Textbook misinformation?

[peter d]

The AHJ has the final say regarding electrical installations no matter what the NEC states. Due to the possibility of local jurisdiction requiring installation practices that are different from the NEC, designers and installers should ensure, at the outset of the project, that their intended installation practices meet local as well as NEC requirements.
For instance, many local AHJs require that all electrical services be installed in metal conduit despite the list of possible wiring methods that the NEC recognizes in 230.43...

Emphasis added by me.

Electrical Systems based on the 2002 NEC, Callanan and Wusinich, 2002.

[Sorry, that's not even close to a proper MLA citation. ]


Edited to include citation.

[ December 23, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Peter that is correct for me here in MA.

However the inspectors who come out to my jobs are not the AHJ.

They are inspectors who enforce the MEC which is an amended NEC.

Bottom line is no one here in MA can make rules off of the top of their head but the AHJ does have the final say not the NEC.

Did that make sense?

 

[tkb]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

I didn't think the AHJ could use "my town" rules. I thought that we had to go by the Mass amended code.
What's the difference between an inspector and the AHJ ?

 

[iwire]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Tim I believe "Leo M." mentioned in his class the Attorney general as the ultimate AHJ in our State.

Take a look at our "Rules" in front of our amendments and notice they do not use the term "Authority Having Jurisdiction" they use the term "authority enforcing this Code."

Maybe a small difference but when you read the rules you see a distinction between "Inspector of wires" and authority enforcing this Code.

Keep in mind we can go over a local inspectors head to the State.

Look at our change to 90.6 here is part of it.

Requests for interpretation shall be in the form of a question that can receive a ?Yes? or ?No? answer. This in no way supersedes the right of any individual who is aggrieved by the decision of an Inspector of Wires to appeal from that decision to the Board of Electricians? Appeals in accordance with M.G.L. c. 143 ?3P.

Notice again they are calling the person inspecting our work "Inspector of Wires" not "The Authority Enforcing this code" and not the Authority having jurisdiction.

I wish it was clearer, certainly some inspectors feel they are the ultimate authority and try to make up rules that the NEC 'Forgot'.

 

[peter d]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Bob, yes, that makes sense. I just don't like the wording the authors chose.

It almost sounds like they are saying that the AHJ can make up their own rules, like the pipe requirement they mentioned. The inspector can only enforce the rules as written, not whatever they please.

After I read that paragraph, I though, "Why even bother with the NEC then?" :roll:


Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent textbook. That statement just rubbed me the wrong way. I think it sends the wrong message to the next generation of electricians.

 

[jtester]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

peter d
The NEC carries little or no weight by itself. It must be adopted by an entity before it becomes enforceable. About the only time that isn't true is in a lawsuit where the lawyer asks if you followed "generally accepted engineering practices". Even if the NEC is not adopted, generally accepted engineering practices, if not followed, will bite you.

 

[peter d]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Originally posted by jtester:
Even if the NEC is not adopted, generally accepted engineering practices, if not followed, will bite you.

Can you elaborate on this some more? The legal world is totally beyond my realm.

 

[tkb]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Now I see.

Thanks for clearing it up for me Bob.

 

[jtester]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

peter d
I am not an attorney, so any attorneys reading this will laugh as much as if we read their stories about electricity. Here goes

As an electrical engineer, if I am designing a building in a jurisdiction that has no code, and I dont conform to " generally accepted engineering practices", the NEC in this case, I could be responsible for damages and sometimes negligence, caused by failures relating to my design. The fact that code didn't apply doesn't mean it shouldn't. I guess the logic is that if a person of adequate training and experience would know to design to some level of safety, and I didn't design to the same level, I better have a good explanation for not conforming to generally accepted engineering practices.

If a Contractor in the same area, installed a NEMA 1 panel on an outdoor service subject to the elements, installed no grounding throughout the project, and someone was electrocuted, there would be a case against him for not following generally accepted construction practices. Put 10 knowledgeable electricians in a room, and they all would generally follow the NEC, and all would find fault with the work.

That's an engineer's attempt at explaining generally accepted whatever practices.
Jim T

 

[iggy2]

Re: Textbook misinformation?

Can you elaborate on this some more? The legal world is totally beyond my realm.

I have provided expert witness services in several cases (have since quit that, but that's a whole other post...) The bottom line is that what you did, or didn't do must the be the same thing that a similar person would have done, or not done, in the same circumstances.

The problem is that both side then hire "experts" to say what they would have or would not have done in the case in question. And then it comes down to, as it always does, not who's right or wrong, but who has more credibility and ultimately who the jury (or judge) likes better.

Anyone interested in a thread of court room war stories?