Conflicting Inspectors!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
Well, Ive heard of it happening, but this is the first for me. In one area the 'City' inspector that says that emergency and normal MUST be in completely seperate raceway (dividers do not count) no city ordinance requirements just his interpertation.On another job just recently we have the STATE inspector says its ok. Well we did the jobs the same way, and the inspectors are conflicting.

I know i brung this up before, and I actually agree with the 'city' inspectors interpertation, but i work for a company that says do it 'this' way so i do. We pass on one job and didnt pass on another. What do you think of this issue?? Have u ever run into where you pass in one area and not in another and there are no local laws that say anything different. ??
 
The state inspector is correct. I would go to the highest authority for a judgment but, I don't know how it works in your area.

Roger
 
There is the right way the wrong way and the way the boss wants it done. I always do it the way the boss wants it done. It's not the Electricians job to reason why, but to do or die or get another job.
 
iwire is correct, they must be "totally" separate. Proposals to do otherwise were rejected last week. See the rejected proposals for the 2011 NEC when the ROP is made public.
 
iwire said:
What do you base that on?:smile:

It says 'entirely separate' odd choice of words if that is not what they meant.

I am not sure myself but I install like the city inspector is correct.
Click to expand...

Well, using the wording of 314.28(D) (yeah I know that is addressing boxes)

(D) Permanent Barriers Where permanent barriers are installed in a box, each section shall be considered as a separate box.
Click to expand...
IMO the word "entirely" is not needed, the wording "separate box" means separate to me.

Roger
 
roger said:
Well, using the wording of 314.28(D) (yeah I know that is addressing boxes)

(D) Permanent Barriers Where permanent barriers are installed in a box, each section shall be considered as a separate box.

The IMO the word "entirely" is not needed, the wording "separate box" means separate to me.

Roger
Click to expand...


We've always used barriers for separation of EM and Non-Em based on what Roger posted.
 
roger said:
IMO the word "entirely" is not needed, the wording "separate box" means separate to me.
Click to expand...

You say "entirely is not needed" and I say 'but it is there and it says what it says'. :smile:

IMO conductors occupying the same enclosure separated with a barrier are 'separate' but not 'entirely separate'.

I am not even sure my reading is the intent, but I do feel like that is what the words require. :smile:
 
A vendor of surface metal raceway sponsored a Lunch & Learn presentation at our office about seven months ago. This question came up. They have taken the position that a permanent barrier internal to a raceway is not sufficient to satisfy the NEC?s separation requirements. I asked them to send me some information concerning this position. Among the things they sent was a letter exchange between one of their engineers and an NFPA staff member. They had requested a formal interpretation. They didn?t get one. But what they did get is an ?NFPA Staff Opinion.? It declares itself to be non-binding, then it explains why this person thought that an internal barrier internal is not sufficient. The letter was dated August 30, 2007.
 
I just remember where another jurisdiction that is not far from our jurisdiction (actually it is a different state) has ruled that a barrier in a box is not sufficient, it would have to be a different enclosure.

I would guess that one needs to talk with the AHJ.
 
Well this IS the Ahj, (at least for the city) and the State. I just do as im told by the boss and install it the way he wants it done. They sign my paycheck. It just frustrates to not have 'uniformity' of code enforcement.
As stated before, I do agree with the 'city inspectors' interpertation, hes using 517.30(C)(1) and emphasizing ENTIRELY independent.

I actually heard of a story, (dont know how true it is) that there was one project where they did the 'barrier' thing (one race way with a divider) and there was a fault/fire on the normal side for whatever reason. . Even though it did not happen on the emergency side of the barrier, it was said that the heat actually affected the e power side and they had to repull both runs.
So goes the claim of 'entirely' independent that wouldve helped prevent/preserved the e power. what do you guys think??
 
charlie b said:
A vendor of surface metal raceway sponsored a Lunch & Learn presentation at our office about seven months ago. This question came up. They have taken the position that a permanent barrier internal to a raceway is not sufficient to satisfy the NEC?s separation requirements. I asked them to send me some information concerning this position. Among the things they sent was a letter exchange between one of their engineers and an NFPA staff member. They had requested a formal interpretation. They didn?t get one. But what they did get is an ?NFPA Staff Opinion.? It declares itself to be non-binding, then it explains why this person thought that an internal barrier internal is not sufficient. The letter was dated August 30, 2007.
Click to expand...

Any way to get a copy of the lettter and post it? I would love to read it. I was also told that one should be able to do work on 1 system (normal or e power) without affecting the other in any way.
 
Brother, you need to contact Hill-Rom (and a few other manufacturers of medical equipment and raceways) and tell them many of their products are in violation of your city inspectors rules, I'm sure they will start manufacturing their items differently :D

Roger
 
roger said:
Brother, you need to contact Hill-Rom (and a few other manufacturers of medical equipment and raceways) and tell them many of their products are in violation of your city inspectors rules, I'm sure they will start manufacturing their items differently :D

Roger
Click to expand...

Roger. manufacturers are not bound to NEC rules, but you already know that. :smile:
 
iwire said:
Roger. manufacturers are not bound to NEC rules, but you already know that. :smile:
Click to expand...

I was hoping for that.

So raceway (say SQ D wall and trench duct for example) with it's dividers is code legal.

What is the discussion?

Roger
 
Ken, the "entirely independent" separation of "wiring" is met when the "wiring" is installed in "separate" raceways, a permanent barrier provides this separation and meets the requirement of 517.30.

Most medical imaging rooms use a multi-compartment wall and trench duct to meet the separation requirement of MV/LV, communications, normal branch and critical branch wiring systems.

Roger
 
brother said:
Well this IS the Ahj, (at least for the city) and the State. I just do as im told by the boss and install it the way he wants it done. They sign my paycheck. It just frustrates to not have 'uniformity' of code enforcement.
As stated before, I do agree with the 'city inspectors' interpertation, hes using 517.30(C)(1) and emphasizing ENTIRELY independent.

I actually heard of a story, (dont know how true it is) that there was one project where they did the 'barrier' thing (one race way with a divider) and there was a fault/fire on the normal side for whatever reason. . Even though it did not happen on the emergency side of the barrier, it was said that the heat actually affected the e power side and they had to repull both runs.
So goes the claim of 'entirely' independent that wouldve helped prevent/preserved the e power. what do you guys think??
Click to expand...

I think that here is another example that the Code is enough and too much at the same time.

It could have just stated that separation should be maintained between normal and emergency sytems so that expectable single fault of the normal system will not jeopardize the functioning of the emergency system, and that the engineering and design of the system does not have to take into consideration double fault or catastrophic internal or external failure. If we were to write the Code today from scratch it should take the general approach to describe what is intended to be accomplished and what are the parameters that have to be maintained. Based on that National Standards and Practices can be developed that would be the base of all work.
 
I wouldn't get to buggered up about a city and a state inspector not agreeing. I can't tell you how many times I go to a job and asked who signed something off and all I can do is look at it and say "really?"

I always tell contractors, not only do interpretaions change from city to city, they will change from desk to desk and we'll all call it the same when you all build it the same.:smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top