NEC question - Junction 2 #10 Romex in a 2 x 4 box?

[Mike007]

I junctioned 2 #10 romex in a 2" x 4" x 1.75" 13 cu. in. handy box. The job failed inspection. So I'm looking at my Uglies Quick Electrical Reference and it lists #10 conductors require 2.5 cu. in. each. Ive got 4 conductors and 3 grounds. Since the grounds count as 1, I come up with a 12.5 required cu. in. thus the box is code compliant. Am I missing something?

 

[MrMark]

Is this just a junction box? Does a device go in the box? If so the device counts as 2. If it was just a junction box, did the inspector know that?

Does this box have integral internal clamps? If so, that counts as another 1.

So you have the following:

4 conductors
1 for grounds
That's 5 X 2.5 = 12.5 right there.

Add in 2 X 2.5 for the device and you are up to 17.5.

If that box has internal clamps you are at 20 in3

You should never use those handy boxes anyway. They are too small as you found out.

 

[Mike007]

No, the box is just there to junction the romex. No device or internal clamps. So as I figured, it is code compliant. Thanks.

 

[Aceman]

You're legal.

And I agree, handy boxes are absolutely worthless. 4sq box with a blank is the way to go.

 

[Gooch]

I junctioned 2 #10 romex in a 2" x 4" x 1.75" 13 cu. in. handy box. The job failed inspection. So I'm looking at my Uglies Quick Electrical Reference and it lists #10 conductors require 2.5 cu. in. each. Ive got 4 conductors and 3 grounds. Since the grounds count as 1, I come up with a 12.5 required cu. in. thus the box is code compliant. Am I missing something?

Is it stamped as 13 cu. in.? or is this what you got from your 'Uglies'?

my book doesn't list a 2"x4"x1.75". it' lists a 1.5" deep and a 1.875" deep.

also even if you find that it's up to code, just fix it to the inspectors requests. something this small is not worth arguing over considering how much of a hassel he could be.

if it's a 1.5" deep it doesn't pass.

if it doesn't have an internal cable clamp does it have a romex connector on it?

did he specifically list box fill as the violation?

 

[Mike007]

Is it stamped as 13 cu. in.? or is this what you got from your 'Uglies'?

my book doesn't list a 2"x4"x1.75". it' lists a 1.5" deep and a 1.875" deep.

also even if you find that it's up to code, just fix it to the inspectors requests. something this small is not worth arguing over considering how much of a hassel he could be.

if it's a 1.5" deep it doesn't pass.

if it doesn't have an internal cable clamp does it have a romex connector on it?

did he specifically list box fill as the violation?

You have no idea. This is a battle that has been going on for 7+ years now. The box is actually 4 x 2-1/8 x 1-7/8". There is no internal romex connector. Uglies lists it as a minimum capacity of 13 cu.in. This box may literally cost this inspector his job. It's a long, long story. The short version is even if I changed the box, he would just come out and red tag the job for something else.

 

[Aceman]

You have no idea. This is a battle that has been going on for 7+ years now. The box is actually 4 x 2-1/8 x 1-7/8". There is no internal romex connector. Uglies lists it as a minimum capacity of 13 cu.in. This box may literally cost this inspector his job. It's a long, long story. The short version is even if I changed the box, he would just come out and red tag the job for something else.

I'd check with your building dept. but I'm not sure that's legal. He gets one shot to write up an inspection report. He can't come back later and add more violations to it.

 

[MrMark]

Is this your house? In my city if a guy pulled something like that with a homeowner he would get pulled off that job and at a minimum reprimanded. These guys get away with a lot of stuff with electricians doing it for a living because they have to keep working with the guy and they are thinking next job, but a homeowner is a whole different ball game. At least here.

 

[Mike007]

I'd check with your building dept. but I'm not sure that's legal. He gets one shot to write up an inspection report. He can't come back later and add more violations to it.

It's absolutely not. Nor is red tagging a job for something that a code citation cannot be produced to back up. He and the other inspectors have been warned multiple times now by the state. I have been told if there is a next time, there would be "extreme consequences". So I guess I'm going to find out what that meant.

 

[Mike007]

Is this your house? In my city if a guy pulled something like that with a homeowner he would get pulled off that job and at a minimum reprimanded. These guys get away with a lot of stuff with electricians doing it for a living because they have to keep working with the guy and they are thinking next job, but a homeowner is a whole different ball game. At least here.

It's not my home. There is no working with this building department, period. You get a red tag regardless of what you do. To try and put it in perspective, in an 8 year period, I passed roughly 10 jobs in the jurisdiction of this department out of hundreds of jobs. In that same time period I failed 1 inspection outside it. Homeowners literally have difficulty finding good contractors to work in the jurisdiction. Hopefully the problem will be fixed soon.

 

[MrMark]

Why are they doing it? What's in it for them? All this is ultimately about money. Where's the money in failing all these inspections? Are there reinspection fees? We don't have that here to my knowledge.

 

[Mike007]

Why are they doing it? What's in it for them? All this is ultimately about money. Where's the money in failing all these inspections? Are there reinspection fees? We don't have that here to my knowledge.

It's actually really bizarre for multiple reasons. There are no reinspection fees. I'd say they are doing it for job security, but they are on the verge of possibly losing their jobs over it. And they were doing it when the economy and construction was booming. And its not one inspector or trade. It's literally across the board. Whats the most strange, on a personal level, all my dealings with them have been pleasant. I'd describe them as nice people. I really just don't get it.

 

[MoonRise]

btw, where in NJ is this?

Next, some inspectors are good and knowledgeable. Some are not. Some seem to be petty bureaucrats on a power trip.

'Nice' people without a clue and making up stuff as they go? Is that pretty much what you are dealing with?

 

[Torque1st]

Did you pass a $100 bill when you shook hands with the inspector when he arrived?

If not -FAIL-

I don't have any personal knowledge of this jurisdiction but I have heard it is common practice in many places.

 

[rdsk8ter]

as long as you dont have a device in the box your within code. Now while I dont have the code book with me it does state that is the box has internal clamps either factory or field supplied it has to be accounted in the box fill. Some of the newer boxes require the ues of RC50s (Plasticl or metal romex connectors) Is this what you used? Next thing is dont ever say the inspector is wrong unless you want a battle, They will always win afterall they have article 90 and with that they have the final say