Change to Standards of Practice

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jstewart1 wrote:
come on Jerry, they had it right . why would you want to take heat for something hidden? With all due respect ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Where on earth are these things coming from?

My wording does not include anything hidden. Just the ones you inspected.

So be it. It's your standard.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



gromicko wrote:
Therefore we end up with the following:

"test all GFCI receptacles and GFCI circuit breakers observed and deemed to be GFCI's during the inspection"


That wording is easily torn apart in court.

"Oh? And, may I ask, HOW did you "deem" that to be GFCI? Did it have a "test" and "reset" button, or did you just "think" that was a GFCI? ... Wait, I got it, you MEANT receptacles which HAVE GFCI PROTECTION ... however, because that is not what your SoP says ... "


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: wpedley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I guess I’ll never find out where this so called"not observed"


GFCI receptacle was. Was it readily accessable?


--
BPedley
Inspecting for the unexpected

Originally Posted By: jstewart1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mr. Pedley,


Please dont interrupt!! ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


Originally Posted By: wpedley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Yeah! I think I’ll have another. icon_rolleyes.gif icon_rolleyes.gif



BPedley


Inspecting for the unexpected

Originally Posted By: jstewart1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Nick,


Mr. Pedley brings up a good question. Could you please elaborate on the problem with the GFCI that brought about the change.


Originally Posted By: tdove
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



icon_smile.gif Makes good sense.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Okay, I’ll bite.


How about a GFCI up on a shelf, in a garage. You're not intentionally looking on the shelves for receptacles, or GFCI's, but it's there and the walls were finished, so you didnt see any cables in the vicinity, hinting that something electrical was there. By the way, there was stuff on the shelf, but it did not block the view of the receptacle. You just didnt observe it.

I believe this is a tempest in a tea kettle, personally, as I believe the SoP states that we test a representative number of receptacles, and at last count, a GFCI is a receptacle.

As to whether a judge can or will rip restimony apart, I can make a compelling argument that most anything can be ripped apart. I spent most of the conversation with Nick playng Devil's advocate in court, and taking these changes to the next possible level. Ths was easiest when bringing in what an inspector knows about centrally installed GFCI's in the panel, and unmarked, but protected, receptacles. I then went on to the installation of GFCIs on an ungrounded receptacle, in place of a 2-prong unit. I then brought up the line and load side of a conventional GFCI, and a duty to "test" all that is downstream.

I'm not crazy about the change, as there is the testing of an electrical safety device in the balance. The next question would be, in the event of some sort of failure of the curcuit, receptacle, or protection, is "how" was it tested.

Now provide a reasonable, layman's definition of "technically exhaustive" and scale it back as far as you can. With the specialized knowledge we all claim to have, shuck and jive your way out of this one.

In this case, ambguity is a saving grace.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: jstewart1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mr. Peck


My apologies. I did not think about other gfci protected devices. How do you test these? and how would you word the change ? From now on Ill limit my comments to the things I know for sure (very little)


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry S.,


They are still called GFCIs. They still have test and reset buttons.

They just do not have receptacle outlets. Visualize a GFCI receptacle, then tape over the two receptacles, leaving only the buttons showing. That is the GFCI device.

As far as wording goes, I would include something about 'permanently wired GFCI devices. "Devices" includes receptacles, breakers, etc. From the 2002 NEC "Device. A unit of an electrical system that is intended to carry but not utilize electric energy."

First, the need to limit it to those inspected. That by-passes the implication that ALL (remember the old saying, never say never and never say always? that also applies to ALL without a qualifier, miss one and you are screwed).

The inspector SHALL (means MUST)

test (what they are supposed to do)

all GFCI devices inspected (this is how many they MUST test)

with the GFCI device's test and reset buttons (this is how, there is no requirement to use a remote GFCI tester, which, by the way, will not work on a GFCI device which does not have a ground)

to see if the GFCI protection trip off and remove power to the part of the circuit being protected (this is the why the inspector is testing them, to see if they are working, and not the entire circuit, but the part of the circuit that GFCI device is protecting).

The inspector SHALL - test - all GFCI devices inspected - with the GFCI device's test and reset buttons - to see if the GFCI protection trip off and remove power to the part of the circuit being protected.

Does this include testing ALL receptacles which SHOULD have GFCI protection? No.

Why? Because how is the inspector to know which receptacles, etc. required GFCI protection when the structure was built, or if the receptacle was replaced at a later date requiring GFCI protection to be added, without knowing when each AHJ in their area adopted which code and when.

To make matters worse, if this were to refer to the NEC as in 'all receptacles required by the most recent NEC edition at the time of the inspection' would now open all inspectors up as being held to the most current NEC edition as an NEC code inspector. There should be no reference to the NEC or any other code.

This needs to be satisfied to test ALL GFCI devices inspected with the GFCI devices own test and reset buttons.

There was a GFCI receptacle up on the shelf in the garage which you did not see? Then you did not inspect it, thus you were not required to test it.

As soon as references are made to 'ALL which should have GFCI protection', Pandora's Box has been opened and you can never close it.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



agree.



Joe Farsetta


Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jfarsetta wrote:
On THAT note, Jerry and I REALLY agree.


Holf Crap ... ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif)

On another note, I think the NACHI SOP should be broken down into: What should be inspected; What should be reported; And what is not required to be inspected. The first two are currently not really separated.

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ...


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: mrichardson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


Interesting point.

My practice is to report on everything I inspect, as well as identify those things I would have inspected had they been present and/or accessible, but did not because they weren't. Items compromising safety or needing immediate attention or needing to be monitored are repeated in a section so labeled.

I realize some inspectors only report on inspected items presenting exceptions, or items not present and/or inaccessible. I understand the rationale offered for doing that.

I disagree for two reasons: first, to cover my rear by making very clear that I inspected or otherwise accounted for everything I agreed to inspect, and second, to provide my client all the product I reasonably can and everything for which they paid.

If I understand your point, my practice accomplishes it by treating every item in the SOP as both to be inspected and to be reported upon, but without requiring repetition in the SOP itself.

Best wishes,
Mike


Originally Posted By: dhadler
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.





icon_redface.gif I don’t know how to get this under Misc. discussion?


Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



This probably isn?t the place for this?but the thread had me reading our SOP again.



I. The inspector shall inspect:

A. The service line.
B. The meter box.
C. The main disconnect.
D. And determine the service amperage.
E. Panels, breakers and fuses.
F. The grounding.
G. The bonding.
H. A representative sampling of switches, receptacles, light fixtures, and test all GFCI receptacles and GFCI circuit breakers observed and deemed to be GFCI's during the inspection.
I. And report the presence of solid conductor aluminum branch circuit wiring if readily visible.
J. And report on any GFCI-tested receptacles in which power is not present, polarity is incorrect, the receptacle is not grounded, is not secured to the wall, the cover is not in place, the ground fault circuit interrupter devices are not properly installed or do not operate properly, or evidence of arcing or excessive heat is present.
K. The service entrance conductors and the condition of their sheathing.
L. The ground fault circuit interrupters with a GFCI tester.
M. And describe the amperage rating of the service.
N. And report the absence of smoke detectors.
O. Service entrance cables and report as in need of repair deficiencies in the integrity of the insulation, drip loop, or separation of conductors at weatherheads and clearances.


With apologies to anyone whose toes I?m treading on?it?s a bit of a mess.
A, K, and O refer to service drops and/or SECs.
D and M should be combined.
GFCI?s are mentioned in H, J and L (but no AFCIs).
According to J we only have to report reverse polarity, etc on GFCI receptacles.

So...

I juggled things into a more logical order, and played with the wording some. I also added a new H on circuit wiring (to cover things like open J-boxes, air-splices, etc)


I. The inspector shall inspect:

A. The overhead service drop* and the service entrance cables and report as in need of repair deficiencies in clearances or the integrity of the insulation, drip loop*, splices or weatherhead* (*if present).
B. The exterior condition of the meter box.
C. The main disconnect.
D. And determine and describe the amperage rating of the service..
E. Panels, breakers and fuses.
F. And report the presence of solid conductor aluminum branch circuit wiring if readily visible.
F. The grounding system.
G. The bonding of components.
H. And report deficiencies in the exposed and observed circuit wiring.
I. A representative sampling of switches, receptacles, and light fixtures.
J. And report on any receptacles in which power is not present, polarity is incorrect, required grounding is absent, is not secured to the wall, the cover is not in place, or evidence of arcing or excessive heat is present.
K. And test all observed GFCI and AFCI devices by means of the installed test buttons.
L. And test GFCI protected receptacles with a GFCI tester.
M. And report the absence of smoke detectors.



I humbly submit the above to the SOP committee for comment. Still needs work?but doesn?t that read better?

Finally?I have to ask why Nick posted the original change in this thread as a done deal rather than the SOP committee. All due respect, but if Chad finds out that Nick makes changes to our SOP on a whim he may declare a Jihad.


--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
I. The inspector shall inspect:
N. And report the absence of smoke detectors.

What is being inspected? This could be written as:
Quote:
I. The inspector shall inspect:
N. For the presence of smoke detectors.


Also this one seems a little out of place (and pretty sticky):
Quote:
I. The inspector shall inspect:
D. And determine the service amperage.

Which could be separated out (and clarified) as follows:
Quote:
II. The inspector shall describe the amperage rating of the service


Just something I noticed about things seeming to be mixed in together ...


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Am I missing something, don’t we have an SOP committee that handles all of this? Are they all away on vacation? Or are there new rules that I’m not aware of that we can change any of the NACHI documents as long as we post it on the BB?



Slainte!


Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com

Originally Posted By: gbell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



That seems to depend on who you are Patrick.



Greg Bell


Bell Inspection Service

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



We could not have this discussion solely in the SOP Committee because most of the members with thought out opinions on this thread are not on that committee. Don’t get hung up on hiearchy. I’m on the phone with Joe Farsetta, Chairman of the Committee, I started this open thread on the message board, I’m on the Committee myself. I’m working with counsel on it, and I’m trying to help an actual inspector who’s defense: “I deemed it to be a GFCI but didn’t test it because I already tested a representative number of receptacles” FAILED.


Now that we've handled the above problem, I want to address Jerry's point next. I've emailed counsel about adding Jerry's language that clearly defines the testing of GFCI receptacles as testing with the GFCI test button. Meter testing wouldn't be prohibited but wouldn't be required just as inspecting anything above and beyond our SOP is neither prohibited or required.

Again, all opinions welcome.


--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.

I much prefer email to private messages.

Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



"…clearly defines the testing of GFCI receptacles as testing with the GFCI test button. Meter testing wouldn’t be prohibited but wouldn’t be required…"


Makes sense to me, although "receptacles" should probably read "devices". Having found one that consistently took more than 3400 milliseconds (almost 3 1/2 seconds) to trip with a Suretest, but tripped immediately with the test button, I'll continue to test both ways, but I agree it shouldn't be in the SOP unless we want to specify exactly what type of testing equipment should be used...and I don't think we want to go there.

Nick...My apologies on my "whim" comment. I did not realize you were on the SOP committee and it wasn't clear in your original post that this had been discussed within the committee. So...I can now "bitch" directly to you about our SOP? ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com