Enforcement angel

[mikeames]

One persons logic is not anothers.

The code has to do what it has to do, the NFPA is not concerned with the enforcment angle.

As far preventing what a hack and a homeowner may do ....


Make something idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. :grin:

I stole this from a previous thread because it did not want it to run on.

I agree with this however would it not be a good idea for the NFPA to give at least a little thought since fire prevention and safety are their goals?

I am refering to the example in a previous thread http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=118464 where a bathroom was beign remodeled. A receptical had to be added however the existing circuit was only 15 amps. So the entire circuti has to be redone even though a new circuit is not needed just and additional recep on the existing. The issues is the professional electrician has to follow the code which will cast more while a non professional can do a safe job costing much less. If the cost difference is $60 vs $1000, and both are equally safe, wheres the incentive for the home owner to hire a licensed professional?

 

[benaround]

Even home owners know that electricity in the wrong hands can cause fire. The incentive

is sleeping 2 doors down the hallway.

 

[iwire]

I stole this from a previous thread because it did not want it to run on.

I agree with this however would it not be a good idea for the NFPA to give at least a little thought since fire prevention and safety are their goals?

I am refering to the example in a previous thread http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=118464 where a bathroom was beign remodeled. A receptical had to be added however the existing circuit was only 15 amps. So the entire circuti has to be redone even though a new circuit is not needed just and additional recep on the existing. The issues is the professional electrician has to follow the code which will cast more while a non professional can do a safe job costing much less. If the cost difference is $60 vs $1000, and both are equally safe, wheres the incentive for the home owner to hire a licensed professional?

Mike what is your suggestion?

Who should get to decide if something is 'equally safe'?

Should the NEC have a section called 'If it is tough, costly or otherwise bothersome you don't have to do it'?

Personnly I see no real problem with adding the 15 amp circuit, but I do not see that the NEC allows it so the inspector should not allow it either.

I really do not see an easy answer.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Le's say that a contractor bid the job to just add 3' of #14 and move the outlet. I come out and write a correction notice that it needs to be a 20 amp circuit (and we don't have basements here, most homes are on slabs) and lets say that it's in the first floor bathroom on the other side of a two story house. Like my house.

I have an Assembly Bill 1236, This law requires the enforcement official's supervisor to review and approve (or deny) an inspector's determination when the contractor or his/her agent asserts that the correction results in a cost of 10% or more of the overall cost of the project.

If it's a $5000 bathroom remodel and it costs $500-1000 as mike said, and of course include paint, drywall, acustic ceiling respray and such.

Now I will admit that there are a lot of "if's" in there.

Just FYI this is a state law and will not apply to everyone out there.

 

[cpal]

. The issues is the professional electrician has to follow the code which will cast more while a non professional can do a safe job costing much less. If the cost difference is $60 vs $1000, and both are equally safe, wheres the incentive for the home owner to hire a licensed professional?

Here is another issue the inspector sympathizes with the ec and allows the old 15 A circuit to supply a new receptacle. The home owner is a smart individual; upon resale a Home Inspectors cites the new outlet is not on a 20 A circuit per Code. The inspectors is called along with the inspectors superiors (selectmen in my area) and your job is gone. Some times it?s not all about you

 

[mikeames]

Mike what is your suggestion?

Who should get to decide if something is 'equally safe'?


I really do not see an easy answer.

I agree its a tough issue however my logic would tell me that the NEC sized the OCP and the ampacity of conductors for a good reason. Thus why #14,#12, and #10 are mandated max OCP of 15, 20, and 30 respectivily. Even though those conductors may be capable of more.

Now if that is the case then why would a fully loaded / overloaded 15 a circuit be less safe than 20 a circuit with %75 load? Nuissance tripping seems to be the worst case. I find it hard to prove a point that the 15a circuit is less safe. If that can be proved then shouldn't the max OCP for #14 be reduced?

Here is another issue the inspector sympathizes with the ec and allows the old 15 A circuit

I understand that may happen, but why should it have to. Like iwire (Bob) said, give them an inch...

I appreciate all the responses.