Stop wasting everyone's time.

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ronmath

Senior Member
Location
Burnsville, MN
Just a quick note due to my frustration with the industry. If you state something is "against code" or a "code violation", give the code reference to back it up! It happens way too often when an electrician, inspector or engineer will make a statement that something violates code without giving an actual reference to back up the statement. Just because you have been told that something has to be done a certain way to meet code, or you have been doing it a certain way all your career so you think everyone has to do it that way, does not make it against code to do it a different way. Also, it is not anybody's job to push their own agenda to what they think are better ways to do things, there are many ways to design depending on the parameters given. Not giving a code reference just wastes everyone's time having to respond to a possible erroneous comment. "It just makes sense", "we've always done it this way", "somebody told me", "I thought" are not code references and cost the people who have to respond to these type of comments time and money. I am never offended when given a code reference that backs up what I am doing is wrong, I learn and move on.

Thanks for letting me rant and let me know if I am way off base on this (but please give a code reference when doing so :D).
 
ronmath said:
Thanks for letting me rant and let me know if I am way off base on this (but please give a code reference when doing so :D).
Click to expand...

This sent me into a philosophical debate with the NEC. In looking at 90.2(A) and (B), it notes what's covered, and what's not covered. I was trying to find a section showing that ranting about the code was either permitted or not, but it's not explicitly stated in either section, therefore rant permitted I suppose? :D
 
tw1156 said:
This sent me into a philosophical debate with the NEC. In looking at 90.2(A) and (B), it notes what's covered, and what's not covered. I was trying to find a section showing that ranting about the code was either permitted or not, but it's not explicitly stated in either section, therefore rant permitted I suppose? :D
Click to expand...

The NEC is permissive in the way it is written, but as usual for me, I don't have a code section to quote.
 
ptonsparky said:
The NEC is permissive in the way it is written, but as usual for me, I don't have a code section to quote.
Click to expand...
I don't know where this idea of "permissive" came from, but someone hasn't read Section 90.5(A). (I almost always cite my backup)
 
rbalex said:
I don't know where this idea of "permissive" came from, but someone hasn't read Section 90.5(A). (I almost always cite my backup)
Click to expand...
Correct, but if it is not specifically prohibited, by default wouldn't it be allowed?

I may be required to use a #12 AWG but I most certainly am not prohibited from using a #10 AWG. I may be required to supply two circuits to the kitchen counters but nothing says I cannot supply twenty if I so desire. Permissive.
 
rbalex said:
I don't know where this idea of "permissive" came from, but someone hasn't read Section 90.5(A). (I almost always cite my backup)
Click to expand...

The permissive idea comes from basic due process. The only reason you are required to follow the NEC at all is because some governmental entity forces you to by law. if the rules that are adopted don't cover something, due process means they don't cover it so if something is not prohibited it is not prohibited.
 
Someone once explained it to me as "if it doesn't say you can't, then you can."

Yes you can run three wire sizes bigger if you want, but you can't trim the wires to fit on the breaker.
 
cowboyjwc said:
Someone once explained it to me as "if it doesn't say you can't, then you can."

Yes you can run three wire sizes bigger if you want, but you can't trim the wires to fit on the breaker.
Click to expand...
And the Code explains it in terms of shall and shall not. Anyone that believes exceeding requirements or executing non-prohibited work is "permissive" is whistling in the dark. ​
 
rbalex said:
And the Code explains it in terms of shall and shall not. Anyone that believes exceeding requirements or executing non-prohibited work is "permissive" is whistling in the dark. ​
Click to expand...
Does the code permit you to exceed requirements?
 
It is a code requirement

It is a code requirement

Providing code references is self-defeating. If something is against code, then it is against code regardless of any alleged code references. The main thing is to always have lots of coffee and doughnuts for inspectors. It is a code requirement! !
 
I'd love to give Code references only :D In my area, 600 sq miles, there are probably 10 Code books and most of are paper weights. I have to give explanations and then await 3 phone calls.
 
I'm actually thinking that I will only write the code section instead of writing down what the correction is. That will force the contractor to actually open up his code book and see what he did wrong. 210.5(A)(1)..... have a nice day.
 
cowboyjwc said:
I'm actually thinking that I will only write the code section instead of writing down what the correction is. That will force the contractor to actually open up his code book and see what he did wrong. 210.5(A)(1)..... have a nice day.
Click to expand...


I would much prefer that rather than argue with the inspector about things that I know are correct, like not needing bushings in steel stud to run ENT through. Or " dining room baseboard electrical boxes set too far back".
 
wyboy said:
Providing code references is self-defeating. If something is against code, then it is against code regardless of any alleged code references. The main thing is to always have lots of coffee and doughnuts for inspectors. It is a code requirement! !
Click to expand...

I think the OPs point is towards those who say, "It's against Code" or "It's required by the Code" simply because that's the way 'they have always done it' or 'the way they were taught'. Which sometimes is simply wrong.

No wire nuts in a panel is a classic example. Many will harp on that one, saying it's a violation. Yet, they never bother to actually try and look it up. 15a devices on 20a circuits. Feeding a 200a panel with a 100a breaker. Using a 3-pole breaker in a single-phase panel. Or using just one pole of a 2- or 3-pole breaker. Or you must ALWAYS have the circuit neutral at every switch location. Or that 3-ways are required for hallways and stairways. Ad nauseam. Ad infinitum. Ad astra.

The Urban Legend Electrical Code is chock full of them.
 
Around here, the inspectors do include code section when providing a written inspection failure.

I personally have never seen one. :roll:



I've had an inspector tell me he'd never heard of a reduced conductor on the high leg of an open delta, despite that he's been inspecting in the older parts of Richmond for years, where high-leg deltas abound. He hadn't written it up, and he humbly apologized after conferring with a colleague.
 
cowboyjwc said:
I'm actually thinking that I will only write the code section instead of writing down what the correction is. That will force the contractor to actually open up his code book and see what he did wrong. 210.5(A)(1)..... have a nice day.
Click to expand...
IMO as an inspector you shouldn't be writing down the correction - many times there is more then one possible "correction" that can apply. Your job is to find the violation and present the rule that is in violation. Nothing wrong with suggestions on how to correct it, but possible solutions shouldn't be limited to your suggestion either.
 
wyboy said:
Providing code references is self-defeating. If something is against code, then it is against code regardless of any alleged code references. The main thing is to always have lots of coffee and doughnuts for inspectors. It is a code requirement! !
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:, works every time!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top