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

[Drake]

To sum up, if you have a concern regarding a code rule, talk to your 
inspector, if s/he is an approachable person.  The code can be and is 
interpreted in many different ways.

Code wording tends to be difficult to understand and is often vague. 
The rules are written by many different interested parties, including 
manufacturers. The rules change with code cycles.

The NEC itself states that the code is purely advisory. and that the 
AHJ can waive requirements where s/he feels adequate safety measures 
are being met. The NFPA is not a governmental organization but a 
private corporation that has no enforcement powers of its own. No 
municipality has to get permission from the NEC to waive a 
requirement. It all goes back the inspector or his boss.

Cheers,

Drake

At 08:39 AM 10/3/2012, you wrote:
>[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!]
>
>_______________________________________________
>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