jar546
CBO
Can anyone find any legitimate reason to cite an actual code violation?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
It's Not an Egress Window
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
TIGER code
Section: 101.1 Not Allowed in My Town
Section: 101.1 Not Allowed in My Town
steveray
SAWHORSE
If there is nothing on attachment of the enclosure, probably not....Is the window required for ventilation?
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Assuming this is a nonrated building and the window is not for escape, my other questions would be:
- Is the enclosure NEMA rated to be exposed to water? It appears there is an overflow drain or condensate drain above it.
- Is the fence within the NEC required working clearances?
- Unrelated to electrical: is that patchy area to the left indicative of a CMU wall, or is it a wood wall with an incomplete weatherproofing system?
jar546
CBO
NEMA 3 Exterior Meter/Main Combo.
No idea. Photos sent to me by the owner.
Yes
Aren't all windows? I'll find out if it's a bathroom. Really, really small window.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
110.12 Mechanical execution of work
110.13 (A) Mounting
300.5 Earth Movement. Conduit needs a slip-joint
110.13 (A) Mounting
300.5 Earth Movement. Conduit needs a slip-joint
jar546
CBO
They don't even know that this is down here. No frost and nothing but sand.
steveray
SAWHORSE
The Earth still moves...It revolves around the NEC doesn't it?
The lack of discoloration on the wall leads me away from that draining water.
jar546
CBO
jar546
CBO
So for the record, this was rejected just to let you know.
wwhitney
REGISTERED
No NEC violations, just a violation of good taste.
110.12: "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner." This language is vague and hence unenforceable.
110.13(A) "Electrical equipment shall be firmly secured to the surface on which it is mounted." There is plenty of overlap to do this. Panels are mounted on interrupted surfaces all the time, like poles.
300.5 Earth Movement--not relevant to the question in the OP. Also the picture doesn't extend down to the ground, and we don't know how the connected horizontal underground conduit was installed, so we can't say there's a violation.
Cheers, Wayne
110.12: "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner." This language is vague and hence unenforceable.
110.13(A) "Electrical equipment shall be firmly secured to the surface on which it is mounted." There is plenty of overlap to do this. Panels are mounted on interrupted surfaces all the time, like poles.
300.5 Earth Movement--not relevant to the question in the OP. Also the picture doesn't extend down to the ground, and we don't know how the connected horizontal underground conduit was installed, so we can't say there's a violation.
Cheers, Wayne
Yikes
SAWHORSE
No, not all windows are required by code for ventilation.
We'd need to know (1) the applicable code under which the window was installed; (2) the use of the room - - specifically if it is a "bathroom", a room wth a bathing fixture in the room (IBC 1202.5.2.1); (3) whether there is other mechanical ventilation for the room served by the window; (4) whether the window was installed for the purpose of providing makeup or combustion air to some component in the room.
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
Does the meter socket have the feeder entrance hole where the conduit is located, does the feeder have to enter on the left or could the installer placed the hole more to the right?
jar546
CBO
The wire from FPL is too short for them to move it so they will have to get them to change out the lateral or find some slack from the POCO transformer.
jar546
CBO
Is is absolutely enforceable which is why it exists.
wwhitney
REGISTERED
110.12 violates the NEC Style Guide, which says in 3.2.1 "The documents shall not contain references or requirements that are unenforceable or vague. The terms contained in Table 3.2.1 shall be reviewed in context, and if the resulting requirement is unenforceable or vague, the term shall not be used." Table 3.2.1 includes both the terms "Neat" and "Workmanlike".
110.12 is vague and unenforceable. It's like a requirement that says "electrical installations shall not be ugly." There is no objective standard to apply.
Now, if 110.13(A) on Mounting included a requirement like "Any enclosure with a face larger than 12" x 12" installed against a wall shall be supported within 3" of each corner of that face," that's an objective standard and we can say that the picture in the OP violates it. But 110.13(A) does not say that, and the picture in the OP is not an NEC violation.
Cheers, Wayne
What code section was cited?
Yikes
SAWHORSE
He reviews the specifics of ANSI/NECA 1-2015 (Standard for Good Workmanship in Electrical Construction) and tries to see if he can extract an objective definition of "neat and workmanlike".
jar546
CBO
None. The owner asked me to look at it in person, and when I got there, he told me they had decided to properly install it and were replacing it.
While I was there, I told him the location it was currently in was a violation of NEC 110.26 for working space because of the CMU wall which was at an angle was only 24" away from the right-front side of the MM-Combo.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Is that how drafting guides work in the US?
In Canada, they dictate how code must be created, but you could not use the drafting guide as a form of collateral attack on the base code language. Rather, the fact that the drafting guide exists and the code language exists, would largely be considered as evidence that the language is not vague in this case.
It feels awkward to allow what is functionally a policy document to overrule a standard that is adopted into law. Do you have case law on this subject?
jar546
CBO
Wayne, the NEC Style Guide isn’t law or code, it’s just a guideline for committees drafting future editions, so it has no impact on what’s enforceable. NEC 110.12 has been in place for decades and is routinely enforced because “neat and workmanlike” has an industry-accepted meaning backed by NFPA guidance and best practices. Plenty of NEC sections require AHJ interpretation, like 300.4 (“subject to physical damage”) and the rules for service disconnect location, which don’t specify exact distances but leave it to the AHJ to determine what’s acceptable. Courts have upheld this authority. Hagans v. Wal-Mart confirmed that just because a code requires judgment doesn’t mean it’s unenforceable. The NEC is full of provisions that require AHJ discretion, and that discretion carries legal weight. If your argument were valid, half the NEC wouldn’t be enforceable, which obviously isn’t the case. Ok, so I embellished. not half, but a lot.
jar546
CBO
And that is precisely what you don't seem to understand about this industry. Not everything is specific, but those in the industry understand why not everything can be or should be specific.