3 Likes
Don’t have to be licensed in Ohio for 1, 2, 3 family. That’s why you never recommend a licensed electrical contractor inspect the electrical system. Cause all they are allowed to do is install, repair or modify per the OBC and then all their work has to be inspected by an ESI.
So, knock yourself out on performing residential electrical work.
3 Likes
Yep and that is what I told Anne Petit before she left. BTW it was your fellow home inspectors on the OHIB who voted to cheat us out of 2 years.
Anne said " at least you got grandfathered and didn’t have to test. Like WTF!!!
Thanks for that response James! My gut made me feel the same but I know we don’t inspect on our “gut feelings”. Once I see this on an inspection, I’ll due my due diligence on research before finalizing a report. I felt that on the “unprotected” exterior, some more rigid piping would be required 
2 Likes
It actually looked pretty good from Ohio David…Lp is a whole different ball game that natural gas…
1 Like
That’s just stupid Mike. As a home inspector I can recommend anyone I want to for repairs, corrections, or further evaluation.
And just because one doesn’t need to be a licensed electrician to work on or evaluate residential electrical systems in Ohio, doesn’t mean licensed electricians are prohibited from working or evaluating them.
And BTW, during a home inspection, it’s the duty of the home inspector to inspect and report on the electrical system.
3 Likes
I have spoken to Anne Petit numerous times over the past few years. She was a great person to talk to and always helpful. I was sorry and happy to hear that she retired. I have not had any dealings, as yet with her replacement, Daphne Hawk. She will have big shoes to fill.
2 Likes
That’s right - you can do as you damn well please. I am just letting the others who care know what Ohio law says.
It sure does. Electrician have NEVER been allowed to evaluate electrical installations. There is nothing in RC 4740 that permits this. I know because I was licensed under 4740.
No disagreement there.
con·tra·dic·tion - a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
-
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
-
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
2 Likes
I just post facts. I let the reader decide for themselves. I don’t try to discredit people who disagree with me.
You & your facts are in contradiction.
2 Likes
Please list the examples
From your post above:
No person shall engage in the practice of electrical inspection in this state unless he is the holder of a certificate of competency as an electrical safety inspector
Here is what I dug up. Bonding of Electrically Conductive Materials and Other Equipment.
Electrically conductive materials, such as metal water piping, metal gas piping, and structural steel members, that are likely to become energized “shall be bonded” as specified in this article to the supply system grounded conductor or, in the case of an ungrounded electrical system, to the electrical system grounded equipment, in a manner that establishes an effective path for fault current (italics added for emphasis).”
Based on that wording, the answer is either “yes” or “maybe.”
The difficulty is in the wording “that are likely to become energized.” At this point, it appears to be a judgment call for the “Authority Having Jurisdiction.” Section 250-104(b) reads as follows: “Metal Gas Piping. Each aboveground portion of a gas piping system upstream from the equipment shutoff valve shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the grounding electrode system.” This appears to take the “maybe” out of the answer. This section’s requirements are explicit in that not only interior gas piping, but also that each portion of an aboveground gas piping system shall be bonded to the grounding electrode system. This includes exterior as well as interior metal gas piping. What to me appears to be a conflict between these two sections may be rectified in the 2002 edition of the NECA proposal to delete from Section 250-2 the words “that are likely to become energized.” This was submitted as a proposal and accepted by Code-Making Panel No. 5. We will have to wait and see if this proposal survives the code-making process and becomes a part of the 2002 Code.
I could stop there. The outside ‘copper’ is not likely to become energized. But, I will continue. The utility will lose their minds if you start “bonding” their underground systems.
Lightning strikes. . *The high conductivity of copper facilitates the rapid transmission of lightning energy." Just saying. .
I agree. However, that’s outside of a home inspection to inspect utility side connections.
I also think that they are concerned with Electrolysis. I don’t even want to go there because that is a higher pay grade than mine.
Explain just a bit please. Are you sure you do not mean, galvanic corrosion.
I might. Like I said - I know nothing about this. I just remember a utility guy saying something about an anode and some other things. All I know that it isn’t a building code issue so, I leave it to other experts to tell me if it is OK.