• 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.

On the other side of the permit...

Glenn

Glenn

REGISTERED
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
889
Location
Denver
I'm a code administrator, but I've been working on a home renovation at my own place. A detached workshop with breezeway patio between it and the house, and a conversion of the old garage to living space.

I have been wiring the shop, the old one car garage into a dining room and office, and rewiring many of the circuits in my 1950's home. I need to vent. Now is time for my wine and cheese.

I HATE THE NEC.

It's been a while since my last project involving electrical work (2005 NEC). I can't believe how much more expensive everything is with the new code requirements (and economy). AFCI on any circuit I barely touch inside the house, tamper resistant receptacles in my freaking workshop!!! If the kids are in there...its because I WANT them in there. Seriously...we have to protect unattended children playing with outlets while they crawl around a workshop full of dangers??? ARGGGHHHH!!! There are a million saws and electric tools that are way more fun to "tamper" with. Freaking GFCI crap EVERYWHERE. I wanted a lot of circuits, since I envision me and three teenagers working on stuff out there. I can't believe how many GFCI's I had to buy. My deck is a big outdoor living environment, so I wanted lots of available power outside. That was until I started pricing out a wet-use, tamper resistant, GFCI with an in-use cover. UGLY AND FREAKING EXPENSIVE. Wiring my three way switches...seriously...I have to run another wire for a neutral... I'm pretty sure that was due to the increased use of occupancy sensors from the energy code...but that stretches to my workshop!!??!! Just so I can turn on the exhaust fan from the loft or the entry door. Limited on space in my old (not original) panel due to AFCI's making me over scrutinize how I upgrade my electrical. Gotta run all new home runs through the attic to junction on the other side, but I can't make life easier by pulling a multi-circuit three wire...no, no...then I have to buy really, really expensive AFCI's. ARRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!! I could get so much more done, so much better, if this damn code wasn't in the way.

I can't believe how grounded my house and shop is now. CEE and ground rods all over. Nuts.

I hate the NEC.

Soon this will all just be a horrible memory and financial debt, but I will never forget how insane this code has become. It has changed me as a code administrator. It is undue hardship on my fellow countrymen.

After inspection...every TR outlet that gives me trouble is OUT. I'm keeping my receipts. YES...I said it. I also said this...

...I hate the NEC.

Now I feel better...off to pull new home runs through my attic and hard-wire some smokies. The latter is an electrical upgrade that will actually provide some benefit to my family. I'd post some pictures of the construction just for fun, but I don't want the online inspection reports.

Post up your experiences of being... "on the other side". How did it change your perspective.

NOTE: My local inspectors are not the target of my beef...just the code that they (and I) have to enforce in our jobs.
 
Glenn said:
I'd post some pictures of the construction just for fun, but I don't want the online inspection reports.
Click to expand...
Aw come on Glenn....give us a shot
 
Glenn, you have my empathy. Since the ICC became the electrical manufacturer's pimp; and allow them to add a new unnecessary product to code requirements every three years; it has become more and more distressing for buyers, builders and electrical contractors. There is no basis for requiring these new items every three years. Uncle Bob
 
This one isn't ICC's fault.. it's IAEI's fault (In't *** of Elec Insp).. they promulgate the NEC code changes. having said that.. it's apparently becoming the code enforcer's job to take the place of parents.

How many of us grew up with all the "safety"? (my guess is none).. lead paint, ungrounded receptacles.. and YET, we managed to survive.. *whew* were we lucky!
 
The NEC is NFPA 70 which is developed and sold by NFPA. ICC has very little to do with it. What I hate is the format NFPA uses.
 
A little example of why things are what they are for those that whine about change. I will tell you that I have zero sympathy. In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing and I am happy that it is at least recognized that it will eventually be a memory.

Tamper Proof Receptacles. Lets take a look at that. Was it the manufacturers that pushed for them? No, not even close. It was the CPSC

The CPSC knew that they existed because they were required in certain situations within NEC 517

The CPSP came armed with 10 years of data. In a 10 year period there were 25,000 documented cases of children 8 years of age and under who had visits to the emergency room after electric shock from putting objects in receptacles. They only counted documented emergency room visits and they only counted children 8 years of age and younger.

The manufacturers had nothing to do with that code change. It was data from the CPSC. The ICC has nothing to do with implementation of code changes in the NFPA 70, aka National Electrical Code.

I am sorry if I seem a bit harsh but as much as people like to whine, so do I.
 
I noticed this guy in the video added "death" and "or died" to his presentation. I went to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and found nothing. Here is another link that states about 100 per year die; http://www.marshallbrain.com/cp/electrical-outlets.htm. But that is not the point. My Apologies, I was not aware that the ICC was required to adopt all NEC code requirements for residential applications (IRC). I've been out of the loop for a few years. When did this take place?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is my personal opinion that the ICC should refer to the NEC instead of copying and pasting bits and pieces of it to the IRC. I know a lot of work went into that and I spoke with the man from the ICC that did most of that work. I just think that the NEC is a stand alone and there was no reason to reinvent the wheel. I also feel that this watered down the electrical inspectors as the IRC is simple 75 pages of electrical and the test is a joke. Again, my personal opinion. Many will not agree with it.

A prime example is a standby generator for a house. Where do you find it in the IRC? Nowhere. You have to use the NEC, which is a code that you don't even have to know what it looks like to pass the IRC electrical exam.
 
jar546 said:
It is my personal opinion that the ICC should refer to the NEC instead of copying and pasting bits and pieces of it to the IRC. I know a lot of work went into that and I spoke with the man from the ICC that did most of that work. I just think that the NEC is a stand alone and there was no reason to reinvent the wheel. I also feel that this watered down the electrical inspectors as the IRC is simple 75 pages of electrical and the test is a joke. Again, my personal opinion. Many will not agree with it. A prime example is a standby generator for a house. Where do you find it in the IRC? Nowhere. You have to use the NEC, which is a code that you don't even have to know what it looks like to pass the IRC electrical exam.
Click to expand...
I do disagree. The IRC is a "stand-alone residential code establishing minimum regulations for one-and two-family dwellings and town-houses" (Preface and Introduction in the IRC) and R102.4 (excerpt) "Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply". The NFPA 70, on the other hand states; "This Code is purely advisory as far as NFPA is concerned".
 
Uncle Bob said:
I do disagree. The IRC is a "stand-alone residential code establishing minimum regulations for one-and two-family dwellings and town-houses" (Preface and Introduction in the IRC) and R102.4 (excerpt) "Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply". The NFPA 70, on the other hand states; "This Code is purely advisory as far as NFPA is concerned".
Click to expand...
I did a PDF search of the NFPA 70 and cannot find that language. It is a code like any other, if adopted is meant to be enforced. Maybe you can show me where to find it.
 
jar546 said:
I did a PDF search of the NFPA 70 and cannot find that language. It is a code like any other, if adopted is meant to be enforced. Maybe you can show me where to find it.
Click to expand...
Look on page 70-1 of the 2008 edition next to last paragraph which goes on to say it is available for use in law and regulatory purposes--The NEC is only a good idea until some legal authority adopts it by reference. Of course NFPA takes strong legal actions to make sure it is the only available model electrical code available in the US.
 
Nothing is stopping any other entity from writing their own electrical code. The ICC does not, it simply works with the NFPA for approval on wording changes and use of language.
 
As Frank pointed out it is page 70-1, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, 1st sentence. The NFPA 70 (NEC 2008), on the other hand states; "This Code is purely advisory as far as NFPA is concerned". Sorry I should have referenced the page.

This idea that the NFPA controls "all" electrical code requirements comes up every once in a while. The IRC is a stand alone code (and the only one I'm aware of). Electricians normally see the NEC as their bible; however, they need to be aware that there are other code requirements they need to address. An example that I run into every once in a while is 2009 IRC (and back to the 2000), R311.5.2 Headroom . The minimum headroom in all parts of the stairway shall not be less than 6 feet 8 inches. I see light fixtures in stairways set on walls overhanging the stairway, less than 6 feet above the adjoining tread nosing or from the floor surface of the landing or platform. When I bring this up they usually point out that it is not in the NEC. No it is not and should be part of any good training program that the IRC is the authority, where adopted and not the NEC unless an amendment is adopted.

Uncle Bob
 
jar546 said:
A little example of why things are what they are for those that whine about change. I will tell you that I have zero sympathy. In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing and I am happy that it is at least recognized that it will eventually be a memory.Tamper Proof Receptacles. Lets take a look at that. Was it the manufacturers that pushed for them? No, not even close. It was the CPSC

The CPSC knew that they existed because they were required in certain situations within NEC 517

The CPSP came armed with 10 years of data. In a 10 year period there were 25,000 documented cases of children 8 years of age and under who had visits to the emergency room after electric shock from putting objects in receptacles. They only counted documented emergency room visits and they only counted children 8 years of age and younger.

The manufacturers had nothing to do with that code change. It was data from the CPSC. The ICC has nothing to do with implementation of code changes in the NFPA 70, aka National Electrical Code.

I am sorry if I seem a bit harsh but as much as people like to whine, so do I.
Click to expand...
Walter Williams said
If we look to benefits only, we'll do darn near anything because there's always a benefit
Click to expand...
10 years equates to 2,500 per year out of about 34 million children 5 and younger. Every benefit has a cost. The question is when does the benefit out weigh the cost. Should we lower the national speed limit to 30 MPH because reduced speeds save lives? Do we allow warrantless search and seizures because we may find evidence to convict a suspected criminal. I think everybody would answer no to those questions. We need to apply the same thinking to the code adoption process. All benefits come with a cost. How much and is it justified and reasonable and who really benefits should be considered.
 
Tamper proof receptacles have an increase cost of about $40-$50 per house based on 75-80 receptacles for the average house. I fail to see the issue except for those that don't like to be told what to do and how to do it. I think they are easily justified without question. Why have codes at all? Just look at the pictures ICE posts where they people are caught working without a permit and some where they are. I guess my military background makes it easier for me to follow and enforce the rules.
 
What causes a person to only be able to see one side of an issue? I see both sides of this issue and both make good points. Mtlogcabin is brave to ask the question asked. How much regulation and expense should the general population bear to protect an individual from any specific "cause of harm"? Did the reports give evidence of how many lives may have been saved by using alternative plug-in safety caps for recepts, (the kind we use in my old home)? Should we require child proof latches on cabinet doors and child safety guards at the top of all stairs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not for or against tamper proof receptacles. I am against emotional reasoning for code adoption.

IMC 1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps or shall be otherwise secured to prevent unauthorized access.

How many enforce this portion of the code? This was an emotionally driven testimony that played on the hearts of the committee members.
 
"Should we lower the national speed limit to 30 MPH because reduced speeds save lives?"

Yes....and then we can stop all of that senseless paving.....think of the money we will save!... :)
 
[ I'd post some pictures of the construction just for fun, but I don't want the online inspection reports.

What's the matter? chicken?

BS
 
mtlogcabin said:
I am not for or against tamper proof receptacles. I am against emotional reasoning for code adoption. IMC 1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps or shall be otherwise secured to prevent unauthorized access.

How many enforce this portion of the code? This was an emotionally driven testimony that played on the hearts of the committee members.
Click to expand...
Absolutely insane. Too much of government in our houses and businesses. The one that gets me most is that every time I put my visor down in my vehicle I've got to look at his rediculous and distracting yellow sign telling me about seat belts and how dumb I am if I don't use them, watch out for kids, don't run over squirrels, blablabla.

BSSTG
 
mtlogcabin said:
I am not for or against tamper proof receptacles. I am against emotional reasoning for code adoption. IMC 1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps or shall be otherwise secured to prevent unauthorized access.

How many enforce this portion of the code? This was an emotionally driven testimony that played on the hearts of the committee members.
Click to expand...
What about the opening restrictions on windows located more than 72 inches above the finish grade? I was there for the testimony in Overland Park in 2004. I'm sorry, but since when is the lack of parenting the job of a code official?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top