making the world safer that day.:)

Also, you could have entitled this thread "Why have a C/O?" We are still pushing our county commissioners to institute them, they say they are worried about the liability, what about the liability of NOT having them?:eek:

[Jerry Peck]

Also, you could have entitled this thread "Why have a C/O?" We are still pushing our county commissioners to institute them, they say they are worried about the liability, what about the liability of NOT having them?:eek:


Shannon,

Explain it to them this way (if you have not already done so, and you probably have):

There are two basic choices:

1) Allow the structures to be occupied after all inspections have been made and a Certificate of Occupancy has been given.

2) Allow the structures to be occupied after all inspections have been made and a Certificate of Occupancy has NOT been given.

If 2) is chosen, THEY ARE LIABLE FOR THE STRUCTURES BEING OCCUPIED, simply based on their inspections, with not final 'verification that all the inspections were made and signed off' (which is all a C/O is really is, just a paper showing that the paper work trail has been completed and all inspections have been done and signed off).

By not issuing a C/O, they are setting themselves up for being sued BECAUSE THEY DID NOT VERIFY that all inspections had been done and signed off, yet they let the structure be "occupied" any way.

That should be one of those "Holy Crap!" moments when they understand the realities of doing that. :eek: And they should institute a C/O system ASAP. :)

[Shannon Guinn]

Thanks for the reply Jerry and the suggestions, I have fought the good fight and used every tactic (in vain I fear) in order to get COs instituted. I even went as far as to invite the commission chairman (we have one of those and two post commissioners) out to a final elec inspection to see what I'm having to deal with, he was always conveniently "busy" on whatever particular day that I would invite him. Sometimes a house or commercial structure would be empty, or have furniture or stock, or sometimes they would have a family living inside, or a fully functioning business.(sigh)

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Come January 2, a new commission chairman will take office and it just so happens that he worked for a large construction company as a superintendent. He oversaw a couple of small projects like the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta as well as an addition to the Atlanta airport (Thank you God). I have spoken with him recently regarding my concerns over the CO issue as well as final building inspections, to which he completely understands and will address come the first of the year. I guess the wheels of progress do turn in government although be it slowly.

[Wayne Carlisle]

OK, help me out here. On the electrical panel. What is really wrong with it?

I see a double pole breaker with only one wire, the insulation on the wires are trimmed a bit much but am I missing something really bad? Yeah it's aluminum but that was probably allowed when the house was built.

Help me out here guys.

[Ron Bibler]

The funny part of all this we as inspectors take this stuff to heart.

and then most buyer just go over the report, sign it at escrow and move in the home and never fix any thing.


Best

Ron

[Jerry Peck]

OK, help me out here. On the electrical panel. What is really wrong with it?

Wayne,

See annotated photo attached.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Isn't it just recently that panels just went to isolated grounds and nuetrals?

[Shannon Guinn]

Wayne, not to my knowledge, however in a 3-wire system there is no "isolated" ground since everything is tied together. What Jerry is referring to in his picture is the fact that the neutrals can only be (1) per terminal lug. The grounds may be doubled but neutrals cannot. In a 4-wire system there is a separation between grounds and neutrals or to use the technical vernacular grounding conductor and grounded conductor.

[Jerry Peck]

Isn't it just recently that panels just went to isolated grounds and neutrals?

If "recently" means 1927 ... :) (for isolating neutrals from grounds past the service equipment) ...

To be more clear, by "isolated grounds and neutrals" you mean as in 'isolated in their own terminals' or as in 'grounded conductors isolated from grounding conductors after the service equipment'?

Being as that is "service equipment" (looks like "service equipment" because it is a split bus panel), the neutrals do not have to be isolated from ground. The neutrals are not allowed to be in the same terminal as ground either, even when in "service equipment".

If you mean 'to be in their own terminal', then, yes, wording was "recently" added to the NEC to specifically prohibit neutrals from being in a terminal with any other conductor - period. Not even two neutral conductors in one terminal.

Previously, that was left up to the listing and labeling of the panel/terminal, and I always fought the fight that it was not specifically prohibited in the NEC (I was correct) and that if (there is that big *IF*) the panel was listed and labeled for it, it was allowed (I was also correct there), however, to my knowledge, there were no panels which were ever listed and labeled identifying the terminals to allow more than one neutral in the terminal, thus, while I was "correct" regarding the NEC and those arguments, it was always a moot point as none allowed it (none were listed and labeled for it).

Guess I just liked pointing out that it was "allowed" *if listed and labeled that way*, and, yes, it was "allowed" ... just no one took advantage of it being allowed. ;)

Then the NEC changed its wording, prohibiting a grounded conductor from being in a terminal with any other conductor, not even if the terminal was rated for two conductors. Then it became an NEC code violation. :cool:

[Wayne Carlisle]

I knew about the two wires under one terminal was against code. I was refering to the grounds and neutrals being on the same bar in the service panel.

[Bruce Ramsey]

How about the aluminum wiring? That should be a concern.

[Jerry Peck]

I knew about the two wires under one terminal was against code. I was refering to the grounds and neutrals being on the same bar in the service panel.

That is what I thought, thus my first comment regarding 1927. :) As I recall, I traced it back that far once, not sure, but that is what I remember without going back through my old NEC code books.

At the service equipment, the neutral is required to be bonded to ground, in any approved manner (bonding jumper, bonding screw, same terminal bar, etc.), and what better manner than using the same bus bar - in my opinion - that sure beats those bonding screws and bonding jumpers?

[Shannon Guinn]

That is what I thought, thus my first comment regarding 1927. :) As I recall, I traced it back that far once, not sure, but that is what I remember without going back through my old NEC code books.

At the service equipment, the neutral is required to be bonded to ground, in any approved manner (bonding jumper, bonding screw, same terminal bar, etc.), and what better manner than using the same bus bar - in my opinion - that sure beats those bonding screws and bonding jumpers?


Jerry, what's the oldest NEC that you have? One that required at least one wax candle per room, or one that required all outhousesto be gfci protected?:D But seriously folks, the oldest one I've personally ever seen was a forty something edition at a code class a couple of years back. It would be interesting (maybe someday if I ever get rich) to have a copy of each year. Here's a question for you Jerry, what was the year of the first NEC edition and did it look like the GA amendments (which are usually like the instructions on how to run a toaster)?

[Jerry Peck]

Here's a question for you Jerry, what was the year of the first NEC edition ... ?

Shannon,

That is a trick question (although you probably did not know that ;) ) ... the 1897 (from the front cover of my copy) ...


Rules and Requirements
of the
Underwriters' Association
of the
Middle Department
for the installation of
Wiring and Apparatus
for
Light, Heat and Power
------------------
Adopted August 31, 1897
------------------
Superseding All Previous Rules
-------------------------
Copies can be obtained at 316 Walnut St., Philada


That code is considered to be the precursor to the NEC, thus it is considered to be 'the first NEC'.


My next oldest NEC is actually titled "1905 National Electrical Code".


Inside it says: The National Electrical Code was originally drawn in 1987 as a result of the united efforts of the various Insurance, Electrical, Architectural and allied interests which through the National Conference on Standard Electrical Rules, composed of delegates from various National Associations, unanimously voted to recommend it to their respective associations for approval or adoption; and is here presented by the National Board of Fire Underwriters with the various amendments and additions which have been made since that time by them.


Thus, from the best that I can tell, there was an 1897 edition (titled as stated above), followed by a 1905 edition, which was actually titled "National Electrical Code". Thus, which is "the first" NEC? I am going to go with everyone else and say that the 1897 code was "the first" national electrical code (in lower case because it was not titled that), and that the 1905 National Electrical Code was the second edition of the National Electrical Code, even though it was the first to actually have that title.


To your other question: From current back to the mid-1940s,I have every NEC and the Handbook.


I also have a Handbook for an NEC which ended up not existing :cool: : I have the Handbook which was produced for the 1946 NEC, which was never adopted (thus the 1946 NEC did not exist), instead being adopted later as the 1947 NEC - I also have that 1947 Handbook. :cool: :cool:


Once I get back past the mid-1940s, my editions thin out, leaving several blanks (which I would like to fill in), for example, I go from 1905 to 1918. :(

[Shannon Guinn]

Thanks for the response Jerry and may I say wow to your collection, the 40's version I saw reminded me of one of those harlequin romance novels (i.e. not too long and not much in it :D ) I didn't know how far back the handbooks went so I have officially met my quota for learning something new today.

By the by, I don't know if you have children or if you do if they are interested in the electrical field, but if you ever needed to add an adopted fully grown male electrical inspector to your will to leave your collection to, I may just know a guy...............;)

[brian schmitt]

i have a 1901 "national electrical code"
rules and requirements
of the
national board of fire underwriters
for the installation of
electric wiring
and
apparatus
it is 3 1/2" by 5 1/2" with 80 pages. they should have kept it that simple!:D

[Jerry Peck]

i have a 1901 "national electrical code"

Brian,

Keep me in mind if you ever want to consider passing that on to someone else who will cherish it.

[Ted Menelly]

Brian,

Keep me in mind if you ever want to consider passing that on to someone else who will cherish it.

Am I seeing the next erotic novel passing into JPs hands.