You can't be serious. A very bad NEC interpretation

[ICE]

All of those photos by ICE could have easily been installed correctly and compliant with NEC 110.26. The laziness to allow this to happen astounds me.

First of all you don't know what I let go....secondly, if I write every violation that I come across it marks me as rigid and over the top with corrections. If, in my opinion a FUSED disconnect is difficult to reach as well as lacking the letter of the law compliance with 110.26 it will be written up. But clearly that is not always the case.

And Jeff, you are the first person to tell me that I am lazy...

The code section states that the space shall be safe. Who but the inspector decides if the space is safe.
110.26 Spaces about electrical equipment.
Access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.

In this picture that craptastic condenser could be legal if it stuck out no more than six inches from the face of the disconnect but ten inches is a violation. I wouldn't do this if it were mine but it seems picky to ding them for four inches.



The next one almost complied with 110.26. Ah but it missed by two inches. Tell me this....how about if it missed by six inches.



Is this so much worse?



I could have just as easily written the next one up.

 

[jar546]

seems picky to ding them for four inches

Why do you feel the need to come up with excuses for contractors and enable their continued non-compliance? You had the opportunity to teach others how to do work code compliant. What about the contractors who always do it right? It is those that make excuses for others that enable them, drag down the industry and never help make others better by holding them to the minimum standard. You held them to a less than minimum standard which means you did not do your job. I am not sorry for my attitude but after 20 years of helping others and holding them to a minimum standard, there are a lot of great electricians out there that are proud of their work and happy that I showed them the way. I never had to try to justify why I did not do my job. Too harsh or too real?

 

[ICE]

Is it too late to apologize? Not

 

[Glenn]

I have faced this interpretation issue for many years teaching decks, and I hate it. If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?

In both my ICC deck books where I must work with the opinions of their technical editors, I have had to state that the AC and disconnect fall under these clearances, however, I also state that the section is very broad in referring to "electrical equipment" and then the list of potential activities. I state that a building official is meant to interpret the code for their community in a reasonable manner. I think ICE has provided examples of that.

In my own independent education, I teach deck builders they could run into an inspector that will call them on this, which could potentially end completely a back deck project, or reduce it's size or design. When I teach inspectors deck codes, I encourage them to be reasonable about this 6-6 thing.

My primary issue with applying AC and their disconnects to working clearance is the absurd 6-6 height. A finished basement can be two inches lower at 6-4 (beams, ducts "obstructions') and no one questions their ability to perform any task underneath in. We expect a firefighter to rescue someone from a window under a deck 3 feet off the ground and carry them for a limitless distance.

I got AC in my house when my daughter was born. She is 20 now. The disco has never been pulled. I need a new AC so badly. No, the condenser has never been serviced. I am a typical American.

 

[jar546]

If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?

Yes, yes it does. If you want to build a new deck then move the AC equipment to a new location or move the location of your new deck. It happens all the time. It cost money to do the things you want and you should be prepared to pay to do things right. There are people in my town with AC equipment and generators on flat roofs because they can't fit them on the property and meet setbacks because they chose to build a house as big as they possibly can. If you want a deck, then do the necessary work so as not to create an code violation. A deck is not a necessity, it is a choice and if you can afford to build a deck, you can afford to build it to the minimum standards without creating an electrical violation. If you want to install AC in your house, place the condensing unit in a code compliant location. It is rather simple.

To elude to the fact that building officials need to "interpret" the code in a way that suits those who don't want to pay to comply when they can is unreasonable and detracts from the industry. Our job is not to make excuses for others that are too lazy to do and design jobs the right way.

What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.

 

[Mark K]

What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.

Agree but this goes both ways since the building official also cannot impose additional requirements.

 

[Mark K]

If you do not like the code provision propose a code change.

If possible try to understand how the authors of this code section interpret it. Then try to understand why it is the way it is. What problem is the code provision attempting to solve?

 

[jar546]

Agree but this goes both ways since the building official also cannot impose additional requirements.

That is correct.

 

[jar546]

If possible try to understand how the authors of this code section interpret it. Then try to understand why it is the way it is. What problem is the code provision attempting to solve?

When you do research and go through the code-panel minutes, you have a better understanding of the intent. In this case, electrical disconnects for AC equipment is required to comply with NEC 110.26 and it does not matter if you want to build a deck or not.

 

[ICE]

You're a funny guy Jeff. Because I disagree with you, you have labeled me as lazy and accused me of willful negligence. Somehow you got the idea that I have a need to be liked. I could consider all of that a compliment in that the alternative would be that I am just plain ignorant.....but wait a minute, I saw that too. Were any of that true I would have gone a lot further in my career.

You toil in what can best be described as a little pond. Not that it's a bad thing. After all, somebody has to be there so it might as well be you. I on the other hand spent decades in an ocean. Inspectors in little ponds might write thirty corrections in a week....I doubled that daily more often than not. Hardly fits with being lazy.

As to willful negligence driven by a need to be liked, well what can I say about that. ..... You're kidding me right??? Look at the content and volume of what I have posted at this forum. I had thousands of coworkers and worked with thousands of contractors, damn few liked me..... Willful negligence my ass..... Need to be liked??? I don't even have a dog.

I am now going to show you two examples of an average day. Both are related to working space about electrical equipment.

This is a picture of a patio cover and the inspection was for lath. I was filling in for an inspector and had not been there before. Framing, rough electrical and rough plumbing had been signed off.




Next is a major remodel/addition that included HVAC and a swimming pool. As in the first example I was filling in and had not been there before. The inspection requested was a pre-plaster for the swimming pool. Pre-plaster is tantamount to a final in that the pool is then filled with water in order to cure the plaster. The job card had all of the necessary signatures for the pool and equipment. The mechanical permit was signed for final before I got there.









That is not an unusual day. So you would birth a cow over a condenser disconnect that's off by four inches? I suppose you would drop a herd over these.

I was a contracted inspector after I retired from LA County. In those examples, and many more, I simply refused to proceed. ..... too many .... the work dried up.

Jeff, I can tell you that your plan checker's forum has become a source of comic relief. Seeing the things that get people excited, the violations that flummox, the marshaled clueless troops, life in a small pond....well that's worth the price of admission.

 

[Glenn]

Yes, yes it does. If you want to build a new deck then move the AC equipment to a new location or move the location of your new deck. It happens all the time. It cost money to do the things you want and you should be prepared to pay to do things right. There are people in my town with AC equipment and generators on flat roofs because they can't fit them on the property and meet setbacks because they chose to build a house as big as they possibly can. If you want a deck, then do the necessary work so as not to create an code violation. A deck is not a necessity, it is a choice and if you can afford to build a deck, you can afford to build it to the minimum standards without creating an electrical violation. If you want to install AC in your house, place the condensing unit in a code compliant location. It is rather simple.

To elude to the fact that building officials need to "interpret" the code in a way that suits those who don't want to pay to comply when they can is unreasonable and detracts from the industry. Our job is not to make excuses for others that are too lazy to do and design jobs the right way.

What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.

Respectfully, I would not want to live in your community. You have put all your faith in the NFPA over the reality of the Americans you serve. I'm really surprised by how dismissive you are in regard to the desires, dreams, and limitations of your fellow Americans. I'm surprised you did not respond to why a basement can be 6-4 but not under a deck. I'm surprised that all you respond with is arguments to prove the NFPA as the unquestionable truth. Why not be willing to have a conversation with fellow professionals about what should be or could be, not what has been declared from above. This forum should encourage and inspire professionals to argue the real value of these glorious codes to The People, not just prepare warriors to go to private homes and cut people down with words in a book.

Perhaps it's a decade of participation in the ICC code development process that has shown me the ivory tower of "code" is no more than the opinions of the most vocal and effective speakers that show up. The codes must constantly be challenged to represent BALANCE between all aspects of the built environment, not just safety. They must allow the voice of all opinions and experiences to be heard, not just those able to invest in the process for a return. The end user, The People, should be the number one concern, and I know first hand that is not the motivation of everyone involved in creating them.

I want to live in a community whose building authority serves me, not the NFPA. I want the NFPA to be a tool used to serve me and my neighbors, not a master we must unquestionably bow to, and never dare question. I say this as someone with respect for the NFPA and their codes, but I do not put anything on any pedestal of perfection that cannot be challenged. I believe in the importance of local governance. Governments clearly have no concern in making changes to the I-codes to better serve their communities. I am so confused then why the NEC is so untouchable? I understand there is a qualification necessary to argue the technical parts of electrical services, but a clearance is much more about the human condition than the science of electrons.

Jeff, I already told you both my ICC books provide the guidance you are demanding. So... I challenge you to pretend the NFPA doesn't exist, and sell me on why it is absolutely critical that my AC not be under a deck unless a 6-6 clearance, but I can do anything in a basement under a 6-4 beam. If you can't sell the people on the reason, then we need to challenge it. This forum should be a safe and welcoming conduit for that type of discussion and challenge.

That's why I support it every year as a corporate sponsor. I can read the NFPA docs for free.

 

[bill1952]

Slippery slope.

 

[jar546]

What I find interesting is how easy it is to install a code-compliant AC disconnect or deck, yet we somehow believe that it is imposing and not in the spirit of the community to enforce minimum standards. Sometimes we have to step back from asking why we have to comply with the codes and ask how can comply with the codes. Disconnects can be moved to where they are within sight and still be compliant. A little bit of conduit and wire, and we are all fixed, but apparently, this is too much to ask.

Honestly, what is so difficult about this one safety-related code? I ask why some feel the need to circumvent 110.26 for the good of a deck or because of workload? What is so hard to comply? An extra $200 to move a disconnect is too much but an unnecessary $12,000 deck is not?

I will also state that the NFPA process is over a hundred years old, refined and broken down into panels that review tons of changes and have data to back up their decisions while the ICC is about 20 years old and still has growing pains.

 

[jar546]

Essentially what I am hearing is that although there is a fix to make something code compliant, it is easier to ask the inspector to ignore it. Really?

 

[ICE]

Essentially what I am hearing is that although there is a fix to make something code compliant, it is easier to ask the inspector to ignore it. Really?

You are only hearing what you want to hear.

 

[steveray]

Perhaps it's a decade of participation in the ICC code development process that has shown me the ivory tower of "code" is no more than the opinions of the most vocal and effective speakers that show up. The codes must constantly be challenged to represent BALANCE between all aspects of the built environment, not just safety. They must allow the voice of all opinions and experiences to be heard, not just those able to invest in the process for a return. The end user, The People, should be the number one concern, and I know first hand that is not the motivation of everyone involved in creating them.

Exactly this....but it is worse with NFPA....One fatality where they can sell or mandate a product is too much....With little input from the people that have to enforce it in the field....

 

[jar546]

Exactly this....but it is worse with NFPA....One fatality where they can sell or mandate a product is too much....With little input from the people that have to enforce it in the field....

Did you know that everyone blames manufacturers for the tamper proof receptacle requirement in dwellings. It was already a requirement in the pediatric healthcare setting. The reality is that the CPSC presented a case to the NEC code panel that had documented 10,000 electrocutions for children under the age of 9 and these were just the ones that escalated to the emergency room. The tamper proof receptacle change had nothing to do with manufacturers but most don't know that. It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.

Now that I brought that up. What is so difficult about installing tamper-proof receptacles? The cost factor was negligible. If it saves children from being injured after it was proven that there were 10,000 injured, why should it be questioned?

 

[Glenn]

It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.

This is a desperate and low blow to the professionals in this discussion, and has ended this dialog for me. I need not defend myself or steveray against such childish commentary.

 

[Mark K]

Suggesting that building officials ignore inconvenient code provisions is a suggestion that we participate in an act of civil disobedience. Does this mean that this local consensus replaces the written code? What does this say about our system of laws?

There is another dimension to this. Let us assume the building official ignores a code provision. While this allows you to get a permit and a certificate of completion there is still a code non-compliance, Let us assume that as a result of something related to this non-compliance somebody gets hurt. The individual who consciously decided to ignore the code could be found to be negligent and thus responsible for the bad outcome. So while the building official has no liability the person who decided to violate the code is liable.

If you do not like the code work to change it but do not decide that you will not comply with it.

 

[steveray]

Did you know that everyone blames manufacturers for the tamper proof receptacle requirement in dwellings. It was already a requirement in the pediatric healthcare setting. The reality is that the CPSC presented a case to the NEC code panel that had documented 10,000 electrocutions for children under the age of 9 and these were just the ones that escalated to the emergency room. The tamper proof receptacle change had nothing to do with manufacturers but most don't know that. It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.

Now that I brought that up. What is so difficult about installing tamper-proof receptacles? The cost factor was negligible. If it saves children from being injured after it was proven that there were 10,000 injured, why should it be questioned?

Jeff.....the FACT is that NFPA seems to be over responding to issues..... About 10X more people die on stairs than electrocutions, but we are not outlawing them or changing how we do things because there are acceptable amounts of injuries and deaths.....One girl getting an ice cream in the basement freezer that Shirley had a problem, gets whacked and falls down and hits her head and dies and now we GFCI all basements. She did not die from the electricity, maybe we should outlaw hard floors instead? Or mandate helmets? One guy running from the cops steps on a condenser and gets electrocuted and dies? The wiring was damaged prior which lead to it, maybe GFCI would have saved him so now we GFCI exterior HVAC equipment except for VFD/ mini splits because they can't meet the leakage so obviously they won't kill anyone ...If there ever was a bend to the industry.......Maybe they will have to put a sign on them that says "don't step here when you are running from the cops"?

At least I can be involved in ICC a little easier, not that they have a perfect system either....We need more people that do this every day involved in code development and not just a bunch of industry folks or people unwilling to go against the grain....

 

[jar546]

How about some specific examples of how private industry gets its way with code changes? Glad you asked.

Tesla asked to have the ampacity tables changed to accommodate car charging cables. This was rejected by CMP-12. Tesla then filed an appeal with the motions committee to have the decision by CMP-12 overturned. The required 2/3 majority Tesla needed was not achieved so the tables stand.

My point with this story is that there is a system in place and industry does not always get its way in contrast to popular belief. There is a large cross-section of industry professionals that sit on the NFPA 70 code panels and all changes are taken seriously, and a solid case must be made for the change. In the case I presented to you in the beginning of this reply, private industry lost out.

Again, it is always easy to say things are corrupt, but much harder to try to fix what you believe is corrupt. There are a lot of code panels to join if you want to make a difference.

 

[jar546]

General Cable wanted a change that was denied and like Tesla, General Cable filed an appeal with the Motions Committee to overturn the code panel. Again, private industry did not get their way. You see, there is a process and procedure and it may not be as skewed as one thinks.

 

[jar546]

I will continue my rant.

I looked at 41 NFPA 70 proposed changes for the 2017 cycle. I use 2017 because that is my current NEC for my jurisdiction and I am more familiar with it.
Of the 41
17 proposed changes were from private industry which includes industry organizations.
13 proposed changes were from electrical contractors
0 of the 41 propose changes were from AHJ's
2 proposed changes were from standards organizations
1 proposed change was from an individual
8 proposed changes were from unknown entities or people that I could not determine.

Not one of the 41 had anything to do with requiring new technology, new equipment or expanding. Most of these were clarification changes being proposed and some that would allow certain products to be expanded in their use based on testing data from standards & testing labs.

Everyone has a voice and anyone can propose a change. So if anyone feels so inclined to do so please do. Please submit and justify your change that would create an exception to compliance with 110.26 because of a deck or the fact that it is just too expensive or whatever excuse you have that you can't comply.

 

[bill1952]

About 10X more people die on stairs than electrocutions, but we are not outlawing them or changing how we do things because there are acceptable amounts of injuries and deaths

I'd guess much more than 10 times since stairs result in over $100B in injuries every year, and growing as population ages. The irony is that NFPA 5000 has 7/11 stairs in all occupancies whereas IRC has more hazardous 7 3/4 / 10 - mostly as a result of the NAHB code efforts. Talk about industry influence.

I participate in code development in both organizations, have since late 1980s. I prefer NFPAs consensus and the expertise it brings in the people who vote over ICCs governmental consensus.