517.14
- Thread starter roger
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I see that as saying you can "daisy chain" the condutor as long as it is unbroken between each panel.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
At the risk of stealing Roger's thunder: can the EGC of the feeder supplying the respective panels serve as the equipotential bonding conductor?
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Bump to test a glitch
There would be nothing wrong with doing so but, after it landed on it's own grounding buss it would simply be a jumper to the other panels.
Roger
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
So what was the story, Roger?
George, in NC the agency over Healthcare facilities is called DHSR and they come in after all construction finals have been issued on healthcare construction projects to check for overall compliance with applicable codes.
There are usually two parts to their inspections consisting of architectural and MEP. On a recent project (that I'm not directly involved in, just sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong) the engineering inspector made claims that 517.14 had changed and "daisy chaining" was no longer acceptable, yet we know the last sentence of 517.14 has been the same since the 1993 code cycle.
Here is the 93 ROP and ROC that was the reason for the current wording.
ROP
and the ROC
I was just wondering if maybe there would be someone else that interpreted it the same as this inspector.
I have emailed this inspector ( a number of times over the past two weeks) ) asking if he can point us to a formal code change at some level that we may not be aware of, and believe it or not, he hasn't replied back. :happysad:
Roger
Roger,
Are you saying that you have regular inspections (electrical) during construction for compliance with the NEC and then you are subjected to another electrical inspectors determination once the project is complete?
Almost sounds like double jeopardy.
Pete
Are you saying that you have regular inspections (electrical) during construction for compliance with the NEC and then you are subjected to another electrical inspectors determination once the project is complete?
Almost sounds like double jeopardy.
Pete
Pete, that is pretty much the case. During the construction process it is like any project and is inspected by the local Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, etc.... inspectors and after the CO is issued, the state comes in to say the facility is ready to be occupied, kind of like a second set of eyes. This works out pretty well until we run into someone making up their own rules as in this case.
We will be submitting a change order for compensation for the labor and material which will be added cost to the owner and is not fair to them.
Roger
Roger, I run into this all of the time in NC. One DFS inspector wants one thing and another inspector wants another. If you really want to stir things up, call DOI and get their interpretation and tell DFS. It's not quite as bad with some of the newer people at DFS, but the old people did not like DOI.
Wirenut, DFS has been gone for a couple of years now, they are now called DHSR (a division of NCDHHS}. This is actually an inspector that has been with DFS/DHSR for a long time, I'm just putting him on a spot and he is trying to ignore me.
Anyways, I have considered contacting DOI but I'm not sure how soon I want it to end.
I'm kind of enjoying myself.Roger
RICK NAPIER
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
It looks pretty unanimous. I don't think that inspector will be able to support his position.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
I guess I just don't understand the situation. Could you explain what is built, and what the inspector wants to be built instead, without using the phrase "daisy-chaining"?
What I think the code is saying is this: Suppose three (normal branch) panelboards (call them A, B, and C) supply receptacles in the same patient care area. Each has a feeder from its upstream panel (may or may not be the same upstream panel), and each of those feeders has an EGC. Separate from these three EGCs, I have to run a #10 from the ground bus of A to the ground bus of B, and also to the ground bus of C. The first sentence of the code article tells me that the wire(s) serving this function must be continuous (i.e., not cut and reconnected with wire caps) for the entire run between any two of the panels. The last sentence in the code article tells me that this can be done with one wire from A to B and a second wire from B to C (i.e., it does not have to be a single wire connected to all three panels).
What I think the code is saying is this: Suppose three (normal branch) panelboards (call them A, B, and C) supply receptacles in the same patient care area. Each has a feeder from its upstream panel (may or may not be the same upstream panel), and each of those feeders has an EGC. Separate from these three EGCs, I have to run a #10 from the ground bus of A to the ground bus of B, and also to the ground bus of C. The first sentence of the code article tells me that the wire(s) serving this function must be continuous (i.e., not cut and reconnected with wire caps) for the entire run between any two of the panels. The last sentence in the code article tells me that this can be done with one wire from A to B and a second wire from B to C (i.e., it does not have to be a single wire connected to all three panels).
With that you show you have a very good understanding of the situation and "daisy chaining". What I quoted from your post is a very good explanation of the sentence the inspector basically says doesn't exist in his claim that 517.14 has been changed.
BTW, "daisy chaining" was his terminology under his letter head in his inspection report.
What he seems to want is for all the panels under a 517.14 instalation to start at the same panel such as from panel A to B, A to C, A to D, etc....
Roger
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Status