Single insulated conductors not in conduit

[davidw]

Under the 2001 California Electrical Code, individual conductors are required to be installed in conduit. Here is the situation:
1). 2 New B occupancy buildings constructed
that have 8 spaces for tenents ranging from a mortgage company to restraunt to retail.
2). The building shell and one half of the tenent improvements are completed and finaled.
3). All of this was inspected by others who have since left the department.
4). I begin inspections and find that the feeders from the electric service to each subpanel in each tenent space are 4/0 aluminum individual conductors not installed in conduit.
5). I talked to the contractor and told him that all feeders not yet covered will need to installed in conduit (this includes 3-4 spaces of the 8).
*** After thinking further about this I was wondering if I should require that all of the feeder installation be in conduit. This would require removing sheetrock and sophit siding on businesses which are already open for business. Shutting down power, etc.
*** What are the life safety issues in not having the conductors in conduit?
*** Other issues?
*** Fire insurance claims?
Thanks, David

 

[dillon3c]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Mr Inspector.
I've came back to your post more that once.Typed and deleted..I just can't express the words for your thread..

I'm sorry..I just will not, comment on your posting.......

 

[charlie b]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

I will.

I do not have a copy of the California Electrical Code. I do know that it is essentially the NEC with additions and deletions as determined by the California Board. So I cannot comment on the specific rule you mentioned. If you can post a quote of that rule, then perhaps we can give you more assistance.

But here is one of "Charlie's Rules":

An accident waiting for a place to happen will, given time, find that place.

You have saved this particular accident the trouble of looking for a place to happen. It will happen in the building that you have described. Now it is only a question of when, and how bad.

The duties of an Inspector do not include the duty to worry about the impact on the ability of a business to conduct business, nor to worry about the money it will cost them if you have to shut down their business for safety reasons.

If it is unsafe, then shut it down. That is your duty.

 

[steve66]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Isn't it a basic NEC rule that all individual conductors have to be installed in a raceway or cable tray?

I think this is very basic, and the contractor has no excuse for running individual conductors without a raceway.

Steve

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

300.3(A) mandates the use of a recognized wiring method when using single conductors. I think there are two primary reasons this rule is necessary. For one, conduit and raceways protect conductors during the construction process. Open and exposed conductors could be easily damged from physical contact. Also, pulling single conductors over sharp edges or through tight places will also damage the insualtion that should not happen when a properly sized raceway is selected.

The second issue would be inductive heating. Many sections of the code protect installations from this event. If the single conductors or not installed in very close proximity to each other as they would be in a raceway, high impedance could result, and other bad effects could follow.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

I wouldn't get swept into the argument of "what is unsafe about it?"
It's a black and white code violation. There is no room for interpretation in my eyes.

This is what I would do. Write a corrx stating conductors shall be in conduit and give the code section. Ask the contractor or owner to sign it as to being received. I believe your talking about 300-3(a) which is not modified by CA.

Then let your boss know what you did. Try to let him know before the contractor or owner can call him.

This way your butt is covered if higher ups want to let it go.

 

[cselectric]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

I Know it isn't appropriate to post such things, but I'd love to know the address of that building, so as to insure I never go near it.

Running individual conductors with no raceways is a very basic no no. Any first year apprentice that's been paying attention should know this is wrong. It leads me to wonder what else in this structure is not up to snuff. It also leads me to wonder what the mean time to disaster is for this building. As Charlie said, it isn't a matter of if disaster happens, it's a matter of when.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Why did this get this far before anyone said violation ? Let your boss be advised of what happened and let him get involved.At this point the county attorney might need to be consulted.In your shoes i would just red tag it and let them figure out what to do.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Originally posted by davidw:
3). All of this was inspected by others who have since left the department.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the previous improper inspection passings.

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

If this prior inspector allowed this go iamgine what else there is in that area that he allowed

 

[johndeereman]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

In the State of Colorado under the State Stautes 12-23-116(3) If the installation is in violation to the NEC & is hazardous to life or property the inspectors have the authority to have the contractors make the required repairs or corrections. No mater what it takes.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Originally posted by johndeereman:
No mater what it takes.

Even if it's 220 or 221?

 

[wpaul29]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

As many in this thread have alraedy stated this is a fundamental rule in the NEC. I would not hesitate to have them make the necessary changes. Its just ashame that it was caught this late. Didnt the fire marshall see any of this before building occupancy was given? There are many inearant safety issues with this kind of violation. Not to mention fire saftey issues.

 

[iwire]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Originally posted by sandsnow:
I wouldn't get swept into the argument of "what is unsafe about it?"
It's a black and white code violation. There is no room for interpretation in my eyes.

I don't think a better response could be made.

It's wrong it should be corrected.

In my opinion if you let this go you might as well stay home and do your inspections by phone.

I also agree with the others, I wonder what other things this EC has done?

 

[davidw]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Charlie:
When I say that individual conductors are required to be installed in conduit, what I am referencing in the code book is section 300-3(a) which states that for single conductors specified in table 310-13 shall only be permitted to be installed where part of a recognized wiring method of chapter 3. Other than conduit, cable trays are on option, however from my understanding of this section, the conductors would need to be listed and marked on the insulation for this use, and the conductors installed in this building are not. I understand that other raceways, and wireways are acceptable wiring methods, but I don't think any of these options would work well. Hopefully this gives you the info you need to be able to make further comments. Do you have any suggestions in gaining compliance without saying pull it out and do it right? Thanks, David

 

[iwire]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

David there is no other way, take it out and do it again.

They may be able to cut it off and abandon it than snake in MC cable.

Given the desecration of the occupancy you gave us these conductor are required to be in a raceway.

Cable tray is not an option, open wiring on insulators is not an option.

I am baffled why you want to let a hack job slide.

That is unfair to the contractors that bid on this job under the impression it would be done to code.

 

[davidw]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

I don't want to let a hack job slide. I want to and could and may require that the conductors are installed in conduit. I understand that the code requires protection for the conductors in a raceway. Like it or not the decision to make a contractor remove and replace work already approved is a political one. I am trying to find out all my options and what are the life safety issues involved before I make the decision. Thanks, David

 

[petersonra]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

I don't see anyway this is code compliant. It ought to be handled as such.

It seems to me that it is strictly a matter for the EC to determine how to bring it into compliance. The inspector does not have a duty to tell the installer how to make something compliant, only that something is not compliant.

<added>
In fact it is in the inspector's best interest not to note (at least not in writing) how one should bring such a thing into compliance. If asked, the inspector could point out various ways to bring the installation into compliance without suggesting any one of them. That makes it the EC's problem, and that is where it belongs. If an inspector states that a particular method is required, and there are oher means of accomplishing the same end result, it would seem to me that the inspector has left himself open to a legitmate complaint against himself for requiring a specific method over other acceptable methods.

[ September 06, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: petersonra ]

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Originally posted by iwire:
In my opinion if you let this go you might as well stay home and do your inspections by phone.

Now there's an idea whose time has come! I can see it now...

"Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, two rods. Right, #6. Uh-huh, 2 GFCI's in the kitchen, one for the baths, and one for outdoors.

"Yes, sir, no boxes overfilled, all stapling done correctly, disconnects where they belong. No, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you very much!. Bye!"

Emailed or faxed inspection on the way...


POOF! Wow, what a dream. Maybe some day...

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Single insulated conductors not in conduit

Okay, serious time.

I would recommend looking into the legitimacy of previous inspections on this job. As I suggested previously, the original inspector's recent hike may have something to do with it.