#8 Romex max size breaker

[petersonra]

There you have it. That is the answer.

The AHJ has no legal authority to overrule the NEC and would be stepping beyond his legal authority if allowing a 50A breaker.

What other rules could he be making up at the safety of others?

There is a BIG difference between the AHJ and the inpsector. The AHJ can certainly make up whatever rules they want to. They are not required to follow the NEC at all.

The inspector, OTOH, rarely has any authority along these lines.

 

[petersonra]

I am sorry, but the AHJ can make any change they want to the NEC. There are no restrictions on this.

People forget the inspector is NOT the AHJ. Sometimes the inspectors think they are the AHJ, but in almost all cases they are not.

 

[Patrick Kennedy]

Thank you very much for your reply Rob. I agree with you, and do believe it is as simple as that. But, obviously my local inspector disagrees. And he is the Cheif Inspector with 2 inspectors under him.

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

 

[infinity]

Thank you very much for your reply Rob. I agree with you, and do believe it is as simple as that. But, obviously my local inspector disagrees. And he is the Cheif Inspector with 2 inspectors under him.

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

Let's start by telling us your location so we can see if this inspector is overstepping his authority. If you were here in New Jersey you could clear this up with a simple phone call.

 

[eprice]

Patrick,

What is your primary reason for convincing the inspector to see it your way? Is it to keep your customer from thinking that you were the one that was wrong, or is it to help your customer get reimbursed? If it is the former, then maybe the responses on this forum will help. As far as I can see the responses have been unanimous in your favor thus far, and I agree with them unless of course the legally adopted code in your area has been modified to change the NEC requirements.

 

[glene77is]

more than it looks like THHN so it must be THHN

Acrwc,
Good Point.
The Insulation on the Copper does Not have any "rated as" markings,
therefore it is NOT Marked as THHN.
The manufacturer placed a "rated as" marker
on the Outer Jacket,
for the Cable Assembly as a Whole.

 

[glene77is]

"never plan to work in his jurisdiction again."
I try to have good working relationships with an inspector, and see things their way, or just do it their way, even if I don't see it their way.

iMuse97,

You will be in business a long time.

"If the Inspector Ain't Happy,
Then Nobody is Happy."
is what one inspector advised me.

I did a 1912 house once, just a kitchen/bath renovation.
The inspector asked about the 'old' wiring,
which I said was not in my 'scope' of work.
We discussed some other points of difference,
and I began getting out material to make minor changes,
right in front of him, right now!
He said I could wait until he was gone.

I passed this comment along to the Home Owner,
with photos of bad wiring from under house and attic,
and samples of really bad joints, etc.
So,
I ended up re-wiring the whole house:
K&T and 40's romex, bare wire joints, etc.
(1) I made a mint.
(2) The Home Owner was happy.
(3) The Inspector was happy.

 

[growler]

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

I would try to reason with him. Sure there is potential liabilty if they admit they are wrong but there is even more potential for liability if they continue to operate this way. Even the NEC changes every three years and some things that were allowed in the past are not considered adequate for future installations.

You probably can't get him to change a ruling he made in the past but a change of attitude on future rulings would be nice.

Or you could just tell him it was a code change that he missed because it doesn't appear that they read the code anyway.

 

[BAHTAH]

50a CB on #8 Romex

50a CB on #8 Romex

Thank you very much for your reply Rob. I agree with you, and do believe it is as simple as that. But, obviously my local inspector disagrees. And he is the Cheif Inspector with 2 inspectors under him.

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

For you this an issue of liability. No one will care about the inspector when your in court since you were aware of the code requirement. If the AHJ does not have a written code on this issure I would not install the 50amp breaker. If anyone insist than tell them to put it in print otherwise you are required to follow the code. Its not unusual for the AHJ to make changes to the NEC for their area but this is typically in the form of a written local code. If they don't have one, then what they say is not important. Everything needs to be documented to be official.

 

[BAHTAH]

50a CB on #8 Romex

50a CB on #8 Romex

Thank you very much for your reply Rob. I agree with you, and do believe it is as simple as that. But, obviously my local inspector disagrees. And he is the Cheif Inspector with 2 inspectors under him.

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

For you this an issue of liability. No one will care about the inspector when your in court since you were aware of the code requirement. If the AHJ does not have a written code on this issure I would not install the 50amp breaker. If anyone insist then tell them to put it in print otherwise you are required to follow the code. Its not unusual for the AHJ to make changes to the NEC for their area but this is typically in the form of a written local code. If they don't have one, then what they say is not important. Everything needs to be documented to be official.

 

[Patrick Kennedy]

I'm in beautiful, Sarasota, Florida.

My reasons for wanting to convince the inspector(s) that I am right are as follows:

1. If my customers (there were 3 of them in this one sub-division) think I am wrong, it will discredit our name and our business in that sub-div.
2. Potentially discredit us with other future customers in this city.
3. There's the builder of these homes that is also putting pressure on me to publically state we are wrong because he feels that if his homes were "unsafely" wired it will damage his reputation as the builder of all these homes. Too top it off he's an attorney. He has given me some light threats so far.
4. Lastly,and by all means the least important: If they state I'm wrong I will have to reimburse each customer for the replacement of this 40A breaker in each house.

What a mess I find myself in, over a few breakers, eh!

Patrick

 

[220/221]

Still, I don't see how an AHJ can relax a clear cut NEC rule which would essentially create a violation of the NEC.

Simply because the NEC isn't always right.




I know...blasphemy.:roll:

I think that this is one of those things that got caught up in the code and ended up in limbo. For years, 50 amp circuits were run with #8 SE. When the 4 wire requirements came out, NM came into use and although it is the same size and type of wire, the cable is listed in a lower column and had to be pretected at 40 amps. There is no danger involved. It's strictly a technical issue.

Bottom line. You will have to change the breakers if there are no local NEC ammendments on this issue.


.

 

[benaround]

Patrick,

Do you think that this builder (lawyer) has given light threats to the Inspection Dept. also?

You need to get the latest amended " local rules " and see if this issue is even on them if

you plan to fight it, and then get a 'good' out of town laywer for yourself.

IMO, It's a shame that you have to do this, and more of a shame for people that are hired

or elected to uphold the law to abuse it

The code as amended is the law, it does not matter if #8 was ok last year or last week to

be on a 50a c.b., because right now it is not ok, and you are doing the customer right by

changing it to the proper code compliant 40a c.b..

 

[petersonra]

Thank you very much for your reply Rob. I agree with you, and do believe it is as simple as that. But, obviously my local inspector disagrees. And he is the Cheif Inspector with 2 inspectors under him.

Does anybody have an idea how I can get the inspector to re-see this. The challenge I believe is that the chief inspector has allowed this for a few years now. By coming out and agreeing with me he would be stating that all the previously allowed 50A breakers are wrong. He, and his dept would potentially would have some liability exposure then

Patrick.

I doubt there is any serious liability issues. Often it is just human nature not wanting to admit to a mistake.

In any case, unless the guy works for an outside entity, it is very hard (near impossible) to successfully sue a government entity over something like this.