The circuit breaker wiring confict!

[rmeier2 (Robert Meier)]

@cevans

Why did you resurrect a 10 year old Zombie thread?

There are plenty of contemporary threads which address this very topic and explain why it is not a deficiency.

You’re right old threads should be closed. I should have checked the date. One caveat is that the information is still relevant.

[cevans (Chuck Evans, CMI)]

@Robert_Meier

You’re right old threads should be closed. I should have checked the date. One caveat is that the information is still relevant.

You weren’t the one who resurrected it and I think it was appropriate that you closed it out again with accurate information for the next person who stumbles across it.

[Jim_Port]

@dselman

I agree that the wire may perform as intended even though undersized. Under current building and TREC standards, inspector are to report deficiencies in electrical conductors and over current devices. Inspectors are not required to determine manufacturer specs or other circumstances under which under sized electrical conductors are acceptable. I would expect our company inspectors to report any occurrence of undersized electrical conductors observed. By doing so, we pass the liability of any failure on to the manufacturer, appliance specialist, cooling specialist or electrical expert.

Having said all that, the key in the thread is the fact that the label was legible and stated "minimum branch circuit ampacity 30a”.

Either way, inspectors are “generalists” not specialists, at least in Texas. I would prefer to air on the side of caution, report the possibility of an issue and pass the liability on to a specialist.

The dataplate tells you a #10 is sufficient and you still question and say you are erroring on the side of caution? The specialist, the manufacturer, already said the #10 is correct. All you are doing is costing someone money to refute something that should never have been written up and giving a negative impression of your industry.