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

[Exeltech]

[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 <william at millersolar.com> wrote:


From: William Miller <william at millersolar.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] How do we wrenches provide pertinent advice?
(was120% rule applying to conductors)
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at 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!]