Question metro building facility scope of NEC

[hhsting]

I have project for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority facility building. It’s metro here in Washington. Project is in part of their facility only two rooms that are going to be used for training purpose. The two rooms have railroad tracks, signaling and communication inside the two rooms, possibly railroad cars not sure and it’s for training purpose.

Of course rooms have on walls on ceilings lights and receptacles that are not for railroad track or cars since they are for the rooms.

I did do some research Not covered NEC 2014 Section 90.2(B)(1)(3):

(1) Installation in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, railway rolling stock, aircraft...

(3) Installation of railways for generation, transformation, transmission, or distribution of power used exclusively for operation of rolling stock or installation used exclusively for signaling and communications purposes


I am not sure if the rooms are not covered by the above two NEC sections or are just the rooms receptacles and lights are under NEC. What are all of your opinions about this?

 

[zbang]

I'd say they are; if the cars weren't there, they'd still be non-mobile enclosed spaces.

 

[hhsting]

I'd say they are; if the cars weren't there, they'd still be non-mobile enclosed spaces.

Don’t follow if cars are not in room what would be non mobile enclosed spaces?

 

[hbiss]

I don't understand your question. The rooms themselves certainly do come under the NEC. My guess is that they would be considered classrooms. Now, are you also asking where wiring within or to the railroad cars fits in?

-Hal

 

[zbang]

Don’t follow if cars are not in room what would be non mobile enclosed spaces?

The point is that the presence of rail cars doesn't exempt the space (structure) from NEC requirements. The rail cars themselves would be exempt unless IMHO they're fixed in place.

 

[hhsting]

I don't understand your question. The rooms themselves certainly do come under the NEC. My guess is that they would be considered classrooms. Now, are you also asking where wiring within or to the railroad cars fits in?

-Hal

Yes wiring for the railroads and tracks fit? NEC scope of work?

 

[winnie]

IMHO the 'generic' wiring of the rooms themselves (lights, convenience receptacles, etc) certainly falls under the NEC, and there is no good reason to debate that point. They want to have an enclosed class room, they wire it like a classroom.

What will be a sticky issue is all of the wiring associated with the track and signalling and what not that is the subject being taught. This is going to be wiring _inside_ of a structure, but the nature of the class means that that wiring will need to follow all of the _railroad_ standards. It would not make sense to try to follow NEC standards because (presumably) the whole point is to teach what will be used in the field. But since this is wiring inside a building someone might try to argue that NEC applies.

Picture the following analogy. Electrical power distribution follows the NESC, with grounding rules and circuit capacity requirements that are totally different from NEC. Imagine some sort of outside lineworker training building where you have a huge open space (aircraft hangar) with distribution equipment inside (poles, overhead wires, transformers, etc.) Imagine the turf war where the utility tries to claim that NEC doesn't apply to the wiring for the building itself, or the local AHJ tries to claim that the NEC does apply to the poles.

-Jon

 

[petersonra]

I have project for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority facility building. It’s metro here in Washington. Project is in part of their facility only two rooms that are going to be used for training purpose. The two rooms have railroad tracks, signaling and communication inside the two rooms, possibly railroad cars not sure and it’s for training purpose.

Of course rooms have on walls on ceilings lights and receptacles that are not for railroad track or cars since they are for the rooms.

I did do some research Not covered NEC 2014 Section 90.2(B)(1)(3):

(1) Installation in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, railway rolling stock, aircraft...

(3) Installation of railways for generation, transformation, transmission, or distribution of power used exclusively for operation of rolling stock or installation used exclusively for signaling and communications purposes


I am not sure if the rooms are not covered by the above two NEC sections or are just the rooms receptacles and lights are under NEC. What are all of your opinions about this?

most government entities have exempted themselves from being covered by the NEC by law, although they usually have a rule that says they will abide by it.

personally, I don't think it matters much. the code is a minimum requirement and this kind of thing probably needs to be a little better done than that as far as number of circuits, number of receptacles, wiring methods, etc.

 

[hbiss]

What will be a sticky issue is all of the wiring associated with the track and signalling and what not that is the subject being taught. This is going to be wiring _inside_ of a structure, but the nature of the class means that that wiring will need to follow all of the _railroad_ standards. It would not make sense to try to follow NEC standards because (presumably) the whole point is to teach what will be used in the field. But since this is wiring inside a building someone might try to argue that NEC applies.

I think it would be considered an exhibit, tool or learning aid used for instruction. If you brought a plane into a hanger to be used to teach airplane techs, nobody would imagine rewiring it to NEC requirements.

-Hal

 

[jaggedben]

Yes wiring for the railroads and tracks fit? NEC scope of work?

Wiring for the railcars or tracks would not be within the scope of the NEC.

 

[winnie]

I think it would be considered an exhibit, tool or learning aid used for instruction. If you brought a plane into a hanger to be used to teach airplane techs, nobody would imagine rewiring it to NEC requirements.

I absolutely agree that such is how things should be interpreted.

-Jon

 

[suemarkp]

I have the same problem with aircraft equipment. We have labs where aircraft electronics are mounted in racks or test benches. Bring in the whole aircraft and I agree, it is exempt. But bring in portions, and install it in various holding fixtures for years and years and you have a problem. Flight simulators are a similar problem when built with real avionics. Even worse is when they want to use real aircraft wiring harnesses in the lab (so cable lengths are exact). None of the markings on it are NEC recognized markings. I wish the NEC would address this, and I've thought of writing some code proposals but never have. Typically, we just have to install a fire suppression system. But now we may need NRTL labeling on engineering versions of the avionics or benches (ones that never get certified to fly). Fortunately, it seems easier to skate on the 28VDC items even though they are not labeled CL1, CL2, or CL3. It is the 400Hz and higher voltage DC that cause more grief.

 

[hbiss]

I have the same problem with aircraft equipment. We have labs where aircraft electronics are mounted in racks or test benches. Bring in the whole aircraft and I agree, it is exempt. But bring in portions, and install it in various holding fixtures for years and years and you have a problem. Flight simulators are a similar problem when built with real avionics. Even worse is when they want to use real aircraft wiring harnesses in the lab (so cable lengths are exact). None of the markings on it are NEC recognized markings. I wish the NEC would address this, and I've thought of writing some code proposals but never have. Typically, we just have to install a fire suppression system. But now we may need NRTL labeling on engineering versions of the avionics or benches (ones that never get certified to fly). Fortunately, it seems easier to skate on the 28VDC items even though they are not labeled CL1, CL2, or CL3. It is the 400Hz and higher voltage DC that cause more grief.

Except for maybe the flight simulators, I still don't see any of that as a problem. That situation exists in millions of labs all the time. Every time an engineer builds something for prototype or test they can't be required to have it tested and labeled. Besides, who's looking anyway?

-Hal

 

[suemarkp]

OSHA is looking. We have a company effort to certify all these custom things we've built over the years. They say OSHA requires it, and since that affects all sites they are working it site wide. I think my company tries to comply with regulatory issues, and it would be uncommon for an OSHA inspector to see this. But I've heard they've come across old drill presses with no NRTL label and write that up as an issue. There may be an exception for things used for shor duration. But we have many one off things we've built that are used for years or decades.

I really don't like it, as someone who has been building electronics since I was 13, that everything is deemed unsafe unless checked and compared to UL standards. Field Evaluation Bodies are going to make a killing. We are trying to reduce the long term pain by only buying NRTL listed things, but that isn't always possible (and certainly isn't when we custom make a test signal box or incorporate avionics that are never NRTL listed).

 

[winnie]

IMHO the answer that OSHA should accept is 'These systems by their nature need to be built to the following safety standards, not the NEC.' However not being a lawyer I have no idea if they would accept that answer.

 

[suemarkp]

That is what they are looking for, and some label to show it. But to comply with whichever UL listing (or FAA listing) applies is typically worse than complying with the NEC. There is a lot of overlap between UL and the NEC. The main thing that shows up in many UL standards is the chassis having a bonding value of 100 mOhms or less to the equipment ground supply terminal. So we check for that and other obvious things like terminal guarding, cord strain relief, etc. Most of the things we've built in house have been fine, but no one checked it in the past to make sure it was well done except maybe visually. Another common error is no nameplate info or insufficient labeling (multiple power sources, stored energy, even the stupid lightning bolt in a triangle symbol sometimes -- I'm still not clear on when that is needed).