follow instruction or not

[Ponchik]

Hypothetically speaking:

Instruction ask for #12 AWG with 1/2" EMT but you do the installation with #10 AWG & 3/4" EMT.
Is this in violation of 110.3?

Or if the plans were approved with 1/2" & #12 AWG but the installer installed 3/4" EMT with #8 AWG. Can the inspector cite 110.3 and fail the inspection?

 

[infinity]

If the wording in the instructions was part of the listing then you would need to follow it. If it's just a general instruction then no. Similar to instructions that say something like "use the wire nuts provided to connect to the branch circuit conductors".

 

[mgookin]

Code is minimum - or as crappy as we're allowed to build. You can exceed code. The basis of the plans is the code. I think a contractor certainly has a valid argument with an inspector when he sizes his conductors or pipe in excess of what the plans called for.

UL Listing is absolute unless it uses the word "minimum". A listing may also presume a close proximity to a panel, for example, and maybe you're farther away. But I'd think even then the listing would say a minimum size conductor, follow local code, etc. which gets you back to upsizing the wire without recourse.

Do you have a specific example?

 

[GoldDigger]

Do you have a specific example?

I suspect that the issue may be more with any deviation from the approved plans than with following listing instructions. And that is a question for the individual AHJ , i.e. whether they require that the plans be rigidly followed or that the result meet code.
Usually the plan check is to ensure that the minimums are being met rather than carving the details in stone, and so any decrease from the approved plans would have to be justified.

 

[rt66electric]

I have never seen a inspector ask for the plans.rgument , but , it should pass

I have never seen a inspector ask for the plans.rgument , but , it should pass

I have never seen a inspector ask for the plans. He can only judge what is installed on site.
Does the subject in front of him pass NEC??
He cannot turn done a job for work not done, that is on the plans.
A fire marshall can reject a job for incomplete work( lack of lighting, Exits etc.etc)
A inspector can reject a job for lack of receptacles, etc, hazardous wiring,

I could wire a exit light with 500 mcm and as long as the junction boxes were big enough and breakered at 20 amps it should pass, ( impractical, but legal)

Nothing wrong with going up a size.

The general contractor may have an argument , but , it should pass NEC.

 

[GoldDigger]

Nothing wrong with going up a size.

The general contractor may have an argument , but , it should pass NEC.

Like if your work for the contractor is T&M and you used more expensive material than the plans called for, for example, and could not justify it by NEC requirement.
If it was a flat rate bid, he would have no reason for complaint.

 

[infinity]

The OP is asking if the wording included in a product's instructions can be exceeded when they specify a specific way of wiring something. 110.3(B) specifies that if the instructions are part of the listing or labeling of the equipment then they must be followed. Frequently this is seen where equipment is labeled "Copper Conductors Only".

110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment
shall be installed and used in accordance with any instruc-
tions included in the listing or labeling

 

[GoldDigger]

The OP is asking if the wording included in a product's instructions can be exceeded when they specify a specific way of wiring something. 110.3(B) specifies that if the instructions are part of the listing or labeling of the equipment then they must be followed. Frequently this is seen where equipment is labeled "Copper Conductors Only".

Although in this case the hypothetical situation of the instructions specifying a size of EMT seems a little strained.
And the OP also explicitly introduced the second question of plans rather than instructions.

 

[infinity]

Although in this case the hypothetical situation of the instructions specifying a size of EMT seems a little strained.
And the OP also explicitly introduced the second question of plans rather than instructions.

You're correct, my answer was based on the first question not the second. IMO 110.3 would not apply to things specified on plans.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

UL insists that any instruction supplied by the manufacturer is a 110.3(B) instruction. I don't agree, but that is their official position.

 

[Ponchik]

If the wording in the instructions was part of the listing then you would need to follow it. If it's just a general instruction then no. Similar to instructions that say something like "use the wire nuts provided to connect to the branch circuit conductors".

How does one distinguish between the "general instruction" & the "instruction as part of the listing"?

So if the wire nuts provided with the instructions are not sized for #12AWG you must use them?

So if the listed instructions ask for 1/2" conduit, but a larger conduit is installed then the installation is a failed installation based on 110.3(B).




On the second note, one of the students in the class brought up the plan check question. The plans called for 1/2" EMT the installation was failed because the installer had used 3/4". The local inspector simply said "you did not follow according to the plans". Instead of challenging the decision they simply sent the plans in for revision and for another plan check with the 3/4" showing on the plans.

 

[JDBrown]

On the second note, one of the students in the class brought up the plan check question. The plans called for 1/2" EMT the installation was failed because the installer had used 3/4". The local inspector simply said "you did not follow according to the plans". Instead of challenging the decision they simply sent the plans in for revision and for another plan check with the 3/4" showing on the plans.

This happens to us all the time. Just last week, I had to go back to plan check because the Electrician provided a different brand of inverter for the life safety lighting than what was specified on the plans. We had approved the substitution, which was originally asked for because the spec'd inverter wasn't available soon enough for the project timeline, but because the manufacturer's name didn't match what was on the drawings, the Inspector red tagged it.

I drove down to the building department, paid my fee to have a plans examiner glance at it for a minute and a half, and then took the drawings over to the job site. Inspector is now happy. They've been doing this sort of thing a lot lately. Personally, I think they're doing it so they can collect more fees. But that's a topic for elsewhere.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

UL insists that any instruction supplied by the manufacturer is a 110.3(B) instruction. I don't agree, but that is their official position.

Yes I have asked them and that is what I heard also.


If you install a larger conduit and wire I don't see an issue unless there are lugs that cannot hold 10 wire or something to that effect. I can't imagine getting called on it.

 

[GoldDigger]

Yes I have asked them and that is what I heard also.


If you install a larger conduit and wire I don't see an issue unless there are lugs that cannot hold 10 wire or something to that effect. I can't imagine getting called on it.

One edge case comes to mind. If the size of a feeder or service wire was included in incident energy or SCCR calculation during the design process (and played a significant role), then upsizing it without consulting with the engineer could be a problem.
I don't see it as being an issue for a typical branch circuit though.