Appliance Cord thru the cabinet panel

[dnem]

Some of us choose to ignore 90.2(A) and Article 100

And others choose to ignore the NECs jurisdiction over a UL listed appliance.

You have to ignore one or the other because they do conflict. :smile:

Which circles right back around to a position I took earlier that just makes better and better sense the longer this gets debated.

If I dare be so bold as to quote myself.

Of course all of your listed possiblities may or may not be true, but if an inspector is so frozen with the possible what-ifs, he will never do anything. . This web site has proven very helpful to me in working out logic and developing and building points thru reason. . But as was shown clearly in the For Inspectors.... thread, endlessly choosing the most extreme interpretation leads to inability to use common sense.

There must be an attempt to determine what is meant by the words chosen in any particular code section followed by an analysis using common sense with a strong focus on actual safety concerns.

I talk to my fellow inspectors and contractors all the time and I've heard literally 1000s of stories about calls that inspectors have made. . Some of them are ridiculous. . But of course, there's 1000s more that are very sound but never get told. . The biggest difference between the 2 extremes is almost always divided between the inspector that "shoots from the hip" and the one that sees studying the NEC as step #1. . Find out what it actually says. . Think thru the application of any possible interpretations. . And then bring in common sense.

An interpretation is an inspectors call but he still has an obligation to make the call according to the most logical [or at times the most liberal] reading of the words written and not according to his own fancy.

David

 

[iwire]

Unless witnessing the "event" how would an inspector even know? :wink:

Good point.

I do install power cords on industrial machinery but I don't think the machines are UL listed to start with.

 

[jim dungar]

An item isn't excluded if it varies from what the manufacturer gave to UL, but it does lose its exemption from field inspection under 90.7, "It is the intent of this Code that factory installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations ....." . And then 110.3(B) adds that the UL listing approval might include installation instructions. . So if you replace the factory cord and you don't have the full installation instructions available to check compliance with 110.3(B) [which describes 99% of situations], then it throws you back to 90.4

So you would blindly deny a UL Listed cord and UL plug without knowing what was actually included in the UL test? There are many items that manufacturers are allowed to substitute at will and still maintain their UL Label. Replacing a cord is not the same as changing an intended wiring method (i.e. adding a cord to a device that was never tested with one).

When the installer discards the included wirenuts he might be violating 110.3(B). . But determining if he did or did not violate would be a waste of time, in my opinion. . I'm going to go to the concept in 90.4 and take a look at what wire nuts he did choose. . That's a better use of everybodys time and focuses on what matters.

But, you have no problem with making an informed decision on an electrical connection method.

 

[dnem]

An item isn't excluded if it varies from what the manufacturer gave to UL, but it does lose its exemption from field inspection under 90.7, "It is the intent of this Code that factory installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations ....." . And then 110.3(B) adds that the UL listing approval might include installation instructions. . So if you replace the factory cord and you don't have the full installation instructions available to check compliance with 110.3(B) [which describes 99% of situations], then it throws you back to 90.4

So you would blindly deny a UL Listed cord and UL plug without knowing what was actually included in the UL test? There are many items that manufacturers are allowed to substitute at will and still maintain their UL Label. Replacing a cord is not the same as changing an intended wiring method (i.e. adding a cord to a device that was never tested with one).

When the installer discards the included wirenuts he might be violating 110.3(B). . But determining if he did or did not violate would be a waste of time, in my opinion. . I'm going to go to the concept in 90.4 and take a look at what wire nuts he did choose. . That's a better use of everybodys time and focuses on what matters.

But, you have no problem with making an informed decision on an electrical connection method.

"But, you have no problem ....."
There's no "but" involved. . I'm looking at the cord as I'm looking at the wire nut. . Is there reason to believe that the item in question does not meet UL standards ? . I'm not going to dig deeper into the UL Whitebook or an on-line search engine unless the item doesn't pass the quick "sniff test".

And if you keep reading this thread, on post #37 you'll see my comment:
This is all theoretical. . I don't "lose sleep" over appliance cords. . I rarely notice them at all.

David

 

[charlie b]

If its a hazard to run a cord thru a normal drywall type wall how is this different ?

It is different because the "normal drywall type wall" completely hides everything behind it. If you run a power cord from one kitchen cabinet to another by cutting a hole in the wall(s) that separate them, you still get to see the entire length of the cord. My understanding of the reason for the "no flex cords through walls" rule is to preclude the possibility of the cord being damaged with no way for anyone to discover that it is damaged.

 

[dnem]

It is different because the "normal drywall type wall" completely hides everything behind it. If you run a power cord from one kitchen cabinet to another by cutting a hole in the wall(s) that separate them, you still get to see the entire length of the cord. My understanding of the reason for the "no flex cords through walls" rule is to preclude the possibility of the cord being damaged with no way for anyone to discover that it is damaged.

Very good point !
It's a point that's been made on other past threads here but I had forgotten about it.