Exactly,
Another fine example of how the Code works. Anyone out there have the
definition of "special permission".
Any changes have to go back to the NFPA? Really the buck stops at the
quasi-judicial authority of the head of the building department.
Inspectors are the bearers of that authority. So it all comes downs to
anyone can do anything if they can get the AHJ to sign off on it.
Mark.
On 10/1/2012 6:24 AM, Drake wrote:
From 90.4
"By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive
specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where
it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by
establishing and maintaining effective safety."
At 04:15 PM 9/30/2012, you wrote:
Friends:
It is my understanding that local AHJs can implement more stringent
code requirements and can interpret ambiguous citations, but they can
not waive specific code requirements without special permission. (NEC
90.4). I don't know what is required to obtain "special permission,"
but I do doubt the wisdom of local official attempting to rewrite the
NEC.
The original question was a request for help interpreting a code
section. While it is unfortunate that the NEC is not perfect, we are
bound by it's provisions and need to understand the difference
between analyzing the NEC and adhering to it. I hope we have not
further confused the questioner by side tracking to discussions of
wishful thinking that we can convince a building official to ignore
sections of the NEC that we disagree with.
There are forums to express opinions on the validity of code sections
and to propose language, the Solar ABCs being one option
(http://www.solarabcs.org/).
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: No one commented on the idea I presented of down-sizing the
feeder breaker. This idea requires analysis of the loads to prove
viability, of course, but is likely much less expensive than pulling
bigger wire.
wm
At 06:25 AM 9/29/2012, you wrote:
Most of the inspectors I've dealt with are at least somewhat
reasonable. A few are fundamentalists for their own
interpretations. I'd at least show the inspector the email with
Bill Brook's statement and discuss the logic of the situation. It
is obvious that the intent was to protect a wire that was double fed
and could overload. The AHJ has the responsibility for
interpretation of the code, so can allow what s/he sees fit.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org