To add to George’s wisdom. Don’t make any comment that you can not prove.
Ohio has made that easy for its inspectors. Home inspectors report on the function of the components of a residential structure not how something is installed. That is why #8 was added to the Canon of Ethics. You are protected if something is not properly installed because you are prohibited from saying so.
This way you can use the code knowledge that you possess to make recommendations without having to state what the defect is.
“… Licensees may recommend a client seek further evaluation and repair or remediation of suspected safety hazards by a certified or licensed professional. Such recommendations shall be in the home inspection report.”
If it is suspect you are protected because of this rule. This gives you the right to report something just because it doesn’t feel right. George and I don’t have that luxury because we hold ourselves out as experts. Do you really want to take that liability on?
had a homeowner try that in a finished basement with lighting circuits. He came off of a 20 AMP circuit and ‘tapped’ 14 for the lights. Nothing unsafe with what he did, it just wasn’t code compliant.
This is an example of using code. As George said there are young lawyers who have no problem ruining your life just to look good.
Now if you want to go down that road I recommend ICC certification.
Well, as much as we say our inspections are not code inspections, much of what we report on has a basis in code. So like it or not, we have to understand some of the code requirements in order to make accurate reports. It is what it is!
Article 240 already has small conductor rules in place that would disallow something like #14 running to a light from a switch on a 20 amp circuit. Also most residential circuits are fed from breakers which protects the conductor at the source vs coming off lugs and downstream overcurrent protection being supplied. Larger circuits are typically dedicated so there would be no need to be tapped.
Does the fact that the circuit is protected at the source disallow using the tap rules? Because that would make George’s argument incorrect. Or was George referring to something besides tap rules when he said the configuration he described was ok?
I might surmise he was talking about a motor or compressor load like an AC unit which uses different sizing rules. The breaker would appear to be oversized where it is actually to accommodate the higher inrush currents. The conductors are sized for the run current. He also mentions where the appropriate overcurrent protection was supplied elsewhere in the circuit.
I’m not missing the point in my opinion. You can disagree, but home inspectors are often called on to defend their reports. Much of the time code plays a role in that defense.
For example, when I call out that spacing in between balusters on a guardrail is larger than the amount recommended, do I just defend that by saying “I feel like the spacing should be 4” or less because kids have small heads." How do you think that will go over? Probably not as good as saying, “well the building code specifies that spacing.”
The only example of a tap being allowed in residential that comes to mind is:
Manufactured home. Disconnect outside is 200 AMPS. I could run a #1AWG copper (from the 200 AMP breaker) to a 100 AMP main panel in the home. I can’t think of another example that a home inspector might see.
Maybe. But all he said was that the conductors were ran 6’ to a 30A disconnect. The fact he mentioned the length of the run lead me to think he was talking about tap feeder rules.
Is there something in the code that allows a conductor to be undersized (relative to the OCPD) other than the tap rules? Please let us know!
Then I would say that my InterNACHI training tells me XXXXX. Don’t even hint at using code. You can use your code knowledge but use an InterNACHI class or training as your reason. Let the contractor can come in and say “and yes it is in the code also”.
I doubt if you missed anything. I have not seen it used in residential - so it makes it hard to give you an example. In order to use the tap rule you would first have to train (electricians) your employees.
Yes it will. You are using your expert training. As a generalist that is all that is expected of you . Why stick your neck out there. When I did home inspections, even though I am an expert, I stopped at the first defect I found with a system and recommended an expert come in. Now if something was in my face I would report it but I wouldn’t dig deep in to that system. I found a problem with it.
That’s curious. Because George stated that he has been called out “more times than he can estimate” to investigate this exact issue. And the only thing I am aware of that would make this OK is the tap rules. So either George is referring to a different rule in the code (which I would like to be aware of), or this scenario is actually quite common in residential applications. Just trying to learn here!
That is why you are confused. George is not giving a ‘tap’ example. He is saying that a conductor that most people think should be breakered at XX AMPS is used with a higher breaker than the code says it can. He know the exception(s) (Article 440 usually). An AC is probably the only time you will see that. The only reason that is allowed is because it is a motor load. In the old days the breaker. AC, was just for a short. The unit protected the conductors feeding it.
That’s possible. But I would think George would explain that further if he doesn’t want to confuse people on the forum. He only mentioned that the conductors went 6’ to a 30A disconnect and didn’t elaborate further.
Believe it or not, undersized conductors and/or oversized OCPDs’ are a common issue we see out there. And the current narrative you guys are promoting is that home inspectors should ignore that. That is a very bad idea in my opinion.
I don’t think that you should ever ignore something. What I preach is just be damn sure that you know that something is a fact before you say it (in a report). Yes there are things that I think that you shouldn’t do but I’m not you.
I see the other side too often. Someone writes up something as an issue when it is code compliant. The Hi has cost someone just to find out it was for no reason. I remember one where the HI stated the refrigerator needed a dedicated circuit. The homeowner paid to have it installed to avoid the possibility of losing the sale as the doubt was planted in the mind of the buyer.