GEC/EGC 250.121 Exception 2014 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
You couldn't be more wrong about this. If the NEC had a rule for every "shall not" possibility, it would be the size of a telephone book.

You are exactly right Peter. The NEC cannot possibly include everything that is not permitted. Therefore, there may be a specific installation the AHJ will not permit even though the specific prohibition is unstated in the code. That's what I have been saying all along.

How am I wrong if you are agreeing with me? The NEC does not contain EVERY permitted or EVERY not permitted possibility that potentially exists.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
All right, you know what I mean. :roll: Back when people still had land lines.
Well my local phone book was never more than twice the thickness pictured, but back then they used larger print. I didn't always live here but this is where I grew up and live currently.

Yes I have had phone books from metropolitan areas. Volumes were about two inches thick, white pages in one volume and yellow in another one or two volumes.

A better reference for that size nowadays is vehicle service manuals. I have the vehicle service manuals for two vehicles, both 8.5" x 11". One takes up 6" of shelve space with 4 volumes, and the other about 4.5" in 2 volumes. These are even getting less thick. Some are even digital media only.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
You are exactly right Peter. The NEC cannot possibly include everything that is not permitted. Therefore, there may be a specific installation the AHJ will not permit even though the specific prohibition is unstated in the code. That's what I have been saying all along.

How am I wrong if you are agreeing with me? The NEC does not contain EVERY permitted or EVERY not permitted possibility that potentially exists.
An AHJ must deny approval for any issue specifically prohibited. An AHJ must approve any issue specifically permitted. For issues not specifically permitted or prohibited, the AHJ must provide substantiation for denied approval, and such substantiation cannot be outside the requirements or amendments of the NEC.

That is why Code is considered permissive. I've always considered it prohibitive in that I cannot do anything I want :D.

But the truth is like the answer to question of how full is a half glass of water? The answer depends on how you look at it. Some say its half full, some say its half empty. The truth is its always full, it's just a matter of what it is full of. The mere mention of water makes one assume you measure fullness by the amount of water content or be contrary and measure emptiness by the volume lacking water. However, measuring fullness by specific content is not stated anywhere in the question, is it?
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
An AHJ must deny approval for any issue specifically prohibited. An AHJ must approve any issue specifically permitted. For issues not specifically permitted or prohibited, the AHJ must provide substantiation for denied approval, and such substantiation cannot be outside the requirements or amendments of the NEC.

Excellent Comment...
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
You are exactly right Peter. The NEC cannot possibly include everything that is not permitted. Therefore, there may be a specific installation the AHJ will not permit even though the specific prohibition is unstated in the code. That's what I have been saying all along.

How am I wrong if you are agreeing with me? The NEC does not contain EVERY permitted or EVERY not permitted possibility that potentially exists.

I'm not agreeing with you. Your position is that an inspector can effectively make up his own rules where the NEC is silent. That is an egregious overstepping of authority by an AHJ.
 

Johnnybob

Senior Member
Location
Colville, WA
So page 70-1, second to the last paragraph, say's "This code is purely advisory, as far as NFPA is concerned" that would tell me that the AHJ is, in fact, the final authority, to allow, or disallow, any or all of the codes, based on the rules adopted by their particular jurisdictions. The NEC also states that it does no supersede any local jurisdiction's laws or rulings.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
So page 70-1, second to the last paragraph, say's "This code is purely advisory, as far as NFPA is concerned" that would tell me that the AHJ is, in fact, the final authority, to allow, or disallow, any or all of the codes, based on the rules adopted by their particular jurisdictions. The NEC also states that it does no supersede any local jurisdiction's laws or rulings.
The AHJ can do no more than what the adopting authority permits. If the adopting authority has adopted NFPA 70 without revision, then that is the only thing that can be enforced. Nothing in what you have cited gives the AHJ the authority to enforce rules that are not in the adopted document.
 

skd76

Member
Location
California
Field inspector latitude is allowed

Field inspector latitude is allowed

The AHJ can do no more than what the adopting authority permits. If the adopting authority has adopted NFPA 70 without revision, then that is the only thing that can be enforced. Nothing in what you have cited gives the AHJ the authority to enforce rules that are not in the adopted document.

Perhaps your paradigm should meet section 90.4?
NEC.skd
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Ah, but it does say the AHJ is responsible for the interpretation of the rules!


Interpretation of adopted rules and making up rules out of thin air are two separate animals. Bryan is saying that an inspector can make up his own rules when the code is silent about a particular issue, and that is the crux of the disagreement.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Interpretation of adopted rules and making up rules out of thin air are two separate animals. Bryan is saying that an inspector can make up his own rules when the code is silent about a particular issue, and that is the crux of the disagreement.
If you have a good AHJ - individual inspectors do not make such decisions outside of what code has covered in print on their own. They talk to supervisors and other peers and/or have policy already in place of how to handle the situation if same thing has come up before. When a bold decision is made on something out of the ordinary it usually has more then just the local inspector backing up that decision.

That is if you have a good AHJ organization.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Bryan is saying that an inspector can make up his own rules when the code is silent about a particular issue, and that is the crux of the disagreement.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. You love to put words in my mouth to fit your perspective and belief. And you only speak in extremes.

That matter works both ways. When the code is silent on a matter, the AHJ also has the authority to ALLOW alternative methods and materials when they feel the installation has equivalent safety and meets the intent of the code. But it is not automatic. Permission must still be granted. It's is a reckless statement to say anything is allowed unless the code says it can't be done.

The code offers us permissions and prohibitions. When the code is silent, it is best to assume the matter may be permitted or may be prohibited, based on all of the circumstances of the installation.

This is not a discussion on "making up rules". I would never support that. I challenge you to find a single post I have made in the last 10+ years where I even remotely suggested an AHJ can do whatever they want to without the law, statutes, or written rules to back-up their decision.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
This rule from the IBC is what most AHJs operate under when making decisions about the NEC:

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved.

It can be argued that when permission is not given in the NEC, an alternative method can be employed, but only if approved. One simply should not assume they can do whatever they want when the code doesn't specifically prohibit it.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
No, that is not what I am saying at all. You love to put words in my mouth to fit your perspective and belief. And you only speak in extremes.

I'm only using my "discretionary authority" to interpret your words.

That matter works both ways. When the code is silent on a matter, the AHJ also has the authority to ALLOW alternative methods and materials when they feel the installation has equivalent safety and meets the intent of the code. But it is not automatic. Permission must still be granted. It's is a reckless statement to say anything is allowed unless the code says it can't be done.

Your belief is reckless IMO and leads to inspector tyranny.

The code offers us permissions and prohibitions. When the code is silent, it is best to assume the matter may be permitted or may be prohibited, based on all of the circumstances of the installation.

False, we must assume that it's permitted.

This is not a discussion on "making up rules". I would never support that. I challenge you to find a single post I have made in the last 10+ years where I even remotely suggested an AHJ can do whatever they want to without the law, statutes, or written rules to back-up their decision.

You want inspectors to have the final authority to prohibit something not explicitly prohibited in the code. That is the definition of "making up the rules".
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
Peter d - have you lived on both sides of the fence? Your comments appear to condem an AHJ prior to any decisions made. Code is always up to interpretation and as Kwired pointed out, interpretation is gennerally a concensus of professionals. Funny how "and" can completely change an issue if you see "or" within a sentence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top