ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Photos for General Discussion Pipe running thru J Box

Joe!!!!!
How are ya???

First the business end. Whilst watching Stargate (yup, I likes Sci-fi) I went through for a bit more thorough collection. I believe it violates 370-4, 370-07 (a)(b)(c), 300-10, 300-12, 250-90, 250-96(a), 250-120(a), 110-3, 110-12(a)(c), and 110-14(a). There could be others.

I recently left the Pentagon. I apparently have a condition called Plantar Fasciitis (probably balled up the spelling on that) that makes walking daggoned painful, add to that the blood clots I developed after I broke my leg, and the walking at the Pentagon was excruciating.

I was offered a job with a local school system as Maintenance Coordinator. That actually means if I don't wanna leave my desk, I don't have to. It also means that I have AHJ position on contractors hired by the system, even on new schools, as well as retrofits.

Nope, that was actually a school - not attempting to hide the problem we previously had, I'll send ya an e-mail on the rest of that problem though.

Guys, this contractor was hired to install a new fire alarm system what you're telling me is that if we had hired you to install this, it would be acceptable to you to perform this type of work?

You're telling me if you had the responsibility of acceptance that you would sign off on this, feeling that the taxpayer had gotten their moneys worth? I respectfully disagree.

Our contractors are not hired solely on the basis of low bid, and I fully expect clean, competent, code compliant work. My guys have to maintain these systems for years after turnover, which is another consideration.

[This message has been edited by George Corron (edited 05-24-2003).]

GC: My guys have to maintain these systems for years after turnover, which is another consideration.


Boy Howdy! I hope your staff appreciates that point of view.

That's it. Thanks, Tex.
(Or should I say "much obliged, pardner")

George:

I'd say you have your hands full working with non-qualified, non-code savvy persons.

I hope you enjoy this new job as much as you enjoyed the last job!

No Politics?

Again, show me the corrected version of this violation when it is fixed!

Why not start the flex at the other end of the box and avoid it altogether?

Under the right circumstances, this is a legal installation, whether someone does or does not 'like it'. One of the reasons for the code is to make a more evenly acceptacle inspection across all jurisdictions that the NEC is adopted.

725.55(C)Raceways Within Enclosures.(2002 NEC)

This does include Non-Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit Conductors.
It is a little difficult for me to see if this picture shows the correct method of installation, but if it is, then this is an acceptable method of installation.


What does bother me is the accessibility to the jbox, and how about the open conductors secured by metal tywire to a conduit?

Pierre