555.5 as applied to floating docks

[don_resqcapt19]

And how does this hurt anything? Any painted or galvanished sheet metal in the same area will also rot away eventually. It is not just transformers. Are you planning to require SS for all sheet metal boxes out there? Or just transformers?

I have seen all kinds of sheet metal boxes that rotted away outside nowhere near a dock or pier.

In any case. No inspector has the authority to make that determination unless it has been granted him or her by the actual AHJ. I am not aware of many (if any) AHJ that have given that power to individual inspectors.

The AHJ can certainly make that determination.

If the transformer is to be 4X, then yes, the panel boards and other electrical enclosures should be the same.

Are you saying the rotting away of the electrical enclosure is not any type of safety hazard, especially when located where there will be people around, such as this dock?

The manufacturing plant that I do a lot of work in, requires the use of NEMA 4X enclosures for everything that is outside or in their wet process areas.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

If the transformer is to be 4X, then yes, the panel boards and other electrical enclosures should be the same.

To me, that's the rub. The 555 section does not specifically require panels to be 4X, but because of the wording of 555.5 we have a little bit of gray area as demonstrated in the comments on this thread.

If anyone knows the history of when and why 555.5 was added, please share.

 

[petersonra]

If the transformer is to be 4X, then yes, the panel boards and other electrical enclosures should be the same.

Agreed. if it is a problem for the xfmr it is a problem for all sheet metal boxes. It might even be necessary to do something to make the conduit more corrosion resistant.

Are you saying the rotting away of the electrical enclosure is not any type of safety hazard, especially when located where there will be people around, such as this dock?

I don't know if it is likely the xfmr box will rot away or not, or if the "rot" will lead to a safety hazard. Just out of curiosity, just what would the hazard be? Another poster has suggested it will rot out. I do not know what he is basing that on or why it would not also apply to other sheet metal boxes like panel boards that might be nearby. In any case, if the box was repainted every few years it might not be an issue at all. so does a lack of routine maintenance make it a code issue? where is that to be found in the code? the fact that it has been a problem in a specific situation does not make it a good idea to require a specific "fix" in any similar situations, and it is certainly not within the authority of any inspector to make that determination. An AHJ can make that call though.

The manufacturing plant that I do a lot of work in, requires the use of NEMA 4X enclosures for everything that is outside or in their wet process areas.

Not unusual, but not a code issue either. And not something that an inspector can arbitrarily determine on his own authority.

 

[iwire]

And how does this hurt anything? Any painted or galvanished sheet metal in the same area will also rot away eventually. It is not just transformers. Are you planning to require SS for all sheet metal boxes out there? Or just transformers?

I have seen all kinds of sheet metal boxes that rotted away outside nowhere near a dock or pier.

In any case. No inspector has the authority to make that determination unless it has been granted him or her by the actual AHJ. I am not aware of many (if any) AHJ that have given that power to individual inspectors.

The AHJ can certainly make that determination.

So your basic argument is that sheet metal boxes can rot away anywhere so the heck with it, don't use any common sense at all. This installation is at the water front, some care needs to be used.

Also, the inspector is there to enforce the NEC and can use 110.3(A) at any point. One of my few inspection fails was on 110.3(A)(2). It was cited by an EE who was authorized by the AHJ to do so.

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code

FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to iden-tify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.

(2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided

(3) Wire-bending and connection space

(4) Electrical insulation

(5) Heating effects under normal conditions of use and also under abnormal conditions likely to arise in service

(6) Arcing effects

(7) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use

(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment

 

[iwire]

or if the "rot" will lead to a safety hazard. Just out of curiosity, just what would the hazard be? .

Exposed electrical connections.

it is certainly not within the authority of any inspector to make that determination. An AHJ can make that call though.

Here the AHJ is the state, and they have granted the local 'inspector of wires' (our local official term for the inspector) the authority to act as the AHJ. There are ways to appeal the local EIs ruling to the state, last I knew it was $175 non-returnable to do so.

And not something that an inspector can arbitrarily determine on his own authority.

That is your opinion based I assume on the rules where you are.

 

[petersonra]

So your basic argument is that sheet metal boxes can rot away anywhere so the heck with it, don't use any common sense at all. This installation is at the water front, some care needs to be used.

Also, the inspector is there to enforce the NEC and can use 110.3(A) at any point. One of my few inspection fails was on 110.3(A)(2). It was cited by an EE who was authorized by the AHJ to do so.

you seem to be suggesting the inspector can make anybody do anything he wants by citing that section. I don't see how that can be remotely legal.

In any case, there is no reasonable reading of this section that gives any individual inspector any authority to determine suitability of equipment. It is solely a list of suggestions.

Read it carefully and see what it actually says rather than what you think it says or what you want it to say.

 

[kwired]

Agreed. if it is a problem for the xfmr it is a problem for all sheet metal boxes. It might even be necessary to do something to make the conduit more corrosion resistant.


I don't know if it is likely the xfmr box will rot away or not, or if the "rot" will lead to a safety hazard. Just out of curiosity, just what would the hazard be? Another poster has suggested it will rot out. I do not know what he is basing that on or why it would not also apply to other sheet metal boxes like panel boards that might be nearby. In any case, if the box was repainted every few years it might not be an issue at all. so does a lack of routine maintenance make it a code issue? where is that to be found in the code? the fact that it has been a problem in a specific situation does not make it a good idea to require a specific "fix" in any similar situations, and it is certainly not within the authority of any inspector to make that determination. An AHJ can make that call though.


Not unusual, but not a code issue either. And not something that an inspector can arbitrarily determine on his own authority.

I will say that 555.5 is fairly pointless as long as 110.3 exists. They may as well change 555.5 to read "See 110.3"

So your basic argument is that sheet metal boxes can rot away anywhere so the heck with it, don't use any common sense at all. This installation is at the water front, some care needs to be used.

Also, the inspector is there to enforce the NEC and can use 110.3(A) at any point. One of my few inspection fails was on 110.3(A)(2). It was cited by an EE who was authorized by the AHJ to do so.

Though it is an informational note - the one that follows 110.3(A)(1) is good information to consider when determining whether something is "approved", and...

you seem to be suggesting the inspector can make anybody do anything he wants by citing that section. I don't see how that can be remotely legal.

In any case, there is no reasonable reading of this section that gives any individual inspector any authority to determine suitability of equipment. It is solely a list of suggestions.

Read it carefully and see what it actually says rather than what you think it says or what you want it to say.

... an inspector should use things like suggested in that informational note to compliment his use of citing 110.3, a rejection based on 110.3 with no supporting information is just plain unprofessional.

 

[iwire]

you seem to be suggesting the inspector can make anybody do anything he wants by citing that section.

I am saying the inspectors in my area are authorized by the AHJ to make judgement calls on installations based on 110.3(A) and a number of other code sections. If we disagree with that judgment call we may appeal it.

I don't see how that can be remotely legal.

I don't know how to explain it any better to you.

Police can cite me for driving 'too fast for conditions' or 'reckless driving' a total judgment call on their part, if I disagree I can fight it.

In any case, there is no reasonable reading of this section that gives any individual inspector any authority to determine suitability of equipment. It is solely a list of suggestions.

The NEC does not grant authority for anything, the adoption of the NEC by our AHJ, and our AHJ granting authority to the local inspectors does make the 'suggestions' in 110.3(A) enforceable.


In my case, when the EE failed me on 110.3(A) I fought it and prevailed, that EEs supervisor said I was in a postion where I could not comply with all the code sections that applied.

Read it carefully and see what it actually says rather than what you think it says or what you want it to say.

Again, I was failed on it .... I read it carefully many times looking for a way out.

I think your liberalism is clouding your judgment of how things work in the real world.

 

[iwire]

Though it is an informational note - the one that follows 110.3(A)(1) is good information to consider when determining whether something is "approved", and...
.

Not everything in this trade is listed or labeled.

In my case if i recall correctly the EE had a problem with dissimilar metals used outside.

... an inspector should use things like suggested in that informational note to compliment his use of citing 110.3,

And other things based on the situation at hand.

a rejection based on 110.3 with no supporting information is just plain unprofessional

That falls under the obviously category. There would be no way to comply or contest the cite without supporting information.

In my case supporting info was supplied.

I would have to dig through my archived emails to get the specifics.

 

[kwired]

Not everything in this trade is listed or labeled.

In my case if i recall correctly the EE had a problem with dissimilar metals used outside.




And other things based on the situation at hand.



That falls under the obviously category. There would be no way to comply or contest the cite without supporting information.

In my case supporting info was supplied.

I would have to dig through my archived emails to get the specifics.

I fully understand that not everything is listed or labeled. There are also things that are listed that don't necessarily need to be, and if you have a real stickler of an inspector you don't use them for anything they are not listed for. I think you are in agreement with me that at the very least for an inspector to cite 110.3(A) he had better have some supporting information on why he rejects the installation and not just "because I can say so".

As far as the $175.00 fee for appealing a decision, that seems pretty unfair to me. Inspectors are human and can make mistakes, yet for an installer to call out this possible mistake is going to cost $175.00?? I do understand in higher density population they maybe have to do this though or else they will spend too much time defending most every installation they ever reject. There are formal rules around here but most of us know the inspectors fairly well in the areas we commonly work and we usually work these disagreements out before any formal paperwork is finished, but once any violation is entered in the computer system you are generally paying any associated fees.