2008 proposal for raceways

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandsnow

Senior Member
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Rodger

I'm not scared to make a judgement at all. Do it all the time. This particular case of the EMT nipple between cabinets is something that I agree with. I've approved hundreds.

No, I don't have to have everything listed before I approve it. Some inspectors don't allow tie wire or ty raps to support conduit or cable in walls because it is not listed for it. I always thought that was silly. I will require that circuit breakers be listed and applied accordingly. I have insufficient knowledge to judge that device will be able to interrupt up to 35kaic. I can also judge if a switchboard can be mated with a different manufacturer without getting a UL field follow up inspection.

My point with my previous post was that if people want inspectors to grant a little slack say here in the case of the EMT nipple, then the reverse should be true if something meets code, but the inspector with good judgement, common sense and experience reqiures something above the code.

For me to ask or require something above the code is nowadays few and far between. It has to be something where I have seen a code requirement to be inadequate.

This unfortunately is one of the most abused things by people in my position and I can understand why people jump up and down. I hear about neighboring jurisdictions and some of the things that are required by some inspectors. and yes the electrician often knows more than the inspector. That's really scary because I know the level of knowledge of the electricians in this area.


I rejoice when I find a electrician who has code knowledge. They are few and far between in my world. Open shop or IBEW the lack of Code knoweldge is distressing.

It was amazing to me to see electricians here on this forum who acually knew about derating, or length limits on transformer secondary conductors, or that actually knew how a ground fault trips a circuit breaker, or that an IG ground does not mean a iso ground bus connected to a CW pipe.

I worked as an electrician and know what it's like when the inspector tells you to do something wrong or is not a code requirement.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Larry, like Ryan and some of the other inspectors we have on the forum, you are one of the good ones even if I don't agree with you 100%. I agree with everything you are doing except where you are forcing the EC to exceed the Code. If you do not agree with the Code, submit a change request. It will take a while to make it through the process but if everyone agrees with you, the change will be made. :D
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Charlie
Thank You
We just disagree on asking the EC to exceed the code. As in any relationship, there has to be a give and take or a balance. I do believe that we (inspectors) are servants of the public and here to help the EC and not here to make them bow to our every whim.

I agree that if I feel strongly enough that a change in the code is necessary, that I should take the time and submit a proposal for a change.

If someone proposes a change, what is required after the proposal is submitted in writing. Do you have to appear before the committee? Are photographs accepted with the proposal?

Thanks
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Larry, as time passes, you will find out much more about making a proposal in the new part of the forum. Following is a very quick rundown, yes, it is as simple as it sounds. :) </font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Go online at the NFPA web site, www.nfpa.org, and fill out the form to make a change OR</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Copy a change request from the back of the NEC and fill it out</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Attach any documentation if you need clarification</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Make sure you have supported your arguments with documentation if it is needed</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Submit the online form, mail the change request, or fax the request so that it reaches the NFPA office by 5:00 EST on 11/4/05.</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not required to address the panel but, if you really want to address them, it can be done</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I recommend taking a shot at your proposal(s) on this site and see what happens. I promise to be as tough as possible and so will the others. This will permit you to massage you proposal and bolster the substantiation. In other words, we will help you with your proposal or try to convince you that it is not a good one.

I think this new part of the forum is going to help the overall code making process and I welcome you to participate. :D
 

peter

Senior Member
Location
San Diego
I think the word "straight" should be in there somewhere. I have had occasions in which two close panels needed and additional conduit run. Since they were already mounted to the wall and wires already pulled and connected, it was impractical to run another short line between the two panels. So a "U" shaped run was devised. I don't think this "U" shaped run would have the same structural integrity as a straight shot.
In this case, I think I might have used a "Minnie" or "conduit hanger" for the support [for what that's worth].
Someone mentioned other trades using the conduit for "handrails". This should be the true measure of real support. If a 150 pound electrician such as myself can graab onto the conduit to steady himself and the support doesn't give way, then it should be considered adequately supported.
~Peter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top