Failed my inspection today…

Status
Not open for further replies.
roger said:
Yes it would, and is the reason I posted it.
Click to expand...
It sounded like you were saying the inspector misinterpreted some commentary in the Handbook and I was just wondering what comment you thought it was that he misinterpreted.
 
Jerramundi said:
It sounded like you were saying the inspector misinterpreted some commentary in the Handbook and I was just wondering what comment you thought it was that he misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
I would say if the OP showed the inspector the illustration he might cave even though it is just somebody's interpretation and not part of the code.
 
roger said:
I would say if the OP showed the inspector the illustration he might cave even though it is just somebodies interpretation and not part of the code.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that might help. Although he should probably use a more recent codebook than the 2014 if he gets the chance to pick one up.

I'm aware the commentary is not officially code, at least that's what I've been told before, but it could not be allowed in the codebook if it ran contrary to the actual code? Could it? Unless the authors of the NEC are playing games, lol.
 
Jerramundi said:
Yeah, that might help. Although he should probably use a more recent codebook than the 2014 if he gets the chance to pick one up.

I'm aware the commentary is not officially code, at least that's what I've been told before, but it could not be allowed in the codebook if it ran contrary to the actual code? Could it? Unless the authors of the NEC are playing games, lol.
Click to expand...
Read the first page of any NEC handbook, it explains that even though it contains the actual code the commentary including illustrations are only opinions. They are not playing games, quite the contrary, they are being truthful.
 
roger said:
Read the first page of any NEC handbook, it explains that even though it contains the actual code the commentary including illustrations are only opinions. They are not playing games, quite the contrary, they are being truthful.
Click to expand...
I understand that they're only opinions, but I'm just saying, how could they include something that ran contrary to the actual code?

And I don't know, sometimes it feels like the authors are unnecessarily complex with their explanations. I often read sections of the code and think to myself, "they could have said this entire paragraph in one sentence," haha.. but I digress and am done taking away from the value of this thread with this debate about the Handbook commentary. I guess I got a little defensive to your initial post because it seemed like you were ripping on the commentary.

I just, personally, think the commentary is quite helpful and so are the illustrations and I'm not at all ashamed of saying so.
 
Jerramundi said:
how could they include something that ran contrary to the actual code?
Click to expand...
If you read the commentary there is nothing contradicting the NEC, they are open that it is not intended to be "formal interpretations" it is only informational.

The NECH is not a substitute for the NEC.
 
roger said:
If you read the commentary there is nothing contradicting the NEC, they are open that it is not intended to be "formal interpretations" it is only informational.

The NECH is not a substitute for the NEC.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that the Handbook (i.e. NECH) LACKS information that the NEC contains? Because that would be a pretty messed up thing to do to people who are trying to understand the code.
 
Jerramundi said:
Are you implying that the Handbook (i.e. NECH) LACKS information that the NEC contains? Because that would be a pretty messed up thing to do to people who are trying to understand the code.
Click to expand...
Go back and read post 46
 
roger said:
Go back and read post 46
Click to expand...
Well, if the Handbook contains the actual code (in full) + additional helpful information, I would argue it is a valid substitute.

The only way the Handbook would be an invalid substitute would be if it lacked content that the NEC didn't...

...and why would you NOT choose the option with the MOST information available (graphics and commentary included) that could aid you in understanding the code? I would go as far as to say that choosing the Handbook over the NEC is a wiser decision, but that's just my opinion.
 
Here's what you need to do, go buy a NECH and register for an open book code oriented exam then try wading through all the extra text for your answers, you will see what I'm talking about. Of course if you like pictures go for it
 
BTW, there are other handbooks besides the NFPA version.
 
roger said:
Here's what you need to do, go buy a NECH and register for an open book code oriented exam then try wading through all the extra text for your answers, you will see what I'm talking about. Of course if you like pictures go for it
Click to expand...
With all due respect, been there, done that and passed. Fair point that it would be more difficult to wade through more content in a shorter amount of time. I will concede to that point.

However, I would still argue that the Handbook is a valid substitute and even a wiser choice as it provides more content in aiding you in understanding the code, which can not be a bad thing (less your one example above), but again, just my opinion.

Seems to me like foolish pride to devalue additional, helpful information that could aid one in accomplishing their goal(s). But this trade has no shortage of that ;) *runs away before being pummeled*
 
Last edited:
It amazes me how some of these threads digress. :rolleyes:

Clearly the OP's inspector thinks there should be no receptacles within 24" of the sink, and clearly he's wrong.

The OP should request the code being cited. I don't get the rest.
 
LarryFine said:
It amazes me how some of these threads digress. :rolleyes:

Clearly the OP's inspector thinks there should be no receptacles within 24" of the sink, and clearly he's wrong.

The OP should request the code being cited. I don't get the rest.
Click to expand...
Human beings, that's how. My apologies to the OP for taking away from the discussion. Just felt the need to defend the Handbook and my honor for choosing it as my resource of choice.
 
Don't need the handbook for this,
In the nec 2017 code book under 210.52(C)(1) there is figure 210.52(C)(1) that shows the dimensions. The narrative there definitely includes "sink".
 
Jerramundi said:
Yeah, that might help. Although he should probably use a more recent codebook than the 2014 if he gets the chance to pick one up.

I'm aware the commentary is not officially code, at least that's what I've been told before, but it could not be allowed in the codebook if it ran contrary to the actual code? Could it? Unless the authors of the NEC are playing games, lol.
Click to expand...
The outlets in the exhibit are in the same location in the 2020 NEC Handbook. But the counter is a bit three dimensional and has a brown or wood looking floor.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. I had to look for the cover to it to make sure it's the 2020 book. Having no cover should've been enough to convince me. :censored:
 
OP, do you have a picture of outlet by sink? a picture is worth a thousand words.

i'm guessing the AHJ thinks concrete is conductive and wants an insulator between it and the cable. that one i would just comply..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top