Max number of recepts per circuit

[colosparker]

What does the 2002 NEC say it says that Charlie said it says? :lol:

Let me sum up your argument in regards to the NEC.

If I can not find it says I can do something, than you would say I can not? :?:

What's your argument? You say you "can" do whatever you want if the NEC doesn't say that you can not? Isn't that why we have AHJ's?

 

[iwire]

What's your argument?

You say you "can" do whatever you want if the NEC doesn't say that you can not?

That is the truth right there, unless a code section can be shown or cited that prevents any particular installation then it is an acceptable instillation.

Isn't that why we have AHJ's?

Couple of things here.

1) Most times an inspector is not the AHJ, the AHJ is the person or organization that adopts the code.

Of course given the size of this Country certainly some areas might work differently.

2) We have AHJs and inspectors to enforce the legally adopted rules.

The AHJ can certainly without a doubt make an legally adopted amendment to the NEC that could limit the amount of receptacles on a circuit.

However if there is no amendment to the NEC than there is no 'interpretation' that can limit the amount of receptacles on a circuit.

It's quite simple inspectors and AHJs can only enforce legally adopted codes just as police can only enforce the law as written no matter how much 'good' they feel they are doing.

Not much more to be said here, you are not going to change your view of your 'powers' and I am not going to become a doormat for inspectors to walk on. 8)

 

[allenwayne]

BRAVO<BRAVO well said 8)

 

[scwirenut]

Here is the word "unlimited" used directly by a CMP member, this is from the "Focus on the code" section of the IAEI magazine, any inspector worth his salt is a member or uses this association for interpretations, here is the question and answer , below is the link

Question 5. In the July/August 2004, "Focus on the Code," a question was asked regarding 210.11(C)(3), 210.11(C)(3) Exception, and 210.23(A) Exception. Ray Weber?s comment was well written and correct for the most part. In the answer Mr. Weber stated that a single 20-ampere branch circuit could supply an unlimited number of receptacle outlets in an unlimited number of bathrooms. It is my opinion that this is not correct and not the intent of the original proposal when the article was revised.

In a small dwelling, perhaps this would be okay. If you look at our modern dwellings being built today, they are enormous in size and have multiple bathrooms. The original intent of the code change was to limit the load on the bathroom receptacle due to the use of hair dryers, curling irons, curler heaters, etc. In the more modern dwellings there may be five to six or more bathrooms and half baths.The language in 210.11(C)(3) states, "at least one 20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply the bathroom receptacle outlet(s)." The word bathroom is singular and does not indicate that it may be both singular and plural, as does outlet(s). It is my opinion that the 20-ampere branch circuit is intended for the receptacle outlet(s) in a single bathroom only, not multiple receptacle outlet(s) in multiple bathrooms. ?L.J.

Answer 5. I understand this gentleman?s viewpoint and position; however, I do not agree and I remain steadfast on my comments and answer to the question. However, this does reinforce the fact that the written word is subject to interpretation and we as an organization, the IAEI, need to remain in the forefront of not only being involved in writing the Code but also in teaching and clarifying the meaning of the various sections for our members. It has been said that differences of opinion created the need for horse races; likewise, the Code is open to others to make their viewpoints known in subsequent Code change proposals and, then, to let the process confirm or deny the validity of those points. ?Ray Weber, CMP-3

http://magazine.iaei.org/foc/cmp3.htm#q5

 

[allenwayne]

This forum tears the NEC apart from thread to thread.If it is written in a definitive manner than well no matter what we think it stands.There are areas that are gray and those are a subject of debate but that is why we come here since we all think we are correct I`m right and you are not :wink:

 

[dlhoule]

I`m right and you are not

Yeah, Well, I'm left and you are not. :wink: :wink:

 

[charlie b]

You can fight the inspectors interpretation of the code, yet I could almost bet you that the law is going to rule in favor of the greater good. . . . . How can protecting the interests of the community at large be an "abuse of authority"?

The law is going to rule in favor of the law. The greater good of the community is the responsibility of those who write the laws, not the ones who enforce it. It is an "abuse of authority" to say, "I want this, even though the law does not require this, and there is nothing you can do about it, since I "am" the law, so there, nyah, nyah."

Every new homeowner has a reasonable expectation for a good electrical installation in the home that they buy. That truly is the bottom line, whether you agree with me or not.

I agree that this is the bottom line. I disagree with you on the question of whose responsibility it is to make the homeowner happy with the "good electrical installation." If it meets the code, your job is to sign the form, shut up, and walk away. If the customer is not happy, then that particular electrical contractor is the one who will take the heat, and who will likely lose future business in the community. The homeowner is absolutely not going to call the Inspector and say "my circuit keeps tripping, so please come here and write up a violation so that I can force the electrician to fix it."

 

[colosparker]

Not much more to be said here, you are not going to change your view of your 'powers' and I am not going to become a doormat for inspectors to walk on. 8)

I wouldn't want you to be a doormat for inspectors. I wonder why so bitter towards inspectors, which btw I am a QA inspector for a large public owner and not an electrical inspector for an AHJ.

 

[colosparker]

Answer 5. I understand this gentleman?s viewpoint and position; however, I do not agree and I remain steadfast on my comments and answer to the question. However, this does reinforce the fact that the written word is subject to interpretation and we as an organization, the IAEI, need to remain in the forefront of not only being involved in writing the Code but also in teaching and clarifying the meaning of the various sections for our members. It has been said that differences of opinion created the need for horse races; likewise, the Code is open to others to make their viewpoints known in subsequent Code change proposals and, then, to let the process confirm or deny the validity of those points. ?Ray Weber, CMP-3

http://magazine.iaei.org/foc/cmp3.htm#q5

Excellent reading for any person in this thread that doesn't understand the meaning of "interpretation"

 

[colosparker]

I`m right and you are not

Yeah, Well, I'm left and you are not. :wink: :wink:

I'm left and I'm right :wink: IMO

 

[colosparker]

The greater good of the community is the responsibility of those who write the laws, not the ones who enforce it. It is an "abuse of authority" to say, "I want this, even though the law does not require this, and there is nothing you can do about it, since I "am" the law, so there, nyah, nyah."

The NEC is a Code, not Law. The NEC is the minimum standard for electrical work. In consumer law it is all about protecting the consumer. A homeowner is a consumer. We have regional/state building authorities to protect people and property from shoddy construction. Colorado gives an inspector the right to approve an installation based on his/her opinion. How would it be an abuse for his/her authority to say I want x number of outlets on that general lighting load branch circuit in order to protect a future consumer from "nuisance tripping"? If it is the interpretation of the local AHJ that the Code is unclear on the exact number of outlets on this type of branch circuit, they have the authority to approve whatever they feel is necessary for a good installation.

 

[charlie b]

The NEC is a Code, not Law.

The NEC becomes law when it is enacted into law by a state, county, or other jurisdiction. At that point, the thing that is enacted (i.e., some jurisdictions ? Seattle is one ? make their own changes to the NEC before they enact it) is the thing that is law. An Inspector's desires or opinions are not law, and should never be treated as though they were law.

In consumer law it is all about protecting the consumer.

That's interesting, but it is not relevant. The NEC is not a "consumer law." It is addressed to those who construct, not to those who use. It instructs those who construct to do so safely. It does not instruct those who construct to make their customers happy. If they want to stay in business, they will endeavor to make their customers happy. But it is absolutely not the role of an Inspector to command that an electrician make the customer happy.

How would it be an abuse for his/her authority to say I want x number of outlets on that general lighting load branch circuit in order to protect a future consumer from "nuisance tripping"?

Because the NEC itself explicitly declares that that type of issue is outside its scope. Please read 90.1(B).

If it is the interpretation of the local AHJ that the Code is unclear on the exact number of outlets on this type of branch circuit. . . .

Your are missing the point. The NEC is not "unclear" on this point. It is absolutely clear. It states no requirements because there is no intent that requirements exist.

. . . they have the authority to approve whatever they feel is necessary for a good installation.

A "good installation" is outside the scope of the NEC, as I mention above. That makes it outside the authority of an Inspector.

 

[colosparker]

I disagree with you on the question of whose responsibility it is to make the homeowner happy with the "good electrical installation." If it meets the code, your job is to sign the form, shut up, and walk away. If the customer is not happy, then that particular electrical contractor is the one who will take the heat, and who will likely lose future business in the community. The homeowner is absolutely not going to call the Inspector and say "my circuit keeps tripping, so please come here and write up a violation so that I can force the electrician to fix it."

Why do you feel it is not the responsibility of an electrical inspector/AHJ to assure the homeowner a good installation? IMO that is all it's about! The homeowner doesn't have the benefit of seeing what's inside the walls of the home that they are investing. The homeowner has a right to expect a home free from defects. I wouldn't expect a homeowner to call the local inspector/AHJ should a nuisance tripping problem develop. They call the electrical contractor. What happens when 200 area homeowners start looking for the electrical contractor, who did the shoddy work in their home and then went out of business? IMO The inspector/AHJ has the responsibility to approve an installation, which best serves the rights of the consumer. One of the reasons we have these people working in our communities is so that we don't flood our courts with lawsuits.

 

[charlie b]

. . . btw I am a QA inspector . . . and not an electrical inspector.

Now, at last, I understand where you are coming from. You are speaking from the viewpoint of your profession. Our viewpoint is different. But please note that as good and valuable a service as a QA department can provide, it is not the department that sets the requirements. Its role is limited to verification that an installation complies with requirements.

Why do you feel it is not the responsibility of an electrical inspector/AHJ to assure the homeowner a good installation? IMO that is all it's about!

Then you didn't comply with my request that you read 90.1(B). Please do so, before you post another comment on "good installations."

The homeowner has a right to expect a home free from defects.

I agree. I would also agree that it is the role of an Inspector to look for defects. But it is not the role of an Inspector to define "defects."

IMO The inspector/AHJ has the responsibility to approve an installation, which best serves the rights of the consumer.

I'll postpone any further comments on this point, until after you have read 90.1(B).

One of the reasons we have these people working in our communities is so that we don't flood our courts with lawsuits.

That is absolutely not the reason that we have Electrical Inspectors. Their job is all about safety, not about prevention of lawsuits. The NEC is all about safety; it is not about serving the needs and desires of the community. Did I mention that you should read 90.1(B)?

I don't have access to an electronic copy of the NEC with the ability to "copy and paste" text, and I wouldn't want to copy it incorrectly. If anyone has the CDROM handy, would you do me the favor of posting a copy of 90.1(B)? Many thanks.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

(B) Adequacy This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

 

[colosparker]

[The NEC becomes law when it is enacted into law by a state, county, or other jurisdiction. At that point, the thing that is enacted (i.e., some jurisdictions ? Seattle is one ? make their own changes to the NEC before they enact it) is the thing that is law. An Inspector's desires or opinions are not law, and should never be treated as though they were law.

OK. I am speaking in respect to my jurisdiction where I live. In Colorado the NEC is a minimum standard that is adopted by the state along with any changes. The law is titled the Colorado State Electrical Rules. The people in Colorado understand that most if not all electrical installations are subject to approval, interpretation, etc. The NEC is not black and white. I never said an inspectors opinions should be treated as they were law. Interpretations are up to the AHJ.

The NEC is not a "consumer law." It is addressed to those who construct, not to those who use. It instructs those who construct to do so safely. It does not instruct those who construct to make their customers happy. If they want to stay in business, they will endeavor to make their customers happy. But it is absolutely not the role of an Inspector to command that an electrician make the customer happy.

The act of a homeowner buying a home in the marketplace is subject to consumer law. I never said the NEC is a consumer law. It is the role of an inspector to make sure the consumer gets an installation that meets his jurisdictions standards. We don't leave inspections and interpretations up to the contractor, they only do that in the military :wink:



[/quote]

 

[charlie b]

(B) Adequacy This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

Thanks, Don.

Did you see this, Dave?

 

[charlie b]

It is the role of an inspector to make sure the consumer gets an installation that meets his jurisdictions standards.

No, No, a thousand times, no. It is the role of an inspector to make sure the consumer gets an installation that meets his jurisdiction's laws.

Dave, please understand that I would want the homeowner to get the same things you are describing. So too, I am certain, would every other member who has disagreed with you in this thread.

But speaking now only for myself, I do not want my government to force me to do it. I want to do it because I think it's the right thing to do. I want to do it because it will make my customer happy, and because happy customers are repeat customers, and because happy customers tell their friends why they are happy. I want the customer to tell me they are happy with what I gave them. All I want from the Inspector is confirmation that I did it safely.

 

[jwelectric]

The Colorado State Electrical Board licenses journeymen electricians, master electricians, and residential wiremen. Electrical apprentices and electrical contractors are required to register with the Board.

The Board also performs electrical inspections on new and remodeled facilities throughout the state in its areas of jurisdiction and inspects all public schools throughout the state.

The standard used by the Board is the National Electrical Code as may be amended.

 

[iwire]

I wonder why so bitter towards inspectors,

I am not bitter toward inspectors, they have a job to do just like I do. 8) I do get angry when inspectors try to go beyond the adopted rules.

Just as I am required to follow all the adopted rules of a jurisdiction the inspectors must also enforce only the adopted rules.

I know you feel you are doing the right thing 'for the common good' but that is not how laws and codes are enforced.

How can I as an EC be expected to follow rules or ideas that only exist in your head?

Failing me after I have completed the job for unwritten rules is just plain wrong. (As in, if you told me ahead of time of any 'special' requests I might just be a nice guy and do them)

The job will have been bid based on the adopted codes, if you ask for more you are literally taking money out of the ECs bank. It is not supposed to work that way.

If you find a real NEC violation than certainly fail me cost me money, I will not make the same mistake again. 8)

Bob