NEC Violation?

[Little Bill]

Closest thing I can see to what the violation could be is 408.3(D)

(D) Terminals. In switchboards and panelboards, load terminals
for field wiring, including grounded circuit conductor
load terminals and connections to the equipment
grounding conductor bus for load equipment grounding
conductors, shall be so located that it is not necessary to
reach across or beyond an uninsulated ungrounded line bus
in order to make connections.

Did this come close to what might have been what the inspector was referring to?

Or did this get lost in the "110" discussion?

 

[GoldDigger]

Did this come close to what might have been what the inspector was referring to?

Or did this get lost in the "110" discussion?

To me the OP's situation sounds more like having to reach across or relocate the wire to reach the bus than reaching past the bus to get at the wire termination(s).
However, having a Home Inspector read something bass-ackwards does not seem to be a rare occurrence.

 

[ptonsparky]

110.12 is not enforable IMO, as they have no guidelines as to what is neat or workmanlike. As is written one could fail everything out there based on 110.12 alone. I may not do as neat of work as Tom,....QUOTE]

Well thank you

 

[Little Bill]

To me the OP's situation sounds more like having to reach across or relocate the wire to reach the bus than reaching past the bus to get at the wire termination(s).
However, having a Home Inspector read something bass-ackwards does not seem to be a rare occurrence.

Although I did read where the OP mentioned he was doing work from a HI report, I saw the word "violation" and thought a real EI had tagged something.

I wouldn't have wasted my keyboard strokes and bandwidth had I realized he was talking about a HI "violation"!:happyno:

 

[John120/240]

The rest of us call those guys "anal". And that's coming from an engineer.

I've cited "neat and workmanlike" a couple of times -- as a designer doing a site visit, not as an inspector. I think both times I was actually citing the IT installer: the Cat5e cables at the data rack looked like a giant rat's nest.

Neat & Workmanlike: Everybody remember the pictures of Yellow 12 romex individually stapled ? Now that guy was ANAL to the max.

 

[kwired]

110.12 is not enforable IMO, as they have no guidelines as to what is neat or workmanlike. As is written one could fail everything out there based on 110.12 alone. I may not do as neat of work as Tom,....QUOTE]

Well thank you

You are welcome. I am still waiting for reply from Dick and Harry.

 

[kwired]

Although I did read where the OP mentioned he was doing work from a HI report, I saw the word "violation" and thought a real EI had tagged something.

I wouldn't have wasted my keyboard strokes and bandwidth had I realized he was talking about a HI "violation"!:happyno:

Yes you would have, just in a little different manner.

 

[ggunn]

He OK'd the panel, but the HI missed the incandescent bulbs in the closets.

Incandescent bulbs in a closet is a code violation? What about CFLs? LEDs?

 

[kwired]

Incandescent bulbs in a closet is a code violation? What about CFLs? LEDs?

My guess is he was referring to a keyless fixture or similar with exposed lamp in a clothes closet, though he did not specifically say that. I can see an HI that looks at all kinds of things and not just electrical missing that but picking on something at the panel that really isn't much of an issue.

 

[ggunn]

My guess is he was referring to a keyless fixture or similar with exposed lamp in a clothes closet, though he did not specifically say that. I can see an HI that looks at all kinds of things and not just electrical missing that but picking on something at the panel that really isn't much of an issue.

Hmmm. My wife's closet has a plain (keyless?) socket with an exposed bulb mounted on the ceiling and controlled by a wall switch. It used to have a wire cage around it but that's long gone. The house was built in 1987 if that makes a difference. There's a CFL in it now.

 

[kwired]

Hmmm. My wife's closet has a plain (keyless?) socket with an exposed bulb mounted on the ceiling and controlled by a wall switch. It used to have a wire cage around it but that's long gone. The house was built in 1987 if that makes a difference. There's a CFL in it now.

I am pretty certain that was not compliant in the 1987 NEC - unless this is not a "clothes closet".

Wording may have changed or moved to different sections, but basic requirements for clothes closets has not really changed since I have been in the trade, and when I started we were using the 1987 NEC.

 

[ggunn]

I am pretty certain that was not compliant in the 1987 NEC - unless this is not a "clothes closet".

It's a walk in closet off a bathroom with clothes hanging bars; I don't see how it could have been called anything else.

 

[kwired]

It's a walk in closet off a bathroom with clothes hanging bars; I don't see how it could have been called anything else.

I partially take back what I said before. After looking at my 1987 NEC, it never mentioned that an incandescent fixture needed to be a totally enclosed like it does now. It did however require it to be 18 inches from the storage area of the closet, but did not define the storage area like it does now either. I do not have a 1990 NEC for some reason but 1993 does have most of what is still required today, as well as similar definition and drawing of what is considered the storage space.

 

[JDBrown]

One other thing to consider is that, if the house was built in 1987, it may not have been built under the 1987 code. The 2011 NEC didn't become effective until 9/1/11. Perhaps a similar situation happened in '87, and the house was built under the 1984 code. Not that I actually have a 1984 code book to be able to check the requirements from back then ....