Electrical Violations Outside the Permitted Scope of Work, NC ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. To quote the salient point-

An electrical code violation or hazard that does not affect and is not affected by the work permitted and performed cannot attribute to the withholding of compliance and approval for performed electrical work solely on the bases to abate a non associated violation or hazard.
[...]
However, the burden to abate the violation or hazard cannot be placed on the permit holder whose scope of work has no association with the violation or hazard except sharing the same property address.
[...]

(But the inspector can tell the owner to get the other things fixed.)
 
Thanks for that.
That is going in my files for reference.
I have been failed before because the inspector wanted two rods at the base.
I was adding a couple of circuits for an addition only. That has always stuck in my craw...
 
Doing my own addition, I was failed because the rest of my house didn't have dual powered smoke detectors (I did in the addition though). I guess I got nailed because I was the owner, not the permit holder... should have paid someone else to do ti.
 
Jraef said:
Doing my own addition, I was failed because the rest of my house didn't have dual powered smoke detectors (I did in the addition though). I guess I got nailed because I was the owner, not the permit holder... should have paid someone else to do ti.
Click to expand...
Were they required when the house was originally built?
It just seems like some inspectors inspect as though the NEC is retroactive.
 
No, in fact no smokes were required yet at all when the house was built in 1970. I questioned that issue too, didn't go anywhere. It was easier and quicker to just run the wires.
 
Jraef said:
Doing my own addition, I was failed because the rest of my house didn't have dual powered smoke detectors (I did in the addition though).
Click to expand...

In some places, if the dollar figure is high enough the AHJ can start dropping in other fix-its along the way (need to check if CA allows that, never thought about be before). Friend carefully spaced out some major work over about 4 years to avoid hitting a rolling 24-month threshold.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Were they required when the house was originally built?
It just seems like some inspectors inspect as though the NEC is retroactive.
Click to expand...
Smoke detectors are not required by NEC. NEC would cover any premises wiring that connects to them though.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Thanks for that.
That is going in my files for reference.
I have been failed before because the inspector wanted two rods at the base.
I was adding a couple of circuits for an addition only. That has always stuck in my craw...
Click to expand...

The “affects work” part is trouble with grounding since your bonding connects to it. It sounds like over reach but it’s a little harder to justify grounding violations vs other circuits unrelated to yours.
 
paulengr said:
The “affects work” part is trouble with grounding since your bonding connects to it. It sounds like over reach but it’s a little harder to justify grounding violations vs other circuits unrelated to yours.
Click to expand...
Adding ground rods is not bonding it is grounding. Chances are pretty high the system is grounded at the source.
 
In NC, since that is what the op is addressing, if a building permit is taken out then smoke detectors, as well as, carbon detectors must be installed where required. This is in the building code not the NEC. However it falls upon the ec to fix these issues.

If the area where the sd / carbon detectors are required has not been exposed then battery units can be installed.

The OP's info has been around for awhile and, in fact, NC has taken the liberty to make their interpretations on common issues, available on line.

Looks like they revamped the site

State Electrical Code and Interpretations | OSFM

Information related to the State Electrical Code and Interpretations in North Carolina
www.ncosfm.gov www.ncosfm.gov
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top