Habitable Rooms - Lighting Outlet

[roger]

yes, i read his posts... don't see how they differ from mine, as a matter of fact, he's asking some of the same questions...
any other Cali inspectors out there care to chime in?
(btw) what are you implying?!?!?

Why do you think I'm implying anything? I simply asked you a question.

Let me ask you another one, I know you said

therefore - the correction would be written and, as i stated before, i (inspector) would not care who fixed it, just that it got fixed.

What code, article, and section would you write up to red tag an installation that did not have a fixture installed on a lighting outlet? You would not be able to cite the NEC as the violated code.

(because building,plumbing, mechanical , and energy codes require theses items be tested)....

Wouldn't the energy code be happier if a fixture was not present, and how would you test something that wasn't there?

Roger

 

[romeo]

habitable Rooms-Lighting Outlets

habitable Rooms-Lighting Outlets

I strive to never "hope" to find violations. I played that game years ago and in the end it was unsatisfying.

The job is what it is.
If it complies. Sign it.
If it has a violation. Write a correction.

I could not agree more.Inspecting a well installed and code compliant installation,is a pleasure and so much easer. It is great not to have to make a re inspection.

Just to let you know my hat size did not increase when I became an inspector more than 20yrs. ago,but I never forgot my commitment to do the best I could to provide a fair service to both the consumer and the provider.

Please believe I never hope to find a violation, and i never site a violation without providing the code section that was violated.

The only time I find satisfaction in siting a violation, is when i feel it is in the interest of public safety,or correcting an electrician who does not,have the same interest. Isn't that why we are spending so much time in this forum?

 

[mayjong]

The “wondering if your California is different than his “ –seemed to be an implication that I was not being truthful (to me).

also- i would first look at the plans, i haven't seen any plans come through this office (residential) that don't show light fixtures. as a matter of fact, due to the new energy codes applicants are required to indicate lighting type, so if it shows a fixture it needs to be there (for final)
once again- i (inspector) don't need to prove the circuit does not work!
i will use the NEC... the NEC requires that wiring be free from shorts and ground faults (110.7). you (builder/electrician)need to prove it is "free from shorts and ground faults" and you need to prove it TO ME!. a tester would suffice, but that would require you to be there and test the conductors. much easier to install the light. if you see (and read) my other posts, the only application i disagreed with was the "blank" cover , because you ( I ) cannot tell if the outlet actually works. and yes , as i said before we test HVAC,GFCI,AFCI,,ect
and here (Sacramento area) we do not have to "quote code" when we write corrections nor do we "red tag" jobs (red tag implies shutting the job down, kinda hard to get things built that way). we usually discuss it, write corrections and get it done.
and if someone REALLY wanted to push it (probably the worst way to keep the job moving) try
2001 California Electrical Code 089-5 to justify
2001 California Building Code 104.2.9
and if that person/builder does not like it , they can use
2001 California Building Code Code 105.1
but this, typically is counterproductive as the time(read cost) it takes complete the process far outweighs the cost of the fix (whatever that may be)

 

[roger]

also- i would first look at the plans, i haven't seen any plans come through this office (residential) that don't show light fixtures. as a matter of fact, due to the new energy codes applicants are required to indicate lighting type, so if it shows a fixture it needs to be there (for final)

Indicating the type of light is not a requirement to have it installed.

Looking at spec houses for example, If I showed track lighting with the heads to be picked by the owner when the house is purchased would you hold up the final.

Also, on a spec house, who pays for the electric while it is waiting to be bought?

once again- i (inspector) don't need to prove the circuit does not work! you (builder/electrician)need to prove it does. a tester would suffice, but that would require you to be there and test the conductors.

And once again, if you were inspecting a piece of medical equipment in a hospital that would not be started for some time after the facility was opened, are you going to hold up the opening because you didn't see the particular equipment work?

In that I only do commercial work, we are normaly always present for inspections so that is no big deal.

and here (Sacramento area) we do not have to "quote code" when we write corrections

I'm glad that in this state it is law that a violation must be cited, the electricians and inspectors are both better for this requirement.

nor do we "red tag" jobs (red tag implies shutting the job down, kinda hard to get things built that way). we usually discuss it, write corrections and get it done.

Red tagging a job here is not shutting it down, it is a failed inspection with the violation on it.

and if someone REALLY wanted to push it (probably the worst way to keep the job moving) try
2001 California Electrical Code 089-5 to justify
2001 California Building Code 104.2.9
and if that person/builder does not like it , they can use
2001 California Building Code Code 105.1
but this, typically is counterproductive as the time(read cost) it takes complete the process far outweighs the cost of the fix (whatever that may be)

So you are saying even if the installer is correct it is better for him/her to just go with the flow and cave in to the inspector, even if the inspector is wrong or requiring something that isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just can't accept something without some solid substantiation, and without a written code, rule, or law as that substantiation I would contest a judgment against me.



Roger

 

[George Stolz]

i will use the NEC... the NEC requires that wiring be free from shorts and ground faults (110.7).

Bill, wouldn't the breakers not tripping prove that the installation was compliant with this section?

 

[mayjong]

Indicating the type of light is not a requirement to have it installed.

Really? is indicating anything else on the plans a requirement to install it? i believe it is...
If I showed track lighting with the heads to be picked by the owner when the house is purchased would you hold up the final.

no problem, provide a bulb to test the cicuit

Also, on a spec house, who pays for the electric while it is waiting to be bought?

the builder, happens every day here...

And once again, if you were inspecting a piece of medical equipment in a hospital that would not be started for some time after the facility was opened, are you going to hold up the opening because you didn't see the particular equipment work?

i'm not testing the equipment, just the circuit

In that I only do commercial work, we are normaly always present

then we wouldn't have aproblem, would we?

So you are saying even if the installer is correct it is better for him/her to just go with the flow and cave in to the inspector, even if the inspector is wrong or requiring something that isn't.

no, i'm saying my job is to make sure all details, hardware, clearances,sizing ,ect,ect,ect are installed and functioning correctley.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just can't accept something without some solid substantiation, and without a written code, rule, or law as that substantiation I would contest a judgment against me.

i believe i showed that... you can't ignore the admin portion of the code

Roger

i'm not being troublesome , either. and this has never happened. seems to be common sense to me
it also seems as though the way codes are enforced in Northern CA are MUCH different than the way codes are enforced in other jurisdictions. there is no such thing as a final without power here. there are many specs (in my jurisdiction right now) that are unoccupied and the builder is paying for power and gas. going beyond our discussion of lighting , the very definition of dwelling unit (in CA code) requires cooking facilities and hot water. the mechanical code requires heating, too. all things you can not achieve without electricity (w/ modern appliances) it would be ILLEGAL for us to final SFD's w/out power ..... and it's pretty obvious that this discussion is going in circles... very interesting, though.

 

[roger]

the very definition of dwelling unit (in CA code) requires cooking facilities and hot water. the mechanical code requires heating, too. all things you can not achieve without electricity (w/ modern appliances) it would be ILLEGAL for us to final SFD's w/out power .....

So an Amish person (or anyone for that matter) couldn't build a home in CA with out Electric or A/C. Sounds like the Energy Code needs to take a look at this.

the way codes are enforced in Northern CA are MUCH different than the way codes are enforced in other jurisdictions.

So with your specific mention of Northern California, I will ask again, is this different than Southern California?

i believe i showed that... you can't ignore the admin portion of the code

And I wouldn't, but you still haven't provided any substantiation, how about providing some links and quotes from the code(s) you are saying backs up your position. Where can I access these documents online.

If you have and I missed it, I appologize, but tell me what post # it was and I'll go back and read it.

I would just like to see it in writing, maybe something like this; California statute xx.ABC.xxx.zzz Luminaires in Bedrooms. A luminaire will be installed on all Lighting Outlets required by article 210 of the NEC and will be inspected for proper lamp size and type as well as proper operation before issuance of a Final Electrical inspection.

That's all I'm asking.

With all this said, (so that you and I can leave this behind us and move on) the bottom line is, that unless there is a local requirement in the way of a code or amendment as you say there is in CA, the NEC doesn't require a fixture on the lighting outlets in question.


Roger

 

[mayjong]

QUOTE=roger]
So with your specific mention of Northern California, I will ask again, is this different than Southern California?
Roger[/QUOTE]
we are all under the same code, so i doubt it. but i have never worked in So Cal...
my fingers are tired..
anyone else in CA care to help me out?
basically CBC104.2.9 says if there is insufficient evidence of compliance (determined by authority having jurisdiction) we (authority having jurisdiction) can determine test procedures for proof of compliance.
105.1 says if (contractor/builder/electrician) doesn't like it, they (contractor/builder/electrician) can appeal to a board of appeals...
that's why i keep insisting i(inspector) do not have to prove that this switch(in question) DOES NOT turn on this fixture...
you (contractor/builder/electrician) have to show me IT DOES...
there is no other way for me to determine if said switch is even connected to said fixture.
(besides taking your word, and some folks i would have no problem with, some i would, so all get tested) and the NEC DOES require them to be connected. if we (inspectors in general) could rely "your word " or "warantees" then why even show up at all?
now, i understand that it's not done that way everywhere. (but i think it should be) and if, someday, the jurisdiction that cuts my check tells me to not do these things. then i won't.
but until then, that's the way we do it...

 

[mayjong]

btw- i have discussed this with my BO and a BO from another local jurisdiction (had to check with a higher authority) and we are all on the same page with this....

 

[roger]

Well, all I can say is, I'm glad I'm not in CA.

I would still like to the answer to the Amish question. (yeah, I know I didn't actually word it as a question)

Roger

 

[LarryFine]

I would still like to the answer to the Amish question.

I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it would be easy to find out.

In our county, even for people who have had well water for years, if/when county water becomes available in an area, all homes must have the water run to the house. They are permitted to keep a single exterior spigot fed by the well.

 

[roger]

but I'm sure it would be easy to find out.

OK Larry, if you have the California codes sitting right there next to you or you know some easy way to find the answer, I'd appreciate you sharing the information.


Roger

 

[LarryFine]

OK Larry, if you have the California codes sitting right there next to you or you know some easy way to find the answer, I'd appreciate you sharing the information.

I didn't say it was that easy.

Give me the name of the locality where the Amish homes are, and I'll contact them and pose the question, and get back to you.

 

[mayjong]

did you ever figure out the "amish" conundrum? ( you like my word for the day? )