Local AHJ overidding prepackaged UL listed standby gnerator system

[infinity]

The inspector is referring to Art. 725.48 (B) (1) and stating that in his opinion the class 1 control wiring is not functionally associated with the power supply wiring.

What's his definition of functionally associated? Maybe he needs a dictionary.

 

[weressl]

In response to Bob. He is saying he has the final say and I am at the end of my chain. Who would I appeal too. I mentioned writting to the electrical board fo Baltimore County but he states the have no control of this. Who would be his boss?

He MUST have a local law passed to give him the extra authority to reject a listed equipment because of its internal configuration. The NEC's authority supposed to stop at the listed equipment connection points. AHJ's normal range of authority resides with NEC compliance as it is approved by their local authority and amended by lawfully passed modifications.

 

[GoldDigger]

He MUST have a local law passed to give him the extra authority to reject a listed equipment because of its internal configuration. AHJ's normal range of authority resides with NEC compliance as it is approved by their local authority and amended by lawfully passed modifications.

As noted in posts 18 and 19, it appears that he might not be rejecting the internal configuration but rather external wiring that uses the same configuration as the internal wiring. Outside the wall, or beyond the pale as they used to say.

 

[iwire]

He MUST have a local law passed to give him the extra authority to reject a listed equipment because of its internal configuration.

No sir, the NEC puts the responsibility of approving equipment on the AHJ. They can reject it for any reason whatsoever.

That is exactly why here in MA we have an amendment requireing the acceptance of listed equipment.

 

[weressl]

No sir, the NEC puts the responsibility of approving equipment on the AHJ. They can reject it for any reason whatsoever
That is exactly why here in MA we have an amendment requireing the acceptance of listed equipment.

The NEC has NO authority whatsoever, UNLESS the State adapts it as law with or without amendments. It is the State that vests the AHJ with 'authority' not the NEC. Government 101. Furthermore there is the overriding Federal Law of OSHA that SPECIFICALLY lists NRTL that are acceptable and lists the type of equipment that MUST have such approval. So if there is a UL approved apparatus listed for the appropriate Class, Div, Group, etc. by UL for a Classified location I just simply do NOT see how an AHJ can reject it.

Furthermore, if you are truly saying that and AHJ can reject a listed equipment for any reason, meaning that reason

1. does not have to be based on either a technical explanation that is in the NEC, or
2. an exception codified by a State amendment that is lawfully codified,
3. (Not to mention that the NEC takes exception of trying to aplpy its rules to assembled equipment. If that would be the case hardly ANY assembled equipment internal wiring would meet the Ampere rating of conductors.)

Then the democratic lawful process is thwarted and is Constitutionally challenge-able for its arbitrariness.

 

[ceb58]

Because it passes UL does not mean it will fly with an inspection simply because UL does not test or look at NEC issues-- I think they should but....

If the low voltage control wiring is a class 2 or 3 then it cannot be in the same raceway-- art.725.136(A)

Back to the OP. The wiring is class 1. The "control" wires carry 240 volts to the generator for voltage sensing. He needs to look at 725.48

 

[templdl]

90.7 specifically says this.

My guess is the inspector just does not like this kind of thing so is declining them based solely on his preferences and not anything that is in the code.

Having said that, he has a boss that this can be appealed to.

What does he expect you to do - take it apart and redo it?

It would then be a catch 22, mess with the UL listed assembly and then you would void the UL listing. If the assemby has been listed by UL then ahe AHJ should go to UL and question then. Otherwise the AHJ's authority is not to second guess a UL listed assembly.

 

[iwire]

The NEC has NO authority whatsoever, UNLESS the State adapts it as law with or without amendments.

Which it is in most areas so that is moot.

It is the State that vests the AHJ with 'authority' not the NEC. Government 101. Furthermore there is the overriding Federal Law of OSHA that SPECIFICALLY lists NRTL that are acceptable and lists the type of equipment that MUST have such approval. So if there is a UL approved apparatus listed for the appropriate Class, Div, Group, etc. by UL for a Classified location I just simply do NOT see how an AHJ can reject it.

.

Becuse areas that have adopted the NEC without amendment have accepted that.

We have towns around here that will only accept two or three brands of fire alarm panels.

Furthermore, if you are truly saying that and AHJ can reject a listed equipment for any reason, meaning that reason

1. does not have to be based on either a technical explanation that is in the NEC, or
2. an exception codified by a State amendment that is lawfully codified,
3. (Not to mention that the NEC takes exception of trying to aplpy its rules to assembled equipment. If that would be the case hardly ANY assembled equipment internal wiring would meet the Ampere rating of conductors.)

Then the democratic lawful process is thwarted and is Constitutionally challenge-able for its arbitrariness

The democratic process was served when the area decided to adopt the NEC as written.

 

[iwire]

Otherwise the AHJ's authority is not to second guess a UL listed assembly.

Notice the part I made red

90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that ex-ercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, includ-ing signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special per-mission contemplated in a number of the rules. By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent ob-jectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety. This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or mate-rials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.

Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Back to the OP. The wiring is class 1. The "control" wires carry 240 volts to the generator for voltage sensing. He needs to look at 725.48

Yes I realized that in another post and mentioned that in a different post

 

[weressl]

Notice the part I made red

Points are taken and not disputed.

The statement was made, to which i've responded, that the AHJ has the authority ro reject a tested and approved equipment for ANY reason. The ANY reason would indicate that such reasons do not need to be Codified, eg. it does not have to be based on either the NEC provision's nor in a codified amendment as the local lawmakers had adapted it. What that says, in legal terms, that the AHJ has unchallangeable authority to make rules, post facto, and owes no reasoning or explanation, nor is it challangeable on any legal basis.

What I am saying that if that would be the case it would be against the Constitutional provisions of legal process.

What I am saying is that the rejection has to be based on preset rules that are Codified in legal basis or the AHJ must provide HIS/HER technical interpretation of the Code or Amendment that is the OPEN to legal challenge for alternative interpretation and the jury of their peers decide WHOSE interpretation has been proven in the Court to be valid.

 

[augie47]

Officially yes of course, in the real world not so much.

Here in MA there is a process and it costs about $75 dollars to file a grievance.

It's non refundable and there is little reason to believe that they will not side with the inspector.

That's definitely a case of "put your money where your mouth is "

 

[infinity]

Back to the OP. The wiring is class 1. The "control" wires carry 240 volts to the generator for voltage sensing. He needs to look at 725.48

Yes I realized that in another post and mentioned that in a different post

Listing enforcement issues aside we seem to agree that this hinges on the definition of functionally associated? How would we define that or does the NEC provide some help?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Listing enforcement issues aside we seem to agree that this hinges on the definition of functionally associated? How would we define that or does the NEC provide some help?

I don't think the nec needs help in this situation. I think the ahj does...:lol: It is pretty clear that the controls that are in the unit are associated with the equipent

 

[infinity]

I don't think the nec needs help in this situation. I think the ahj does...:lol: It is pretty clear that the controls that are in the unit are associated with the equipent

I agree, kind of where I was going in post #21. If used to control the system I see it as incorrect to say that they're not functionally associated.

 

[ceb58]

Listing enforcement issues aside we seem to agree that this hinges on the definition of functionally associated? How would we define that or does the NEC provide some help?

I don't think the nec needs help in this situation. I think the ahj does...:lol: It is pretty clear that the controls that are in the unit are associated with the equipent

I agree, kind of where I was going in post #21. If used to control the system I see it as incorrect to say that they're not functionally associated.

Agreed, for him to say they are not functionally associated is like saying the wiring between a switch and light fixture is not associated for the control of the fixture :dunce:

 

[ducks1333]

700.10 D 3

700.10 D 3

Ask him what section of the code he is referring to. 700.10 D 3 requires controls conductors to be kept independent of all other wiring but this is only applicable to an emergency generator. The same requirement does not apply to standby generators which I presume yours is?

 

[hornetd]

The NEC has NO authority whatsoever, UNLESS the State adapts it as law with or without amendments. It is the State that vests the AHJ with 'authority' not the NEC. Government 101. Furthermore there is the overriding Federal Law of OSHA that SPECIFICALLY lists NRTL that are acceptable and lists the type of equipment that MUST have such approval. So if there is a UL approved apparatus listed for the appropriate Class, Div, Group, etc. by UL for a Classified location I just simply do NOT see how an AHJ can reject it.

Furthermore, if you are truly saying that and AHJ can reject a listed equipment for any reason, meaning that reason

1. does not have to be based on either a technical explanation that is in the NEC, or
2. an exception codified by a State amendment that is lawfully codified,
3. (Not to mention that the NEC takes exception of trying to aplpy its rules to assembled equipment. If that would be the case hardly ANY assembled equipment internal wiring would meet the Ampere rating of conductors.)

Then the democratic lawful process is thwarted and is Constitutionally challenge-able for its arbitrariness.

I have to agree with Weressl on this. Do keep in mind that the code still says "Neat and workman like manner" even though the Supreme Court of these United States has ruled that language unenforceable because it's application is too likely to be Arbitrary and Capricious.

 

[hornetd]

I should also add that this installation was completed using an existing conduit recently installed by the builders electrician during the homes construction. There is 60+ feet of finished home that a conduit will need to be installed through and also 90' of yard that will need to be dug up.

This is merely a wild ass guess on my part but it seems likely that the inspector is trying to apply the rules that apply to Emergency System under
700.9 Wiring, Emergency System.
(B) Wiring. Wiring of two or more emergency circuits supplied from the same source shall be permitted in the same raceway, cable, box, or cabinet. Wiring from an emergency source or emergency source distribution overcurrent protection to emergency loads shall be kept entirely independent of all other wiring and equipment, unless otherwise permitted in (1) through (4):

What you are installing, on the other hand, is an optional standby system.
702.9 Wiring Optional Standby Systems.
The optional standby system wiring shall be permitted to occupy the same raceways, cables, boxes, and cabinets with other general wiring.

 

[weressl]

Not if the NEC contains rules that are unconstitutional themselves. Then it remains open to challange.

Just because you adopt a law that allows pedophelia, it doesn't mean it is lawful. Othervise you can establish your own little municipality and create whatever law you wish to allow. The latest larger scale challeneg is the various marijuanna laws adopted by States that are violating Federal law.

Mind you that the NEC is NOT subject to lawful oberview so it is full with holes that a good lawyer cab duive a forkrtuck through on anordinary weekday. That is another reason why OSHA refuses to adopt the NEC and re-writes their own sections in their own language.