What's your call?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: What's your call?

David,

Sounds like the same set-up to me!

Please keep in mind that just because this scenario exists somewhere, doesn't make it safe or code compliant. As we all know, there are plenty of locations across this country where there is no AHJ and often no one with electrical training or a code book!

This whole concept of "if the code doesn't specifically spell out exactly the circumstance you have, then it isn't forbidden" and do it because no one can quote you where it says "thou shall not" , is an amazing concept that has evolved.

Since there are more electricians and others on these forums than there are inspectors, it is easy to see how a "pack mentality" is formed. Just because a few stories are posted from time to time as to an inspectors mis-application of the code, doesn't mean that all inspectors are ignorant. Nor is the opposite true.

Most of the electricians here have never been an inspector but, most of the inspectors here have been electricians. As an inspector, I have to weigh certain scenarios with great care and be held accountable for my actions. As an electrician, I would have to weigh certain company policies along with code issues and install what I believed to be code compliant and had the luxury of the inspector citing me if I was wrong. I also would have the luxury of asking my boss and letting him make the discussion, after all, he was responsible and as long as I did what he told me, I was off the hook. As and inspector, I remember those times, so when I am faced with the task of determining whether something is code compliant and safe, I do my best to make the best call I can after much deliberating and discussing with EEs and other inspectors. I no longer have the luxury of letting someone else make the decision and take the heat.

With all of the many individuals here that have backgrounds in CMPs, utility electrical engineering, electrical engineering, proffessional engineeering, code research and instruction we should be listening and learning from all contributors, not just the few.
 
Re: What's your call?

I don't see the big deal here. Why don't they just put the four heads on a circuit coming from one building and forget about it. If the parking lot is shared, both tenants will benefit so toss a coin and wire 'em up. A possible solution is if you have more than one pole on the "parking lot line" then stagger them to even them out so each will have the equal amount of lights from each service. I just don't think it was the intent of 225 to feed a light pole from two separate services from two different buildings. Two separate panels from the same service maybe. Just my unworthy two cents.
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave I would say as an inspector you should be and are bound to what 100 years of CMPs have decided is safe. I do not think you have a corner on what is right, I know I do not.

IMO this installation bothers you personally and are making an effort to fail it because of that personal belief.

That in my opinion is very wrong.

[ September 04, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by websparky:
This whole concept of "if the code doesn't specifically spell out exactly the circumstance you have, then it isn't forbidden" and do it because no one can quote you where it says "thou shall not" , is an amazing concept that has evolved.
Click to expand...
How do you see it? :confused:

Am I supposed to read the mind of the AHJ? :confused:

Do you expect police officers to enforce laws that are not written?

Bob
 
Re: What's your call?

Bob

The code can't cover everything. That is why an update is needed every THREE years. Sometimes you have to weigh out gray areas and lean on the side of safety and common sense, thats where 90.4 comes in. 90.4 is not to make your own rules but to rule on grey areas not yet approached. No one here has made the case that this scenario is 100% code compliant. Its just not there and IMO just plain dangerous ( trust me I have been in the field for a while ). There is speculation this or that article MAY apply. I don't think 225 is referring to two separate services as I stated above. There is more to this trade than dissecting a word or phrase to fit the situation. A lot of angles go into inspecting and installing. The most important is common sense. If you are not sure of something , call the AHJ first. They will most likley be most willing to help you.

[ September 04, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: necbuff ]
 
Re: What's your call?

How do you see it?

Am I supposed to read the mind of the AHJ?

Do you expect police officers to enforce laws that are not written?
Click to expand...
Below is how I see it.

110.2 Approval.
The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

100 Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

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
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
Click to expand...
Dave I would say as an inspector you should be and are bound to what 100 years of CMPs have decided is safe. I do not think you have a corner on what is right, I know I do not.

IMO this installation bothers you personally and are making an effort to fail it because of that personal belief.

That in my opinion is very wrong.
Click to expand...
No Bob, you are wrong.

Just because you don't like the above code references doesn't make them any less applicable to this scenario!
 
Re: What's your call?

I have been wrong before and will be wrong again, it goes along with being alive.

My mistakes do not cost ECs and their customers money ;)

Bob

[ September 04, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: What's your call?

I see this discussion asking for one location and one source of supply to disconnect all power in a parking lot pole. Any electrician doing commercial wiring is well aware of the vast scenarios of lighting control and supply that can be incorporated into a lighting system. I don?t see a code violation in supplying a certain % of the fixtures in parking lots as night-lights. And if by design you chose to wire your night-lights from a stand by system and supply those fixtures from a separate panel then the normal lighting in those poles is a design issue.
If by design you only want to pay for the night lights to provide security lighting to a joint parking lot and give the tenants the right to turn off their parking lot lights a varying time that correspond to their business hours I look at this as a design issue.

In the same way if you want to cut the cost of providing duplicate pole lights to provide lighting from too separate merchants in a shared parking lot I look at this as a design issue if you chose to supply 50 % of the fixtures in each pole from two different tenants

I think a good system of permanent identification to the separate source and location of supply would handle any safety concern.
 
Re: What's your call?

David,

Even if we ignor "under single management" or if you are applying this to a location that has single management, please read 225.30 thru 225.40 and see if you think this would be an allowed application for a light pole.
Not to mention, would it be feasible?
Would it be safe for the general public as well as the repairman?
Does the location you cite have all of the code requirements present?
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
Bob is wrong just because you say so???? I don't think so. I still fail to find any code section that actually says you can't make this installation. In my opinion the ones that have been cited do not apply.
Don
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave perhaps you could use 225.34 to require disconnects at the pole for each supply?

Exception No. 3 of 225.32 generally allows the disconnect for a pole to be located elsewhere. However I do not see that this exception changes the grouping requirement.

Just a thought. :)

Bob

[ September 04, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: What's your call?

Jim, one circuit, two circuits or six circuits, a separate structure needs a disconnect.

A site pole is exception to the disconnect rule.

You may be thinking of the ground rod requirement for a separate structure.

[ September 04, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: What's your call?

I was thinking like as in a detached garage .
Something just seems wrong in this install.I can't help but think someone will get hurt or killed over this.Not everything is covered in NEC

[ September 04, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
 
Re: What's your call?

The bottom line is there is no violation here, and maybe there should be, but, an inspector making their own rules is every bit as dangerous as a police officer making his own rules.

Bob has covered the rational and the process of creating the code to the tee, anything else outside this is blasphemy.

FWI, I'm a firm believer in an inspector using his knowledge, experience, and education, to judge an installation safe or acceptable, but when they step beyond this and create their own code, we are on the verge of anarchy.

Roger
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by jimwalker:
I was thinking like as in a detached garage .
Click to expand...
I am not following you, a detached garage or garden shed would need a disconnect even with only one 15 amp branch circuit.
 
Re: What's your call?

Don,
I said Bob was wrong because he said this is the reason I am making an effort to fail the installation. I responded and said that he was wrong because I was using 110.2 and 110.3.

IMO this installation bothers you personally and are making an effort to fail it because of that personal belief.

No Bob, you are wrong.

Just because you don't like the above code references doesn't make them any less applicable to this scenario!
Click to expand...
Then you said:

Bob is wrong just because you say so???? I don't think so. I still fail to find any code section that actually says you can't make this installation. In my opinion the ones that have been cited do not apply.
Click to expand...
No Don, not because I say so. Because the code also provides articles to help AHJs make the decisions that are not written verbatim to cover every possible situation that someone may think-up!
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
No Don, not because I say so. Because the code also provides articles to help AHJs make the decisions that are not written verbatim to cover every possible situation that someone may think-up!
Click to expand...
Just because you don't like the above code references doesn't make them any less applicable to this scenario!
Click to expand...
I just don't see any code rule that you can cite that covers this installation. The rules that you are trying to use are such a stretch that I tend to agree with Bob that you want to fail this installation and are trying very hard to stretch the code to make it fit your opinion of this installation.
I also don't see any greater hazard for the general public than if the pole was fed from a single circuit. There is a slight increase in the hazard to an electrician who is not paying close attention to his job, but any such electrician won't last long no matter what type of installation that he is working on. I don't see this slight increase in the hazard to the service electrician as a reason to fail the installation or make new code rules that would make this installation a violation.
 
Re: What's your call?

Don,

To sum up what you are saying, would it be fair to say that you believe the following is not a code violation?

A detached accessory building may have a feeder from the primary building on the same property and under the same management and a feeder from another building located on another property with a separate service and under separate management, because the accessory building is shared by both parties. The separate building may have as many separate feeders as there are interested parties that are willing to supply a feeder.
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by websparky:
A detached accessory building may have a feeder from the primary building on the same property and under the same management and a feeder from another building located on another property with a separate service and under separate management, because the accessory building is shared by both parties.
Click to expand...
Dave that is not the situation you describe in the start of this thread.

A restaurant shares a "common" parking lot with a new bank. One of the parking lot light poles is located on the "dividing line" of the parking area.
The P.E. for the property owner says that of the 4 fixture heads on this pole, two of them can be powered from the restaurant and the other two can be powered from the new bank.
Click to expand...
In the opening post it sounds like you have one party that owns all the property.

[ September 04, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top