• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

An average day

Not my inspection.
The inspection was for a photovoltaic system and a de-ration of the premises main breaker from 200amp to 175amp. The de-ration is required to acomodate a 60amp solar contribution. Upon arrival the inspector was provided a copy of the load calculations. He noticed that there is a 50amp breaker labeled EV charger that was not included in the load calc. The EV charger lacked a permit.

The inspector wrote a correction to obtain a permit for the EV charger. He included the fact that the charger has a max output of 48amp and a 60amp circuit is required.

The contractor obtained a permit for the EV charger. The contractor realized that the load calculation with an EV charger would not work at 175amp. The contractor removed the 50amp breakers and installed a pair of 20amp breakers which are labeled "SPARE".

The inspector turned it down as a blatant act of subterfuge. The contractor appealed the decision to a supervisor. The supervisor overrode the inspector. The explanation given was that as long as there is no EV charger circuit breaker...there is no EV charger. If in the future an EV charger breaker is installed that would violate the CEC and would be dealt with at that time. This of course this comes from the premise that we do not anticipate violations.

I suppose that the next step would be a refund of the money spent for the EV charger permit. Every penny counts when there's a Tesla Model S in the driveway.
 
Gastitie CSST. I have written many corrections for exposed CSST such as is shown here. Apparently I have been wrong many times. I recently searched the installation instructions and did not find anything that would require protection of this CSST. I called Gastite and was advised that no protection is required for CSST that is indoors and exposed.



IMG_3410.JPG
 
Last edited:
It's strapped.....Where does the vertical gas line go?
The CSST extends through a ceiling and attic to a furnace.

I'm thinking that there must have been a time when the CSST had to be protected if less than 6' above the floor.

There definitly was a time when the electrical bonding jumper had to be a solid #6 conductor and now it can be stranded #6.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a compliant install, you even have the yelow tag on the connection piece, did you follow the yellow CCST to the bonding point?

Where's fluffy at?
 
The gas pipe does not have the #6 bonding jumper.

Rut row!

Theres usually a sediment trap or drip leg trap between the valve and flex pipe. But I have seen the trap omitted when using flex lines. Does Califorina have wet gas? or can the drip trap be omitted?
 
Rut row!

Theres usually a sediment trap or drip leg trap between the valve and flex pipe. But I have seen the trap omitted when using flex lines. Does Califorina have wet gas? or can the drip trap be omitted?
Where I'm at in northern California we have extremely dry gas conditions so we can omit the "drips" per CPC 1210.6 or CMC 1310.8, but the way I read it the sediment trap is still required when "not incorporated as part of the appliance." I rarely see anything installed without a sediment trap, even though they are often not installed correctly.
 
Joe B., Like you, we require sediment traps in our jurisdiction. (G2419.4)

We also do not allow the PTR pipe to have reverse slope, be trapped, and to discharge in a location that is "readily observable"... . (UPC 608.5, #8) (P2804.6.1, #7)
 
Joe B., Like you, we require sediment traps in our jurisdiction. (G2419.4)

We also do not allow the PTR pipe to have reverse slope, be trapped, and to discharge in a location that is "readily observable"... . (UPC 608.5, #8) (P2804.6.1, #7)
Don't forget a Smitty pan and three screws at the draft hood.
 
The contractor added a GEC lug to the inside of the enclosure that gets sealed off by the utility. 250.24(A)(1) does not permit this.

Resized_20211109_113406.jpeg
 
Our meter enclosures are generally accessible...What do yours look like?
Here is a before and after. The terminals are the supply side of the meter. The latch at the bottom is where Edison places a seal. Edison places a seal to thwart theft.

Both of these pictures have a violation.


DSCN1772.JPG


IMG_5231.JPG
 
Last edited:
This was presented as a rain-tight installation. The contractor stated that they do this all over southern California and this is the first time that it has been rejected. The inspector identified the material as duct sealant. The package or container has a UL mark on the label. The description that I found does mention preventing moisture from entering conduits, enclosures, etc. it also states for indoor use only.


Resized_20211117_114742001.jpeg
 
Solar inverters are now including an EV charger built in.


Resized_20211203_125038 2.jpeg
resized_20211203_125038-jpeg.8470
 
Last edited:
The job is a service panel upgrade and it was done by a licensed electrical contractor. The pictures were sent to me by an inspector.


Resized_20220208_123223001.jpeg


Resized_20220208_123223001 2.jpeg


Resized_20220208_123219001.jpeg
 
Those are just EMT connectors penetrating the top of the panel? A hub or sealing locknut should have been used, NM cable is only allowed in dry locations so there a problem with that too.Whats with the single conductors mixed with NM cable?
 
Top