No .
No, but sound business practices dictate that you try to upsell them on this work.
After putting a little though into this post I feel that it needs a little clarifying.
As a licensed electrical contractor in NC if all I do is open the panel to evaluate its contents I am not required to do anything at all to the panel no matter its shape.
If I change out the panel then the panel will have to conform to the current code standards.
If I am only adding a circuit to the panel then I am only required to make that circuit conform to the current standards as long as the additional circuit does not overload the panel.
On the other hand when the code enforcement official does the inspection and sees a life safety issue such as the bonding and grounding or damage to the interior of the panel or its contents he has the authority to have power disconnected until the homeowner has the life safety issues corrected. The code official does not have the authority to require the electrical contractor do the repairs.
Anything in that panel or anything in the premises wiring that was in compliance with the code at the time of installation will not be addressed by the code official such as two white conductors under one screw.
Thank God for home inspectors then. It seems that code officials are quite limited in their scope, whereas a home inspector is limited only by their knowledge, skill, and will. And therefore more powerful in their stated recommendations. And more valuable to their client and society at large. IMHO Hee Hee
They’re both equally powerless to cause any nonconforming work to be corrected, most times.
I disagree about a powerless home inspector. I found that I can stir up all sorts of trouble by what I write in my reports. That’s power. A million dollars can ride on an inspectors words. That’s power. Being labeled a killer (deal killer that is) is power. I once had someone immediately request the local fire marshall come to my inspection - and he actually showed up! On his lunch break! Power.
I might be saying this in the wrong way because it’s late and I’m trying to type fast because I’m going to watch a movie tonight with my wife… But home inspectors are one of the most powerful, underpaid people in the country because a home inspector does not have to be standard- or code-accurate. An inspector can pose any opinion and win any argument based upon (not standards or codes or rules) but by what “seems right in the opinion of the inspector.” That’s it. The most powerless people are those who speak words that mean nothing to anyone. That’s the exact opposite of a home inspector. Everyday, people are making life decisions based upon what the “inspector guy thinks.” It’s crazy powerful.
Got to go…
Continue to wield that power, real or imagined, since it stirs up business for me.
Search Google for:
building department electrical inspection rules imminent dangers
The NEC also has an administration annex that covers imminent dangers in part, and most areas around the country, where permits are secured at the building inspection department, where they have licensing of electricians, etc., will have requirements in place that require that existing violations be corrected … we have such a rule in Massachusetts.
What’s your business?
I’m a street corner hot dog vendor.
Does a 2 pole 20a breaker mean two wires can go to it?
Sort of. One for each pole. It’s a 240 volt circuit.
Let’s look at some scenarios that might take place in renovations.
A HVAC contractor hires an electrician to change out an air conditioner. The electrician obtains a permit and does the work. The electrical inspector comes out and inspects the work done by the electrician but sees that there is no GFCI protection for the receptacles installed over the countertops when he is checking to see that the proper overcurrent device is in the panel.
How should this be handled?
In NC the inspector is there to look at the AC change out and unless one or more of the receptacles are hanging out of the wall no action will be taken unless the house was built after 1987. Even then it would be addressed with the home owner not the electrician.
A plumber is hired to change out all the non-metallic water lines in a house and replaces it with copper. The plumbing inspector comes out and sees that there is no bonding conductor for the copper.
In NC the plumber can not install the bonding conductor unless he holds an electrical license. The plumbing inspector can not turn down the plumber just because of the bonding jumper due to the fact the bonding jumper is not a plumbing requirement.
How is this handled?
NC as well as most other states did not adopt Article 80 of the NEC simply because they have their own administrative laws.
In NC those items listed above would be addressed with the person who holds title to the building though the administrative laws and not with either of the contractors hired to do work. Even then it would have to be something that poses an imminent danger (life safety) before the courts would get involved. In other words, if during the inspection of the AC change out the inspector found the main breaker was at a height of 7 feet this would not be something that causes a life safety issue and would not be addressed.
If the house was being held up with braces and was ready to topple down this would be a life safety issue and would be condemned although the electrical passed inspection.
Any and all of the items mentioned above should be called out by a Home Inspector during his inspection and each of them should be addressed by someone during the selling process but the laws will not let a code enforcement official pose undue expense on a contractor that is not hired to address those problems. The laws will not let a code enforcement official impose undue expense on a homeowner whose house is in compliance with the adopted codes at the time the home was built.
It is simply because to the administrative laws that are in place that a lot of what Home Inspectors call out never get addressed. Some of these might be but not limited to, 11/4 drain lines on washing machines, 2 by 6 floor joist that span 12 feet or the lack of GFCI devices over countertops. Each of these items were legal at some point in time and if they were legal at the time of installation then the administrative laws will not force these items to be changed every time that the codes change or every time that the title of ownership changes hands.
**Mike, quoting only part of my original comment is not good, please fix it or delete it, and be sure that we give the correct information. **
You have too much time to spend on issues not related to the original question!
Joe I am not completely sure just what you mean with this post.
When I am directing a comment to a particular person and their post I usually include their name as I have done here.
When I am addressing something in their comment such as Article 80 which is in the annex of the NEC and not even enforceable I will usually just quote that part of their post.
In my post I was not directly addressing you but was addressing how NC addresses Article 80 of the NEC and showing that anyone who wanted to Google Imminent Danger, just what they would find about how NC handled this.
When speaking or “Imminent Danger” I would suppose that you would be speaking about something that is causing an immediate danger to life or limb although this thread started out talking about double lugging which would not fit into the “Imminent Danger” category.
That would be more of a code violation wouldn’t you think?
I don’t think that things like two white wires under one screw, a disconnect that is 7 feet off the floor, a disconnect that is behind an air conditioner, would fit into the same category as “Imminent Danger” but would be more in line with code violations.
**"Search Google for:
**building department electrical inspection rules imminent dangers
The NEC also has an administration annex that covers imminent dangers in part, and most areas around the country, where permits are secured at the building inspection department, where they have licensing of electricians, etc., will have requirements in place that require that existing violations be corrected … we have such a rule in Massachusetts."
Mike you have a unique way in which you read the posts here, often confusing the issue with lots gibberish and spending time with meaningless comments that show that you are lost and want to discuss something that was not even considered! Please ignore me!
Joe bless your heart I was only making the same statement as you were with the exception that Massachusetts might force the electrical contractor do correct violations that were compliant at the time of installations but North Carolina does not.
The part of your post that I am having a hard time understanding is where that a installation that was complinat 10 years ago but would be in violation of the standards of todays code would pose an imminent danger.
As far as Article 80 is concerned it is informational only.
OK, but I was also thinking about the rest of the country and posted this information for us](http://www.google.com/search?q=building+department+electrical+inspection+rules+imminent+dangers+&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7TSHB)
“Imagined or a real” hot dog vendor.
It’s Marc’s dream job Ben. Look at that face. He’d sell a million of 'em.
Note to Ben: Marc has been one the most helpful electricians who visits our BB.
Thanks Marc.