Liberally Interpret

[jxofaltrds]

For those of you who instruct. Do you teach what the title says?

Ohio REQUIRES that the AHJ do this. How do I know this. First I have known this for many years but it was highlighted today on the first of a new series Building on the Code.
Many points where covered today but the most important was that the we (those certified to enforce the code) "serve and protect".
Where SERVE is the first and most important.

On many occasions I have posted things that those who do not enforce the code might not understand. Why? I want those individuals to understand that where the code is not clear, that what is inferred may not always or should be enforced.

In Ohio it is the opinion of The Board of Building Standards that those who enforce the code 'serve'. Understand?

I wish that you could have seen the demeanor of those who adopt and teach. They understand the purpose of the code. That is "risk management".

Another buzz word(s) is "acceptable threshold".

For those of you who are not inspectors you may from time to time think how hard it is to do what they do!

 

[Hv&Lv]

For those of you who instruct. Do you teach what the title says?

Ohio REQUIRES that the AHJ do this. How do I know this. First I have known this for many years but it was highlighted today on the first of a new series Building on the Code.
Many points where covered today but the most important was that the we (those certified to enforce the code) "serve and protect".
Where SERVE is the first and most important.

On many occasions I have posted things that those who do not enforce the code might not understand. Why? I want those individuals to understand that where the code is not clear, that what is inferred may not always or should be enforced.

In Ohio it is the opinion of The Board of Building Standards that those who enforce the code 'serve'. Understand?

I wish that you could have seen the demeanor of those who adopt and teach. They understand the purpose of the code. That is "risk management".

Another buzz word(s) is "acceptable threshold".

For those of you who are not inspectors you may from time to time think how hard it is to do what they do!



View attachment 7350

You have to have 4 hours a year to inspect? Is that on top of the required hours needed yearly to hold a license? Some states don't require an inspector to hold the license for the trade he inspects. Not sure of Ohio's standards...

 

[jxofaltrds]

You have to have 4 hours a year to inspect? Is that on top of the required hours needed yearly to hold a license? Some states don't require an inspector to hold the license for the trade he inspects. Not sure of Ohio's standards...

No this was a 4 hour CE. That piece of paper makes me qualified to do nothing. It just counts toward my required hours. Depending on what CE you take depends on what counts toward your certs. It is very complicated so I will not go into it.

 

[Hv&Lv]

No this was a 4 hour CE. That piece of paper makes me qualified to do nothing. It just counts toward my required hours. Depending on what CE you take depends on what counts toward your certs. It is very complicated so I will not go into it.

I think I am smart enough to comprehend... How many CE hours are you required to have per year to keep the electrical inspectors certification?
Are you also required to be a license holder for the trade you inspect?

I questioned in a post before that inspectors have four hours CE per year for certs, and electrical license holders have to have 8 hours CE per year. Looks like the inspectors would have to have more hours if they are not license holders...

 

[jxofaltrds]

I think I am smart enough to comprehend... How many CE hours are you required to have per year to keep the electrical inspectors certification?
Are you also required to be a license holder for the trade you inspect?

I questioned in a post before that inspectors have four hours CE per year for certs, and electrical license holders have to have 8 hours CE per year. Looks like the inspectors would have to have more hours if they are not license holders...

Short answer 10 hours per license or cert.

If you hold multiple they each 'may' require 10 per. Some courses apply to all some apply to one.

Certs are under the Board of Building Standards.

Lic.s are under the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board.

It is kinda like O pos blood and A neg blood. Did I say that right? Understand

 

[George Stolz]

Mike, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you clarify?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Can you clarify?

When teaching the code do instructors teach that the code is black and white?

Does the teacher explain that there is more than just facts when using the code.

Does the teacher try to explain why we have the code?

There is more to applying the NEC than knowing the facts.

 

[petersonra]

When teaching the code do instructors teach that the code is black and white?

Mostly the code is black and white. It seems that sometimes some of us want to claim it is not to justify doing something we know is a violation.

Does the teacher explain that there is more than just facts when using the code.

The only "facts" that matter are the pertinent facts about the installtion, and how they are to be applied according to the code.

Does the teacher try to explain why we have the code?

Why would the teacher need to do that. There are several paragraphs in article 90 that explain exactly what the code is for.

There is more to applying the NEC than knowing the facts.

Please give an example of when this would be true? The code covers everything that relates to the installations that it covers.

 

[kwired]

Mostly the code is black and white. It seems that sometimes some of us want to claim it is not to justify doing something we know is a violation.

That is correct. Anything that is not black and white we have to deal with sometimes case by case. If something is not black and white that is what code change proposals are all about. Sometimes proposals are made but are no convincing enough to the code making panels that the proposal is any better than what is already in print. There are still flaws but overall the system is acceptable.

 

[jxofaltrds]

This forum is prove that the code is NOT clear.

I just want to know if those who instruct explain this FACT to the students. If not why not.

Do they teach how to handle 'issues' when they arise?

IMHO it does no good to teach something without giving the background of how it came about. Yes/no?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Proof. LOL :ashamed1:

 

[petersonra]

This forum is prove that the code is NOT clear.

I just want to know if those who instruct explain this FACT to the students. If not why not.

Do they teach how to handle 'issues' when they arise?

IMHO it does no good to teach something without giving the background of how it came about. Yes/no?

What part of the code do you find unclear? It may be that you have not read it with an eye toward understanding what it actually says as opposed to what you think it says already, or want it to say. I personally find article 725 to be poorly written, but it is not unclear.

There are a few cases where people insist on trying to justify failing to follow what the code actually says such as the recent, and maybe ongoing discussion of transformer secondary protection versus transformer secondary conductor protection requirements.

I find certain things in the code to be confusing now and then, but not so much unclear.

What difference does supposed "background" make? Does it matter much how the code makers came to the 25 Ohm ground rod impedance requirement? It just is. There is no good reason for it, nor does it have anything at all to do with electrical safety. It just is.

 

[jxofaltrds]

What part of the code do you find unclear? It may be that you have not read it with an eye toward understanding what it actually says as opposed to what you think it says already, or want it to say. I personally find article 725 to be poorly written, but it is not unclear.

There are a few cases where people insist on trying to justify failing to follow what the code actually says such as the recent, and maybe ongoing discussion of transformer secondary protection versus transformer secondary conductor protection requirements.

I find certain things in the code to be confusing now and then, but not so much unclear.

What difference does supposed "background" make? Does it matter much how the code makers came to the 25 Ohm ground rod impedance requirement? It just is. There is no good reason for it, nor does it have anything at all to do with electrical safety. It just is.

Bob you are kidding. You really believe that the NEC is 99% clear?

I like other 'think' that we understand it. The only thing that is clear is that it is not clear.

As to "justify(ing) failing" no inspector should have to justify failing an inspection. He should have to justify NOT passing it.

 

[petersonra]

Bob you are kidding. You really believe that the NEC is 99% clear?

Yes I do. I don't mean that it is always easy to get to what the code means, but once I have determined to figure it out it has always become pretty clear. I readily admit there are some very poorly written parts of it. But the overwhelming majority of it is quite clear if one is willing to just read it and let it sink in. There probably are some things that truly are ambiguous, but I have not run across them to date. Can you name any?

As to "justify(ing) failing" no inspector should have to justify failing an inspection. He should have to justify NOT passing it.

I think you should read what I said again. I said something about people claiming the code was unclear to justify failing to follow the code, not anything about inspectors. I agree it is the obligation of the inspector to be fairly specific in just why he failed an inspection. That would amount to justifying why it did not pass. If the inspector cannot point to the specific part(s) of the code that was not followed, the work should pass.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Yes I do. I don't mean that it is always easy to get to what the code means, but once I have determined to figure it out it has always become pretty clear. I readily admit there are some very poorly written parts of it. But the overwhelming majority of it is quite clear if one is willing to just read it and let it sink in. There probably are some things that truly are ambiguous, but I have not run across them to date. Can you name any?


I think you should read what I said again. I said something about people claiming the code was unclear to justify failing to follow the code, not anything about inspectors. I agree it is the obligation of the inspector to be fairly specific in just why he failed an inspection. That would amount to justifying why it did not pass. If the inspector cannot point to the specific part(s) of the code that was not followed, the work should pass.

TY for the clarification!

 

[BAHTAH]

Code Interpretation

Code Interpretation

There are areas of the code that may be interpreted differently by the electrical contractor and the inspector. When an inspector finds a code violation my experience has been the inspector notes on the red tag the code article that has been violated. This serves two purposes, it helps educate the person doing the installation and shows that the inspector found a specific violation as referenced in the code. Over the years I have written the code making panels on a few occasions when I did not agree with an inspectors call. The one thing I did not see mentioned was areas where cities have their own electrical code to supplement the NEC. Not all jurisdictions adopt the entire NEC without question to areas of the code that may not work well in their area ( soil conditions with respect to corrosion and service grounding etc.) or other requirements they are no ready to adopt. There are some cities (LA) and states (CA) that have their own electrical codes. We are all in this together, inspectors and contractors trying to provide safe installations.

 

[kwired]

This forum is prove that the code is NOT clear.

I just want to know if those who instruct explain this FACT to the students. If not why not.

Do they teach how to handle 'issues' when they arise?

IMHO it does no good to teach something without giving the background of how it came about. Yes/no?

This forum is just a place for discussion on things related to the electrical industry. If something in the code is not clear bringing it up here just stirs attention to the topic, if you actually want something changed submit a proposal through the proper procedures to get it changed, otherwise you can only hope someone else sees or hears about your idea and decides to do it themselves. You are not guaranteed to get your desired change, but is what has to be done to get the change. If nobody submits change proposals then we will have a perfect code. Sometimes a proposal has some of the right ideas, but is still not sufficient for acceptance, a few changes to the proposal and maybe it gets accepted.

The English language is at times very complex. Sometimes a sentence can mean the same to 999 people but there will be that one person that interprets is differently. That is one problem with parts of the NEC being unclear, the person(s) involved with writing something did not see some people interpreting in a way that was not intended - good reason for a future change to clarify - sometimes that is not taken clearly by all either.

 

[George Stolz]

When teaching the code do instructors teach that the code is black and white?

Does the teacher explain that there is more than just facts when using the code.

Does the teacher try to explain why we have the code?

There is more to applying the NEC than knowing the facts.

I see. I do try to get the principles you mention across, but I have to wonder how Ohio made it "law" to do so...?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I always try and give an alternative interpretation for art. that we argue about here just to help them understand that the code is difficult at times. Sometimes what the code states is not really the intent- or what I think may be their intent.