File for a code variance?

Status
Not open for further replies.
lpelectric said:
Kudos to you and your Board. "Design by Variance" should not be the "motis operendi" of design professionals. :smile:

No it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the code is to be taken biblically. A variance should be considered on it's merits.

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave, is a residence. Do you think there's an outlet every 12'?
 
LawnGuyLandSparky said:
No it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the code is to be taken biblically. A variance should be considered on it's merits.

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave, is a residence. Do you think there's an outlet every 12'?

Something keeps telling me the place was built before the electrical code was in effect...even before electricity was in effect.....;)
 
LawnGuyLandSparky said:
No it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the code is to be taken biblically. A variance should be considered on it's merits.

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave, is a residence. Do you think there's an outlet every 12'?
Articles 520, 522, and 525 come to mind... regardless of who is occupying it.
 
M. D. said:
The use of the word you implied something unintended ,.. :smile:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyjwc
Once you've sold your soul to the devil, you can never buy it back. You might be feeding your kids, but you are teaching them too. Breaking the law to make a buck is ok. You don't need pricipals as long as you're getting paid.

Yes, I never mean you as in "you" unless I'm quoting you. I could have said "we" I guess.:D

Just joking with the biblical part, but going from the trades to inspection is not unlike the guy getting released from prison and becoming a preacher. You get a whole different prespective on the things.
 
Last edited:
tallguy said:
Articles 520, 522, and 525 come to mind... regardless of who is occupying it.

I don't have an Article 522 in my code book....but I have an Art 525 Carnivals, Circuses, Fairs, and Similar Events....But I'm thinking "Circus" applies more to the election process than to the White House...:D
 
cowboyjwc said:
.... but going from the trades to inspection is not unlike the guy getting released from prison and becoming a preacher. You get a whole different prespective on the things.

Ha Ha! lol ! Now that rings a bell ! :D
 
cowboyjwc said:
I agree with Scott, once you violate one code section, why stop there?

John I am a little curious about this statement ,I'm not at all sure it represents what Scott has said.

"So there will be a recptacle at just over 3 feet from the sink vs 2 feet. Is this really that big of a deal? I don't think so."

Anyway.
Still don't think not having those outlets is a big deal.

Put the book down and think about it with out the NEC clouding your view.

Most people will put their appliances or do their prep where the outlets are rather than run an extension cord, in this case to make up that deadly extra foot, to another location.

The lack of addtional receptacles to use may have beeen a problem in 1940 but these
days there are more then enoguh available.

You totally missed my point. That point being the NEC read word for word does not leave much room for certain situations that arise in the field. You see m tounderstand what I am getting at.

So if you (and I don't mean you personally) put the book aside and use common sense and logic it is clear that just because you violate a certain section you have not actually created a hazard.

As relates to my, yet to be committed violation ,.. if circumstances change I hope to avoid committing

"As have I and will gain at some point."

What are you in agreement with???
 
To be clear on my philospophy (as it stands right now ask me again tomorrow and it might be different) I am all for law and order and following the rules but I do think sometimes we get carried away. There are some that will just say "No it's in the book it has to be this way" when in reality there should be a little wiggle room as not every situation is exactly the same and a certain rule just might not work.

In this case at hand do I have a problem with going 3'6" to the first receptacle rather than 2'? I do not. Is it legal? No. Is it dangerous? No. have I done it? You bet. Does this mean I've sold my sold to the devil? Nah, That sale was made long ago and for better reasons. ;)

I know some of you have ill will towards peopke that have more money than you and feel that they are just being spoiled or whatever and thats fine. But, If I am the guy spending the money I want things they way I want them so long as my requests are within reason.
 
The NEC is a MINIMUM standard. We are allowed to do more, but we can't do less. If the code says that no point on the counter shall be more than 2' from a receptacle, then that is the minimum. Any designer worth his pay should know that and be able to design for it. If the code meant "about two feet" or approximately 2 feet, or somewhat less than 3 feet, it would say so. There are some things that are not clear and subject to interpretation such as "nearest the point of entrance", but I understand what is meant by two feet and do not see any room for interpretation. I do not see how a variance could be granted and still comply with 90.4 which indicates that the AHJ may only waive specific requirements when "equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety". Unless you can argue that 2 feet = 3 feet I don't believe that effective safety has been achieved in this proposed variance. As others have stated there are options available, a smaller window, a larger sink, etc. Use your imagination and come up with a solution that does not violate the code.
 
haskindm said:
The NEC is a MINIMUM standard. We are allowed to do more, but we can't do less. If the code says that no point on the counter shall be more than 2' from a receptacle, then that is the minimum. Any designer worth his pay should know that and be able to design for it. If the code meant "about two feet" or approximately 2 feet, or somewhat less than 3 feet, it would say so. There are some things that are not clear and subject to interpretation such as "nearest the point of entrance", but I understand what is meant by two feet and do not see any room for interpretation. I do not see how a variance could be granted and still comply with 90.4 which indicates that the AHJ may only waive specific requirements when "equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety". Unless you can argue that 2 feet = 3 feet I don't believe that effective safety has been achieved in this proposed variance. As others have stated there are options available, a smaller window, a larger sink, etc. Use your imagination and come up with a solution that does not violate the code.

I second that! :smile:
 
M. D. said:
John I am a little curious about this statement ,I'm not at all sure it represents what Scott has said.

You are correct, I did take some licensce with it. You said you would keep your code book open and Scott replied "Why bother if you are just going to ignore it anyway."

electricmanscott said:
Does this mean I've sold my sold to the devil? Nah, That sale was made long ago and for better reasons. ;)

That could be a great thread. The day I sold my soul.:D


haskindm said:
The NEC is a MINIMUM standard. We are allowed to do more, but we can't do less. If the code says that no point on the counter shall be more than 2' from a receptacle, then that is the minimum. Any designer worth his pay should know that and be able to design for it. If the code meant "about two feet" or approximately 2 feet, or somewhat less than 3 feet, it would say so. There are some things that are not clear and subject to interpretation such as "nearest the point of entrance", but I understand what is meant by two feet and do not see any room for interpretation. I do not see how a variance could be granted and still comply with 90.4 which indicates that the AHJ may only waive specific requirements when "equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety". Unless you can argue that 2 feet = 3 feet I don't believe that effective safety has been achieved in this proposed variance. As others have stated there are options available, a smaller window, a larger sink, etc. Use your imagination and come up with a solution that does not violate the code.

That's all I was trying to say. Good read on it.
 
haskindm said:
The NEC is a MINIMUM standard. We are allowed to do more, but we can't do less. If the code says that no point on the counter shall be more than 2' from a receptacle, then that is the minimum. Any designer worth his pay should know that and be able to design for it. If the code meant "about two feet" or approximately 2 feet, or somewhat less than 3 feet, it would say so. There are some things that are not clear and subject to interpretation such as "nearest the point of entrance", but I understand what is meant by two feet and do not see any room for interpretation. I do not see how a variance could be granted and still comply with 90.4 which indicates that the AHJ may only waive specific requirements when "equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety". Unless you can argue that 2 feet = 3 feet I don't believe that effective safety has been achieved in this proposed variance. As others have stated there are options available, a smaller window, a larger sink, etc. Use your imagination and come up with a solution that does not violate the code.




This is exactly where the problem lies. The problem is not the code, but the designer's lack of understanding of the code.
Did they change the framing of the window because it is in the way...I don't think so, and I know the BO would not allow it. So, the designer has to understand there is a code and it has to be adhered to... yet they put the onus on the installer... because "we" need (it is pretty bad if one job really can hurt one) the job, so we will look the other way.
If this designer is so great, I am sure he can come up with a good code compliant design...I see them every day. Tell me the designers do not look down on us peons and put the buck in our hands...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

I am involved in 2 court cases now as an expert witness. I am not the only electrical expert witness on one of the cases. If for one minute you do not think they would not use this against you, you are sorely mistaken.
One of the cases involves an installation that is 3 1/2 years old. It seems to me that the electrical contractor is going to take it on the chin here, and it looks like he is going to be up for civil and criminal charges. I cannot tell the particulars, but if you think the 2 ft measurement in the kitchen is not important... well you are wrong. Whether we like it or not, code is code and it is also law when adopted, which can and will be used against you in a court of law.
 
Wow, this thread got big fast, anyway, this problem is in the rough in stage, I have no control on what happens as I am only an employee, I don't know who even brought up the variance idea, I think it is complete bull$hit myself, and I told the GC and my boss my opinion.. Seemed to fall on deaf ears, :grin:, like I said before, if this was a average joe house I'm sure the problem would be resolved.
 
What happens when this is allowed.Buyer hires HI that picks up on it.Now seller is in a bind.Might get resolved with reduction in price.Perhaps the seller goes after the EC and the ahj.I wouldnt want in this mess.As the EC i would demand a letter signed by ahj (inspector),owner,and GC stating they are allowing this violation and hold the EC blamless.Bet you cant get them to sign it.Throw this back into lab of engineer/designer.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
What happens when this is allowed.Buyer hires HI that picks up on it.Now seller is in a bind.Might get resolved with reduction in price.Perhaps the seller goes after the EC and the ahj.I wouldnt want in this mess.As the EC i would demand a letter signed by ahj (inspector),owner,and GC stating they are allowing this violation and hold the EC blamless.Bet you cant get them to sign it.Throw this back into lab of engineer/designer.


This is why they are applying for a variance...
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
What happens when this is allowed.Buyer hires HI that picks up on it.Now seller is in a bind.Might get resolved with reduction in price.Perhaps the seller goes after the EC and the ahj.I wouldnt want in this mess.As the EC i would demand a letter signed by ahj (inspector),owner,and GC stating they are allowing this violation and hold the EC blamless.Bet you cant get them to sign it.Throw this back into lab of engineer/designer.


If a variance is allowed, and I have seen that occur, Jim's idea of getting it in writing and keeping in a jobfile is a good idea.
 
cowboyjwc said:
You are correct, I did take some licensce with it. You said you would keep your code book open and Scott replied "Why bother if you are just going to ignore it anyway."....

Is this what you agree with ??, I am hardly ignoring the code book, I have a situation in which the inpsector is willig to provide a "relief" that he is not authorized to grant and he has granted this faux relief in front of the H.O. , I wish he haddn't . I hope to change the circumstance in which I find myself without loosing the job.

If it comes down to,.. the work or this particular violation I will choose the work ,.I do not take it lightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top