ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues lighting transformers

Greg as far as my posts are concerned I think we have moved beyond the original question and moved on to a general discussion of breakers.

I do understand your point and most times I would agree.

However it sounds to me like even the manufacturer was confused when asked the question.


I bet that is correct as far as the transformer, I still question if the breaker manufacturer would back that up. I doubt highly this engineer had anything to do with the design of the breaker.

But a letter is a letter so all is good.

Bob

I don't think we have a question about breakers "not listed for 100%" but this one is a recognized part of a listed assembly. If it wasn't good at 100% why did the NRTL list it?

I agree this might just be a mistake at the NRTL, there are plenty but I am not sure I have the authority to dispute that with an installer. I could go to the NRTL or the manufacturer but these fights do not belong on Bogger's job.
I might ask him if he really likes the "design", but if that is what they are going for I am not sure I can stop them.

Maybe I am just too nice to be an inspector

Greg there is nothing wrong with being nice.

I do not believe an inspector working under the NEC has to accept NTL listed equipment. (I do think they would be on slippery ground refusing it)

However here in MA we have an amendment that directly states inspectors must accept NTL listed equipment if used per listing and labeling.

I talked to the inspector the other day just to let him know we were adding the extra transformers and balancing the load on the them. After talking to him for a while and bring up some of the issues discussed here his stance is that he feels the design is wrong and as the last one to look at an installation and design and that it his responsiblity as the AHJ to make sure it is to code.
All drawings go thru a plan review here and get red stamped and are required to be on site. If there is a mistake or the reviewer misses something, i.e. wrong size OCP or wrong size feeders, just because an engineer designed it and it got thru plan review doesn't mean he is required to pass it. In fact he said he is the "last line of defense" and he reads the code that the OCP on the secondary is only good for 80% continuous load.
I agree with him after talking with him and after listening to the others here.
I think I'm ready for a big piece of humble pie.