George:

What's in the raceway?

At one time about 20 years ago, I too discussed this with the Former Chairman of the NEC Committee Richard Lloyd, and he said that this was acceptable if the installer wanted to accomplish the separation between certain types of conductors.

It does look funny, but what are the hazards and is it on a government site where electrical inspections may not be considered?

Joe

I would be more concerned with the acessibility of the j-box with all of the other pipes and cables in front of it

Right or wrong I've done that several times when upon doing service to a piece of Tank Monitering equipment I've found allegedly intrinsically safe wiring mixed in with 120 and 240 volt controls. Its been done outside in a trough that been installed to accept many 3/4 pipes from a gasoline install. I generally shake my head in disbelief that anyone would mix the wires in with controls but.....

Joe,
I consider it a violation of several articles, not the least of which is 110-3 which is how materials are to be utlilized.
The conductors are fire alarm conductors, and fire and security conductors are included in the box.

The disparate bonds are what concerns me the most. Should a fault occur on either the pipe, or the box, there would quite likely be a sizable arc to the item not securely fastened.

Walrus, did you forget to bring your bender with you to go around the box instead of through it? I don't understand. I have also shielded intrinsically safe conductors, but also managed to use connectors for a solid grounding connection or went around the offending item in the way.

Accessibility is one of the issues brought to the contractors attention.

Didn't forget anything but when its installed wrong and I'm sent in to repair another problem I try to fix it the best I can. The conduit in question mught be in the middle of 15 or 20 parellel pipes with only 2 feet exposed above ground with a vertical seal off. I realize some customer might pay to fix it right but in Maine where money is tight that isn't common. I see no problem putting a 4.5" nipple straight up thru a 4" raintight trough, putting a 3/4 myers hub on top and then continuing into the building. It may violate a code but its certainly better than having conductors that are supposed to be safe mixed in with AC controls. The conduit going thru is bonded by lock nuts just like the rest of the pipes.

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

George, How in the heck are you doing!

No doubt you are absolutely correct!

Please post the images after you have had the correction fixed.

Is that possible up there on the hill, or will the Senator give the job his blessings?

Washington, DC is a great place for "My Types of Photo Shoots"

I will take some there soon in June!

I support Walrus on this one.

Although I've never done this I often face situations where you have to make judgement calls about "making the best of a bad situation".....it's just part of the job.

GJ

I wouldn't do it.
There is another photo somewhere her of an installation of several larger pipes running through a trough into a panel.

Here it is Redsy....




Donnie

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