XHHW-2

[don_resqcapt19]

...It is clearly being accepted as it has not been an issued raised before that I am aware of.....so their are some "reasonable inspectors" out there...lol

I don't think it is a case of being reasonable...just a case of not actually reading the code rules

We can't just place MTW on XHHW-2 because of the UL 1063 standard only applying to Thermoplastic....but I will ask you this.....in Table 310.104(A)....how many are listed as sunlight resistant....?

None in the table...so would you not allow any of them to be used? or would you permit any of them that are marked as such in accordance with 310.120(D)?

See 310.10(D) for the sunlight issue. The gas and oil issue should be done the same way.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Paul, the problem is when an inspector looks at a conductor and there is a gri or whatever on it they have no way of knowing what that means. The inspector will look in the book and say I see nothing that allows this wire in an oil situation since the MTW is not there.

Either the NEC of the wire manufacturers need to get in sync. Perhaps a proposal to include other insulations in T. 310.104 would be the way to go otherwise the mfg needs to label the wire per NEC. It may be accepted in the end with the gri markings but it will take alot of documentation and hassle to satisfy the authority having jurisdiction.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

See 310.10(D) for the sunlight issue. The gas and oil issue should be done the same way.

I believe it is by placing GRII on it. Is it not?

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Paul, the problem is when an inspector looks at a conductor and there is a gri or whatever on it they have no way of knowing what that means. The inspector will look in the book and say I see nothing that allows this wire in an oil situation since the MTW is not there.

Either the NEC of the wire manufacturers need to get in sync. Perhaps a proposal to include other insulations in T. 310.104 would be the way to go otherwise the mfg needs to label the wire per NEC. It may be accepted in the end with the gri markings but it will take alot of documentation and hassle to satisfy the authority having jurisdiction.

Dennis,

the GRII is not an insulation. It is a test to evaluate the use in a specific condition. The product is still XHHW-2, it is just evaluated and listed ( i.e the GRII) as such and placed on the conductors insulation. In fact we are complying with UL requirements and they permit the marking of GRII to be added to the cable.

We do not design wire and cable to the NEC, we design it to UL Standards and ASTM Standards and so on.

This is also a good example of when an inspector (and I was one) requests specific documentation from the manufacturer to explain anything they might not understand. However, the electrical inspector has to also learn other documents as well outside of the NEC and the UL Standards are a good place for them to start.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis,

the GRII is not an insulation. It is a test to evaluate the use in a specific condition. The product is still XHHW-2, it is just evaluated and listed ( i.e the GRII) as such and placed on the conductors insulation. In fact we are complying with UL requirements and they permit the marking of GRII to be added to the cable.

We do not design wire and cable to the NEC, we design it to UL Standards and ASTM Standards and so on.

This is also a good example of when an inspector (and I was one) requests specific documentation from the manufacturer to explain anything they might not understand. However, the electrical inspector has to also learn other documents as well outside of the NEC and the UL Standards are a good place for them to start.

Okay but as an inspector what would you look for when you looked at the wire. What would gri tell you if you did not work for a mfg. I think most would not know what it was since the nec does not use those letters.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I believe it is by placing GRII on it. Is it not?

It would be if GRII appeared in the code, but I don't think it does.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Okay but as an inspector what would you look for when you looked at the wire. What would gri tell you if you did not work for a mfg. I think most would not know what it was since the nec does not use those letters.

Paul,
That is exactly my point. We code users and code enforcers don't know what that GR I or GR II means. Put those terms in the code so we know.

 

[wwhitney]

See 310.10(D) for the sunlight issue. The gas and oil issue should be done the same way.

Doesn't [2011] 310.10(G) say the same thing for gas and oil (and more broadly)?

As for needing to consult the listing or additional manufacturer's information to understand what GRII means, the same thing can occur in the case of sunlight resistance. [2011] 310.10(D) does not require the conductors to be marked sunlight resistant, merely listed sunlight resistant. So verification of an unmarked, listed sunlight resistant conductor would require consulting the listing or additional manufacturer's information.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Doesn't [2011] 310.10(G) say the same thing for gas and oil (and more broadly)?

In my opinion that is too broad.

Also it remains my opinion that Table 310.104(A) is an "application" table and based on that table, no matter what the testing agency says or what markings are on the conductor, the only insulation that is suitable for gas and oil applications is MTW.

As for needing to consult the listing or additional manufacturer's information to understand what GRII means, the same thing can occur in the case of sunlight resistance. [2011] 310.10(D) does not require the conductors to be marked sunlight resistant, merely listed sunlight resistant. So verification of an unmarked, listed sunlight resistant conductor would require consulting the listing or additional manufacturer's information.
Cheers,
Wayne

Can you show me an example of a sunlight resistant conductor that is not so marked on the insulation? I have never seen one.

 

[wwhitney]

Can you show me an example of a sunlight resistant conductor that is not so marked on the insulation? I have never seen one.

No, I was just pointing out that the code language allows for it.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[MasterTheNEC]

In my opinion that is too broad.

Also it remains my opinion that Table 310.104(A) is an "application" table and based on that table, no matter what the testing agency says or what markings are on the conductor, the only insulation that is suitable for gas and oil applications is MTW.


Can you show me an example of a sunlight resistant conductor that is not so marked on the insulation? I have never seen one.

BUT....GR II is marked on the insulation....we also mark Sunlight Resistant as "Sun-Res" also....lol.....you know what that is.

As always if the inspector questions something they can always ask the electrician to provide cut sheet or an explanation from the manufacturers....and we will gladly explain what GR means...lol

 

[don_resqcapt19]

BUT....GR II is marked on the insulation....we also mark Sunlight Resistant as "Sun-Res" also....lol.....you know what that is.

As always if the inspector questions something they can always ask the electrician to provide cut sheet or an explanation from the manufacturers....and we will gladly explain what GR means...lol

Paul,
I know you don't agree, but to me, the GR II marking will not be acceptable until that appears in the code. The marking for sunlight resistant does appear in the code.

An inspector would be well within the code rules if he rejected any conductor without the MTW marking if the conductor would be exposed to gasoline or oil.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Paul,
I know you don't agree, but to me, the GR II marking will not be acceptable until that appears in the code. The marking for sunlight resistant does appear in the code.

An inspector would be well within the code rules if he rejected any conductor without the MTW marking if the conductor would be exposed to gasoline or oil.

It's all good. I used to think very similar until I began to learn many other codes and standards and how they interlay with the NEC. Again it is all good and we can agree to disagree. Thanks for the great conversation regarding this topic.