ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Teaching the NEC and Electrical Safdety, It is Not Easy!!

gasparky56's and iwire's posts perfectly illustrate my apparent working situation.

BTW, Tomorrow, I'll be opening the panel that the inspector retorqued. If the test-marks are off-kilter enough to show up in a macro-pix, I'll post some...



Getting enforcement is the key...

First someone should be familiar with electrical construction. Guys read a self-help book on how to wire a receptacle and think they can go take a code class and understand it.

Secondly, before anybody takes a code class they should learn about and understand theory.

Do you know how many guys don't install main bond screws because they really don't understand what it does.

Third, depending on what portions of the code you are teaching you need to teach it in a different way. When it comes to grounding guys have to see pictures to understand what happens when there is a short. If you're teaching about load calculations understanding a step by step approach is much more valuable.

Teaching the NEC is easy if you have two students and hundreds of hours to explain the difference between the letter of the law and concepts and how to apply them in everyday application.

Having 30 or 40 students will surely leave somebody lacking in truly understanding something. But that's why I tell them to come here and get involved.

This bulletin board is simply the best method for learning if someone truly wants to learn about code.

Long live the board!!!

Hope this post is in proper taste

I do not have too much difficulty when it comes to interpreting a certain article in the NEC, primarily due to being
exposed to so many Manuals written in a Technical Standard method.

Early on, I found the difficult part was more of the navigation methods, rather than the article themselves. It would
make more sense to me if the NEC had less articles referenced by other articles, and in place snip a small quote of
the referred article. Where multiple references are needed, this could cut down page thumb nailing quite a bit!
This would, of course, add more pages to the code book, requiring it to be larger and include more labor.
This would be my only feasible request, but it's more like the way I would conceive it written (like more towards the
"hard-core" Technical Standards Protocol), and is definitely not the way someone else would like it written!

As to the articles themselves, I have been able to figure out most of the stuff without difficulty. Have mis-interpreted
some here and there, but fortunately did not make too big of an a@# of of myself!

Although, in the past I have not formally instructed persons on NEC interpretations, I have many times helped
co-workers and others to interpret a certain article's intent. In the near future, I will be responsible for training
personnel for all aspects of installations, and this will include NEC (and CEC) knowledge also.

The most common situation I have found when someone asks assistance with NEC article interpretation is the
wordage (Tech. Standards), next is navigation. I can help them catch the navigation methods much easier than article
interpretation. When I explain the protocol of the writing, it makes them even more confused! So far have found to
give them a simple and brief example of a certain article, then try mentioning the "Limits" type terms as being just that
- a minimum or maximum.

Really would like to have more accurate and helpful methods of training for NEC articles.

BTW, a very difficult thing and cause of overall confusion when discussing an article's interpretation (in hind-sight
most of the time), is when an Inspector mistakenly misinterprets an article and issues a non-compliance / correction
notice on something. Not that this occurs a lot, but it does occur.
Sometimes an Electrician will not realize when the CEC, or a local code is used, which brings up a whole bunch of
confusion! This happens more than the Inspector misquotes!

To sum this up, I will be posting a new topic in regards to color coding the GEC in a panel. Looking for any and all
suggested methods.

Scott35 S.E.T.

An inspector in a North Carolina county just across the state line from me,will at times,for a minor infraction call the ec on his cell and say "I think you need another nail guard in this master bedroom". He does this especially for contractors he is familiar with and who do normally excellent work.He's a good guy and a sharp ahj.If you can go to the job and fix it while he's there he won't red tag it.I've heard a lot of carping from ec's who do marginal work at best,about "favoritism" My question is would any of the ahj's here consider this unethical? Or does he just know the difference in an oversight and crappy work?I prefer to think it's the latter. I know this is alittle off the subject but I'd like to get you ahj's input. Russell

[This message has been edited by ga.sparky56 (edited 02-25-2003).]

"The inspector retorqued"?

Inspectors have no business working on a permit inspection, period.

He is not the one who pulled the permit.

He is not the one that has liability or insurance to cover any work he performs.

He is not the contractor.

He may ask you to retourque the panel in his presence.

You, as the permit holder, affirms by your signature, that the work will be done in a professional and workmanlike manner. You have the responsibility and the liability.

Wow! Here in Ohio, I have never heard of any activity like this.

Dave

GaSparky56:
Dependent on the job, and the EC, I also will "call" and explain a minor infraction on a rough. Time permitting, I will stop back that day, or the next and give the approval sticker.
Basically, the same for a final, IF TIME PERMITS.
Most of the time it's 15 inspections, in a 32 square mile twp.
I know "both sides of the fence" and try to be as fair as possible.
John

Joe:
The instructor that I'm filling in for is using Mike Holt's NEC Test Prep.

I have a course for spring term, (basics), that I will be getting ready for within the next two weeks.

John

I think overall the NEC does its job, to say there are no discrepencies is naive.
Sparky makes a good point. One of my pet peeves is 250.130(C). primarily running a seperate equipment grounding conductor, by itself to ensure a ground fault path.
In the handbook it gives this code reference and in the next block the handbook goes on to explain why its a bad idea to do this because it inherantly increases the inductive reactance of the circuit ergo increasing the impedance of the circuit, thus reducing the Effectiveness of the ground fault path.
In Soars book on grounding they write about a similar situation where they use 4/0 cable and conduit and the set-up places one grounding conductor 1 foot away from the conductor supplying the fault( there are a few return pathes) but the conductor placed at the 1-foot distance carries little current.
In comparison to the conduit.
So we have 250.130(C) which allows this practice and again in 410.18 exception.
But as soon as you turn to 300.3(B) it clearly says all conductors shall be in the same raceway, because of the described reduction of impedance with grouped conductors.
These are inconsistancies in the code that are dangerous. It used to beyou could run that extra wire to the first cold water pipe, but that part was dropped.
Thats my two-cents worth.
If I offended anybody that was not my intent.

WOC

We redid our kitchen, and as homeowner
added some outlets that the codes of
the 1950s didn't ask for. Looked up
the parts of the code to see what is
needed for kitchens nowadays. "No
point of a kitchen counter shall be
beyond 24 inches (as measured along the
wall) from an outlet". Okay, but in
my case, there would be a foot or so
of counter where the sink will be that
would be further. I couldn't see putting
an outlet right behind the sink.

Well, when I visited town hall to get the
permits, I talked with the inspector and
asked about that. He said that the
sink area of the countertops is not
counted. But the code book didn't
mention that (at least in the chapter
and verses on kitchens that I could find).
Maybe there was a passage defining what
a kitchen countertop is?

As it turned out, I only missed one thing
for the rough inspection: I didn't
have the green pigtail grounding wires
that are used to connect the metal box
to the green screw on the outlets.
I used "BX" cable and metal boxes. I
went to the store and bought some and
put them in, later that day the inspector
passed me.

For the final inspection, he used a special
test box to check that the GFCIs did in
fact work correctly. Also shows if I
got the polarity and grounding right.
He said that the box slowly ramps up
a fault current from hot to ground, and
he wants to see the GFCI trip out before
it hits 7 ma. They did. He didn't like
the Hubbell outlets I used downstream of
the GFCIs, "These don't grab the plugs
too well". But he passed it. You have
to push a bit to get a plug to seat into
the Hubbell outlets (the industrial grade
"fed spec" ones).

I'm sure he looked at my work much closer
than a job done by an electrician that
he knows the quality of work of. As he
should, I could have gotten some basic
thing wrong.

Back to my point that somehow the code
as written seemed to forget to mention
about sinks in countertops. But more
than likely it is mentioned elsewhere,
and a real electrician would know.