Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
Dan: I am a bit confused by what you say below regarding whim and interpretation. In regards to the 690.64(B) 'conductor' controversy, the controversy is not about what the code says or how AHJs interpret it, the controversy is about why the word conductors is included in the NEC section at all. There is nothing whim about a local authority implementing specific language: It is very straight-forwards: take the values of contributing circuit breakers, total them, and the conductor must be rated equal to or greater than 120% of the result. This is simple arithmetic and not subject to interpretation. What is capricious is the code authors failing to understand that applying the 120% rule to conductors that will never see excessive currents is not logical. I think we should be educating the local AHJs, but all the education in the world will not allow them to waive a very specific code requirement. It is too much to ask them to pull rank on the code writers. Once they start nit-picking code sections, they could spend most of their time trying to figure out which code sections are really valid. Should each municipality issue a copy of the NEC with the sections they don't agree with redlined? This is unfair to ask of local building officials. Instead, we need to direct our efforts to code writers in order to educate them to understand the real scenarios, using basic physics. This is why I support and follow Solar ABCs and pay for and attend Mr. Brooks seminars whenever I can. These are our representatives trying to inject common sense into the code crafting process. I agree with you there is a problem here, I just disagree on who can make the necessary changes. Sincerely, William Miller PS: All of the above assumes that you and I are correct in our understanding of the basic situation: a feeder conductor can never see additive currents from power sources at opposite ends. I am not a scientist or an electrical engineer. I have been wrong before and I am certainly making plans to be wrong about something else in the near future. wm At 01:20 PM 10/1/2012, you wrote: William, My point exactly. Unfortunately, vocal inflection isn't easily incorporated into typed text. For an advisory only document, it has, in essence become the law of the land (as we're acutely aware), however subject to the whim and interpretation of the nationwide AHJ hierarchy and their governing/supervisory colleagues. Dan ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
[Advisory: Lengthy Post] Hello William, Rather than focus on a specific instance, I'd like to step back and view the larger situation. Over the years, numerous posts to this list-serv have related to concerns where installers experienced inspection-related problems ranging from individual AHJs to entire departments or other code bodies that at a minimum are inconsistent with code interpretation, and at the other extreme, establish their own code rules. To that point, and the exact thread you reference, what has become a roadblock for an installer in one jurisdiction is approved as fully acceptable in another, as evidenced by the original post. Environmental and other aspects aside for a moment, how can something such as a conductor gauge be deemed safe by one AHJ, yet is ruled unsafe by another? Either it is .. or it isn't. Nick Vida's recent mention of the City of Los Angeles goes exactly to the heart of my comment, where he said the City has its own utility with its own manual of requirements. To quote Nick: Through experience we know what they require, and it often has nothing to do with NEC. If you bring up NEC to them, they usually laugh at you. The arguments by various Wrenches related to and in support of your point in that thread are well thought out and fully supportable by engineering and other analysis. Unfortunately, logic and common sense aren't always the deciding factors, as we all know too well. Regardless of how well proven or supported a position may be, an AHJ may, at their discretion, accept or reject any aspect of a system. If a field inspector red-tags a system, the installer may appeal up the line to the CBO, who may support or overrule the decision by the field inspector. Again, to my point, if this happens, is it because one of them is wrong in the interpretation of the NEC (or the applicable jurisdictional code) .. or is it because they have differing opinions as to what is acceptable?? It all comes down to whomever is highest on that food chain as a decision maker, and their opinion .. hence whim and interpretation. And to your question .. yes .. I fully support the position you and others took related to the conductor size in that thread. Unfortunately, it's not our opinion that counts. For that reason, I, along with many others, are striving diligently to try to bring some sense and sensibility to the NEC, UL Standards, and more. I too serve on the same NEC and UL boards with John Wiles, Bill Brooks, and a host of others. As for the NEC, the final decision rests with a select group of decision-makers known as the National Fire Protection Association and their Review Board. We can submit all the common-sense changes we like .. and the NFPA has the final say as to what does, or doesn't go into the Code. Many proposals for revision were submitted for the 2014 Code. To put this into perspective, the ROP document for Sections 690 and 705 in the new 2014 Code book consisted of more than 1,000 pages. This is larger than the entire NEC itself, and this was for just two Sections. For those not familiar with the process, the ROP contains proposals and NFPA feedback on each one, and whether a proposal has been accepted, rejected, or something in between. Jurisdictions are then free to use, change, or ignore any and all aspects of the NEC as they see fit. To Nick's point above, they do all of the above .. and again .. whim and interpretation. Keep up the good work. Best Regards to All, Dan Lepinski, Senior Engineer Exeltech Solar Veteran of 41 years in solar energy --- On Wed, 10/3/12, William Miller will...@millersolar.com wrote: From: William Miller will...@millersolar.com Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors) To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 1:58 AM Dan: I am a bit confused by what you say below regarding whim and interpretation. [SNIP!] ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
I've followed these threads with great interest about code, changes and interpretations. There are 2 connected parts, code and interpretation. While its hard to do much about interpretation, the code part should be more fixable. One of the largest problems as I see it, is the long time between fixes, ie 3 years. In other industries ( I used to be a commercial pilot) changes, fixes, updates came out weekly, and now thats daily with electronic information. I don't see why in the current digital world that we are dealing with 3 years between code changes. This small mistake of wire included where it shouldn't, should not be a problem to fix. That mistakes happen is a given with the best of intentions. So the issue is faster fixes. I don't expect this to change anytime soon, but is there any even thoughts out there in the land of code to move the code process up to the 21st century? ( I mean 6 month upgrades? how hard could it be?) Sincerely, Jay Peltz Power [Advisory: Lengthy Post] Hello William, Rather than focus on a specific instance, I'd like to step back and view the larger situation. Over the years, numerous posts to this list-serv have related to concerns where installers experienced inspection-related problems ranging from individual AHJs to entire departments or other code bodies that at a minimum are inconsistent with code interpretation, and at the other extreme, establish their own code rules. To that point, and the exact thread you reference, what has become a roadblock for an installer in one jurisdiction is approved as fully acceptable in another, as evidenced by the original post. Environmental and other aspects aside for a moment, how can something such as a conductor gauge be deemed safe by one AHJ, yet is ruled unsafe by another? Either it is .. or it isn't. Nick Vida's recent mention of the City of Los Angeles goes exactly to the heart of my comment, where he said the City has its own utility with its own manual of requirements. To quote Nick: Through experience we know what they require, and it often has nothing to do with NEC. If you bring up NEC to them, they usually laugh at you. The arguments by various Wrenches related to and in support of your point in that thread are well thought out and fully supportable by engineering and other analysis. Unfortunately, logic and common sense aren't always the deciding factors, as we all know too well. Regardless of how well proven or supported a position may be, an AHJ may, at their discretion, accept or reject any aspect of a system. If a field inspector red-tags a system, the installer may appeal up the line to the CBO, who may support or overrule the decision by the field inspector. Again, to my point, if this happens, is it because one of them is wrong in the interpretation of the NEC (or the applicable jurisdictional code) .. or is it because they have differing opinions as to what is acceptable?? It all comes down to whomever is highest on that food chain as a decision maker, and their opinion .. hence whim and interpretation. And to your question .. yes .. I fully support the position you and others took related to the conductor size in that thread. Unfortunately, it's not our opinion that counts. For that reason, I, along with many others, are striving diligently to try to bring some sense and sensibility to the NEC, UL Standards, and more. I too serve on the same NEC and UL boards with John Wiles, Bill Brooks, and a host of others. As for the NEC, the final decision rests with a select group of decision-makers known as the National Fire Protection Association and their Review Board. We can submit all the common-sense changes we like .. and the NFPA has the final say as to what does, or doesn't go into the Code. Many proposals for revision were submitted for the 2014 Code. To put this into perspective, the ROP document for Sections 690 and 705 in the new 2014 Code book consisted of more than 1,000 pages. This is larger than the entire NEC itself, and this was for just two Sections. For those not familiar with the process, the ROP contains proposals and NFPA feedback on each one, and whether a proposal has been accepted, rejected, or something in between. Jurisdictions are then free to use, change, or ignore any and all aspects of the NEC as they see fit. To Nick's point above, they do all of the above .. and again .. whim and interpretation. Keep up the good work. Best Regards to All, Dan Lepinski, Senior Engineer Exeltech Solar Veteran of 41 years in solar energy ___ 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:
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
Right. The NFPA doesn't have any authority in itself. It is a private corporation. Local municipalities adopt the NEC at their own discretion. At 10:44 AM 10/1/2012, you wrote: 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 ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
Look inside the Code book. Page 1, at the bottom. Last paragraph on that page, which begins: This Code is purely advisory as far as NFPA is concerned. Dan --- On Mon, 10/1/12, Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors) To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Date: Monday, October 1, 2012, 10:00 AM Right. The NFPA doesn't have any authority in itself. It is a private corporation. Local municipalities adopt the NEC at their own discretion. At 10:44 AM 10/1/2012, you wrote: 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. ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
Dan: The NEC is purely advisory until a political jurisdiction (city, county or state) adopts it and makes compliance mandatory pursuant to obtaining a final inspection clearance. This discussion raises some intriguing questions: Do we really think building departments want to incur liability by encouraging contractors to ignore code sections? Are local building departments qualified to apply technical review for a given waiver request? What about all of the other areas in which you might find the NEC defective? Can we apply for special permission to waive the requirement to run an 8AWG copper conductor to 1 amp micro-inverters, for example? Where does this process logically conclude? If anyone can describe how special permission is acquired, we can judge if the process is practical for a given situation. Maybe one special permission issued to one jurisdiction regarding the conductor portion of 690.64(B) can be applied to many jurisdictions. Now that may be a way to convince inspectors to waive the conductor requirement. Pursuing this rates as a productive use of our time, in my humble opinion. Bill Brooks, are you familiar with the process??? William Miller At 09:59 AM 10/1/2012, you wrote: Look inside the Code book. Page 1, at the bottom. Last paragraph on that page, which begins: This Code is purely advisory as far as NFPA is concerned. Dan --- On Mon, 10/1/12, Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org wrote: From: Drake drake.chamber...@redwoodalliance.org Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors) To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Date: Monday, October 1, 2012, 10:00 AM Right. The NFPA doesn't have any authority in itself. It is a private corporation. Local municipalities adopt the NEC at their own discretion. At 10:44 AM 10/1/2012, you wrote: 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. ___ 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.455 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/5301 - Release Date: 09/30/12 18:34:00 Miller Solar Voice :805-438-5600 email: will...@millersolar.com http://millersolar.com License No. C-10-773985 ___ 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
Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
William, My point exactly. Unfortunately, vocal inflection isn't easily incorporated into typed text. For an advisory only document, it has, in essence become the law of the land (as we're acutely aware), however subject to the whim and interpretation of the nationwide AHJ hierarchy and their governing/supervisory colleagues. Dan --- On Mon, 10/1/12, William Miller will...@millersolar.com wrote: From: William Miller will...@millersolar.com Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors) To: RE-wrenches re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org Date: Monday, October 1, 2012, 2:33 PM Dan: The NEC is purely advisory until a political jurisdiction (city, county or state) adopts it and makes compliance mandatory pursuant to obtaining a final inspection clearance. ___ 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
[RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)
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
