Code violation ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra said:
I think the point is we all think it is silly to require working space around a receptacle.

However, I at least, think it is (arguably) required by the code. I think there are far worse things in most places to worry about safety wise.
Click to expand...

With the current requirement on spacing of receptacles in residences, this effectively means that any couch or entertainment center will have to be at least 30" from the walls! And you have to be very careful where you put chairs and tables too.
Now if the receptacle is one with a built in USB charger port.....
 
GoldDigger said:
With the current requirement on spacing of receptacles in residences, this effectively means that any couch or entertainment center will have to be at least 30" from the walls! And you have to be very careful where you put chairs and tables too.
Now if the receptacle is one with a built in USB charger port.....
Click to expand...

Stop the insanity!!!
 
In my opinion, based on the current wording of 110.26(A) there is no question that is a violation. It is also a violation of 110.26(A) to install the code required kitchen counter top receptacles. CMP 1 needs to accept some of the proposals that have been made to clear this code section up as it clearly does not mean what it says.
 
= =

However impractical or just plain ludicrous, the Letter of
the NEC, DOES, IMO make it a violation!......I DO like
the idea of removing the receptacle itself, securing the
conductors and placing an acceptable cover over the
junction box.

If the "Safety Dept." carries that big of a stick, you
may want to tread lightly with them.......Try to "make
nice" with them and become an asset that they can
come to for assistance.......Yes, ...office / corporate
politics are real!

= =
 
north star said:
= =

However impractical or just plain ludicrous, the Letter of
the NEC, DOES, IMO make it a violation!

= =
Click to expand...

I agree in part. As others have said, I think with the vague wording of 110.26(A), this is a violation of that section. However, the very first sentence of the code, in Section 90.1 states "The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity." If it truly is impractical (and I think it is impractical to provide working space at every receptacle) then it is not the purpose of the code to require it.
 
eprice said:
I agree in part. As others have said, I think with the vague wording of 110.26(A), this is a violation of that section. However, the very first sentence of the code, in Section 90.1 states "The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity." If it truly is impractical (and I think it is impractical to provide working space at every receptacle) then it is not the purpose of the code to require it.
Click to expand...
If everything in a code or regulation were legally required to further the "purpose" of that regulation, we would have much smaller codes or a lot more lawsuits. :)
 
GoldDigger said:
If everything in a code or regulation were legally required to further the "purpose" of that regulation, we would have much smaller codes or a lot more lawsuits. :)
Click to expand...

110.26(A) is a vaguely written section, but I'm not sure how to fix it. There have been unsuccessful attempts in the past. The only way I can see to make sense of it is to apply the practicality principle from 90.1. This isn't the only place in the code where it is necessary for the AHJ to make a judgement call.
 
eprice said:
110.26(A) is a vaguely written section, but I'm not sure how to fix it. There have been unsuccessful attempts in the past. The only way I can see to make sense of it is to apply the practicality principle from 90.1. This isn't the only place in the code where it is necessary for the AHJ to make a judgement call.
Click to expand...

what law establishing the AHJ and making the NEC enforceable in a particular jurisdiction allows judgment calls as to what parts of the NEC to enforce or not enforce?

I think there is an easy solution to the rule. just allow non-permanent and/or readily removable things in the working space as is very common anyway and does not introduce any hazard. it could also add an exception that says something like except for building trim or finishes or where a device is required in a location where this paragraph would otherwise prohibit such an installation.
 
Last edited:
110.26(A) should have a list of equipment that it applies to, like 110.26(F) does, however CMP 1 has rejected proposals that would have added a specific list of equipment to 110.26(A)
 
petersonra said:
what law establishing the AHJ and making the NEC enforceable in a particular jurisdiction allows judgment calls as to what parts of the NEC to enforce or not enforce?
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of making judgment calls as to what parts to enforce. 90.4 gives the AHJ responsibility for interpreting the rules. The AHJ is required to make judgement calls with respect to many things such as what is "subject to physical damage", "neat and workman like" (though I think that one shouldn't be in there), what is "approved", etc. It is necessary for the AHJ to make a judgment as to what is "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized". I think the AHJ can also make the judgment call that something isn't practical. If someone doesn't like the judgment made, there should always be an appeals process.


petersonra said:
just allow non-permanent and/or readily removable things in the working space as is very common anyway
Click to expand...

I have called out 110.26(A) when I encountered a storage room full of stored chairs with a panel located at the back wall farthest away from the entrance. These are non-permanent items, but I had to come back after an hour or so, after they could remove the chairs so that I could make an inspection.

I would really like to see 110.26(A) re-written so as to be not so vague, but as I said there have been unsuccessful attempts in the past, and without using practicality, how can we justify not requiring working space in front of receptacles or three way light switches. Sometimes it is necessary to trouble shoot these while energized.
 
eprice said:
It isn't a matter of making judgment calls as to what parts to enforce. 90.4 gives the AHJ responsibility for interpreting the rules. The AHJ is required to make judgement calls with respect to many things such as what is "subject to physical damage", "neat and workman like" (though I think that one shouldn't be in there), what is "approved", etc. It is necessary for the AHJ to make a judgment as to what is "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized". I think the AHJ can also make the judgment call that something isn't practical. If someone doesn't like the judgment made, there should always be an appeals process.




I have called out 110.26(A) when I encountered a storage room full of stored chairs with a panel located at the back wall farthest away from the entrance. These are non-permanent items, but I had to come back after an hour or so, after they could remove the chairs so that I could make an inspection.

I would really like to see 110.26(A) re-written so as to be not so vague, but as I said there have been unsuccessful attempts in the past, and without using practicality, how can we justify not requiring working space in front of receptacles or three way light switches. Sometimes it is necessary to trouble shoot these while energized.
Click to expand...

where in the law establishing the code or in the code itself is this written?
 
petersonra said:
so the problem is the definition of equipment which needs to be revised to exclude receptacles.
Click to expand...
No. There is no problem, and there is no violation. Let us reflect on two important words within 110.26: "likely" and "require." Live work on a receptacle outlet is not likely, and I can't think of a single circumstance in which it would be required. Conclusion: not one of the working space rules within 110.26 would apply to a receptacle outlet.
 
charlie b said:
No. There is no problem, and there is no violation. Let us reflect on two important words within 110.26: "likely" and "require." Live work on a receptacle outlet is not likely, and I can't think of a single circumstance in which it would be required. Conclusion: not one of the working space rules within 110.26 would apply to a receptacle outlet.
Click to expand...

in a typical year, how many times does the typical electrician use his volt meter to check if an outlet is live? the answer suggests that it is extremely likely.

in any case, one could make the same argument for any piece of equipment.
 
petersonra said:
take a look at what 90.3 actually says about what chapters apply. note that the introduction is not listed anywhere as actually applying.
Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is that if it is true, then 90.3 isn't enforceable either, so what is says is irrelevant. Article 90 is enforceable. It contains the scoping of the NEC and explains how it is applied. 90.4 is part of that explanation, just as 90.3 is.
 
charlie b said:
No. There is no problem, and there is no violation. Let us reflect on two important words within 110.26: "likely" and "require." Live work on a receptacle outlet is not likely, and I can't think of a single circumstance in which it would be required. Conclusion: not one of the working space rules within 110.26 would apply to a receptacle outlet.
Click to expand...
You can extend that logic to all electrical equimpent and make 110.26(A) not apply anywhere.

As far as like work on a receptacle being required, no, but as far as it being likely...it is very likely. Few commerical or residential electricians will actually trace out the circuit and shut off the power to replace a receptacle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top