Legal Counsel says running conduit is NOT electrical work.

elohr46

Senior Member
Location
square one
You cannot posible be saying running conduit is as complicated as performing surgery.
No, of course not, that's silly even though forensic science has proven that the ancient egyptians were performing brain surgery 2500 years ago. But it's just as silly as someone declaring that installing electrical conduit is not electrical work because almost anyone can do it. Where does it end? I can train monkeys to drop 2x4 light fixtures into a suspended ceiling, should we say that that is no longer electrical work either?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
No, of course not, that's silly even though forensic science has proven that the ancient egyptians were performing brain surgery 2500 years ago. But it's just as silly as someone declaring that installing electrical conduit is not electrical work because almost anyone can do it. Where does it end? I can train monkeys to drop 2x4 light fixtures into a suspended ceiling, should we say that that is no longer electrical work either?
Thanks for calling me silly. :roll:

Now maybe you can answer the question I asked earlier.

Consider you are a company that would like fiber optic cable installed in your facility, you would like it installed in EMT for your own reasons.

I am really having a hard time coming up with good reason why the state should force that company to use an electrical contractor for that work.

Who decided fiber optic is electrical work? Who decided non-conductive fiber optic cable should be covered in the NEC?

My gut says it was decided by people with self serving interests and not public safety.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I can train monkeys to drop 2x4 light fixtures into a suspended ceiling, should we say that that is no longer electrical work either?
Maybe we should, just because we have done things one way for a long time does not mean there are no other ways.

I have heard keeping an open mind is a good thing.
 
Just an observation here.....

Take a look at what is covered in Chapter 8. Cable TV, ham radio..and so on.

How many of you have seen a licensed electrician working for a licensed EC running cable for the cable company?

Or anything in Chapter 8 for that matter, but especially 810 and 820.

So, if actual wires can be ignored, I guess conduit could be, too.
 

mivey

Senior Member
You cannot posible be saying running conduit is as complicated as performing surgery.
And you can't possibly be saying that installing an electrical component is not an electrical task, whether it is done by man or monkey.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
And you can't possibly be saying that installing an electrical component is not an electrical task, whether it is done by man or monkey.
I am saying a jurisdiction has exactly the power to do that.

Just like the NEC can tell us not to count a current carrying conductor as one.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Now maybe you can answer the question I asked earlier.

Who decided fiber optic is electrical work? Who decided non-conductive fiber optic cable should be covered in the NEC?

My gut says it was decided by people with self serving interests and not public safety.
So I ask: Is the next step is to dismiss anything we deem to be a result of self serving interests and not public safety? I can bet you there are other parts of the NEC that would apply here.
 

mivey

Senior Member
I am saying a jurisdiction has exactly the power to do that.
No doubt. Even worse. But the question is do you agree with their view that installing what is intended to be an electrical component is not an electrical task nor is it a task that requires code compliance.

Just like the NEC can tell us not to count a current carrying conductor as one.
For no good reason?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
So I ask: Is the next step is to dismiss anything we deem to be a result of self serving interests and not public safety? I can bet you there are other parts of the NEC that would apply here.

I am saying that an area has the right to make their own decisions even if they go against what each of us may want. I have also been saying that asking a bunch of licensed electricians what they think about this subject is far from unbiased. What is good for us may not always be good for all.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
But the question is do you agree with their view that installing what is intended to be an electrical component is not an electrical task
I may have missed it but do we have a solid quote of what the ruling actually says or just what the OP has said?


nor is it a task that requires code compliance.
Who in this thread said it did not have to be code compliant?
 

mivey

Senior Member
I am saying that an area has the right to make their own decisions even if they go against what each of us may want. I have also been saying that asking a bunch of licensed electricians what they think about this subject is far from unbiased. What is good for us may not always be good for all.
I'm not overly concerned about whether or not an actual paper-toten' EC installs the electrical conduit, what concerns me is saying that the electrical conduit installation is not an electrical task and requires no adherence to electrical standards.

Let a monkey put it in just as long as we recognize that it is a piece of electrical equipment and should be installed by a qualified monkey and installed in a manner that meets electrical standards.
 

elohr46

Senior Member
Location
square one
Thanks for calling me silly. :roll:

Now maybe you can answer the question I asked earlier.
I don't know those answers, If I did I would know why Utilities force a company to use an electrical contractor to install the main service for the building, force them to get an electrical inspection before they energize the service, etc. I sometimes wonder who makes these decisions as well.
 

San -Brooke

Member
Location
USA
Direct quote

"It has come to the attention of the general counsels office that there is confusion related to electrical licensing and inspection requirements when working with conduit. It is the opinion of the general counsels office that no electrical license or inspection is required when working with conduit that contains no electrical wiring."
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Direct quote

"It has come to the attention of the general counsels office that there is confusion related to electrical licensing and inspection requirements when working with conduit. It is the opinion of the general counsels office that no electrical license or inspection is required when working with conduit that contains no electrical wiring."
The next question should be what purpose does a conduit serve with no electrical wiring? It should also be mentioned that a professional will call it a "raceway" if it is intended to contain electrical wiring. A "conduit" in some cases could be considered a sleeve in which a "raceway" may later pass through.

Once it is determined that it is going to contain electrical wiring, the person installing needs to be familiar with the NEC article that applies to that particular type of raceway, and follow rules in that article. If an AHJ wants to allow untrained persons, or limited training persons to install raceways, I guess they certainly could, but I am guessing most already have enough trouble keeping all the qualified people to install to code at times, and are not willing to take on inspecting the work of untrained people. Maybe a special license - one that limits you to installing raceways only? These raceways still need inspected if they are going to contain electrical wiring, otherwise what is the point of having a code in the first place.
 

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
kwired, you're reading too much into things.

Following specifications is no new thing; pipefitters have to follow all manner of specifications, and none of them are 'code.'

The bureaucrats are only saying that simply hanging pipe is not a job that requires one to have an electrical license. No need for the guy to be a registered apprentice or have a journeymans' card. Just like digging a ditch. The guy still has to hang it 'right.'

Someone wants to 'reserve' certain work for himself and his buddies ... well, that's a fine goal, but let's not bring the government into it. It is not the role of my government to make sure you have a job.

his thread supports Milton Friedman's contention that 'safety' regulations are nothing but thinly disguised attempts to limit competition.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
kwired, you're reading too much into things.

Following specifications is no new thing; pipefitters have to follow all manner of specifications, and none of them are 'code.'

The bureaucrats are only saying that simply hanging pipe is not a job that requires one to have an electrical license. No need for the guy to be a registered apprentice or have a journeymans' card. Just like digging a ditch. The guy still has to hang it 'right.'

Someone wants to 'reserve' certain work for himself and his buddies ... well, that's a fine goal, but let's not bring the government into it. It is not the role of my government to make sure you have a job.

his thread supports Milton Friedman's contention that 'safety' regulations are nothing but thinly disguised attempts to limit competition.
I don't feel I am reading into it too much.

Following specifications: Do specifications usually tell you every detail that may apply to the general installation of a particular raceway? They may include information that exceeds code minimums, but if designer is satisfied with code minimums he/she may not provide much detail that is not already covered in the code.

I am not necessarily one that wants to reserve work for myself through regulation, though if the rules favor me I will not complain much either. I do believe owners should have the right to do their own wiring - on their own property, just like I like having the right to wire, frame, install plumbing, HVAC, on my own property if I choose to do so. Doing it for hire for someone else if not qualified is a different ballgame.

I run into commercial customers that have their own maintenance that does some electrical work and that is another area that needs attention. It is one thing to change lighting ballasts when they go bad and replace with similar, but I have also seen them add additional luminaires, run additional receptacles, and other similar things that they clearly are not up to par with what is required, or don't care. This happens in places where the public comes into their facility, and is subjected to their potentially unsafe installations. Sure the employer saved some money having the maintenance man do this but left themselves with potential liabilities that may cost much more than what was saved. I guess my feeling is let them do that if they want, but someone needs to tell them what can happen if things go bad and let them decide what work needs a professional and what work is for the maintenance man. Most of the time I find myself telling the maintenance man what can happen and over time he begins to realize what work to tell his employer he can not do. Then when he is finally trained to call a pro when needed he quits his job or retires and the process starts all over again.

Worst thing is that it is often small hospitals and nursing homes where there are more complex codes that they always have a maintenance man like this. I also run into it in schools often, and of course all the volunteers that know how to do anything at a church.

Let me add: I am not really in favor of having someone else install components of 'my' system unless they are subcontracted by me. The owner and their insurance, attorneys, etc. are going to come after me as the general electrical contractor if there is an incident and the cause is determined to be something in 'my' system.
 
Last edited:

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
Direct quote

It is the opinion of the general counsels office that no electrical license or inspection is required when working with conduit that contains no electrical wiring.
And that would take us back to post # 19, once it does contain wires the whole installation would need to be inspected for code compliance which would require openning up walls, ceilings, floors, etc... for a propper inspection.

Let's take a step further, has anyone here worked in jurisdictions where the FD would not accept an Electrical RI inspection for FA wiring and did their own inspections of conduit and tubing?


Roger
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
No. Just taking the OP's word.
In that context no, I don't personally agree with the decision but I still feel it is the areas decision to make.



The following would suggest that:
I see, and again it would not be my choice but it is not up to me.


Personally I would feel much more comfortable seeing a link or a scan to the official info over they OPs word. (Nothing personal San -Brooke)
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
And that would take us back to post # 19, once it does contain wires the whole installation would need to be inspected for code compliance which would require openning up walls, ceilings, floors, etc... for a propper inspection.
It would only require all that you describe under the rules you (and I) are accustomed to. The NEC itself does not require inspections.




Let's take a step further, has anyone here worked in jurisdictions where the FD would not accept an Electrical RI inspection for FA wiring and did their own inspections of conduit and tubing?
Not I.
 
Top