Viol. round heat duct above panel

[cutekennydet]

On a residental job I was issued a violation because the hvac guy ran a round 6" heat duct 4 feet above my panel. Not horizontal just barely (2 inches) above the edge of the panel.I know what the code says but it is a house, something besides the sky is going to be above that panel always (floor joist etc..) I think this guy was not using common sense. Am I wrong or is it a hazzard to have cold air or heat runs 4-5 ft above a panel? Standard forced air nothing unusual.

P.S.He backed down on the final after I refused to change it.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

No it is not a hazard. Dedicated electrical space is not a safety ordinance. It is for the convienance of the electrician. I would have red-tagged it also, and I would not have backed off. The code is a minimum, and it is easy to install to the minimum standards.

Why did you "refuse" to change it?

 

[cutekennydet]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

Simple The duct came after the panel instalation. Time and money homeowner who insisted we start before hvac guy refused to pay for relocation. How much convience is gained moving ductwork that is 4ft in the air 1.75 inches? None. That is where common sense comes in. Or return on investment
30 years ago and old wise inspector told me he uses common sense and NEC before writing a violation. That is why the AHJ can make the call for ex. to the rules.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

I'm not against using common sense, but I don't see what is difficult about a compliant installation either. Moving a duct 2 inches is easy. I'm not saying its your job. I often get asked by the general contractor who's responsiblity it is to do things like this. I tell them that they can have the easter bunny do it for all I care

 

[cutekennydet]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

It did a ninety and was cut into the floor so it was not so easy to move. But Thanks ryan you are so right and I love the part about the easter bunny.I should let the homeowner/GenContr fight it out. Again Thanks for your help.

 

[pierre]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

Kenny
As we all know, the NEC is the minimum. Sometimes we run into a situation very much like yours, it would seem to not be a big deal to let the duct work stay. Making the duct person move it, or however else it is resolved will make a big difference. The big difference is this is what separates us from the others who do not know, care or install to code. We seem to easily get upset when we see other code violations, so we will adhere to the minimum and be proud of it. If we were to let this go, what is to say that another person who thinks his/her violation is no worse, should we let theirs go also? Where would it end? That is the reason for the minimum

Pierre

 

[bennie]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

Can an electrician make a tin bender comply with the NEC? I never had any luck. They always told me mechanical had priority. Most specs also indicate the electrician will bend to the mechanical systems.

 

[gwz2]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

It is my understanding that once an exception is made to a rule, when City Ordinance has adopted the rule ( The NEC ) then there is no reason that every installation after that point-in-time is permitted to do the same violation with-out penalty.

In Indiana, it is actually the State. If a rule to the Indiana Electrical Code is varied by the State for one installation in Indiana, then that variance shall be the same for all future (same type) installations.

Charlie, any pro or con comment ?

gwz2

 

[russ]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

It's real simple to cure this problem, leave it in the general contractors lap. It's his subcontractors that have a conflict, but his building that is going to have to wait for an occupancy permit. Im sure he will be able to negotiate some sort of agreement dependant on the prints, time of istallation, and cost of fixing it to code.

So, it's not so simple. As the inspector, I would not want to allow it

[ November 30, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: russ ]

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

Ryan,

No it is not a hazard. Dedicated electrical space is not a safety ordinance. It is for the convienance of the electrician.

Why is such a rule in the code. This rule seems to exceed the stated purpose of the NEC.

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Don

[ November 30, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Viol. round heat duct above panel

Don: thats a good question. Do you agree that the intent is for the electrician?

Also, as far as scope/purpose/intent goes, why all these (unenforcable) fine print notes about 3% voltage drop? Sounds like a design guidline to me......