help with agency review

[jbrunson]

Hi all, I need some help. I am a design engineer working on a tenant improvement project in the Denver, Colorado area.

My client is purchasing a NRTL listed/labeled piece of equipment. This piece of equipment happens to have a Square D loadcenter as a part of it. The Denver Building Code Amendments have a statement that "Panelboard circuit schedules including loads per each circuit, total bus load per phase, AIC rating and NEC demand calculations" are required on the electrical drawings. The Electrical Plan Reviewer is interpreting this to require a Colorado licensed engineer sign and stamp the loadcenter circuit schedules, and will not issue a building permit without.

I contacted the manufacturer, and they do not have an engineer licensed in the state of Colorado. They stated that they have never ran into this requirement before. I have designed the installation for over a hundred pieces of equipment from this manufacturer in the past in different locations and have never had a project be denied a building permit for something like this before.

My argument is that since this is a NRTL listed and labeled piece of equipment, this Denver Building Code Amendment requirement has no bearing on my electrical drawings for lighting and power design for the tenant improvement space.

Has anyone else ran into something like this? Any suggestions on a resolution?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GoldDigger]

The circuit schedules you refer to are normally filled in on the directory card of the panelboard as part of the field installation process and seem to me to be totally unrelated to the NRTL listing of the panelboard.

What Denver seems to be asking for is that the detailed panel schedule be part of the submitted plans.
The calculations involved are normally done by the EC or a licensed Electrician in his employ and I do not see any need for the involvement of a PE unless there is a separate local requirement that all submitted design documents have a PE stamp.

SquareD would not normally be involved except for the fact that the AIC rating must originate from them or be calculated locally from their published panelboard, Main Breaker, Branch/Feeder Breaker and series rating specifications.

If they hold firm on a PE signature, it is my understanding that a PE will not stamp the design engineer's or EC's calculations but must instead at least "oversee" the calculations themselves.

 

[jbrunson]

The NRTL listing was in reference to the piece of equipment, not the SquareD loadcenter (but the SquareD loadcenter is also NRTL listed/labeled).

The entire piece of equipment is NRTL listed. There is no "field installation" regarding the loadcenter. The loadcenter comes pre-installed and pre-wired as part of a NRTL listed/labeled piece of equipment.

 

[GoldDigger]

The NRTL listing was in reference to the piece of equipment, not the SquareD loadcenter (but the SquareD loadcenter is also NRTL listed/labeled).

The entire piece of equipment is NRTL listed. There is no "field installation" regarding the loadcenter. The loadcenter comes pre-installed and pre-wired as part of a NRTL listed/labeled piece of equipment.

In that case I do not see any need for that particular panelboard, not part of the field wiring, to meet the local requirement.
Are they requiring that your submitted plans include the make and model number of all appliances and equipment, or just that the eventual choice be NRTL listed?

 

[jbrunson]

The agency reviewer is requiring Colorado signed/stamped drawings... of a NRTL listed piece of equipment.

 

[GoldDigger]

The agency reviewer is requiring Colorado signed/stamped drawings... of a NRTL listed piece of equipment.

That is flat out insane, IMHO.
You could, I suppose, hire a totally redundant field NRTL evaluation, but that would not necessarily be signed by a Colorado PE.

 

[texie]

The agency reviewer is requiring Colorado signed/stamped drawings... of a NRTL listed piece of equipment.

This is way out of line in my view and is contrary to the whole intent of an NRTL listing as the NEC sees it. I'm not even sure that he as the AHJ has the authority to make this demand under Colorado law. For starters, I would refer him to 90.7 which is pretty clear. I can see why you as a P.E. would not want to just simply put your seal on this. This is the kind of nonsense that makes people despise government.

 

[GoldDigger]

One small issue that you would still have to address on your own:

What is the AIC rating of the panelboard plus breakers? Either you run a calculation that the available fault current is no higher than that or you interpose a proper series rated fuse or SquareD breaker.

 

[jbrunson]

This is way out of line in my view and is contrary to the whole intent of an NRTL listing as the NEC sees it. I'm not even sure that he as the AHJ has the authority to make this demand under Colorado law. For starters, I would refer him to 90.7 which is pretty clear. I can see why you as a P.E. would not want to just simply put your seal on this. This is the kind of nonsense that makes people despise government.

Amen, brother!

 

[jbrunson]

One small issue that you would still have to address on your own:

What is the AIC rating of the panelboard plus breakers? Either you run a calculation that the available fault current is no higher than that or you interpose a proper series rated fuse or SquareD breaker.

The calculated fault current at the loadcenter is less than 5kA. They would have to try really hard to not meet those requirements.

 

[GoldDigger]

The calculated fault current at the loadcenter is less than 5kA. They would have to try really hard to not meet those requirements.

Great! That meets even the low 5kA bar of the "courtesy" AIC or SCCR designation of unevaluated equipment.