ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues I have been doing it for 20 years

Gotta say, this thread brings many issues to light - more than a text reply can show, but nevertheless very serious and real
issues from both sides of the coin.

First off, I must say how much appreciation I have for you, Harold, to "Keep It Real" and also to voice your concerns here.

I have also been "Doing It" for 20 Years (actually more, but 20 Years covers when I knew whaddaheck was going on with the
stuff I was working on!).
In that amount of time, I have dealt with lots and lots of different attitudes in the field + Designing areas - good and bad. I
also watched things change almost over night, as far as the types of equipment installed and used by Clients.

It was apparent many Years back, that not all things will (or should) be installed the same in the future.
Another apparent thing was how to find out the "Right" interpretation of a given article (goes beyond NEC minimum compliance
here).

With that said, I do not fight with Inspectors, just because "I" may have done something different Years back; but then again, I
invite discussion relating to code compliance - with the intentions of learning something new and being sure that either one
(myself or Inspector) is correctly interpreting a given article.

Very rarely is there any conflict with an AHJ, but when there is, I try as hard as possible to keep things in perspective.
That can be difficult when someone from your Company has conflicts with an Inspector, and you are trying to put the fires out.

Most of the Inspectors I have dealt with were in the field for at least 10 years, but decided to 'Branch' into Inspections, and
eventually became full time Inspectors.

Now for some Monkey Wrenches!!!

In California, the NEC is the "Basis" of what the California Electrical Code (CEC) is derived from, and the State-Wide minimum
code to comply to is the CEC (currently, the 2001 CEC - based on 1999 NEC).
While the majority of it "Mirrors" the 1999 NEC, there are a few amendments, which are Specific to California.

In Southern California, there are several local AHJs which have amended the current CEC. City of Los Angeles is one, and
County of Los Angeles is another. Each of these has different amendments to the CEC.
There are a few more areas with City/County local code amendments.

When working in these areas, you have to be familiar with the jurisdiction's compliancy - or end up with a correction notice
referencing an article like:

* 93.0207(n),
or
* P/BC 2001-18

Easily referenced when using the local Electrical code, but try finding articles with numeric structures, like the examples
above, in the NEC.

When people with little experience in these local areas do installs, they typically have compliance issues. Most are resolved
very smoothly and no problems result.

Then there's Murphy's Law!

After trying to put out these types of fires, I feel like "Coles-Law" (thinly sliced Cabbage!).

The last "Coles-Law" scenario for me was, at first a "No-Brainer" in concept - but turned out to be a "Whaddaheck" situation!
The conflict was in regards to distance between two (or more) driven rods.
Thinking "No Problem"? So did I!

My Father was doing a Service Upgrade on a Residential Project. 1 Family Dwelling, 200 Amp Service - upgraded from the
existing 60 amp(???) 120/240V 3 wire, which was also an upgrade version to the original 30 amp (???) 120V 2 wire
Service (remaining in use were the original "Use A Penny to Fix That Pesky Fuse Blowing Problem" fuses).

My Father is a real stickler of the "Did It This Way For 'X' Number Of Years" protocol, so when creating the GES, only drives a
single rod to supplement the Cold Water Electrode.
Calls for Inspection on the Service, receives correction notice about the single rod - prove < 25 Ohms, or drive a second
rod.

Father contacts me to verify what's up with this (the correction notice was written up rather ambiguously, and it took us both
awhile to "De-Code" what it was referring to!).
No articles were quoted.

After determining the thing was referring to the GES, I asked how many rods (if any) were used. Found out only one used, so
suggested to drive an additional rod, and bond it accordingly to the GES - to form a common Electrode.
Also mentioned to drive the second rod NO LESS THAN six feet from the first rod, and if any additional rods are to be
installed, space them NO LESS THAN six feet from any other rods.

He returns to the job, drives a second rod six feet from the other rod, connects it as needed, then reschedules Inspection.

Receives ANOTHER Correction Notice! This time it says the rod CANNOT BE MORE THAN SIX FEET FROM ANY OTHER
ELECTRODE - including the previously driven rod.

Father contacts me again, this time is pissed off at me for giving him bunk information!

To sum things up, there is still an on-going issue within that jurisdiction, as to how far the rods must be separated!
The Inspector that failed the rods for being "Too Far Apart" is a seasoned veteran!

What was done to (try and) get the thing passed was flat out silly!
A third rod was driven between the other two, so resulted in 3 feet between the rods.
All rods were connected to form a common electrode.
Inspector again turned it down, and requested the "Third Rod" (the farthest one away - at 6 feet from the originally installed
first rod) be removed, and re-driven no more than 6 inches from the original first rod! Also that the one which was "Between"
the outer two (3 feet from first rod) be disconnected and not used - but in this case, he will allow it to stay connected.

Here is an example of a very simple situation, going totally Twilight Zone!
I was stuck in the middle of more than I expected! trying to explain what's wrong with the way the Inspector is interpreting
regarding the ground rods, what is the reasoning for the distances, how to avoid this in the future when working in this
Jurisdiction - then on the other side, verifying whaddaheck's going on with this issue, by E-mailing the Building Department.

I succeeded in bringing the issue to light - but last I heard, no headway was made! I was just trying to find out if they had
done some special testing and found out the rods should be close together! It was simply a mis understanding / mis
interpretation of 250-52 (1999 NEC), but sure got the fur flying!

Things like this make me take a new view towards "No-Brainer" scenarios, as "Ohhh-Brainer" scenarios with "Tylenol-Required"
solutions.

Trying to satisfy these types of conflicts goes well beyond the "Code Savvy" abilities of anyone, and strikes directly into
Psychology and Diplomacy! I'm such an Analyzer, things like this are often times too annoying for others to listen to, and I am
baffled why no one else can understand such a simple thing (i.e. the distance between the rods).
Place me in an environment where everyone else's personality is heavily in the "Ruler" aspect, and we can spend hours getting
nowhere!
Throw in a "Relater" or "Entertainer", and things change.

OK, so much for Psych 101!

Lastly, in regards to non-code enforced work, even though the entire State has not only adopted the NEC - but amended it,
that doesn't mean that "Fly-By-Nighters" with extremely low bids do not exist and flourish here.

I really enjoy our industry. I also enjoy the related areas - such as Telecom, Data, Computers, Security / CCTV, Controls, and
of course - Engineering!, but sometimes it's hard to keep my enthusiasm (sp???) up, and more and more I am contemplating a
career change.

The thing I really feel proud of was the first day I realized just how little I knew - how much there is to learn - and how it's
impossible to even reach 00.1% of full knowledge on any subject - especially in the Electrically inclined areas!

At first it was a scary thought! Happened many many years ago.
One day I was at work on some project, and thought about what I knew + what abilities I had exactly 1 year earlier.
Thought I knew quite a lot of stuff that 1 year prior, but as compared to what I could do and what I knew that day - it wasn't
even in the same realm! Lucky I could walk and chew gum back then!
Then the thoughts of what the following year will make "Today" look like popped in, and it all fell into place:

"Each Year, I Learn 10 Times More Than The Previous Year, Yet I Know 100 Times Less".

Such has been stated by many members here: "the more one learns, the more that person realizes how little they actually know!"

My target goals should place me within the intelligence parameters of single-celled organisms by the year 2008!

At the same time, I will be slowly morphing into "Mr. Magoo"! (refers to the NEC handbook format thread).

OK, that's enough soapbox'en for me!

See ya.

Scott35

Scott do you ever get blisters on your finger tips.

Just kidding I enjoy reading your posts.

Bob

Scott, and to all else here, Thank you for your praises, I am not sure if I posted this note here or other places, but I said before that I too have been in the business since 1975 and I learned all the tricks from my old boss. I knew how to make almost any breaker fit in any panel, I knew how to defeat safety features in breakers etc. Once I went in my own business, I had to relearn for my self that there is the old wrong way to do it and the correct way of doing it right. So when I do go out on inspections now, I know a lot of all the old tricks. Like when guys install light fixtures on masonary walls without boxes. "Because masonary doesn't burn!" That was one my boss taught me many years ago. Or how to install zip cord in the walls for hockey puck lights after the AHJ does his final inspection. Or tapping undercounter lights off the kitchen counter receptacle, or adding a cheater breaker in a panel so that there are 25 breakers in a 24 circuit panel because the homeowner doesn't want to pay for a new sub panel. Most of the times I catch the EC's doing something wrong, they will admit to it and then they will just fix it. No big deal. It is when I get one of the guys who have been doing it for 20 years get in my face. Then I have to get tough and show them the code and say, NO! It has to meet the code. I also pride myself on keeping it consistent. If I fail one person for something I will fail every one for the same problem. I also am more than willing to listen to their side of the story. If they have a problem with my call, then I will listen to their side and if they can convince me that it is safe, and meets the intent of the NEC then I will reverse my decision and pass the job. I for one don't know everything and I feel that I should be able to learn a new thing almost every day. If I don't then I am not doing my job correctly. Enough of my soapbox. Happy New Years to all.

P.S. Iwire, just ask Gary, Shawn, or Andy what kind of an AHJ I am. I can be very tough if I have to be. Most times I am very easy to get along with though.

Harold,

What? you don't think I did already?

I talked to Gary at the company kids Christmas party, he had nothing but good things to say about you.

Same with Sean when I saw him at our warehouse around Thanksgiving.

That was not a surprise.

Bob

Iwire,

You have a great bunch of guys that you work with. They were a pleasure doing business with them. They were always pleasent, friendly and they did all the work neatly and as per the NEC. (Is there any other way?) However that job up there is lousy, they are always in a rush, it is hard to find anyone who cares about the job. No one speaks English, unless they have to. Plus the workmanship stinks. I can't wait for that job to be done. There is about 8 buildings done with about 9 or 10 left to build. The whole project can take up to 10 years to complete. (yet they want it all done in 5 years.)

interesting how first maufacturing, next occupations of higher education, and now possibly even the service industry has succumbed to that giant sucking sound the Perotites where harping about eh?

should we say 'yo hablo el-codo' on big jobs here or hasta la vista ?

Harold I hope our part of the job was not lousy.(:

Gary is now doing "the same" job in a third location here in our home state.

I think he is using MC again, he thinks the job down your way went better with MC then the first one he did in this area with NM.

Sparky most of our guys speak english.

Hey everyone;

I really try not to write long replies, believe me I know they are wayyyyyy tooooo long most of the time, and readers get lost or bored ½ way through it!
Just get to typing, and next thing you know - it's a Mini Series reply!

I also know that no one here is saying "STOP THOSE DERN MESSAGES!!!"

Like others here, I get somewhat passionate when discussing certain things - which tends to result in Marathon Keyboarding.

Anyhow, back to the matter at hand: Frontal Nudity!
I am for it (Pro Naked-idity), as long as it's not me performing the task!


...ohhh, that's another thread!

Scott35

I am for it to as long is it not you either!

I've been in this trade for close to 20 yrs. For the first 13 of those, worked for several people who looked upon the code as something to be circumvented or ignored if possible.

For the next 3 I worked for an EC who lived and breathed the code and proper installation practices,and was impressed.

I have tried to follow that line of thinking,and trying to learn to do a better more code compliant job.

JMO,but it seems that there's 2 kinds of EC's and electricians,the ones that are in it because they love the trade and like being craftsmen,and make a decent living.

And those who are in it strictly for the money,to whom the code and good installation practices are merely a hindrance to the bottom line.

Russell