GEC/EGC 250.121 Exception 2014 NEC

[ActionDave]

Peter d - have you lived on both sides of the fence? Your comments appear to condem an AHJ prior to any decisions made. Code is always up to interpretation and as Kwired pointed out, interpretation is gennerally a concensus of professionals. Funny how "and" can completely change an issue if you see "or" within a sentence.

I agree with Peter. He is not condemning anybody. The fact is an inspector cannot disallow an installation unless there is a code section to back it up.

 

[peter d]

Peter d - have you lived on both sides of the fence? Your comments appear to condem an AHJ prior to any decisions made. Code is always up to interpretation and as Kwired pointed out, interpretation is gennerally a concensus of professionals. Funny how "and" can completely change an issue if you see "or" within a sentence.

No, and I don't need to either. I'm only condemning the notion that an inspector can reject an installation that is not explicitly forbidden by adopted codes.

 

[peter d]

I agree with Peter. He is not condemning anybody. The fact is an inspector cannot disallow an installation unless there is a code section to back it up.

Thanks.

 

[Smart $]

No, and I don't need to either. I'm only condemning the notion that an inspector can reject an installation that is not explicitly forbidden by adopted codes.

But, for the sake of argument, there is no requirement that a 110.2 denial of approval be supported elsewhere in the Code.

It can be, and in many cases is, simply a matter of professionalism.

 

[iwire]

But, for the sake of argument, there is no requirement that a 110.2 denial of approval be supported elsewhere in the Code.

It can be, and in many cases is, simply a matter of professionalism.

For the sake of argument has anyone actully been failed with 110.2 being cited as the reason?

Let's stay in the real world.

 

[ActionDave]

But, for the sake of argument, there is no requirement that a 110.2 denial of approval be supported elsewhere in the Code.

It can be, and in many cases is, simply a matter of professionalism.

Can I cut a hole in the side of a walk in cooler to make room for a breaker panel? Can an electrical inspector reject me because he does not think the edges of my cuts are not smooth enough, or because one side of the cut has an eighth inch gap and the other side has a three sixteenth inch gap?

 

[Smart $]

For the sake of argument has anyone actully been failed with 110.2 being cited as the reason?

Let's stay in the real world.

To appreciate the real world we sometimes [often] have to consider the surreal or the extreme to put the real in its proper place.

The surreal is the first part of my post, while the reality is the second part.

Have no idea why these other two are pressing the matter so much. I could see it if there were an actual problem. But there is not. At least none that I'm aware of.

 

[kwired]

For the sake of argument has anyone actully been failed with 110.2 being cited as the reason?

Let's stay in the real world.

Not totally certain, but if the inspector wants to use that, then I am not accepting it without a really good explanation of why. If they send a formal correction notice that only states 110.2 as the section in violation and no other supporting information... we are having a talk, and if that goes nowhere the supervisor is going to be involved as well. I don't care how simple it may be to just comply with their wishes it is just not right and will not be left alone just so they can flex their authority muscles.

They could give me an explanation that I don't agree with, but at least I have a better reason then just "because we say so".