[Pete m.]

Was asked a question from another inspector today and I hope I gave him good info.

The electrical contractor seemingly installed 1 awg aluminum SER cable when they were supposed to install 1 awg copper SER. These feeders are for sub-panels in rooms of a motel.

The feeder breakers are 125 amp. This obviously won't fly with #1 aluminum and being that the SER is in insulation the 125 amp breakers wouldn't have worked with copper either.

I told the other inspector that he might suggest 90 amp breakers as long as the calculated load for each sub-panel doen't exceed 85 amps. Ohio is currently on the 2011 NEC.

Any thoughts?

Pete

 

[FlyingSparks]

Well that's a screw up of epic proportions. If the load calc comes back fine then no problem, but as a customer, I think I would deserve what I paid for.

 

[denny3992]

How did those prints get stamped?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree with your assessment Pete

 

[btharmy]

How did those prints get stamped?

My guess is the prints were correct but the EC cut corners.

"He was so much cheaper than those other 5 crooks who charge way too much but were all about the same price on their bids"

 

[tates1882]

I'm surprised an inspector would give suggestions to fix a code violation, a whole lot of liability right there. My reply " you are in violation of article xxx, this install is non compliant with 2011 nec. Please schedule for re inspection when the listed violation is corrected." Just my two cents, but the suggested "fix" is no good for ocpd violation. #1 ser is good for 85 amps, assuming all loads are non continuous I would maybe let it fly but it would be a rare situation. Also voltage drop is a concern, most hotels the feeders for sub panels are lengthy, at least in my experience.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'm surprised an inspector would give suggestions to fix a code violation, a whole lot of liability right there. My reply " you are in violation of article xxx, this install is non compliant with 2011 nec. Please schedule for re inspection when the listed violation is corrected." Just my two cents, but the suggested "fix" is no good for ocpd violation. #1 ser is good for 85 amps, assuming all loads are non continuous I would maybe let it fly but it would be a rare situation. Also voltage drop is a concern, most hotels the feeders for sub panels are lengthy, at least in my experience.

Voltage drop is not an NEC concern in this case. The fix is perfectly compliant so how could you turn it down. If the plans call for a 1 copper then that is a different issue and changes would need to be made there and okayed by all involved. However a 90 amp breaker is totally compliant on a #1ser al as long as the calculated load is not more than 85 amps.

 

[StevieScott]

I told the other inspector that he might suggest 90 amp breakers as long as the calculated load for each sub-panel doen't exceed 85 amps. Ohio is currently on the 2011 NEC.

According to the NEC and the type of the insulator select or use the SER cable. By inspecting it's amp properly and calculating the load for each sub pannel.

 

[Pete m.]

I'm surprised an inspector would give suggestions to fix a code violation, a whole lot of liability right there.

What liability is involved if a code compliant method is suggested? I've dealt with inspectors who will not try to be part of the solution and they tend to be more a part of the problem.

Pete

 

[Pete m.]

How did those prints get stamped?

FWIW, the jurisdiction that the other inspector works for does not issue "approved" electrical plans. I still, to this day, don't know how they can legally get away with it.

Pete