Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Erwin, TN
    Posts
    314

    Default Service panel questions

    I have a few questions. 1) Shouldn't the service panel grounds and neutral be bonded together with a bonding strap ? 2) Is there any other way to bond the neutrals and grounds together other than a bonding strap because this panel has a missing bonding strap across the top 3) This is a Seimens 100 amp panel that has a ground rod on the neutral and the ground bus bars with and green screw bonded to the enclosure (to me this panel is configured like a secondary panel) IS THIS CORRECT, THANKS IN ADVANCE

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Last edited by Sam Morris; 11-16-2021 at 03:55 PM.
    OREP Insurance

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Morris View Post
    I have a few questions. 1) Shouldn't the service panel grounds and neutral be bonded together with a bonding strap ?
    Yes, the neutral needs to be bonded to ground ... see question 2) below and its answer.

    2) Is there any other way to bond the neutrals and grounds together other than a bonding strap because this panel has a missing bonding strap across the top
    See that nice shiny green screw in your 3rd photo? If that has been screwed all the way in, it is supposed to be the ground bonding for the grounded neutral conductor in the terminal to the right of the green screw. Yes, there are other ways to bond the neutral to ground other than the bonding strap.

    3) This is a Seimens 100 amp panel that has a ground rod on the neutral and the ground bus bars with and green screw bonded to the enclosure (to me this panel is configured like a secondary panel) ...
    Why do you say that is configured like a secondary panel?

    I see a main disconnect in the panel, and if there is no disconnect between that and the meter, that panel is the service equipment panel, which you first called in in 1) above. The neural is bonded to ground, and you said that bare ground conductor in the in that terminal bar goes to the grounding electrode system (which is most likely more than just a ground rod, if it even has a ground rod).

    I don't see a ground bond screw or a ground bond strap in the left terminal bar where that green ground wire is at the bottom, however, there may be a cross over bar behind the plastic which is there and I don't see, and if so, then that bonds the left terminal bar to the right terminal bar.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Erwin, TN
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Yes, the neutral needs to be bonded to ground ... see question 2) below and its answer.



    See that nice shiny green screw in your 3rd photo? If that has been screwed all the way in, it is supposed to be the ground bonding for the grounded neutral conductor in the terminal to the right of the green screw. Yes, there are other ways to bond the neutral to ground other than the bonding strap.



    Why do you say that is configured like a secondary panel?

    I see a main disconnect in the panel, and if there is no disconnect between that and the meter, that panel is the service equipment panel, which you first called in in 1) above. The neural is bonded to ground, and you said that bare ground conductor in the in that terminal bar goes to the grounding electrode system (which is most likely more than just a ground rod, if it even has a ground rod).

    I don't see a ground bond screw or a ground bond strap in the left terminal bar where that green ground wire is at the bottom, however, there may be a cross over bar behind the plastic which is there and I don't see, and if so, then that bonds the left terminal bar to the right terminal bar.
    What are other ways to bond the neutral and grounds together ?
    No cross over bar in this panel it usually at the top, that's what I'm looking for and I'm usually able to see In all service panels I've inspected. I've even see a bare #6 copper wire jumped over to each bus when the manufactures jumper was missing.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Morris View Post
    What are other ways to bond the neutral and grounds together ?
    That green screw serves that purpose when screwed all the way into the back of the panel.

    No cross over bar in this panel it usually at the top, that's what I'm looking for and I'm usually able to see In all service panels I've inspected.
    Those crossover bars don't bond the neutral to the panel, they bond the grounding terminal bar to the neutral terminal bar, and the neutral terminal bar is bonded to ground.

    I've even see a bare #6 copper wire jumped over to each bus when the manufactures jumper was missing.
    That may work, but isn't correct when the label calls for the crossover bar.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Jerry, if the label explicitly requires the crossover bar, i am inclined to agree with you. If it doesn't, no. Years ago, at an ACES meeting, i suggested to the massed NRTLs that it would be awfully useful to installers for product instructions to indicate which of them were part of the listing and which not. Silence.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    Jerry, if the label explicitly requires the crossover bar, i am inclined to agree with you. If it doesn't, no.
    Which is why I stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    That may work, but isn't correct when the label calls for the crossover bar.
    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    ... would be awfully useful to installers for product instructions to indicate which of them were part of the listing and which not
    If it's on the listing installation instructions (label instructions are part of listing), then it's required.

    I've seen labels which requires a plastic crossover bar when the metal crossover bar is removed, even gave a part number for the plastic crossover bar.

    Last edited by Jerry Peck; 11-25-2021 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Speelin' (using my phone)
    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Which is why I stated:




    If it's on the listing installation instructions (label instructions are part of listing), then it's required.

    I've seen labels which requires a plastic crossover bar when the metal crossover bar is removed, even gave a part number for the plastic crossover bar.
    I'm quite with you, Jerry. I've also enough experience writing and teaching that I'm acutely aware that people often take in an idea that's not exactly what's written.

    Label instructions are part of listing. Instruction sheets accompanying products generally contain material that can be ignored because doing so is not part of complying with listing. Determining this can be a challenge.

    A company's tech support people may or may not have the understanding to help callers differentiate, at least at the first tier.

    Then there are interesting cases where the instructions can NOT be part of listing, because they require violation of statute, but they also tie compliance with instructions to warranty. (An off-thread topic, sometimes associated with the game of "Who's got the biggest lawyer?")


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    Instruction sheets accompanying products generally contain material that can be ignored because doing so is not part of complying with listing.
    Some codes (Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, etc) require "installation shall be on accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and this code", making those installation instructions as part of the code.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Some codes (Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, etc) require "installation shall be on accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and this code", making those installation instructions as part of the code.
    That is a hairy one, Jerry. At the same time, I bet that your reasonable inspection authority will interpret this to mean "Obviously you don't have to follow their suggestion for X; it's not part of the listing."

    The critical question may be whether or how likely, in the case of fire, shock, explosion, etc. and a lawsuit, a judge or other hearing officer will find an installer at fault for the e.g. fire if there is no evidence that their workmanship or variant product choices caused the fire, but they did not fully comply with those instructions.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    That is a hairy one, Jerry. At the same time, I bet that your reasonable inspection authority will interpret this to mean "Obviously you don't have to follow their suggestion for X; it's not part of the listing."
    That's the sticky wicket part that you are trying to separate too finely ... it does not matter what part, or no part, of the installation instructions are part of, or not part of, the lising.

    Here is an example from the Fuel Gas Code: (underlining and bold are mine)

    305.1 General.
    - Equipment and appliances shall be installed as required by the terms of their approval, in accordance with the conditions of listing, the manufacturer?s instructions and this code. Manufacturers? installation instructions shall be available on the job site at the time of inspection. Where a code provision is less restrictive than the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance or the manufacturer?s installation instructions, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer?s installation instructions shall apply.
    - Unlisted appliances approved in accordance with Section 301.3 shall be limited to uses recommended by the manufacturer and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer?s instructions, the provisions of this code and the requirements determined by the code official.


    That states that 4 things apply to the installation, and that the most restrictive requirements of each must be met (any of the 4 things which are less restrictive are met and exceeded):
    a) the terms of their approval, and
    b) in accordance with the conditions of listing, and
    c) the manufacturer's instructions (i,e, stated as "manufacturer's installation instructions" in the next sentence), and
    d) this code

    If it is in the terms of approval ... the code requires it.

    If it is in the conditions of listing ... the code requires it.

    If it is in the manufacturer's installation instructions ... the code requires it.

    If it is in the code ... the code requires it.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    And then there are the instructions included which are a violation of code or just wrong creating another issue.

    All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    And then there are the instructions included which are a violation of code ...
    Jim,

    Those instructions don't violate code as they are now code.

    The conflict arises when one of the 4 specifically says "do abcde" and another of the specifically says "abcde must not be done".

    Codes are minimum, doing differently is not a violation if it meets that minimum, unless the above occurs where there is a specific "do abcde"/"don't do abcde" conflict

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    So we have an electrical code that says in 110.3(B), "Thou shalt comply with listing instructions when installing listed products.
    We have a fuel gas code that says, 'Thou shalt comply with manufacturers' instructions when installing products."
    I ask, "Did the authors of these sets of rules mean the same thing but use different words?"
    It's tempting to argue, "It doesn't matter; the law is the law, and the two laws are a bit different here."
    However, at least when it comes to the NEC, 90.4 puts interpretation in the hands of the AHJ. I don't know whether the Fuel Gas Code has similar enforcement language.

    Strictly in NEC terms, Jim's issue has arisen. We can think of it in Jerry's terms, as "Do this"/"Don't do this" except that the "Do this" instruction does not trace back to the ANSI standard, and so doesn't map to 110.3(B). Of course, you need to read the bloody standard to confirm this.

    Products, even listed products, sometimes don't fully comply with their standards; sometimes standards lag the enforcement code; sometimes standards simply don't forbid instructions that conflict with the enforcement. I've submitted market surveillance product incident reports concerning at least two types of issue. Without our doing that, these conflicts often don't get cleaned up.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    What you are missing, I think, is that if all are done, and there is no specific conflict, then all is okay.

    This "So we have an electrical code that says in 110.3(B), "Thou shalt comply with listing instructions when installing listed products." does not say 'and do not install in accordance with anything else".

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    What you are missing, I think, is that if all are done, and there is no specific conflict, then all is okay.

    This "So we have an electrical code that says in 110.3(B), "Thou shalt comply with listing instructions when installing listed products." does not say 'and do not install in accordance with anything else".
    Let me offer a specific example, Jerry; it may clarify the type of conflict I'm talking about.

    A listed ceiling-supported fan stated in its instructions that (a) it was to be mounted to a listed fan-support box and (2) that's its enclosed remote-control module was to be installed in the box, under the canopy. Good so far? I think so. A fan-rated box is one of the two legal ways of supporting a ceiling-supported fan without invoking special permission.

    However, in this case, doing so would have been a Code violation. The module was bulky enough that it pushed down the canopy. An easy solution would have been to install a deeper fan-rated box. There wasn't one.

    While there might have been fun work-arounds, an AHJ might or might not have accepted them. I reported this design problem to the NRTL, and a little ways in the future, the manufacturer's fans were shipped with special fan-rated boxes that could hold all.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    David, I'm not following you were the installation instructions created a listing conflict.

    Did the listing say to do it differently than the installation instructions?

    My reading of your description is that the design of the listed ceiling supported fan created the code violation as there were no listed ceiling fan support boxes deep enough for the listed components.

    That causes me to think that the NRTL flubbed up on their approval, which is confirmed by their solution to correcting the problem.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    That causes me to think that the NRTL flubbed up on their approval, which is confirmed by their solution to correcting the problem.
    Agreed!

    It created a conflict between complying with NEC 110.3(B) and complying with NEC Section 422.20 or suchlike--unless we take the requirement that a box shall be "provided with a cover" as meaning "provided with something that is connected underneath, with or without any kind of gap."

    In another case, a NRTL listed Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment that included installation and use instructions that do not conflict with the 2017 NEC but do conflict with a 2020 requirement. Moreover, the instructions warn that if the instructions are not fully complied with, the EV warranty is void. On top of this, the instructions say the EVSE provides ground fault protection, which i consider misleading as hell to Croesus Customer, as the equipment is not listed to UL943, nor could it be with the present design. I yelped to the NRTL about both issues.


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,968

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    I seem to remember one where following the instructions called for a clear NEC violation from a safety standpoint. The instructions were clearly written by someone with little technical or code knowledge. Following the instructions per 110.3B would have been less safe than following the other part of the code. So you violate code in order to follow the code.

    I would ask if the instructions say to tape the wirenuts and you don't is there an issue? What if you don't use the included wirenuts?

    All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    I seem to remember one where following the instructions called for a clear NEC violation from a safety standpoint. The instructions were clearly written by someone with little technical or code knowledge. Following the instructions per 110.3B would have been less safe than following the other part of the code. So you violate code in order to follow the code.

    I would ask if the instructions say to tape the wirenuts and you don't is there an issue? What if you don't use the included wirenuts?
    There are two points here, Jim. First, Unlike the National Fuel Gas Code, the NEC does not require compliance with all instructions, just with all listing instructions and all instructions on the label. UL makes all their standards free for digital viewing, just not searching and downloading. So it's fairly easy to check whether a particular instruction is part of listing. If necessary, the NRT can be asked about a particular instruction.

    As for wirenuts, I've rarely used the ones enclosed. Wirenuts of necessity need to be chosen to match the conductors being spliced, and equipment manufacturers can't know what and building wiring conductors, and how many of them, are going to be in a splice.

    Now if they say to tape the wirenuts, I would do so. Perhaps they know there is a high degree of vibration associated with their equipment. More likely their tech writer didn't know anything like that, but what harm does it do?

    I'll state this more strongly: in the highly unlikely even that those instructions were right there and the wirenuts had not been taped, if I were on a TPI inspection I probably would tell the installer to start taping them before i left the job. Or they could call the manufacturer or NRTL while i was there and have the rep tell me it isn't really required.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    From what I have found over the years, and searched again today, installation instructions provided with listed equipment are part of the listing:

    https://iaeimagazine.org/columns/ul-...ct-ul-listing/

    "
    Question: Installation instructions


    Are the installation instructions part of the UL Listing? Are all Listed products required to have installation instructions? Are installation instructions reviewed by UL?


    Answer


    Installation instructions are considered to be a part of the UL Listing.


    The UL Standards for Safety used to investigate products contain specific requirements regarding the content and appearance of the instructions. Installation instructions are not required to be marked with the UL Mark, but they are required to be provided with the product bearing the UL Mark. Some products are not required to have installation instructions when the National Electrical Code contains all the necessary installation requirements, such as outlet boxes. UL staff reviews the instructions, both during the initial evaluation of the product, as well as during the continual Follow-Up Service at the factories. The clarity of the instructions is also reviewed.
    "

    I haven't been on UL STP 67 for a couple of years now, but I recall that was a topic which as discussed and the answer was 'Yes, installation instructions provided with listed equipment are part of the listing.'

    One does not state that 'this is how you install this equipment', then state 'oh, by the way, installing it this way may violate the listing if installed that way'.

    The answer goes back to another post David brought up, and which we agreed was not a 'listing' problem (as such, although it really is), it was a NRTL problem in that the NRTL should not have listed it when it could not be installed as stated by the manufacturer without violating the code.

    If UL, ETL, et al tests equipment and puts their listed sticker on it ... it was their responsibility to verify that all such information is correct ... and either ship out deeper fan support boxes (as David said was done to correct that specific issue) or design the canopy to be deep enough to fully enclose the components within the canopy (which a likely would have taken more time and money to do than just ship out a deeper fan support box).

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    [QUOTE=Jerry Peck;288266]From what I have found over the years, and searched again today, installation instructions provided with listed equipment are part of the listing:

    https://iaeimagazine.org/columns/ul-...ct-ul-listing/

    "
    Thank you, Jerry. That's a pretty potent reference, despite being a decade-plus old. I misdoubt that their position has changed.

    I will add three other issues. First, while the NEC sayeth that an installation requires compliance with listing instructions, the entire NEC applies only as interpreted by the AHJ. They can easily say, "Nah, use wirenuts with springs inside, not the crap that came with it."

    Second, the precise text of product instructions is contained in a U standard for which I serve on the STP. When I suggested that an element of them was misleading, and such and such alternate wording would be more valid/less arbitrary, I was told that a research project had confirmed their effectiveness, years ago. Hence forget about trying to improve them, unless someone funds new research.

    Third, though only sometimes relevant, I have talked to NRTL reps who warned me that a NRTL mark is bloody irrelevant to 110.3(B) unless that NRTL is authorized to list the product. And this wasn't the rep of an outfit like Intertek.for that info, I need to go to their web site, or OSHA's. At least once, I found a marking that was provided by a type of NRTL that is described on OSHA's site basically as former.


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    I will add three other issues. First, while the NEC sayeth that an installation requires compliance with listing instructions, the entire NEC applies only as interpreted by the AHJ. They can easily say, "Nah, use wirenuts with springs inside, not the crap that came with it."
    David, while that is true, readers of what the code actually says (such as you, Jim, myself, and others) can only reference what is written in the code, not what some wayward AHJ may say about what they want the code to say.

    Second, the precise text of product instructions is contained in a U standard for which I serve on the STP. When I suggested that an element of them was misleading, and such and such alternate wording would be more valid/less arbitrary, I was told that a research project had confirmed their effectiveness, years ago. Hence forget about trying to improve them, unless someone funds new research.
    Kind of the reason why I figured there was no real reason for me to remain on STP 67 - the wheel was already there, and while the ride was bumpy at times, no one seemed interested in rounding out the flat spots on the wheel to allow it to roll smoother.

    Third, though only sometimes relevant, I have talked to NRTL reps who warned me that a NRTL mark is bloody irrelevant to 110.3(B) unless that NRTL is authorized to list the product. And this wasn't the rep of an outfit like Intertek.for that info, I need to go to their web site, or OSHA's. At least once, I found a marking that was provided by a type of NRTL that is described on OSHA's site basically as former.
    NRTLs are businesses, and not all businesses are forthright in what they do, or what they say they do, or are even allowed to do.

    Kind of like those AHJ who don't like what the code says, so they say it says something different.

    Securing and supporting NM cable run across the tops of truss bottom chords? "Supporting" = "okay, yeah, we'll look at that but "securing" ... "no way, can you imagine the flack we'll get from contractors, then city/county commissioners" ... from a building official friend of mine on why his inspectors don't even look for that.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    David, while that is true, readers of what the code actually says (such as you, Jim, myself, and others) can only reference what is written in the code, not what some wayward AHJ may say about what they want the code to say.
    We can do three things, IMO, not just that one.

    One, we can reference the text, as you state.

    Two, we can try to understand the rationale behind a rule, so we apply it to achieve the effect it aims to accomplish. That's half the reason behind Creighton's and my writing the book. Information on where rules came from helps inspectors use their judgment, and judgment is necessary. One of my favorite quotes about Code compliance from Fred Hartwell is "No harm, no foul." I am quite confident that he did not mean "The house hasn't burned down yet, so obviously all's copacetic."

    Three, we can look at how a rule commonly is interpreted. In your area, the rule requiring securing is put aside by the AHJ. I don't agree with the choice, but if I were a TPI in your area, I'm not sure whether I'd red-tag such jobs. Probably i would, but that's from being something of a safety hardass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Kind of the reason why I figured there was no real reason for me to remain on STP 67 - the wheel was already there, and while the ride was bumpy at times, no one seemed interested in rounding out the flat spots on the wheel to allow it to roll smoother."
    I'm sorry that was so, Jerry. They lost a valuable asset. I have felt some frustration in dealing with my STPs, but also some gratification. Part of the latter is because I was able to initiate some changes. Part of it was because I have been able to chime in and vote for or against interpretations or others' amendments in ways that I believe will result in greater safety."


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    27,714

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    We can do three things, IMO, not just that one.
    My intention was not to imply that going by the text was the only thing.

    As you stated, anyone reading the codes needs to understand what they are reading, and that starts with knowing the 'why' behind each requirement.

    To you three things, I will add a fourth (which I thought was going to be your number three): doing what is possible the help others understand the 'why' (I've been successful helping some building officials/electrical inspectors understand the 'why' and those who do are open to change what they do.

    I've also found that many are not open to change, and as previously described, many have other reasons they resist change (being that the people who hire and fire them are typically elected officials, and that contractors are, in many areas, the ones who provide the funds to get re-elected).

    Many citizens don't want effective building code enforcement as they see it as unnecessary and an intrusion ... instead,, they could think of it as 'the inspectors are helping make sure the contractors do what I am paying for, not cut corners'.

    All contracts and permits that I recall having seen have the contractor stating that they will comply with the building codes ... all the inspectors are doing is stating 'yeppers, you did that' or 'oopsie, you missed this one over here'.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    257

    Default Re: Service panel questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    To you three things, I will add a fourth (which I thought was going to be your number three): doing what is possible the help others understand the 'why' (I've been successful helping some building officials/electrical inspectors understand the 'why' and those who do are open to change what they do.
    As has been true many a time, Jerry, I honor you for your attitude.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •