Inspectors required to cite code section

[ivsenroute]

Where in the NFPA 70 is there a requirement for electrical inspectors to cite a code reference when they fail an installation?

 

[iwire]

Where in the NFPA 70 is there a requirement for electrical inspectors to cite a code reference when they fail an installation?

NFPA 70 does not cover permits, inspections or licenses.

 

[joebell]

Art. 80?

Art. 80?

It might be in Art 80, but that is found in Annex H so it is informational only according to 90.3

 

[ivsenroute]

Then where is that stated?

BTW, Art 80 (Annex H) does not state that.

 

[jumper]

An electrical violation is no different than any other legal violation, I cannot be charged on a generality. The inspector has to cite a specific code and incident. No different than a speeding ticket.

 

[augie47]

I don't know of any such "universal" requirement. I often do so, but along the same line, simply giving a Code section at times does not seem sufficient as some Code sections are long enough to involve many possible violations.
I have inspected under two governmental agencies and numerous AHJs and Building Officials and have never been told that I was required to cite a specific reference.

 

[joebell]

Then where is that stated?

BTW, Art 80 (Annex H) does not state that.

80.19(F)(5)? Again this is not enforacable.

 

[ivsenroute]

An electrical violation is no different than any other legal violation, I cannot be charged on a generality. The inspector has to cite a specific code and incident. No different than a speeding ticket.

Failing an electrical inspection is not a citation that has to go in front of a magistrate, it is simply a notice of violation as to what the violation(s) is/are and can be described in written format. There is not a penalty in a notice of violation from a failed inspection like there is for a speeding ticket.

I am just curious as to where the requirement is found.

 

[ivsenroute]

80.19(F)(5)? Again this is not enforacable.

80.19(F)(5) does not specifically state that code references must be given and yes, you are correct, unless adopted in your jurisdiction, is not enforceable.

For example, if an inspector states this on a report:

* Stationary motor #3 in the vacuum room lacks required frame grounding or isolation.

What is wrong with that?

 

[jumper]

Failing an electrical inspection is not a citation that has to go in front of a magistrate, it is simply a notice of violation as to what the violation(s) is/are and can be described in written format. There is not a penalty in a notice of violation from a failed inspection like there is for a speeding ticket.

I am just curious as to where the requirement is found.

Actually, for me it is a violation that could go in front of a magistrate if I do not pass and /or correct a situation in a timely manner. I deal with dual electrical/fire marshalls that have broad powers in regards to safety in collegiate settings in VA.

 

[ivsenroute]

Actually, for me it is a violation that could go in front of a magistrate if I do not pass and /or correct a situation in a timely manner. I deal with dual electrical/fire marshalls that have broad powers in regards to safety in collegiate settings in VA.

I see your point and understand your situation

 

[joebell]

Another Urban Myth?

Another Urban Myth?

So is this another urban myth?

Whenever an Inspector points out a violation on a job I always ask for a code reference.

 

[jumper]

So is this another urban myth?

Depends on your state/local laws.

 

[ivsenroute]

So is this another urban myth?

Whenever an Inspector points out a violation on a job I always ask for a code reference.

There are some state laws governing codes that require a reference.

There are 50 States and not all of them address this like MA does.

If you request a code reference then you should be given one by the inspector.

 

[K8MHZ]

In this area we have an inspector that will back up every decision not only by mentioning the section, but will have the book there with him.

Others will just tell you it's not right.

Some will tell you what they want done and even admit that it's not a code violation, just common sense.

If we didn't need leeway and interpretation, we wouldn't need inspectors.

That being said, anytime I have a disagreement with an inspector (yeah, it has happened once or twice) I have my book with me and show the section I relied on to deem the performance in question as acceptable. This goes WAY farther than just standing there arguing with them.

 

[ivsenroute]

Some will tell you what they want done and even admit that it's not a code violation, just common sense.

That should not be happening. If it is not a code violation, it should not be written up. Common sense or not. This is probably the biggest complaint from ECs

 

[zbang]

Seems kind of like the difference between "Johnny, you pulled you sister's hair" and "Johnny, you know what you did." It almost beggers the immagination that an inspector would fail something "because it's wrong", but that seems to happen. Likewise using the reason "I don't like that" or "that's not how we do it 'round here". Having a specific code reference helps to stop that kind on nonsense. OTOH, a reasonably-detailed notice should make it fairly plain about what applies (e.g. "no required disconnect in sight of dishwasher"). That gives me something to go on, and for me to give the code ref. that says it's not required. Or possibly to point to the gray box on the wall that says "Dishwasher disconnect" on it .

 

[K8MHZ]

That should not be happening. If it is not a code violation, it should not be written up. Common sense or not. This is probably the biggest complaint from ECs

It sure hasn't been a problem with me. It has only happened less than a handful of times and every time I agreed with the inspector and happily complied.

Remember, if you follow the NEC to the letter, you are the worst electrician allowed by law, as the NEC is a bare minimum.

None of the requests have been at all labor intensive. Most, were just bonding issues of metal parts not covered by the NEC. The most recent was in a control house at the base of a 200 foot tall metal Uni-pole rotating antenna mast in the middle of a field. Others have requested additional supports for conduit in unique locations. One requested the use of Seal-Tite in a cooler where the code would have allowed FMC with THHW. The EC went for it without a change order as it was a small request on a large job.....and it made sense. This was in a wet area and so long as the conductors are rated for that environment the NEC allows FMC.

The moment we insist that inspectors become universally unwavering walking code books we have taken the human element out of the inspection process.

 

[joebell]

It sure hasn't been a problem with me. It has only happened less than a handful of times and every time I agreed with the inspector and happily complied.

Remember, if you follow the NEC to the letter, you are the worst electrician allowed by law, as the NEC is a bare minimum.


The moment we insist that inspectors become universally unwavering walking code books we have taken the human element out of the inspection process.

I'ld have to respectfully disagree with this notion Mark.

I'll agree with the code being the minimum standard but if the installation follows that requirement there should be no reason for a citation. It's really black and white an installation is either code compliant or it isn't. Once we allow personal judgement to influence the inspection process it will make the process subjective and open to each individauls interpretation.

 

[ivsenroute]

I have witnessed a combination of code inspector report forms and methods of reporting. Here are some examples of possible results from a single defect:

1) A notice of deficiency paper with no other explanation other than "600.21(E)" and nothing else. There you go, you got the code cite you wanted. Now what?

2) A descriptive cite only such as "Lack of lighting in attic space for access to sign transformer"

3) Both code and description. "Attic access to sign transformer not compliant with 600.21(E)


#1 forces you to go look it up and figure out what is wrong. Could be many things.

#2 Is very descriptive and lets you know exactly what is wrong.

#3 Is both descriptive and cites the section but does not let you know what the exact problem is so you will have to look it up yourself.

I think the issue is what is the expectation of the EC vs what is required to be provided.

Personally I believe it is too time consuming to look up every single code section for the convenience of the EC. Inspectors don't have a photographic memory for every single section and sub-section of the code. Both ECs and inspectors know lots of code requirements in their heads but cannot cite the specific code on command.

If an EC requests a code section for clarity then it should be provided.