Hello everyone, here's the situation. We strictly enforce the NEC on a military base unless it is bothersome then those in power pull out the old 90.2(B)(5)(d). My argument is that this miltary base is not an "Installation under the exclusive control of an electric utility" as we get power for Bonneville Power Administration and our local utility company. We as a base, do not generate our own power at all. Just have some backup emergency generators like normal, etc.
So the question is, based on 90.2(B)(5)(d), is a military installation (that in my opinion is not "under the exclusive control of an electric utility") REALLY able to say the NEC doesn't cover a military base in the U.S.? It?s ironic since we hit our contractors for doing non-NEC compliant installations all the time yet we pick and choose WHEN we uphold the NEC (which is adopted by the State and the Navy).
This battle all boils down to an electrical panel inside a sewage lift station that melted down/caught fire after a failure of the sewage piping sprayed water on it. This is a confined space without the 36" working clearances in front of panels. The local contractors are refusing to re-install a new panel in the same location due to NEC working clearance violations (and hazard area).
At one meeting the argument was that the NEC was ?advisory? only to begin with. I argued back that the State and Navy has ?adopted? the NEC therefore it?s not advisory any longer but ?code?.
Thoughts?
).
So the question is, based on 90.2(B)(5)(d), is a military installation (that in my opinion is not "under the exclusive control of an electric utility") REALLY able to say the NEC doesn't cover a military base in the U.S.? It?s ironic since we hit our contractors for doing non-NEC compliant installations all the time yet we pick and choose WHEN we uphold the NEC (which is adopted by the State and the Navy).
This battle all boils down to an electrical panel inside a sewage lift station that melted down/caught fire after a failure of the sewage piping sprayed water on it. This is a confined space without the 36" working clearances in front of panels. The local contractors are refusing to re-install a new panel in the same location due to NEC working clearance violations (and hazard area).
At one meeting the argument was that the NEC was ?advisory? only to begin with. I argued back that the State and Navy has ?adopted? the NEC therefore it?s not advisory any longer but ?code?.
Thoughts?
).