Conflicting Inspectors!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
roger said:
So raceway (say SQ D wall and trench duct for example) with it's dividers is code legal.

What is the discussion?

Roger
Click to expand...
It is legal to make it. How we propose to use it may, or may not, be legal. That's the discussion. If you wish to separate two normal circuits from each other, you can use their divided raceway.
 
brother said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was not sent to me with a requirement to maintain confidentiality. So I think I can. But not today. It's on my work computer, and I am not in the office today.

I vaguely recall that the objection to calling the two chambers "separate" had to do with their having a common wall. But I don't recall how he (the NFPA staff member) carried on the discussion from there. It was a one page letter, and one third of the page was a clear statement to the effect that this was a staff opinion, and not a formal interpretation by the NFPA.
 
charlie b said:

It was not sent to me with a requirement to maintain confidentiality. So I think I can. But not today. It's on my work computer, and I am not in the office today.

I vaguely recall that the objection to calling the two chambers "separate" had to do with their having a common wall. But I don't recall how he (the NFPA staff member) carried on the discussion from there. It was a one page letter, and one third of the page was a clear statement to the effect that this was a staff opinion, and not a formal interpretation by the NFPA.
Click to expand...

I await patiently, for your letter. ;)
 
I think that letter was submitted as supporting document for a change proposal for the 2011 code. I remember seeing something like that when I took a quick skim through some of the proposed changes....I just don't remember what proposal it was for.
 
Actually, Don, the letter I am talking about was a "personalized letter," meaning it was sent directly from an NFPA staff member to an employee of a manufacturing company, in reply to a letter sent the other direction, requesting (but not getting) a formal NFPA interpretation. Whether it was later used as part of a proposal, I cannot say.
 
In response to the OP question about conflictong inspectors:

As an inspector and a contractor, I see conflicting inspector calls from both sides of the aisle. In my small part of the world (western NC), inspectors from several jurisdiction get together every quarter and talk about code related items including complaints from contractors about inspectors being inconsistent between jurisdictions. The conversation on the jobsite that starts - "Inspector Joe lets me do this over in (fill in the blank) jurisdiction" - is quickly handled by an email and phone number database between jurisdictions that allows us to get information quickly from "Inspector Joe" himself. During the quarterly meeting we try to come to a consensus and all agree to call items the same way. This is not a perfect system but it is the best we have come up with and judging by the spirited discussions in these forums - differing opinions on code issues are common for contractor and inspector alike.
 
roger said:
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
Click to expand...

I do not know that product.

IMO if I am field installing barriers in raceways or enclosures to 'separate' Emerg and Normal circuits I am violating 700.9(B).

Make me understand how I can choose to ignore 'entirely' and that will put me in your camp. :smile:
 
roger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt that at all, but I also do not think that has much to do with what the rule says. You and I both can think of many things that are commonly done that are code violations.

FWIW I think that all those systems could be mixed with barriers only except the emergency circuit.
 
iwire said:
I do not know that product.

IMO if I am field installing barriers in raceways or enclosures to 'separate' Emerg and Normal circuits I am violating 700.9(B).

Make me understand how I can choose to ignore 'entirely' and that will put me in your camp. :smile:
Click to expand...


Not to pick on you Bob ;), but how about applying some logical thought to this scenario. The two are required to be separate, using a divider in a box makes them separate, why do we need to get hung up on the word entirely? IMO once you put the cover on the box the two are now entirely separate.

If the box were big enough and you stuck your apprentice in section A and put the cover on he'll never get into section B because they are entirely separated by a divider.
 
infinity said:
why do we need to get hung up on the word entirely?
Click to expand...

Only because it is a word in certain code section that is not used in the other sections of the NEC that require separation.

Like in 760 for fire alarm or 725 for class 2 conductors. Those sections specifically mention barriers and do not use the word entirely.


If the box were big enough and you stuck your apprentice in section A and put the cover on he'll never get into section B because they are entirely separated by a divider.
Click to expand...

IMO they are separate, not entirely separate, they are in one electrical enclosure.

FWIW I went looking in the 2002, 2005 and 2008 ROPs for some guidance but did not really find anything helpful to either side of this question.
 
Bob, even Critical and Normal panels can be in a single can with a divider installed to separate the two systems. We install the wiring into these panels so it is not a manufacturers complete system, this would be the same as a raceway with dividers that we install conductors of the two systems in.

Click here for the SQ D wall and trench duct I'm referring to, Walker an some others also offer it.

BTW, bad days must be pretty common of late because I can relate here too :smile:

Roger
 
I don't know the exact reason for the section, but my guess would be that you don't want them in the same enclosure because if the reason for the failure was a failure of the normal power conductors, you don't want them taking out the emergency power conductors too.

Hope your day get's better Bob. You can be a pistol when you're in a good mood, I'm not sure I'd want to be around when you're really ticked off.:grin::grin: (See two smiley faces, just kidding around.)
 
Hit some black ice on the way to work, in slow motion I slide right by a stop sign and got the trim striped off my front bumper by a large passing truck. In one way it was good, no one hurt, no damage to the other guys truck tire but now my van looks bad and I have a bunch of paper work to do. Lucky I was traveling less then 30 MPH to start with or I would have gone under the side of the truck.

From there the day did not seem to get better. :rolleyes:
 
We get conflicting inspectors all the time.
One will inspect a house for a meter put back and require GFCI receps in the kitchen and bath.
Another inspector will perform the same type of inspection on a different house and not even look at the receptacles for the kitchen and bath.

I got other examples but I need to get to work.
My job today is going to correct defects from a failed inspection in which the work was performed by someone else. 8)
 
I am going to try to post the letter to which I referred in post # 10. It came to me as a pdf, and I was not able to upload it to either of my two photo gallery sites. Let's see if I can get it attached to this post.
 
Well, it seems as though SQ D has another opinion than the letter writer.

duplexpanel.jpg


This unit is a single enclosure containing two complete 120V secondary hospital isolation systems. A divider in the unit's backbox separates the systems from top to bottom and front to back.
Click to expand...
This is basically an extension of the wall and trench duct I mentioned earlier.

Roger
 
Last edited:
If you are talking different jobs in the same jurisdiction I see it all the time, on little things, at least. A house we are doing right now I called the inspector in on a question and he gave it a pass and wrote me a slip from the town saying we had the approval in case a different inspector comes in behind him and tries to say different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top