Inspector classifying stairway landing as a hallway....Grrrrrr

[sparkyrick]

Kinda funny that the AHJ nitpicks about a receptacle that isn't required at the landing, but will allow foreign wiring in the elevator shaft to rectify his nitpick.

 

[roger]

Kinda funny that the AHJ nitpicks about a receptacle that isn't required at the landing, but will allow foreign wiring in the elevator shaft to rectify his nitpick.

Ain't it though!!!

Roger

 

[kwired]

:thumbsup: I'll stand next to you.

I had a guy add receptacles to a full granite back splash in a kitchen and two in a bedroom, where he made the closet wall space instead of a closet. This was at final and when he started screaming and hollering that it had been approved at rough, I said were you cabinets in at rough, if not how was the inspector supposed to know where you exactly needed receptacles and don't your plans call for a closet in the other room? No and yes were his answers. Do you know where receptacles are required? Yes. Well then, they were approved at rough, yes, by another inspector, don't have the electrical inspector come out at final and think that I'm going to sign it.

I will give you the the situation with the cabinets, but not a hallway (if that is what the OP's space is deemed to be), that should have been caught at rough in. How to handle it, I don't know, I understand the inspector is human and can make mistakes, but why is someone else's mistake supposed to be my fault? This is a situation where if I were the OP, I would have figured it passed rough in because it was determined not to be a hallway therefore no receptacle required. There is no cabinets added later to make it look different at rough then it looks at finish time, this should have been addressed at rough in time, or even plans review time if in an area where they do that.

I think OP did know a hallway needs a receptacle, but did not see this as a hallway and inspector said nothing at rough in. Now inspector is insisting this is a hallway, and is throwing his authority around on this one. What will this guy say when someone points out his solution creates other code violations??

 

[david]

First off....the GC communicated with the AHJ as to how to resolve the problem of no receptacle on the landings. The AHJ told the GC that the elevator shaft could be utilized for the installation of the outlets provided they were in conduit. I have complied with the AHJ on all occasions and don't see how I am at fault with what should have been a non issue to begin with.

Sounds like thus is a three way conversation, the general contractor seems to be the one communicating with the electrical inspector for this final inspection. I now am curious who communicated what to whom during the rough inspection. If this was brought up to the general contractor during rough or even on another identical project, who knows what was said between the two.

To the OP how long have you been working with this general or the super for this development.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I will give you the the situation with the cabinets, but not a hallway (if that is what the OP's space is deemed to be), that should have been caught at rough in. How to handle it, I don't know, I understand the inspector is human and can make mistakes, but why is someone else's mistake supposed to be my fault? This is a situation where if I were the OP, I would have figured it passed rough in because it was determined not to be a hallway therefore no receptacle required. There is no cabinets added later to make it look different at rough then it looks at finish time, this should have been addressed at rough in time, or even plans review time if in an area where they do that.

I think OP did know a hallway needs a receptacle, but did not see this as a hallway and inspector said nothing at rough in. Now inspector is insisting this is a hallway, and is throwing his authority around on this one. What will this guy say when someone points out his solution creates other code violations??

Well it's very likely that the inspector didn't say anything at rough, but then it's just as likely (since it happens here) that his boss or superior followed behind him to make sure that he was doing his job and told him to have a receptacle installed.

Luckly, I'm the superior for electrical and my bosses don't know much about it, but they still go out from time to time, just to check on things. I missed the ADA height requirement on all of the exterior fixtures on a resturant one time and my boss had me move them up at final.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Well it's very likely that the inspector didn't say anything at rough, but then it's just as likely (since it happens here) that his boss or superior followed behind him to make sure that he was doing his job and told him to have a receptacle installed.

Luckly, I'm the superior for electrical and my bosses don't know much about it, but they still go out from time to time, just to check on things. I missed the ADA height requirement on all of the exterior fixtures on a resturant one time and my boss had me move them up at final.

What ADA fixture requirement is there about height of a fixture? are you referring to receptacles?

 

[GoldDigger]

What ADA fixture requirement is there about height of a fixture? are you referring to receptacles?

Accommodation for a gardner in a wheelchair?

 

[cowboyjwc]

What ADA fixture requirement is there about height of a fixture? are you referring to receptacles?

In a path of travel the lowest point of the fixture has to be a least 80" above the ground unless the fixture does not extend more then 4" into the path.

 

[Sierrasparky]

In a path of travel the lowest point of the fixture has to be a least 80" above the ground unless the fixture does not extend more then 4" into the path.

Please fogive me how is that a ADA issue. Sounds like a safety issue.
i gather the code considers someone very tall disabled or challenged?

Or am I plain missing something?

 

[north star]

: - :

Sierrasparky,

The 80" above finished grade IS a safety issue, ...safety of
the ADA person who uses a cane to navigate around with.
Anything lower than 80" could result in the person injuring
themselves by contact with said fixture [ RE: Section 307
in the `03 ICC/ANSI A117.1 & Section 204, which directs
the reader to Section 307 in the 2010 A.D.A. - S.A.D. ]

: - :

 

[Sierrasparky]

funny I have never seen a person using a cane poke around that high.

 

[kwired]

I would think the foot candles at the walk area would be the most important thing to consider with ADA regardless of what or where the light source is.

I can see a little what they may be getting at with height, but that can be offset by additional illumination from different angles.

 

[david]

I would think the foot candles at the walk area would be the most important thing to consider with ADA regardless of what or where the light source is.

(I can see a little) what they may be getting at with height, but that can be offset by additional illumination from different angles.

Compensating light levels will not affect anything. The are talking a bought walking with the sweep of a Cain to guide you. Objects 27 in or lower in height will be detectable with the Cain sweep. If your over 80 in you wont bumb your head. So anything between 27 in to 80 cannot obstruct more than 4 in off the wall

 

[kwired]

Compensating light levels will not affect anything. The are talking a bought walking with the sweep of a Cain to guide you. Objects 27 in or lower in height will be detectable with the Cain sweep. If your over 80 in you wont bumb your head. So anything between 27 in to 80 cannot obstruct more than 4 in off the wall

OK that makes sense, but the luminaire would have to be above the walkway, otherwise why does it matter. This should apply to anything in said space not just luminaires or even other electrical items.

How far can an object extend into this space? There are all kinds of things typically below 80 inches to either trip on or bump into.

One problem I have with ADA is there are so many disabilities that you can not accommodate everyone. What creates a convenience for some may create an inconvenience or even a hazard for others.

 

[iwire]

funny I have never seen a person using a cane poke around that high.

Funny how you concern yourself with this.

 

[eprice]

I do not see any exception for residential.

620.37 Wiring in Hoistways, Machine Rooms, Control
Rooms, Machinery Spaces, and Control Spaces.
(A) Uses Permitted. Only such electrical wiring, raceways,
and cables used directly in connection with the elevator or
dumbwaiter, including wiring for signals, for communication
with the car, for lighting, heating, air conditioning, and ventilating
the elevator car, for fire detecting systems, for pit sump
pumps, and for heating, lighting, and ventilating the hoistway,
shall be permitted inside the hoistway, machine rooms, control
rooms, machinery spaces, and control spaces.

Go figure, AHJ wants a receptacle on a stairway landing which by his interpretation is a hallway and doesn't care if an actual cited code is violated to achieve the end. (headslap)

I don't think the landing or the stairs are in the hoistway. Can you see and touch the elevator car from the stairs as it moves up and down?! I suspect the elevator hoistway is enclosed within walls that are then surrounded by the stiarway.

 

[kwired]

I don't think the landing or the stairs are in the hoistway. Can you see and touch the elevator car from the stairs as it moves up and down?! I suspect the elevator hoistway is enclosed within walls that are then surrounded by the stiarway.

The point to that post was that wiring feeding something outside and non-associated with the elevator or the hoistway was routed inside the hoistway. This would be prohibited by the section mentioned.