Conductor Size Larger than Breaker

[infinity]

for my 2 cents worth. I always,always make a diagram of the panel by breaker number and what size breaker was in that breaker slot. I then number all the wires by breaker number except the obvious ones like the range. That way I never put a 12 on a 20 that mite have been connected down line to a 14.pretty simple to then land it back the way it was as far as i am concerned. takes a bit more time but I dont commit any sins this way.

This is not a bad idea, however it is not required. It will probably help the guy doing a service upgrade 20 years from now. :wink:

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Although the inspector does make a good point, it's not an enforceable one. As an EC I've only had one inspector ever tag me for bogus stuff, and she was eventually let go from her job, so there is some justice in the world.

As an engineer, I've discussed this issue with the more experienced folks around the office. They take the view that it's not always worth the trouble to fight an inspector, and these are people who really know the code. Sure, you could spend time and money to "win," but who wants a Pyrrhic victory?

An easy way to satisfy the inspector in this case would be to pigtail a little #14 to the #12 inside the panel and connect the #14 to the breaker. Better still, a 15A breaker would work just as well since the load is fairly small.

With that kind of thinking we will soon not even need the nec,just give the inspector anything he wants.Inspections are a good thing but need to be done right.If he or she cant do it by nec then get rid of them fast.No number then no red tag.And that number had best support the violation.Grrrrr

 

[dnem]

for my 2 cents worth. I always,always make a diagram of the panel by breaker number and what size breaker was in that breaker slot. I then number all the wires by breaker number except the obvious ones like the range. That way I never put a 12 on a 20 that mite have been connected down line to a 14.pretty simple to then land it back the way it was as far as i am concerned. takes a bit more time but I dont commit any sins this way.

This is not a bad idea, however it is not required. It will probably help the guy doing a service upgrade 20 years from now. :wink:

While reading that post I was under the impression that he was talking about how he approaches a panel change that he is doing himself.

David

 

[dnem]

I had no idea this was such a tough concept and caused so much worry from inspectors.

Does it have to be so much in order to talk about it ? . You’ve approached this thread from the angle of just throwing stones and haven’t stopped day after day. . Why are you still posting on this thread if it’s so meaningless ?

I suggest forgetting about it and moving on.

It might take a conversation like this one to get a building department procedure started. . But once a procedure is established, everyone knows what to do and forgets about it. . They follow the procedure, make the notations that the procedure asks for and life goes on. . Where there’s a procedure, there’s no worry.

It’s only a tough concept if you want to make it tough.

Part of being an electrician is some sense of personal responsibility to follow the code.

If we think that inspectors can be expected to catch anything and everything we are asking to much of inspectors.

I agree, and at the end of the day the inspector will still have zero liability and the EC will have all of the liability.

We have a case in northern Ohio that has been in the news this past year. . A little boy was electrocuted at a fair. . The electrician is in jail now and so is the inspector.

Liability is low for the inspector only if he takes a reasonable attempt at doing a proper inspection. . The concept of reasonable can be debated in court. . In the case that I mentioned, a ride didn’t have an equipment bond [ground] connected. . A minimal inspection should have revealed that fact.

David

 

[jeff43222]

With that kind of thinking we will soon not even need the nec,just give the inspector anything he wants.Inspections are a good thing but need to be done right.If he or she cant do it by nec then get rid of them fast.No number then no red tag.And that number had best support the violation.Grrrrr

I agree, but it's not always get rid of an inspector. Inspectors usually work for the government, and it's pretty hard to get fired from a government job.

Suppose an inspector tags something that isn't a code violation but is a good idea anyway and would nonetheless be easy to fix. You could fight back and win, but that will take time/money, and the AHJ isn't going to reimburse you for your losses. Now you've made an enemy of the inspector, and you can bet he's going to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb next time. He'll also be a stickler for every little thing, and he'll interpret the gray areas of the code (things like "nearest" and "where subject to physical damage") not in your favor. He'll be "right" as far as the code is concerned, and you'll be stuck.

I've run into situations where an inspector has said to me things like, "I could require ________, but I'm not going to in this case because __________." The inspector made a judgment call and felt that the code didn't take a certain scenario into account and therefore he wasn't going to enforce it. He never allowed something I felt was unsafe.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[iwire]

Does it have to be so much in order to talk about it ? . You?ve approached this thread from the angle of just throwing stones and haven?t stopped day after day.

Yes, I have been throwing stones.

Not at you.

At inspectors that delay a job with no NEC section to back them up

And I have also been throwing stones at electricians that do not use common sense when doing a panel change.

We have a case in northern Ohio that has been in the news this past year. . A little boy was electrocuted at a fair. . The electrician is in jail now and so is the inspector.

If the inspector is in jail than he did something criminally negligent and he should be in jail.

He is most definitely not in jail for holding a job to just the NEC or for not going beyond the NEC.

The bottom line is this installation is allowed by the NEC, if an inspector wants to make note of it in a file thats fine. But they can not request a note in the panel, 6" of 14 AWG spliced on in the panel or anything else.

If you personally find this such an issue then I suggest you put in a proposal that suits your needs.

 

[winnie]

The bottom line is this installation is allowed by the NEC, if an inspector wants to make note of it in a file thats fine. But they can not request a note in the panel, 6" of 14 AWG spliced on in the panel or anything else.

I would think that they could _request_ anything that they wanted. And as I said before, I happen to agree with the _suggestion_ that some sort of label would improve the installation.

But I essentially agree with this bottom line. The original installation is allowed by the NEC, and the inspector can not _require_ any of these changes.

On the topic of panel changes: why does this particular issue suddenly introduce the specter of the inspector having to check each and every circuit? Inspections are essentially always 'spot checks', where the inspector looks at a few things, and then passes the whole installation. The inspector has to trust the electrician, and if the electrician want to 'pull something over' then a lie would be difficult to detect.

At a panel change, the inspector could simply ask 'How did you size these circuit breakers?' Or 'Did you check for over fused circuits?'

-Jon

 

[iwire]

I would think that they could _request_ anything that they wanted. And as I said before, I happen to agree with the _suggestion_ that some sort of label would improve the installation.

They can not request anything beyond the NEC as a prerequisite for passing inspection.

Of course they could ask 'Hey can you do me a favor?' and I might be more than happy to comply but I could say no.

We could say notes, as builts.....any extra information, makes a better job but where do we stop?

I just have a real problem when I read something like this..

The inspector has a good point. . This kind of installation puts him in a bad position for future inspections on that house.

If I have met the code the inspectors 'comfort level' is simply not a concern of mine. If the inspector feels they are in a 'bad position' to accept compliant work they should find a new line of work or make a code change / local amendment.

I have great respect for inspectors but they also have to understand an ECs livelihood is not a game. The rules are in place for both the EC and the Inspector. As much as I have to follow the rules so must the inspector enforce those rules and only those rules. For the inspector tomorrow is just another day, for the EC tomorrow is already scheduled to be at the other jobs. A wrongful delay is almost always money out of the ECs pocket.

It would not surprise me if one day I am an inspector, I am sure I would see many installations that will not please me but I would pass them if they meet the local codes.

Now David said he agrees this job should pass and he would not hold it up. Great, but this thread is not about what David would do, it is about what another inspector has done. I make no apologies for throwing stones at an inspector (NOT David) that costs ECs money for no reason other than not knowing or not applying the rules correctly.

JMO, Bob

 

[dnem]

At a panel change, the inspector could simply ask 'How did you size these circuit breakers?' Or 'Did you check for over fused circuits?'

-Jon

On 95 to 99% of all residential inspections that I perform, the electrician isn't present. . I would be asking those questions to myself. . I would guess that is a common situation everywhere for residential inspections.

 

[pete m.]

I've read this thread word for word.

I think, after reading all the different "takes" on this, that it comes down to a very simple concept.

Communication.

That is something I see as lacking in the inspector/contractor relationship. At times it's portrayed as an adversarial existence.... it shouldn't be this way at all. The inspector relies on the integrity of the installer just as much as the installer relies on the integrity of the inspector. If either of the two parties lack the integrity to perform their respective duties competently and to the best of their ability then I believe they should competently get out of the trade.

As an inspector I can't, and shouldn't have to, look at every single aspect of an electrical installation. The only way I know to do this is to have installed it myself. This is where I rely on the electrician who did the install.

I've made "bad calls" in the past and will most assuredly make more in the future. Just the same as the installing electrician will, and has, made mistakes with his/her installation. "To err is human" "To err intentionally is inhumane"

Sorry for the rant.......

Pete