[RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice? (was120% rule applying to conductors)

[Mark Frye]

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 at 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 at 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
>