Inspector's responsibility

[bthielen]

Had a situation arise the other day. A friend is wiring a new 20A branch circuit in his garage and decided to use 10ga. wire from the circuit breaker to the first receptacle then reduce to 12ga for the rest of the circuit. He had it in his mind that he was protecting against a voltage drop, although he didn't calculate it and it really wasn't that far. The inspector failed it and had him reduce the 10ga. down to 12ga. My friend made the changes requested to avoid issue but afterwards asked the inspector for an explanation, stating that he didn't feel this was an actual code violation. It turns out that the inspector just preferred to protect against a future homeowner seeing the 10ga. wire, thinking it would be okay, and changing the circuit breaker to a 30A for one reason or another. The garage will be finished and the wiring will be hidden in the walls.

It is agreed that the change was for the better but is it the responsibility of the inspector to force a change he/she believes is for the best even though it may not violate the accepted codes?

Would like some opinions.

Thanks,

Bob

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

I don't agree the change was for the better. If I want to wire all my 15-ampere branch circuits and use 12-awg conductors, that is my design specification and not a violation of the code. The same with your example. The code being a minimum standard, anything that exceeds code is of better design and not to the up to the judgment of "future" possibilties that could happen.

The inspector exceeded his authority and should probably be reported to the building department or his employer.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Inspector was wrong. Send him a bill.

 

[Guest]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

This is a tricky situation. The inspector's logic makes sense, but the job was not an NEC violation.

However, if the inspector was going to be completely logical and disregard the NEC s/he would have required the homeowner to UP all the #12 NM to #10. That would cover the voltage drop issue and any over fusing.

Maybe this inspector is misinformed and needs to be re-educated. The inspector must believe that it is an NEC violation. It would be interesting to know if this inspector would turn down #8 or #6 or even #2 if it was used on a long 20-amp circuit. This is the way misinformation gets sowed and reaped.

Another approach for the inspector would be for the inspector to point and the concern and suggest to the homeowner that the homeowner either back it down to #12 or go #10 all the way.

In a large job either of these solutions could have a huge financial impact on the EC's bottom line. In this case it could have been handled off the record.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Originally posted by awwt:
This is a tricky situation. The inspector's logic makes sense, but the job was not an NEC violation.

However, if the inspector was going to be completely logical and disregard the NEC s/he would have required the homeowner to UP all the #12 NM to #10. That would cover the voltage drop issue and any over fusing.

There is really nothing tricky about this at all. Inspectors simply cannot make or enforce changes to installations of design that are not in violation of the code.

Increasing the entire circuit will not protect from overfusing due to the fact that the devices will still only be rated for 15 or 20-ampere circuits.

I feel a person is just as likely to install a larger ovecurrent device on any branch circuit if that's what is available or convienent. This happens in fused panels and homes of older design. There is nothing we can do about that.

I have worked in a few jurisdictions that did not permit #14 at all on any installation. You could still provide 15-ampere branch circuits, but all circuit conductors were required to be #12 minimum. There is nothing wrong or illogical about that.

 

[bthielen]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

I must admit, I didn't realize how serious this issue would be taken. While this is a home-owner DYER I felt he did use good common sense in his design. Another thought occurred to me. If a long 20A circuit was designed using 10ga, what is to say that some time in the future the 20A OCPD wouldn't be replaced with a 30A? I see your point regarding possible future circumstances. We can't possibly protect against all scenarios.

Would be interested in hearing from some of you inspectors. What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Bob

 

[Guest]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

The tricky part to me is that inspectors in fact do have some wiggle room if they feel strongly about a safety issue. The AHJ is given the latitude to use their discretion. It usually works the other way: Something technically violates the NEC, but on appeal the AHJ makes a ruling that the work can stand because the AHJ feels it in fact provides practical safeguarding.

The other tricky part is that in the big scope of things it's not always good policy to quibble with the inspector about every disagreement. Sometimes you throw them a bone, say "yes sir/ma'am", do what they ask, and move on to the next job.

There are so many variables that the NEC can not guard against all of them. The best the NEC can do is provide practical safeguarding.

In my home building days we once had a hillside foundation plan that called for say twenty 20-foot deep pier holes. We drilled twenty one. The inspector asked why and we said it just seemed like a good idea on the downhill side of the house to dig an extra hole. He required us to re-engineer the foundation to allow the extra hole. We quickly filled in the extra hole with dirt and he passed the rough on the spot.

As for the #10 wire. If there's #12 and #10 and somebody puts a 30-amp on the circuit there is now concealed wire that is a potential fire hazard. If it's #10 all the way there is no overfused wire unless somebody slaps a 40-amp or 50-amp or 70-amp or .....

[ May 21, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

whats to stop someone replacing a 100-ampere main with a 200-amp and not increase the serivce entrance? Whats to stop a person from direct buring NM cable? Whats to stop someone from using speaker wire for branch circuits? We can do this all day.

Im sorry, I just can't see the added safety by this inspectors ruling. Im aways one to suggest methods and practices that go beyond the minimal code or help to ensure practical safegaurding, but this partciular situation warrants no concern.

The code allows for conductors to be increased for voltage drop considerations. Besides, why do most typical breakers allow for wire sizes two and sometimes three times larger than their rating? I am holding a 15-ampere rated circuit breaker right now that allows up to a #6 conductor.

 

[charlie]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

The tricky part to me is that inspectors in fact do have some wiggle room if they feel strongly about a safety issue. The AHJ is given the latitude to use their discretion.

Wayne, this statement is *&%#$$. The AHJ does not have "wiggle room", it either meets the Code and passes or it doesn't and in that case, he may pass it. Inspectors do not have "wiggle room" to impose their own requirements on installations.

 

[roger]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

awwt, besides the absurdity of this inspectors wishes, if I wanted to wire a more energy efficient house in the terms of I2^R losses, I would use a larger wire and would challenge any authority on the issue.

Along the lines of Bryans analogy, if you need 40 amp fuses for a piece of equipment, what is the rating of the disconnect itself?

Since 60 amp fuses could be installed in this disconnect, would you go along with some off the wall inspector saying you must run 60 amp conductors for the "What If".

Edited for a spelling mistake

Roger

[ May 21, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[explorer]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

My Friends,
This inspector was just trying to do the right thing. I see this all the time. Yes there was no code violation. But as an inspector you are also a safety inspector and we do rule on the side of safety. There is no code violation in using #12 wire on a circuit and putting it on a 15 amp breaker. The mixing of wire is the problem. This inspector made the right call, by using #10 and then going to #12 further on in the circuit, some homeowner one day will think he can up the breaker because he is NOT AN ELECTRICIAN AS ALL OF YOU ARE. He will just do it and could start a fire. A lot of this is just common sense. When I worked with apprentices, I would tell them the code allows up to 360 degrees between boxes but less is better. I told them pulling in big wire, less bends is better, less stress on the wire. They would ask is it a code violation to go up to 360 degrees? I would say NO, But it's not a good idea if you can help it. The inspector was right, at least from a safety point of view.

 

[explorer]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Forgot to sign

John Cosmo
State Electrical Inspector

 

[brian john]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

The inspector is wrong, wrong, wrong............

I wired my own house and utilized number 12 AWG for the complete house, all branch circuit breakers are GFCI (with exception of lighting circuits), in some places I utilized 15 amp GFCI CB's. I'm I in violation?

I would have had to follow through on this one, with the inspector.

 

[pierre]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

14 AWG as per the NEC is permitted as the 'MINIMUM' size conductor for a 15 ampere rated OCPD. There is no where in the NEC that says for safety reasons you cannot use a larger conductor for any reason. If the inspector is so concerned that a person of any kind is going to install incorrectly any wiring, he should leave the profession. I would bet if he went to any of the large box stores he would have a coronary .

It is not the inspector's responsibility to worry about future work, just the work he is inspecting. Bryan and Roger have said enough, but it really makes me mad when an inspector uses his authority improperly.

Pierre

 

[tonyi]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

I do this sort of thing all the time - #10 on a long run through an attic or basement to minimize VD, and #14 or #12 to the various outlets.

I do write a little warning on the panel cover to the effect "if you don't understand derating and voltage drop don't alter the breaker sizes - they are what they are for a darn good reason!"

 

[dereckbc]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Explorer, how can you justify installing a 30-amp breakers in the future with 20-amp receps on the 10 AWG?

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

While i am not in the habit of fighting little things with inspectors,this one i would have fought.If he can't site a code violation on any rejected item then he has no right to tag it.Now if he suggested something like please tag or label panel so no one in futer changes it,that would be fine.This is something the inspector should know was not a violation,and if he doesn't then someone needs to educate him on it.Just because someone could up the breaker is not good enough.With that logic old screw in fuses should never been allowed.

 

[peter d]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

I guess we should start using 4160 volts everywhere to avoid voltage drop. :roll:

2nd year apprentices learn about upsizing conductors for voltage drop. If someone can't figure out voltage drop calculations by the time they become an inspector, something is dreadfully wrong.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Load of crap. I can think of no other way to put it right now. If inspector "I want it that way" tried this on me I'd politely ask him to leave.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Inspector's responsibility

Scott,while your 100% correct to do just that ,you might want to rethink it.The fastest way to cause tougher inspections is to call him down that way.This is not about passing just 1 job but thousands in future.Showing him where and why it is not only ok but a good idea might do far more good.I sometimes disagree with there call and calmly try to work it out with code book.