No Main Disconnect

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by mmerino

I never inferred or stated to the client that the panel was unsafe. I told them that it would be more convenient and safer to be able to turn off 1 switch as opposed to multiple switches. I know the argument is going to be that I said "safer"; and that it implies that the panel is unsafe. But, safer is just another level of safe. Seat belts are safe, seat belts with an air bag are considered safer.

Does having a single shutoff in the panel make it less safe? No, of course not. It wouldn't be less safe if there were a breaker at each receptacle, either.

More safe, I don't think so. The key for me is (if you're going to call stuff a safety hazard that is acceptable by common standards) to be able to explian WHY it's safer. I haven't seen that, in this instance.

Why is it safer to have an additional shut off in the panel as opposed to the one in the mechanical room?

I can see an argument for convienient, I'd like to see one for "safer".

It's kind of like one GFCI protecting other receptacles. Is it less safe to have a GFCI at each receptacle? No. Is it more safe? No.

Is it more convientient when one trips - oh yeah.

Especially when the GFCI in the master bath protected all the outlets in the three other baths (one on a lower level). Since they all operated as intended, they were indeed safe. I explained the convienince aspect of it and the client had a good laugh.

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by mmerino

David-Why is it foolish? What would happen if you added a disconnect to that panel? Again, assuming it was done properly. You may be right, an electrician may tell them it is not required. But, if the client says I want it and I am willing to pay, would the electrician install it?

I never inferred or stated to the client that the panel was unsafe. I told them that it would be more convenient and safer to be able to turn off 1 switch as opposed to multiple switches. I know the argument is going to be that I said "safer"; and that it implies that the panel is unsafe. But, safer is just another level of safe. Seat belts are safe, seat belts with an air bag are considered safer.

If you continue recommending a shut-off installation at a sub-panel, you are going to be one busy guy. Not only that, you're going to be receiving a boat load of phone calls from Electricians asking you why you recommended such a ridiculous upgrade?

My advice.....Leave good enough alone. Code is code for a reason. If homeowners never needed LSE shut-offs in the past (and stayed incident-free), then what makes you think that they would they need them now?

[Michael J. Merino]

Rick-It is safer because the unit owner has direct access, they may not have access to the closet in the hallway, or the building engineer may not be able to get to the closet in time to cut the electric. Also, 1 hand movement is better than 6. I also sent you a message about why I think it is safer.

David-code is a minimum standard, why would I want my clients to have the minimum standard? I do not do code inspections. As an example-I know 2 electricians who have told me that they include a ground conductor even though all conductors (in this area) are in EMT; code says you do not need a ground conductor, the EMT is the ground, but they believe it is safer. Are they wrong?

For the electricians that want to call me, they will have to answer the 2 questions I asked here. What is the disadvantage(besides the cost of install) and is it less safe?

I can't understand why I can't have this opinion. If I was recommending something that was unsafe I could understand, but I am not doing that. If this was a house with a sub panel, I would not recommend it because the owner would have access at another point in the house. This is a condo where the unit owners do not have access to a disconnect.

I would direct you guys to this post that suggests that I am not incorrect. Jeff Pope cleary states that "additional disconnects... are allowed and not uncommon" http://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/disco...in-panel-5254/

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

You're still missing the point Michael. The recommendation is unwarranted. The additional expense would outweigh the perceived benefit.

Originally Posted by mmerino

I can't understand why I can't have this opinion.

Where do you draw the line? Do you suggest all interior receptacles have self closing covers? Do you feel that all windows in a home should include tempered or safety glass? What type of cover do you recommend for a garbage disposal? Do you recommend floatation devices next to bathtubs? How about stairways? Wouldn't it be "safer" to have an elevator?

Please explain to me (us) where you draw the line. Don't say "common sense," because that's way too subjective.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by mmerino

I can't understand why I can't have this opinion.

You can have that opinion...everyone on this board has an opinion. Just be responsible for any consequences of your opinion/recommendation.

[Michael J. Merino]

Jeff, you are missing the point. I believe the recommendation it is warranted. If they had access to the electrical closet which is 2 doors down (about 20 feet), I would not recommend it. IMHO, the circumstances warrant the recommendation.

Cost is relative to the client, if it costs too much then they can make the decision not to install the disconnect. Surely, you do not say to yourself that something would be too expensive; therefore you do not make a recommendation? My job is to give my client the information and let them decide.

I inspected a house that had a front porch that was not high enough for code to require a railing. The client had no kids, and did not plan on having kids. She did tell me her mother and nephews would be visiting. That is when I recommended a railing. Small kids, elderly woman, snow and ice. Circumstances warrant proper recommendations even if code does not apply, best practice and safety does apply.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by mmerino

If they had access to the electrical closet which is 2 doors down (about 20 feet), I would not recommend it. IMHO, the circumstances warrant the recommendation.

Why would this change your recommendation? It would take more time to exit the unit and travel the additional "20 feet," than it would to turn off all breakers in the panel.

I would still like to know where you draw the line.

[Michael J. Merino]

Jeff, You can't draw a line. Not all circumstances are the same. It is obvious that we will not agree, and this thread will go on forever.

Oh, and you forgot to read the part where I said the client may not have access to the electrical closet. So going the 20 feet is a moot point.

We should agree to disagree.

[David P. Valley]

Guys, don't even attempt to waste any more of your spare time with Mike.

He comes to this MB and asks a question about electrical shut-offs, to which he receives the correct answers, but he then wants to argue about upgrading NEC standards.

FORGIDABOUDIT Mike....

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dvalley

Guys, don't even attempt to waste any more of your spare time with Mike.

He comes to this MB and asks a question about electrical shut-offs, to which he receives the correct answers, but he then wants to argue about upgrading NEC standards.

FORGIDABOUDIT Mike....

Maybe it's really Frank Carrio in disguise.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jpope

I will state it again;

We do not serve our clients best interest by inferring that a system, component or structure is unsafe when there is no factual information that will support our position.

No need to state it again. Wouldn't want you to be wrong twice.

I agree with Michael. My report is based upon the inspector's opinions, and that is a stronger basis than resting upon factual information (ie code and standards). Usually code and standards reflect the present opinion as to what is safe. But codes and standards are only an absolute MINIMUM. Code and standard is the "what you can get away with without doing more." And code and standards (such as the NEC) change consistantly only AFTER someone gets really hurt.

I wasn't there at Michael's inspection... maybe his opinion reflected the concern's of his client - which is honorable and justifiable.

My reports, which are written in my opinion, reflect the concerns and needs of my client as expressed at the time of the inspection. Those concerns about safety are written almost verbatim in my report - I even use quotations when describing my client's concerns about something in particular. For example, after performing an inspection for someone with a disability, I now recommend in my report, which is written in my opinion and not based upon code or standard, that each and every set of steps have a handrail. And that includes stairs with only ONE step. (and that's not based upon any factuals) HA!

Another example: I saw indications that a child had been chewing on the window sill board. It was in my OPINION that the paint may contain lead, and I expressed in my concern for the child's safety in my inspection report, which was written my opinion. This had nothing to do with code, factuals or standards.

Reports should NOT be soley based upon code, factuals or standards, as others on this thread of suggested. Ha! Reports should reflect your experience, your opinion, and should address the concerns and needs of your client - especially when it comes to SAFETY.

Line? Line? There is no line. There's no clear distinctive side to take. Your report, your opinion changes with every inspection, with every client, with every situation. There's no drawing of a line. Inspections are fluid and ever changing. The proof of that is no two inspection reports are the same. No two inspection reports OF YOUR OWN of the same property should be the same. If they are, then you're not seeing more the 2nd time through, which you ought to.

Michael, good job. You keep on reporting what you think "might be safer or more convenient." Let other inspectors hide behind code, factuals and standards, and let them cross their fingers that no one gets hurt.

All, have no fear in stating your opinion - ESPECIALLY when you think that something could be safer or improved or more convenient (like Michael did). Don't dare think you're doing your client a good service by hiding behind codes, factuals and standards with total disregard to your client' concerns and needs.

(the previous comments were based upon my humble personal opinion) wow... i intended to type only 3 sentences.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

No two inspection reports OF YOUR OWN of the same property should be the same. If they are, then you're not seeing more the 2nd time through, which you ought to.

Unless you saw everything the first time through.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Rails for even a single step. . . Now that's rich. Thanks for sharing Ben.

[Michael J. Merino]

Thanks Ben, that is what I was trying to say.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Another example: I saw indications that a child had been chewing on the window sill board. It was in my OPINION that the paint may contain lead, and I expressed in my concern for the child's safety in my inspection report, which was written my opinion. This had nothing to do with code, factuals or standards.

Sure it was based on factuals, codes and standards.

The house was built pre-1978? (fact)
Lead based paints were very common prior to that (standards)
Lead is a danger, especially to childern (fact)

Now, if this was a brand new 2009 home, would your opinion have been the same?


Reports should NOT be soley based upon code, factuals or standards, as others on this thread of suggested. Ha! Reports should reflect your experience, your opinion, and should address the concerns and needs of your client - especially when it comes to SAFETY.

So, if it is my opinion that a house who's interior walls are painted green with pink polka-dots is safer than blue painted walls, should that go into my report?

Or perhaps ceramic tile in a bathroom should be called out - I know that they are awfully slippery for wet feet.