UL Listed romex connectors in recessed cans

[electricmanscott]

I would hate to conradict a fellow inspector but I think I am your side with this one from what I hear. Of course once I see it for myself I may change my mind but I can't see going that far for something like that.

Yeah, heaven forbid an inspector is wrong, or a moron like this guy. :roll:


Read the link to the can for yourself.


Where do these idiots come from. There seems to be no end to the nonsense they come up with.

 

[electricmanscott]

i won't even begin to split hairs about code around here, there are
people here far more knowledgeable than i about the nec....

however, i've learned to pick my battles. if the cans aren't sheetrocked
yet, and as you don't have rough electrical, i don't see how they can be...

i'd probably consider just using 1/2" 2 screw connectors and redoing
it.. even if i win this battle, and the inspector eats it, i'm probably going
to be dealing with him long after the 4 hours rework labor is forgotten...

and any inspector worth his clipboard can cost me 4 hours every time
he sees me, for the rest of his life if he wants to.


randy

You either part of the problem or part of the solution. You Randy are part of the problem.

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

 

[electricmanscott]

We have no idea what the AHJs position is in the OPs case. :smile:As I said, I think it is a bad call but it seems within the authority of the inspector and / or AHJ.

Sure we do, he cited 300.4 B 1 Nonsense

If that is the case then then these guys can fail any job any time. That's pretty scary.

 

[iwire]

Sure we do, he cited 300.4 B 1 Nonsense

That was what the inspector cited, we do not know what the AHJ has top say.

If that is the case then then these guys can fail any job any time. That's pretty scary.

I agree, but if that is not the case why did MA amend the code to require the acceptance of listed products when used as listed?

 

[George Stolz]

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

Anyone who'd use those connectors instead of real romex connectors in the first place are insane, IMO. I don't need the warranty call, myself. I don't trust them.

Now, as far as the inspector calling it, I'd say that's a bad call, I agree with the above.

 

[electricguy61]

Latest discussion w/ inspector

Latest discussion w/ inspector

This morning, I was emailed NEC 314.42 as justification for the failed inspection.

I tried to discuss it by telephone, with both the inspector and the senior inspector, and was finally told that this was their interpretation of the code and they weren't going to discuss it any further.

Here was my email response:

Gentlemen:

My men are on their way to the job to wire the recessed cans according to your interpretation of the code, as I cannot hold up the general contractor from completing the job.

I do not wish to create an adversarial situation with your department, as we will be working together for many years.

Please do me the favor of reading the code requirement you quote, 314.42. It is referring to ?covers of outlet boxes and conduit bodies having holes through which flexible cord pendants may pass shall be provided with approved bushing or shall have smooth, well-rounded surfaces on which the cord may bear?.

Again, I submit that this has no bearing on the fixed installation of NM cable in an UL fixture in approved manner.

http://www.junolightinggroup.com/Instruction%20Sheets/Juno/IC%20&%20TC%20P5142.pdf

I would like to talk to the ?authority having jurisdiction?, which you stated was *** ***. I can?t find an email address or contact information for him. Could I get this from you please?

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully

*** ***

I'll keep you updated

 

[Fulthrotl]

You either part of the problem or part of the solution. You Randy are part of the problem.

Any person that would go back and redo 50+ recessed lights in this case would have to be completely insane.

why, thank you. that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.

i was not saying the inspector was correct. i was saying the inspector
with an attitude can cause untold grief to my checking account on future
work due to a damaged working relationship. he may be an idiot, but
idiot or not, he is a silent partner in my business whose contribution
can make or break a job.

it would seem you have a different philosophy than i do regarding dealing
with inspectors.

would you rather be right, or profitable?


randy

 

[Fulthrotl]

This morning, I was emailed NEC 314.42 as justification for the failed inspection.

I tried to discuss it by telephone, with both the inspector and the senior inspector, and was finally told that this was their interpretation of the code and they weren't going to discuss it any further.

Here was my email response:

Gentlemen:

My men are on their way to the job to wire the recessed cans according to your interpretation of the code, as I cannot hold up the general contractor from completing the job.

I do not wish to create an adversarial situation with your department, as we will be working together for many years.

my nickel's worth is that you handled it the best you could under
the circumstances.....

however, that position could be considered completely insane.
you have been warned.


randy

 

[electricguy61]

I'm not saying anybody is an idiot.

My point is if I'm doing something wrong, show me how. It wouldn't be the first mistake I've made, and I'll make many more.

What is upsetting is that I haven't failed an inspection in many years (actually, I can't remember the last one I failed). We take tremendous pride in our work. We also know that failed inspections cost everybody time and money, and would rather avoid them.

On the other hand, if the inspector is failing me for something that's code compliant, and I can prove it, he should be able to admit he's mistaken.

I'm fully aware of the truth of the posted comments about not pissing off the inspector. I would hope he/she would be adult enough to engage in a discussion without taking it personally or reverting to "I'm in charge, so there".

FYI: I spoke with two inspectors of the largest city in the area this morning (pop 1M), and they both stated that they would not have failed me on this matter. They also gave the caveate "of course, what we would do doesn't relate to what *** (the other city) will allow.

 

[tonyou812]

Ive used them all the time and never had a problem with inspections or the can. Although I never use the snap in connectors for the wiring that come with some of them as they have failed me a few times.
I would fight this one. I wouldn't put up with it. Is it really any different than putting a romex in a metal device box with the clamp that comes with it?

 

[JES2727]

Even better call for another inspection, when he turns them down again, start smashing them out of the ceiling with a baseball bat, scream and yell at the cans and put on a good show for him. Inspections after that might be real quick and sweet.

This is probably the best advice so far....

 

[celtic]

i was not saying the inspector was correct. i was saying the inspector with an attitude can cause untold grief to my checking account on future work due to a damaged working relationship. he may be an idiot, but idiot or not, he is a silent partner in my business whose contribution can make or break a job.

:-?
You consider the EI to be a "silent partner in my business whose contribution can make or break a job"?

What exactly is he contributing?
Nothing

If you run your jobs according to what an EI wants, you will out of business. How is it possible to know what every EI's take on a particular item is? That is why there is an accepted code in place.

would you rather be right, or profitable?

Why can't it be both?
What you are inferring here is that you will succumb to the pressure of an EI that is wrong - which also makes you wrong.

it would seem you have a different philosophy than i do regarding dealing
with inspectors.

Count me as one with that "different philosphy" as well.

 

[haskindm]

I don't believe the AHJ's inspector "approves" or "dis-approves" anything. He enforces the applicable codes the AHJ has adopted, which includes accepting UL listed equipment.

As stated in a later posting of mine, the inspector is mis-applying 300.4.(B) (1), which does not apply to lighting fixtures, but to metal framing members (metal studs)

Please look at 90.4. Especially the part that says that "The AHJ for enforcement of this code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, FOR DECIDING ON THE APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS...." (emphasis added)

Now look at the definition of "approved" in article 100 - "ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION".

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".

Strictly speaking the AHJ (or their representative) does not have to approve anything that they have issues with. This is NOT a difference of interpretation or a violation of a specific code section so no code section needs to be cited. The AHJ probably should have cited 90.4. The AHJ does not like the sharp edges on this connector in this fixture so he has decided not to "approve" it. You may not like it, but the NEC gives the AHJ this authority. Evidently Massachusetts limits this authority but most jurisdictions do not. If the inspector is the AHJ in your jurisdiction he is acting within his authority. The code says what it says. If the code meant that the the AHJ must accept UL Listed equipment installed according to its listing it would need to state that in the NEC; at the present time it does not. I feel your frustration, but the AHJ does have the authority to reject equipment for any reason as the code is presently written. The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

 

[electricguy61]

Please look at 90.4. Especially the part that says that "The AHJ for enforcement of this code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, FOR DECIDING ON THE APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS...." (emphasis added)

Now look at the definition of "approved" in article 100 - "ACCEPTABLE TO THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION".

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".

Strictly speaking the AHJ (or their representative) does not have to approve anything that they have issues with. This is NOT a difference of interpretation or a violation of a specific code section so no code section needs to be cited. The AHJ probably should have cited 90.4. The AHJ does not like the sharp edges on this connector in this fixture so he has decided not to "approve" it. You may not like it, but the NEC gives the AHJ this authority. Evidently Massachusetts limits this authority but most jurisdictions do not. If the inspector is the AHJ in your jurisdiction he is acting within his authority. The code says what it says. If the code meant that the the AHJ must accept UL Listed equipment installed according to its listing it would need to state that in the NEC; at the present time it does not. I feel your frustration, but the AHJ does have the authority to reject equipment for any reason as the code is presently written. The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

Assuming you're correct (which I don't), would this mean that any inspector could decide that he doesn't feel that Square D equipment meets his manufacturing standard, and so can arbitrarily fail any inspection where Square D equipment has been used? Or perhaps the fact that 15 & 20 amp breakers are approved for the installation of 2 conductors of the same size, but he doesn't like that so fails an inspection?

If a city agrees to accept UL listing as an approved means of testing equipment, and has not written a specific code, ordinance or rule disallowing a particular wiring method (that is otherwise universally approved), I don't see the how it can make a ruling as was made in my case. AHJ's have rules they must follow as well as everyone else. It would be chaos if not.

I'm not a lawyer, but I pretended to be once in a high school play:grin:

 

[Greg Swartz]

Who cares if the OP will have more inspections with the same inspector. Does this mean the OP should kiss butt! I think not! Right is right! End of it! Based on the information listed by the OP, and our company installing the same recess cans in the same way (per manufactures instructions), I see no violation.

I spent 9 years in the Marine Corps... I do not kiss butt.
I do however, choose my battles wisely.

If you own a business, think about your bottom line:
I would rather be profitable and re-do the can wiring, than have an inspector be "pissed" at me.
I am not scared of the inspectors... on the contrary, when I am onsite during an inspection, I ask them the reasons why, and ask for code references.
The time lost in fighting the inspector will cost you more money in the long run, and possibly ruin a relationship with a contractor... all because you had to be right.
To be honest, the inspector is "right" too... what he is asking is not a violation of the NEC. He just wants to be "more" right.
I am not siding with the inspector.
I talk to them all the time. I have even proved several wrong, but still had to perform the requested "repair." I'm ok with that.
If you have to be right, you better be perfect... or better than that, you better know what the inspector is looking for.

Greg
"No butt kissing here!"

 

[Greg Swartz]

I use Juno lights all the time, I'm impressed the inspector even opened up the j-box to be honest.

To be honest, I am too...
I guess no one should have left a ladder on the jobsite!

And point of note... your tagline is hilarous! I keep playing it when I have problems with inspectors... it's kinda in the same vein...
They keep telling you what they want (after they fail you), you can't understand it (and as in this post, no one can), then they trip charge you... and you ask more questions, more incorherence...

 

[celtic]

Also look at 110.2 - Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if APPROVED. I refer you again to the article 100 definition of "approved".


The AHJ has stated that this fixture is not acceptable as installed so you will need to find out what needs to be done to make it acceptable. UL Stickers all over the fixture mean nothing unless the AHJ decides they do.

The NECH offers some insight into 110.2:

All electrical equipment is required to be approved as defined in Article 100 and, as such, to be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction (also defined in Article 100). Section 110.3 provides guidance for the evaluation of equipment and recognizes listing or labeling as a means of establishing suitability.
Approval of equipment is the responsibility of the electrical inspection authority, and many such approvals are based on tests and listings of testing laboratories.

Lets revisit 100 again:

Labeled.

​

Equipment or materials to which has been attached​

a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an

organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction
and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains
periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment
or materials, and by whose labeling the manufacturer
indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance​

​

in a specified manner.​

Listed. ​

Equipment, materials, or services included in a list

published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority

having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation
of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection
of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either
the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated
standards or has been tested and found suitable for
a specified purpose.

​

FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary
for each organization concerned with product evaluation,
some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless
it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing
organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to​

identify a listed product.​

​

​

​

​

By accepting the NEC, the AHJ has also accepted the Listing and Labeling that comes with any given product.​

"Approval" is a completely different matter.

 

[iwire]

By accepting the NEC, the AHJ has also accepted the Listing and Labeling that comes with any given product

I disagree, there is nothing in the NEC that forces the AHJ to accept listed equipment.

I think they should but they don't listen to me.:grin:

 

[electricmanscott]

Anyone who'd use those connectors instead of real romex connectors in the first place are insane, IMO. I don't need the warranty call, myself. I don't trust them.

.

Do you have anything to back that up?

I have myself used thousands of these "connectors" with zero problems. I can't be the only one that uses them.

I also use the "wagos" if the fixtures has them. I'm completely insane!

Just to reiterate, the inspector is a dummy and is way overstepping his authority as far as i am concerned.

 

[iwire]

Just to reiterate, the inspector is a dummy and is way overstepping his authority as far as i am concerned.

Just to reiterate, show me the section in the National Electrical Code that states UL listed equipment must be accepted.