Residential Grade Material

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwelectric said:


Please understand that I am not trying to be obnoxious nor rude but the part of your post that I have underlined I do not understand.

As I was very careful to point out in my post above;

Any installation that is code compliant is a safe installation and is free from hazards but you make a statement that leads me to believe that an installation that is pretty don?t need to be code compliant as outlined by the underlined statement.

Are you replacing compliance with beauty?

Is a beautiful noncompliant installation safer than a sloppy compliant installation?

Myself, I have always looked at safety and compliance before I looked at anything else.
Click to expand...


I make every effort to insure my work is code compliant. That being said, I will occasionally over fill a box by 1 conductor, or not have a staple within 8" of a box, or fail to see a place where a nail plate is needed or make some other minor mis-step. (nobody's perfect)

The inspector can: A) fail the job or B) overlook the minor infraction or C) allow me to repair it immediately or trust me to do so after he leaves. The neatness of my installation says to him: "this is a contractor that cares about his work".

When he see's a job that looks like meth addicts did the work, he's likely going to give it much more scrutiny, and perhaps be less lenient.

Again, I feel that neatnes pays!
 
andycook said:
I make every effort to insure my work is code compliant. That being said, I will occasionally over fill a box by 1 conductor, or not have a staple within 8" of a box, or fail to see a place where a nail plate is needed or make some other minor mis-step. (nobody's perfect)

The inspector can: A) fail the job or B) overlook the minor infraction or C) allow me to repair it immediately or trust me to do so after he leaves. The neatness of my installation says to him: "this is a contractor that cares about his work".
Click to expand...

In your mind where does minor become major?
 
Mike, while I agree almost entirely with what you said, there are some code violations which are inconsequential, IMO. As I've posted before, if I held every inspection to the letter of the code, few installations would pass. Such as one conductor too many in a box, a pipe or cable support too far apart, the receptacle for AC equipment 26' away, counter receptacle 27" from edge of sink. "When does minor become major" is a question that I as an inspector need to answer to myself daily. It is a case by case decision for me.

John
 
There is no minor or major, a violation is a violation, is a violation. Any violation should have to be fixed prior to signoff. Whether it is done right then or a call back is required. The only variation being in the case where it is left to the interpretation of the AHJ.

Any code violation is consequential, otherwise why bother having inspections, and why bother having MINIMUM code requirements.

It is no different on the engineering side, all designs are reviewed prior to me signing them. I don't care who did it. We all make mistakes, and the reviewer is another set of eyes to make sure it is correct. This is the same role of the inspector. He is the other set of eyes helping to make sure the job is in compliance. What good is it if "minor' infractions are over looked?
 
kingpb said:
There is no minor or major, a violation is a violation, is a violation.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about absolutism is it saves you from having to think, weigh circumstances, and make decisions.

Now that I know there's no difference at all between leaving out the bonding jumper in a service panel and, say, putting a cable staple 1/16" further from the box than allowed, I'll rest easier. Thanks for that insight. :)
 
ceknight said:
The nice thing about absolutism is it saves you from having to think, weigh circumstances, and make decisions.

Now that I know there's no difference at all between leaving out the bonding jumper in a service panel and, say, putting a cable staple 1/16" further from the box than allowed, I'll rest easier. Thanks for that insight. :)
Click to expand...

I must have missed something in the code, could you please provide me the section number that defines minor and major. Also, any written document that says the inspector has the right to pass inspections where only minor code violations occur. Also, does 1 minor +1 minor = 1 major, or can you have as many minor violations as you want and still pass, as long as there isn't a major violation?

Clarification on this would be great.
 
kingpb said:
Clarification on this would be great.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you can't clarify distinctions about the relative safety and consequence of code violations with an absolutist. You've already announced your position, and spared yourself the trouble of having to think about those things (as I noted earlier).

Other folks who do have to make judgements calls from time to time can and will see an overwhelming difference in character between having a clamp 1/16" off, and leaving out a bonding jumper at the service panel. We can, as competent members of our linguistic community, refer to one as "minor" and the other as "major" without a CMP having first codified that distinction. :)
 
kingpb said:
I must have missed something in the code, could you please provide me the section number that defines minor and major. Also, any written document that says the inspector has the right to pass inspections where only minor code violations occur.
Click to expand...

Do you live on planet earth?

You are certainly entitled to your black and white view of the world but it is not reality. If it is your reality you live in a different world than the rest of us.
 
The fact is the NEC does not provide a distinction. Therefore, as stated by many EC's the NEC is the minimum, and any required work that violates the NEC means you have not met minimum.

Let's use your example of comparing NM cable staple being 12-1/16" away from box (minor) and leaving out the bonding jumper from panel (major).

Section 90.5 states the words "shall" and "shall not" are mandatory.
Legal Definition of Mandatory: Peremptory; obligatory; required; that which must be subscribed to or obeyed.

Section 334.30 states: Nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be supported and secured...within 12" of every outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting.

You notice the intentional use of the word shall; it does not say approximately or may be. This is a requirement. The reason for it is inconsequential.

Now, look at 250.24 (B), ...main bonding jumper shall be used to connect the equipment grounding conductor...

I didn't right the code, I am only required to follow it, just like the rest of you. I simply asked for clarification on minor and major, which no one can provide, because we all know it does not exist, as far as the NEC is concerned.

The Code clearly defines what shall be done and shall not be done.
What I hear you all saying is that it shall be done only as long as you feel like it and throw everything else to the wind, because you may consider it only a minor violation. If the inspector misses it, or doesn't care because it's minor, well who cares.

I wonder how this argument will fly next time I'm told by the EC he doesn't think my design meets code, and he wants an extra. I'll just tell him, don't worry it's just a minor violation, those are OK.
 
kingpb said:
I didn't right the code, I am only required to follow it, just like the rest of you. I simply asked for clarification on minor and major, which no one can provide, because we all know it does not exist, as far as the NEC is concerned.
Click to expand...

One quick note then I'm done with this...

Please note that in my posts I have already acknowledged that both of my examples are code violations. We know they are, and we know what the code says. That's a given, the "shalls" and "shall nots" aren't the issue here.

The point here is that a reasonably knowledgeable, experienced electrician who is able to calculate the consequences of various violations can and will be able to tell when one is more minor than the other. It's part of understanding the language (as in "having a grip on what "more" or "less" means in the context of a concept like "safety""), being able to think critically about consequences, and reacting as best as possible under the circumstances.

No, that doesn't make one violation any more code compliant than the other. Duh. But there are times when you have to do something that isn't 100% code compliant, and inspectors can see that and say it's OK under the circumstances. They can do that precisely because they know some things are less safe or more safe than others, and are willing to weigh that risk because of circumstance.

You can't do that, of course, because you're operating under a philosophic view that does not appeal to consequences and circumstance, only principle. And that's the end of it, as far as you're concerned.

I'll also note in passing that you conflate being able to tell the difference between a minor or major violation with actually performing minor and/or major violations. Just because many of us have a grip on this concept, it doesn't follow that we're actually doing it and trying to get away with it.
 
Last edited:
When faced with facts, and the result is something you all don't like, you simply sidestep the issue, and pick on the most miniscule detail. We all know there are countless references to the use of shall.

The impression I'm left with is that you guys only want to follow the Code when it suits your whim. It is always enlightening to see that the Code only applies when you want it too, or in this case when it's not a major violation.

Based on your interpretation I wonder why the Code panel felt it was necessary to define this, especially when they didn't define minor and major. Probably becasue there are always those that try and twist the rules, to suit there needs.

For Don, here's my dialog response to his BS comment regarding up to 12.5" is 12":

After all Judge she was 17.6 yrs old, doesn't that mean she's 18? No sir, said the Judge, the law says she shall be at least 18 and you new she wasn't quite there yet! But Judge, she's almost 18, can't we just call that a minor offense and overlook it? I'm sorry sir, say's the Judge, the law is the law you have to go to jail.;)

How's that for black and white! :D

On this issue we will have to agree to disagree :)
 
kingpb said:
When faced with facts, and the result is something you all don't like, you simply sidestep the issue
Click to expand...

We are both guilty of that.

You refuse to face the real world. :)

"Theres a real world out there" is a term used by a well respected code instructor and code amendment writer here in MA.

On this issue we will have to agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

And many others as well. :)
 
ceknight said:
One quick note then I'm done with this...

You can't do that, of course, because you're operating under a philosophic view that does not appeal to consequences and circumstance, only principle. And that's the end of it, as far as you're concerned.

I'll also note in passing that you conflate being able to tell the difference between a minor or major violation with actually performing minor and/or major violations. Just because many of us have a grip on this concept, it doesn't follow that we're actually doing it and trying to get away with it.
Click to expand...

#1. I thought you said quick.... :)
#2. Your assumption that this is my philosophy is inaccurate. Simply becasue I took a specific position and posed an argument for a debate, doesn't mean that this is my principle. Man you guys take this serious! You'd think I was talking to my wife.
#3. I'm still waiting for the NEC definitions of minor and major. (yawn, I think I'll be waiting a while):D
 
kingpb said:
#2. Your assumption that this is my philosophy is inaccurate. Simply because I took a specific position and posed an argument for a debate, doesn't mean that this is my principle. Man you guys take this serious!
Click to expand...

Yes we do when the posters come across as serious.

IMO you come across as a dead serious ivory tower type.

If that is not the case I apologize but point out that you had never made it clear you where simply debating.

#3. I'm still waiting for the NEC definitions of minor and major. (yawn, I think I'll be waiting a while):D
Click to expand...

Waiting for who?

No one insinuated that they could provide that or disputed it does not exist.:)
 
kingpb said:
Mike Whitt posed this same question in post #42. No one ever expanded on it, so I took it and ran from there.
Click to expand...

Ahhh I see, yes he did.

I would like the opportunity to inspect his job with a micrometer to ensure he has no minor violations. :D

To all I am sure Mike's installations are beautiful, still IMO no one (including me and my giant head ;)) has a perfect job and violations can always be found.

JMO Mike, not trying to give you a hard time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top