230.71(A), 90.4, and a MLO panel

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
dnem said:
And in Medina County Ohio all that would get you was a house that the power company would refuse to energize. You wouldn't get a meter without a passing inspection.
dnem said:
Now rather than acting like a child would you rather have an intelligent adult discussion ?
David
Yes I will be glad to discuss the issue of 90.4 with you as it is obvious that you need some guidance in this matter.

To start, Article 90 is an introduction to the code and contains no rules that govern the installation of an electrical system. There is nothing in Article 90 to enforce.

Section 90.4 addresses the enforcement of the NEC and the procedure in adopting alternate rules by the Governmental Body that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations as outlined in the very first sentence.
In that first sentence it also states that an insurance inspector can use the NEC to determine the fault in an insurance claim.
Now why would this section refer to this one person as an inspector here and then call a code enforcement official by something like the authority having jurisdiction?

The authority having jurisdiction as referred to in 90.4 is the governmental body not just some cross trained nail bender that thinks that this section of the code gives him power to interpret the points of law or the authority to waive certain laws. How did this warped thinking ever get started?
The only referral to one individual referenced in 90.4 is the insurance inspector.

Here in North Carolina our General Assembly is the governmental body that has the power to adopt and amend the NEC and the Department of Insurance Office of the State Fire Marshall is charged with the responsibility of enforcement. I think that this is the case in the state of Ohio also.

The Department of Insurance then lets each jurisdiction (county or city) add to this adopted code and hire enforcement officials to inspect the installations for code compliance. These enforcement officials are required to pass a test administered by the Department of Insurance before becoming a certified code enforcement official. Although these code enforcement officials work for each jurisdiction they must answer to the Department of Insurance or their Authority.

Now for someone to think that the power to interpret the law would be left on the shoulders of one man just don?t understand the legal system of America. Even in a court room one has the right to appeal the judge?s decision on a point of law. This can be carried to the Supreme Court of this country where there is nine people to debate the final decision.
It has been my experience that when I run across an inspector that tries to play hard ball I just butter him up until I can get him to let something be substituted and then ask for this permission in writing. I haven?t found one yet that would put their name on something in writing as outlined in ?special permission? in article 100. I then ask if they are not the AHJ and have the power to sign, but they never answer nor do they sign anything. I guess they don?t want to be the AHJ at that point in time.

Now to settle this 90.4 with you once and for all.
When you site 90.4 on your rejection what are you addressing that is in violation?
Am I in violation of the adoption of the NEC?
Am I in violation of permitting alternative methods?
Am I in violation of permitting the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code?

Site me with a violation of 90.4 and I ignore it and proceed as though I have passed inspection and will not even call to see just what you are talking about.
90.4 does not address any rule of the NEC.
Should you try to cause me a problem because I didn?t comply with 90.4 then we will let who ever signed your certificate explain to us both what part of 90.4 was in violation.

Was this intelligent enough? Is this how an adult would discuss this?
 

mjc

Senior Member
jwelectric , excellant reply about 90.4 . I'm having that problem right now on a post called "AFCI in bedrooms and other rooms ??? " an Inspector siting 90.4 as a violation. 90.4 is a good article and needs to be in the NEC But should always be backed-up by some portion of the law as written not just an interpetation. (please read)
Mike :)
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
It always amazes me when people ask a question on a free public forum and than complain that folks are not answering the question 'correctly'.

David you can not tell us how to answer your questions.

If you don't like the answers your getting just ignore them and wait for an answer that you do like.
 

Johnmcca

Senior Member
jwelectric, nicely reasoned and logical dismemberment of the 90.4 violation notice. From my reading of it, there is no way that we in the feild can be cited for a violation. There is nothing there that we could possibly to warrant the use of that as a sole means for rejection. It reallly has no place on a red tag for any reason unless the inspector has an issue with the AHJ's interpretation of the rules, and again that doesn't include us as long as we have followed the AHJ's rules and interpretations.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
David,
No it wasn't. If he had answered the questions then it would be clear or at least more clear than it was.
I stand by my answer. If there are less than 6 disconnects installed at the time of inspection, there is no code violation, and none of your other questions are relevant to the issue.
Don
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
iwire said:
It always amazes me when people ask a question on a free public forum and than complain that folks are not answering the question 'correctly'.

David you can not tell us how to answer your questions.

If you don't like the answers your getting just ignore them and wait for an answer that you do like.

What amazes me is that people will claim to have posted something on a message board that becomes part of a permanent record [unless erased by the moderator]. This is not a chat room. This is a message board with the posted recorded. Why are you bothering to waste time making a claim that Don answered those 4 questions. Look back for yourself and see. It's only a couple of clicks away to get to page one and two of this thread.

There are no answers from Don to those 4 questions. So there is nothing to have an opinion on whether or not they are "correctly" answered.

"David you can not tell us how to answer your questions."

I only commented on the "lack" of answers.

Mike was the only one that answered the questions and my only reply to him was about the response of throwing away and ignoring an inspection report that he doesn't agree with.

He now has added another reply with information that will take at least a couple minutes to digest. I'll get back to that response as soon as I get a break to give it the attention.

David
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
dnem said:
It has two sideways mounted 200amp breakers in their own sections, similiar to what you might commonly find in a commercial MDP. Under that is a single section with KOs for 12 push-in breakers. This section is not feed by either of the upper 200s. It has a MLO capacity for the two 200 doublepoles plus 12 singles, 6 doublepoles, or a combination.

I failed the service main inspection for 230.71(A), max 6 disconnects.

So my questions are:
1] Do you think there is a difference between using this size residential MLO as a main and using a more than 6 breaker section commercial MLO MDP, if both have only 6 breakers at the time of service main inspection ?
2] Do you believe that 230.71(A) can be used to prevent a push-in MLO with more than 6 possible breaker slots ?
3] Now taking it one step further. Do you think a 42 space push-in breaker type MLO should be accepted for a main if only 6 breakers are in at the time of inspection and there's no issue with wire sizes ?
4] Do you think failing a push-in MLO with more than 6 breaker slots is a correct use of 90.4 ?

David

David,
Your description is of a panelboard with at least two sets of lugs feeding different groups of breakers, this is a split bus panelboard. I know of no requirement that one section needs to be fed from a breaker in one of the other sections.

As to your question 1: No
There is no difference at all (either by UL or the NEC) between residential, commercial, and industrial panelboards. All of these identifiers are simply marketing terms and should not be considered when applying the NEC.

Question 2: No
It is not possible to prevent future mis-applications.

Question 3: Yes
There are many situations where more "breaker space" than normal is required for to accomodate 6 disconnects in a panel (i.e. shunt trip breakers often take more space, plug-on TVSS units, and finally actual breakers feeding TVSS and power monitoring).

Question 4: No
90.4 is the section that allows the AHJ to make interpretations of the code as outlined in 110.2 and 110.3 (also see 90.7 which says the NEC is not intended to re-examine "tested/listed" equipment). Also, according to 90.3 the NEC really begins with Chapter 1.
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
jim dungar said:
90.4 is the section that allows the AHJ to make interpretations of the code as outlined in 110.2 and 110.3 (also see 90.7 which says the NEC is not intended to re-examine "tested/listed" equipment). Also, according to 90.3 the NEC really begins with Chapter 1.

Thank you for pointing out that the rules start at article 100 as I left this out of my post.

One more thing that needs to be addressed by all members of this forum is the use of the term ?AHJ? when addressing an inspector. By using this term we all implant in the minds of the inspectors that they have some kind of hidden powers of authority that just don?t exist.
We all need to learn that the authority having jurisdiction ultimately ends in the lap of the Supreme Court Justices and not on the shoulders of a code enforcement official whether it is the field inspector or his director.

You can go to this link and find out more about the code enforcement officials (inspectors) in the state of North Carolina.
http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering/COQB/engineering_coqb_home.asp
It won?t take much reading to learn that an inspector is just that and his/her powers are very limited and we have an avenue to take disciplinary action against an inspector that abuses their power.

Having traveled to many IAEI meetings with some being outside the state of NC I have learned a lot about different jurisdictions in other states. One thing that has stuck in my mind is what was said at the Cocoa meeting last fall. One of the Florida officials said (in open forum) that the state of NC has one of the best programs in the nation.

This is not to say that we don?t have some inspectors that over extend their authority or just don?t execute their responsibility in a professional manner but we do have a program in place to deal with these inspectors. The action is swift and sometimes harsh.
Education is the key. Every code enforcement official in the state must pass a course at a community college and then pass a state test before being issued a certificate. After receiving the certificate the official must obtain 6 hours of continuing education a year to keep their certificate. This continuing education must be in the classroom and no one class can be repeated in a three year period. Education is the key.

Contractors need to know that most inspectors are over worked and under paid. Some work under a lot of stress to do many inspections a day and their time is very limited. Sometimes the inspector will write up a report that will say something like, you need to staple your cables a little better or put a little tape on the white wire at the water heater and not give a code section that is in violation. We all understand this and accept this as a general practice. In such cases the inspector is doing his job and all is well.

Inspectors need to understand that when a violation is written up the electrical contractor does not get paid to go back and sometimes the total job loses money. The inspector needs to be sure that s/he is correct in their findings.
A violation of 90.4 is totally unfounded and will not stand up in court. In a case of lost income due to an unfounded violation the inspector and/or their jurisdiction can be made to reimburse the losses in my state. I would hope this is true through out our nation.
This is why when cited with 90.4 I totally disregard the inspector that cites the violation and proceed as though I passed. If the inspector is going to cite code then cite a rule and please don?t try to introduce me to the code, 90.4 if found in the introduction.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dnem said:
What amazes me is that people will claim to have posted something on a message board that becomes part of a permanent record [unless erased by the moderator]. This is not a chat room. This is a message board with the posted recorded. Why are you bothering to waste time making a claim that Don answered those 4 questions. Look back for yourself and see. It's only a couple of clicks away to get to page one and two of this thread.

I stand by my answers as given.

They can remain part of the permanent record.

The only question before you is the number of disconnects.

All the rest of your questions are not relevant to the red tag you gave.
 
Last edited:

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
jwelectric said:
Was this intelligent enough? Is this how an adult would discuss this?

It definitely was a better attempt, but your arrogance continues to shine thru.

jwelectric said:
Yes I will be glad to discuss the issue of 90.4 with you as it is obvious that you need some guidance in this matter.

jwelectric said:
Site me with a violation of 90.4 and I ignore it and proceed as though I have passed inspection and will not even call to see just what you are talking about.
90.4 does not address any rule of the NEC.
Should you try to cause me a problem because I didn?t comply with 90.4 then we will let who ever signed your certificate explain to us both what part of 90.4 was in violation.

But there are a few sentences that have enough substance to them to warrant a response.

jwelectric said:
To start, Article 90 is an introduction to the code and contains no rules that govern the installation of an electrical system. There is nothing in Article 90 to enforce.

Section 90.4 addresses the enforcement of the NEC and the procedure in adopting alternate rules by the Governmental Body that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations as outlined in the very first sentence.

jwelectric said:
When you site 90.4 on your rejection what are you addressing that is in violation?
Am I in violation of the adoption of the NEC?

jwelectric said:
90.4 does not address any rule of the NEC.

You don?t totally understand the subject that you?re talking about, but you?re close to understanding it.
It would be correct to say that 90.4 does not address any one rule of the NEC, but that statement is also very misleading. 90.4 actually addresses every rule of the NEC. 90.4 tells you the limits of the NEC. And the concept that I was referring to in 90.4 was the phrase ?The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility ..... for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials?.

90.4 is saying that the code has no authority to take the place of the AHJ and try to do the AHJs job. It then goes on to give examples of what that concept covers.

jwelectric said:
To start, Article 90 is an introduction to the code and contains no rules that govern the installation of an electrical system. There is nothing in Article 90 to enforce.

?There is nothing in Article 90 to enforce.?
Exactly !! Article 90 is telling you what is beyond the codes authority.
Beyond the codes authority is the AHJ. The AHJ is a structure that includes many people and many layers.

jwelectric said:
The authority having jurisdiction as referred to in 90.4 is the governmental body not just some cross trained nail bender that thinks that this section of the code gives him power to interpret the points of law or the authority to waive certain laws. How did this warped thinking ever get started?

That depends on the certification process in your state. If you have a certification process for inspectors than the inspector is certified to represent the AHJ, even if he?s also a ?nail bender?.

jwelectric said:
Now for someone to think that the power to interpret the law would be left on the shoulders of one man just don?t understand the legal system of America. Even in a court room one has the right to appeal the judge?s decision on a point of law. This can be carried to the Supreme Court of this country where there is nine people to debate the final decision.

Your comparison to the court system is a good one. And remember that the power to decide a court case is ?left on the shoulder of one man?, the judge in the lower court. His ruling stands complete unless it is overturned by a higher court. The court system is a pyramid structure just like the AHJ structure. The fact that you don?t understand this leads you to a wrong turn in the next section.

jwelectric said:
It has been my experience that when I run across an inspector that tries to play hard ball I just butter him up until I can get him to let something be substituted and then ask for this permission in writing. I haven?t found one yet that would put their name on something in writing as outlined in ?special permission? in article 100. I then ask if they are not the AHJ and have the power to sign, but they never answer nor do they sign anything. I guess they don?t want to be the AHJ at that point in time.

The part that you?re missing is that the inspector is a representative for the AHJ. There are no other members of the AHJ authority structure on your jobsite so, like it or not, you are temporarily stuck with your local inspector. His finding is the AHJ ruling until someone or some group/panel higher up on the AHJ ladder makes a ruling contrary to his.

Now add this to the point that I made earlier.

Whoever the AHJ is where you live, you're not going to get power or an occupancy permit without passing inspection. If you wish to take any particular issue to a higher source than the inspector, go right ahead, but the inspectors finding will be the starting point of any hearing and the inspector will be able to state the reason for his finding. If you can't present a well thought out reason to the appellate body, they will not overturn the inspectors finding.

Statements like, ?I tore up the inspectors writeup because he cited 90.4? will not bring you the outcome that you?re looking for. Showing contempt for the position of the inspector does not improve your argument [or lack thereof] with the appellate body.

The AHJ is a pyramid structure. At the bottom is your individual inspector. Altho you don?t respect his findings or his authority, those in the pyramid over his head do respect the job that he does. There are multiple layers of appellate bodies within a states AHJ. How the layers are arranged depend on state law.

The local inspector can give special permission and he can put it in writing. I have done it before myself, when the situation dictated it as the best option. The finding of the local inspector stands unless a higher level overturns it.

I hope I have explained it clearly enough for you to see the situation and understand where you?re mistaken.

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
iwire said:
All the rest of your questions are not relevant to the red tag you gave.

And in your refusal to answer any questions puts you in the same position that you strike out against, that of the arrogant inspector that explains nothing, refuses to give details or reasons for his red tag.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Johnmcca said:
jwelectric, nicely reasoned and logical dismemberment of the 90.4 violation notice. From my reading of it, there is no way that we in the feild can be cited for a violation. There is nothing there that we could possibly to warrant the use of that as a sole means for rejection. It reallly has no place on a red tag for any reason unless the inspector has an issue with the AHJ's interpretation of the rules, and again that doesn't include us as long as we have followed the AHJ's rules and interpretations.

You're not on the right track here.

"It reallly has no place on a red tag for any reason unless the inspector has an issue with the AHJ's interpretation of the rules"
Why would the inspector site 90.4 if he had an issue with AHJ rules and interpretations ? He's citing the installor for not following the AHJ.

Let's take a state that has a central AHJ for the entire state as an example. If that AHJ has published rules and interpretations that go beyond the NEC, and the installor has violated them, then 90.4 would be the proper writeup by the inspector.

If "the inspector has an issue with the AHJ's interpretation of the rules" this has nothing to do with 90.4.

An inspector can be bound by state law to enforce the NEC and also bound to enforce the AHJ's interpretation of the rules. If there is something that is installed contrary to either, he is required to fail the inspection. If he fails an inspection based on something that has no AHJ interpretation, then his ruling stands until overturned by a higher level within the AHJ. If he writes a red tag that goes against an AHJ interpretation from higher within the AHJ, he is in trouble.

David
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
my answers

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

I would explain to the end user if possible the limitations of this install. I would tell him all those empty spaces cannot be used.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I consider electrical inspectors similar to automobile safety inspectors in this regard:

It's as illegal for an inspector to fail something improperly as it is for one to pass something improperly.

The rules are binding upon both the contractor and the inspector.

The end results should be a concensus, not one winner and one loser.
 

hmspe

Senior Member
Location
Temple, TX
Occupation
PE
dnem said:
An inspector can be bound by state law to enforce the NEC and also bound to enforce the AHJ's interpretation of the rules.

First let me say that, to me, an engineer, this discussion is way over the top as far as being adversarial, and David, most of it seems to be coming from your direction. You asked four questions. The bottom line is that there is only one answer: the NEC allows 6 disconnects in a service (let's not include fire pumps for the moment). The NEC doesn't say "provisions for 6 disconnects". It says "6 disconnects". All the variations on a theme in your questions don't matter -- 6 disconnects is the rule, and the number of prepared spaces means nothing in this context. If the NEC dealt with provisions most switchboards (ie., commercial services) would be in violation -- a single vertical section will hold far more than 6 switches. Those who have posted that an inspection is to be for what is, not what may be, are absolutely correct.

As to the sentence quoted above, I have to respond, "Maybe", and would point out that "can be bound" is far different from "is bound". Was this project done to engineered plans? A portion of the governing policy in my home state reads, "...a nonregistrant may not require modification of a professional document submitted for review, unless that modification is supported by reference to an applicable code or standard. In other words, a nonregistrant shall not modify, in any manner, a document embodying the discretion or judgement of a registrant, unless the nonregistrant can cite a specific code or standard to support that modification." While this is directed at plans reviewers, the inspector's job is to see that the project is built "per approved plans" so the same standard would apply.

I think the meter/main in question would be the MC0816B1400RLTM, http://www.sea.siemens.com/speedfax05/05 Speedfax/05Speedfax_02/02_18-19.pdf

Martin
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
dnem said:
Let's take a state that has a central AHJ for the entire state as an example. If that AHJ has published rules and interpretations that go beyond the NEC, and the installor has violated them, then 90.4 would be the proper writeup by the inspector. David

From what I have been reading from your post I think that a few hours of laws and administration would do you some good.
I am sure that you can find help from the OBOA. Here is a link to them
http://www.oboa.org/home.htm
No matter if it is a section of the NEC, IRC or an adopted amendment the section that is in violation is what is required to be cited and not 90.4
Section 90.4 is an explanation and not a rule.

dnem said:
If "the inspector has an issue with the AHJ's interpretation of the rules" this has nothing to do with 90.4. David
This is very true. Should the inspector have an issue with what the adopted rules are his/ her only option is to quit.

dnem said:
An inspector can be bound by state law to enforce the NEC and also bound to enforce the AHJ's interpretation of the rules. If there is something that is installed contrary to either, he is required to fail the inspection. David
S/He is bond by law to enforce the law as adopted. This does not give the inspector the authority to change the rules to suit their desires or thoughts.

dnem said:
If he fails an inspection based on something that has no AHJ interpretation, then his ruling stands until overturned by a higher level within the AHJ. If he writes a red tag that goes against an AHJ interpretation from higher within the AHJ, he is in trouble.
David
And a smart contractor will ask to be reimbursed for any lost money. Should there be nothing lost then at least it will be in the inspector?s file forever.

This attitude that the job will be held up unless compliance to a unfounded citation will make the contractor do as I say will not hold water in NC nor do I think it will in Ohio from what I have been reading today.
Just a copy of the statements that have been made in this thread would go a long way should they be brought before the board.
 
David
Your response reminds me of an intelligent "kid" who twists the language so he sounds correct, at least to himself.

You made this all too complicated. The answer is this is a code compliant installation today, not lets worry about tomorrow. If we did that, there is no reason to go to work today.
 

Johnmcca

Senior Member
Let's take a state that has a central AHJ for the entire state as an example. If that AHJ has published rules and interpretations that go beyond the NEC, and the installor has violated them, then 90.4 would be the proper writeup by the inspector.

No it isn't. There is no way I as an installer can violate 90.4, I can be in violation of many other articles and you have to cite them, but not 90.4. But if you want to insist on citing me for it how do I comply with just 90.4? What would you like to see?:smile:
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
David,

90.4 is not a rule. 90.4 gives the AHJ the ability to "legally create" a set of rules that differ from the NEC.

If these created rules are violated then they need to be cited as the reason for the red tag, not NEC 90.4.

For example, to red tag this installation in Wisconsin, the violation would be based on Department of Commerce Comm 16.25(6)(a) which limits residential services to a single main disconnect except for those over 300A which can have 2 disconnects.

It strikes me that you used 90.4 when you should have used 110.2 and now you are trying to justify a poor decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top