Enforcement-You must pass me!

[jxofaltrds]

When teaching the NEC do you talk about or teach how to enforce the code?

The reason that I ask is because we all ask if something is acceptable.

This is from the RCO (Residential Code of Ohio). It is based on the ICC Residential Code.

"101.4 Reasonable application.

The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose. When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved."

So if an electrical inspector tells me that my installation is reasonable but it does not meet code, does he have to pass it?

I say yes.

I could add:
"101.3 Intent.

1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1. The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public;
1.2. The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3. The technical feasibility of the residential building code; and
1.4. The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the public?s ability to purchase affordable housing.

More than the electrical code affects us."

 

[charlie b]

So if an electrical inspector tells me that my installation is reasonable but it does not meet code, does he have to pass it?

I say no. The rule you cited does not say anything about violating code. Rather, it provides guidance on how to determine whether or not something violates code. There are rules that are subject to interpretation. How do we know that? Just think of the many discussions held on this forum, in which two or more participants give vastly differing interpretations of the same code words. So as I read your citation, if an inspector looks at the code words, and looks at the installation, and concludes that the installed configuration is in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of the code words, then the installation should pass.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Charlie

This is why I posted the question.

"So as I read your citation, if an inspector looks at the code words, and looks at the installation, and concludes that the installed configuration is in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of the code words, then the installation should pass."

Yes I think it says that.

I just would like other opinions.

 

[Weaver Road]

my installation is reasonable, you must pass me

my installation is reasonable, you must pass me

Just as the topic hits on the old "grey area" of interpretation, so does the wording of the OPs conclusion. I would word it that if it's deemed reasonable, then it is in fact COMPLIANT by virtue of the section quoted. Just as you find in other codes things like "this code is not intended to prevent the use of alternatives that bring the same or higher level of compliance." The term "alternative compliance" is another of my favorites.

In addition, our office has debated the "rubber ruler" theory: If there is 36 inches of required working clearance, and the installation only offers 35 and a half....does it pass? If so, then what about 34?

We often go to another popular code enforcement saying: it depends! Alternatives, hardships, effort of the installer, safety value of the code section (who gets to decide the value of one over another?), totallity of the circumstances........on and on and on it goes.

Even as descriptive as the electric code and other codes (I enforce a lot of fire alarm and sprinkler code) are, there is still room to interpret and some angle not quite covered exactly.

I always tell the contractor or PM that I am open to suggestions from those who do the work everyday. Maybe we see the same feature of construction two different ways, or we have read the same code sentence and heard it two different ways. While I get the final say, before appeal of course, I respect the experience of others and realize that I occasionally am just plain wrong as well.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Weaver said it very well.

One of the sections that I used to hear misinterpreted a lot, was 314.20 (before they changed the wording to add gypsum). Everyone thought your boxes could set back a quarter inch.

Now as long as there were no gaps between the drywall and the ring or box, I would usually let it go, but as soon as I thought that there was a chance that a spark could fall down into the wall, I would call it.

I have run into the inspectors that had the red marked tape measures and 12" meant 12" and if it says 3' then 2'11" is not gonna cut it.

Strapping cable in the attic every 4'6" like it says or is 6' good enough.

I'm assuming these are the kind of things you are talking about.

Now when it comes to enforcing the code, you must remember that it is up to the inspector to make those decisions not the contractor. The contractor doesn't get to say that it's "good enough".