NEC Clear Working Space cynics

[xguard]

Seems every job has a clear working space violation and it turns in to a battle with the other disciplines to have it corrected. "Yea I bet that one inch violation is really going to cause some one to be electrocuted I'm sure" someone has told me being sarcastic. I'm sure everyone has heard some version of this.

How do you respond to this? In the end the code is the code but I'd like to have a useful response for these types of arguments.

 

[tkb]

Are they going to accept liability if there was a lawsuit if in fact someone did get hurt?
Everyone gets sued when there is an accident.

 

[jumper]

I do not say anything.

I let the Fire Marshall explain it.

 

[iwire]

I do not say anything.

I let the Fire Marshall explain it.

Pretty much.

I may mention it to the other trade but if they choose to ignore it I am fine with letting it hit the fan.

 

[Carultch]

Seems every job has a clear working space violation and it turns in to a battle with the other disciplines to have it corrected. "Yea I bet that one inch violation is really going to cause some one to be electrocuted I'm sure" someone has told me being sarcastic. I'm sure everyone has heard some version of this.

How do you respond to this? In the end the code is the code but I'd like to have a useful response for these types of arguments.

If you violate the work space, then there is an objective case against you, if someone gets in to an accident.

If you comply with the work space requirements, then you've done all that you can do, and the accident is either simply an accident, or other causes would need to be investigated. Worst case scenario if the code-compliant workspace really was insufficient, a proposal to change the NEC workspace might arise in the next edition, if an accident happened even with compliant workspace.

 

[kwired]

Seems every job has a clear working space violation and it turns in to a battle with the other disciplines to have it corrected. "Yea I bet that one inch violation is really going to cause some one to be electrocuted I'm sure" someone has told me being sarcastic. I'm sure everyone has heard some version of this.

How do you respond to this? In the end the code is the code but I'd like to have a useful response for these types of arguments.

But you can't have both a limit and a fudge factor. With a fudge factor that one inch will eventually turn into two, then three, and before you know it there is no working space remaining.

There may be times to bend the rules but they need to be pretty rare incidents and not just whenever they are convenient.

 

[charlie b]

I would suggest the straight-forward approach. Respond to the sarcastic "that inch will electrocute someone" by saying, "I don't know how likely that would be, but it is not going to happen on my watch."

 

[mgookin]

Seems every job has a clear working space violation and it turns in to a battle with the other disciplines to have it corrected. "Yea I bet that one inch violation is really going to cause some one to be electrocuted I'm sure" someone has told me being sarcastic. I'm sure everyone has heard some version of this.

How do you respond to this? In the end the code is the code but I'd like to have a useful response for these types of arguments.

That is not his decision. It's the jury's decision.
And if he's the one who created the violation, he'll hear it first hand because he'll be in the courtroom as a defendant.