Articles in favor of the 'untrained worker'

[brother]

I was having a conversation with this guy and we were having a discussion about some of the codes not being for the trained worker. This is based off the 2008 NEC, so far it seems to be more and more codes that are for the 'untrained' or 'unfamiliar/unqualified' worker that is 'messing with this stuff' than it has to do with true general safety of the public and property are being made. You can ADD to this list if you wish!!


210.4 MULTIWIRE BRANCH CIRCUITS (B) DISCONNECT MEANS. Even though I don't really care for the shared neutrals, This code section is basically for those that are not familar with or not trained with shared neutrals and how to work with them. A 'trained' person can handle them just fine. No need for the common disconnect.

90.4 ENFORCEMENT. I know Im gonna get in trouble for this one , and Im sure some inspectors apply/use it properly, but tooo many times I hear from some EC's claiming that they just make up 'code' as they go. This code article is basically a 'BECAUSE I SAID SO' enforcement, an inspector does'nt have to give another code section to reject something he just doesn't like, or even be trained or familiar with.

110.15 HIGH LEG MARKING. You have to identify the high leg of a delta by the color 'orange' or other means. The only reason someone would hook up the high leg to a 120 motor or other circuit/receptacle' without knowing it is because they didnt check the VOLTAGE. One should always test the voltage, circuit before hooking the equipment to it. As I said, untrained or unfamiliar with the work.

Thats all I can come up with off the top of my head, I will be back!!

 

[hardworkingstiff]

110.15 HIGH LEG MARKING. You have to identify the high leg of a delta by the color 'orange' or other means. The only reason someone would hook up the high leg to a 120 motor or other circuit/receptacle' without knowing it is because they didnt check the VOLTAGE. One should always test the voltage, circuit before hooking the equipment to it. As I said, untrained or unfamiliar with the work.

Based on that logic, why bother using green or white to ID conductors?

 

[brantmacga]

210.4 MULTIWIRE BRANCH CIRCUITS (B) DISCONNECT MEANS. Even though I don't really care for the shared neutrals, This code section is basically for those that are not familar with or not trained with shared neutrals and how to work with them. A 'trained' person can handle them just fine. No need for the common disconnect.

I have zero problems with multiwire circuits, but i am very much in favor of the common disconnect rule for them. they're not always easy to spot in a rats nest of a cabinet. the worst shock i ever got was making myself the return path in a multiwire circuit without a common disconnect. it was an older house with some jackleg wiring that made it nearly impossible to recognize we were dealing with shared neutrals.

110.15 HIGH LEG MARKING. You have to identify the high leg of a delta by the color 'orange' or other means. The only reason someone would hook up the high leg to a 120 motor or other circuit/receptacle' without knowing it is because they didnt check the VOLTAGE. One should always test the voltage, circuit before hooking the equipment to it. As I said, untrained or unfamiliar with the work.

i don't see the problem with this. its nice to have a quick visual reference as to what you're dealing with sometimes.

 

[roger]

I was having a conversation with this guy and we were having a discussion about some of the codes not being for the trained worker. This is based off the 2008 NEC, so far it seems to be more and more codes that are for the 'untrained' or 'unfamiliar/unqualified' worker that is 'messing with this stuff' than it has to do with true general safety of the public and property are being made. You can ADD to this list if you wish!!


210.4 MULTIWIRE BRANCH CIRCUITS (B) DISCONNECT MEANS. Even though I don't really care for the shared neutrals, This code section is basically for those that are not familar with or not trained with shared neutrals and how to work with them. A 'trained' person can handle them just fine. No need for the common disconnect.

I agree, stupid rule IMO

90.4 ENFORCEMENT. I know Im gonna get in trouble for this one , and Im sure some inspectors apply/use it properly, but tooo many times I hear from some EC's claiming that they just make up 'code' as they go. This code article is basically a 'BECAUSE I SAID SO' enforcement, an inspector does'nt have to give another code section to reject something he just doesn't like, or even be trained or familiar with.

In reality this is not part of the code, it is only part of the introduction to the code. Any inspector that tries to use this as a basis to make up a rule is showing just how much he/she doesn't understand the book they are suppose to be enforcing

110.15 HIGH LEG MARKING. You have to identify the high leg of a delta by the color 'orange' or other means. The only reason someone would hook up the high leg to a 120 motor or other circuit/receptacle' without knowing it is because they didnt check the VOLTAGE. One should always test the voltage, circuit before hooking the equipment to it. As I said, untrained or unfamiliar with the work.

This one I don't have a problem with, to make sure a different voltage is identified when present is a good idea

Thats all I can come up with off the top of my head, I will be back!!

Another one that is really stupid IMO is 200.7(C)

Roger

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Another one that is really stupid IMO is 200.7(C)

Yea, I agree with that Roger!

 

[macmikeman]

I agree, stupid rule IMO




Another one that is really stupid IMO is 200.7(C)

Roger

For anybody who lost their code book in the blizzard today, 200.7 (C) is re-identified white conductors used as ungrounded ones in cables.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

90.4 ENFORCEMENT. I know Im gonna get in trouble for this one , and Im sure some inspectors apply/use it properly, but tooo many times I hear from some EC's claiming that they just make up 'code' as they go. This code article is basically a 'BECAUSE I SAID SO' enforcement, an inspector does'nt have to give another code section to reject something he just doesn't like, or even be trained or familiar with.

This citation gets misinterpreted more than anything else. An inspector is not the authority having jurisdiction, he/she is a representative of the governing body of the region, which is the authority having jurisdiction. More importantly, the NEC is not what determines who or what is the AHJ. State, County, City ordinances/laws are what determines who/what is the AHJ. It would be a pretty rare occurrence for local law to assign such power to a single individual.

The bureaucracy of the electrical system is very similar to the legal system, which of course it should be, because they are based on the same top-level system of controls and state constitutions.

A typical inspector is comparable to a police officer, in that they are both charged with enforcement of a publicly approved guideline or law. A police officer does not have the authority to interpret the meaning of the law--that task is reserved for a judge. In some (but not all) jurisdictions, the inspector also does not have the authority to interpret code--the supervisory board or similar make the interpretations. Yes, in some jurisdictions, the inspector is given this power.

In most jurisdictions, the only body with the authority to alter or augment code beyond interpretation of existing code, is the same governing body charged with adopting code in the first place. In many cases, this is state or local legislature. Giving this level of power to a single individual would be comparable to allowing a police officer to change the posted speed limit on a roadway. This authority is not given or governed by the NEC. It is determined by local law.

 

[macmikeman]

This citation gets misinterpreted more than anything else. An inspector is not the authority having jurisdiction, he/she is a representative of the governing body of the region, which is the authority having jurisdiction. More importantly, the NEC is not what determines who or what is the AHJ. State, County, City ordinances/laws are what determines who/what is the AHJ. It would be a pretty rare occurrence for local law to assign such power to a single individual.

The bureaucracy of the electrical system is very similar to the legal system, which of course it should be, because they are based on the same top-level system of controls and state constitutions.

A typical inspector is comparable to a police officer, in that they are both charged with enforcement of a publicly approved guideline or law. A police officer does not have the authority to interpret the meaning of the law--that task is reserved for a judge. In some (but not all) jurisdictions, the inspector also does not have the authority to interpret code--the supervisory board or similar make the interpretations. Yes, in some jurisdictions, the inspector is given this power.

In most jurisdictions, the only body with the authority to alter or augment code beyond interpretation of existing code, is the same governing body charged with adopting code in the first place. In many cases, this is state or local legislature. Giving this level of power to a single individual would be comparable to allowing a police officer to change the posted speed limit on a roadway. This authority is not given or governed by the NEC. It is determined by local law.

My opinion on this: All well and true but try explaining that to one of the guilty parties who assume it means THEM. Usually because one or more of the other dolts who share the office and same job also concure that they must be the AHJ because the nec mentions inspectors in 90.4. Trouble is nobody who actually IS the real AHJ will bother to straighten them out, it is more or less like throwing the hired help a bone to just let them have their fantasy, and screw what the small fry peon contractors or electrical workers have to say about it. It takes less energy and is the easier path to throw the powerless under the bus. All us small fry peons out there know only one thing- just grin and bear it when her majesty decides he and only he really knows what the code book plainly is asking for. That way we can carry a paycheck home to wife and family at the end of the week. By the way for the record, not all the individuals in the jurisdiction I work in are like that, there are some really code wise, fair, and good persons. There are others however who are #$### Some are just misguided and won't hear of any other viewpoint. In their defense, too many contractors and electrical workers cheat on the code plenty and try to dance their way through it. Both sides of the fence have problem children.
90.4 would be a fine section in the code if they only would remove electrical inspectors from it. Not meant to slap the face of all inspectors, but truth is, all across this land, many are just what I am talking about. And there goes macmikeman spouting off again.......

 

[cadpoint]

I frankly find the thread odd; my basic point is that both trained and untrained people will use any and all forms of reference materials. OK, I will qualify my statement and say hopefully, one would!

Now granted, I feel I’m still in training, and will be for the rest of my life in my present line of employment. I do feel comfortable doing a lot of similar work yes, be it repetitive or even the odd unusual installation. I’m comfortable looking up reference materials in the appreciate materials.

Case in point on the unusual install, I frankly had to state, “We’re going to be committing a code violation of 110.3 if we don’t read the directions”. I went back to 110.3 later that night and found that my near exact statement was in the FPN of 110.3(A)(1). Well my statement was more consistent to 110.3(B). Well I got the attention of the Supervisor everyone calmed down and the Supervisor read the directions, and changed what someone else thought was the correct install.

IMO - We are all untrained as each edition of our Code comes out, we all have to relearn or regain exposure to the material, if we didn’t do that each code cycle than we would all be untrained! I don’t even want to make a statement on anything about qualified!
.
If the thread had been named, “odd codes in the code”, “silly or useless codes”, I’m almost sure that I wouldn’t have made this statement!

 

[ceb58]

I frankly find the thread odd; my basic point is that both trained and untrained people will use any and all forms of reference materials. OK, I will qualify my statement and say hopefully, one would!

Now granted, I feel I?m still in training, and will be for the rest of my life in my present line of employment. I do feel comfortable doing a lot of similar work yes, be it repetitive or even the odd unusual installation. I?m comfortable looking up reference materials in the appreciate materials.

Case in point on the unusual install, I frankly had to state, ?We?re going to be committing a code violation of 110.3 if we don?t read the directions?. I went back to 110.3 later that night and found that my near exact statement was in the FPN of 110.3(A)(1). Well my statement was more consistent to 110.3(B). Well I got the attention of the Supervisor everyone calmed down and the Supervisor read the directions, and changed what someone else thought was the correct install.

IMO - We are all untrained as each edition of our Code comes out, we all have to relearn or regain exposure to the material, if we didn?t do that each code cycle than we would all be untrained! I don?t even want to make a statement on anything about qualified!
.
If the thread had been named, ?odd codes in the code?, ?silly or useless codes?, I?m almost sure that I wouldn?t have made this statement!

Jude has made his philosophical statement of the year And I will agree it is true....... scary ain't it

 

[brantmacga]

. . . Trouble is nobody who actually IS the real AHJ will bother to straighten them out, . . . .

That's one thing I always have to give credit to the state of GA for; they, as the statewide reigning AHJ, will absolutely step in if a problem arises with a local inspections office trying to have its own interpretation of a code or create its own code rules. One phone call is all it takes, and those guys have always dropped what their doing to correct the situation.

 

[kwired]

My opinion on this: All well and true but try explaining that to one of the guilty parties who assume it means THEM. Usually because one or more of the other dolts who share the office and same job also concure that they must be the AHJ because the nec mentions inspectors in 90.4. Trouble is nobody who actually IS the real AHJ will bother to straighten them out, it is more or less like throwing the hired help a bone to just let them have their fantasy, and screw what the small fry peon contractors or electrical workers have to say about it. It takes less energy and is the easier path to throw the powerless under the bus. All us small fry peons out there know only one thing- just grin and bear it when her majesty decides he and only he really knows what the code book plainly is asking for. That way we can carry a paycheck home to wife and family at the end of the week. By the way for the record, not all the individuals in the jurisdiction I work in are like that, there are some really code wise, fair, and good persons. There are others however who are #$### Some are just misguided and won't hear of any other viewpoint. In their defense, too many contractors and electrical workers cheat on the code plenty and try to dance their way through it. Both sides of the fence have problem children.
90.4 would be a fine section in the code if they only would remove electrical inspectors from it. Not meant to slap the face of all inspectors, but truth is, all across this land, many are just what I am talking about. And there goes macmikeman spouting off again.......

One person alone may have a hard time fighting the inspector that thinks he is all powerful. Members of trade associations, and other similar organizations can get together if there is a problem and get things taken care of much easier than an individual.

 

[resistance]

One person alone may have a hard time fighting the inspector that thinks he is all powerful. Members of trade associations, and other similar organizations can get together if there is a problem and get things taken care of much easier than an individual.

No comment!!!!! :roll:

 

[hardworkingstiff]

One person alone may have a hard time fighting the inspector that thinks he is all powerful. Members of trade associations, and other similar organizations can get together if there is a problem and get things taken care of much easier than an individual.

No comment!!!!! :roll:

I agree with you kwired!