Skinned conductor valid reason for rejection during inspection?

Status
Not open for further replies.
pv_n00b said:
Thanks for the responses. I let the installer know I will pass it the way it is. It's still a poor way to leave the installation though. They could have pulled a few more feet of conductor and had a clean section all the way to the terminal. It's a several hundred foot underground run though, if it were shorter I would have them replace it based on NEC 110.12.



Why is 110.12 not enforceable? It's part of the NEC and it states, "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner." Seems as enforceable as any other provisions, and I have seen AHJs enforce it. I'm interested in your rational.
Click to expand...

The principal in engineering (and management) is "If you can't measure it, you can't control it." Similar conditions apply here. What is the minimum degree of "workmanlike" that is acceptable and how is it measured? I remember a science fiction short story about an inventor who created a machine to detect "qualitons" and thereby determine how "good" something was. I don't think we're there yet.
 
pv_n00b said:
Thanks for the responses. I let the installer know I will pass it the way it is. It's still a poor way to leave the installation though. They could have pulled a few more feet of conductor and had a clean section all the way to the terminal. It's a several hundred foot underground run though, if it were shorter I would have them replace it based on NEC 110.12.



Why is 110.12 not enforceable? It's part of the NEC and it states, "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner." Seems as enforceable as any other provisions, and I have seen AHJs enforce it. I'm interested in your rational.
Click to expand...

Because it is vague. What may look good to some may be "hack work" or "garbage" to others.

Believe me, I wish it were enforceable, because a good 50% of breaker panels and 90% of v/d/v installs I see are not neat and/or and workmanlike in the least. The other 10% of the latter consist of 7% pretty to very good, 2% excellent, and 1% WOW.

Also, if it was just the outer clear cover damaged, not the insulation, and you tried to make them, or me rather, replace the cable, I would have to challenge your rejection/code citation on 110.12 based on the above information (that Dennis cited) that damage to that part of the cable does not constitute damage to the insulation, conductor, termination, or equipment that would adversely affect its safety, strength, or operation.
 
Last edited:
pv_n00b said:
Why is 110.12 not enforceable? It's part of the NEC and it states, "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.".
Click to expand...

Because, as said by the others above its too vague. Vagueness alludes to being open to interpretation, opinion etc. "Ugly" jobs should rightfully pass if they meet code and are safe- something that should always come before "neat and workmanlike."
 
pv_n00b said:
Why is 110.12 not enforceable? It's part of the NEC and it states, "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner." Seems as enforceable as any other provisions, and I have seen AHJs enforce it. I'm interested in your rational.
Click to expand...

My own opinion is that the NEC is a safety standard and is not intended to insure a level of quality.

And of course the NEC tells us that.


90.1 Purpose.

(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity.
Click to expand...

So based on the above, terms like 'neat' should not enter into it. If the job meets the safety rules of the code it should pass even if it is ugly.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.
Click to expand...

Again all about safety, and even when safe might not make the customer happy. That would be a design issue between the contractor and customer.


(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification
or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
Click to expand...

In my opinion 'Neat and Workmanlike' is a design issue.


Then we have what GolldDigger mentioned, the NFPAs manual of style.



PossibleUnenforceableandVague.jpg


If there is a legitimate safety issue there will be other code sections to cite. If there is no safety issue the job should pass. IMO job quality is an issue between the contractor and the customer not the inspection department. :)
 
petersonra said:
I agree it may serve no real purpose but it does hide the damage and stop pesky questions.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind also that some of the new wire supplied has an easy pull jacket that serves no purpose other than to eliminate friction during the pull. I also agree that a splice should not be used, especially if this is a feeder. This will create a hot spot in the conductor and anyone who has done any thermal studies will tell you not to do that.
 
Interesting discussion on 110.12. I would to add that there is additional information that has so far been left out. For instance the NFPA Style manual has this to say about table 3.2.1 (the latest style manual has changed the table number) of possibly unenforceable and vague terms that was posted above:

3.2.1 Unenforceable Terms. The NEC shall not contain references or requirements that are unenforceable or vague. The terms contained in Table 3.2.1 shall be reviewed in context, and, if the resulting requirement is unenforceable or vague, the term shall not be used.

Since 110.12 is in the NEC, and has been for awhile, would it not be safe to assume it has been "reviewed in context" and if the terms were "unenforceable or vague" the section would have been removed? The CMP and technical review panels must consider in enforceable to leave it in. I am reluctant to accept a justification that just says, "ignore that part of the code."

In the NEC there is also an informational note:

Informational Note: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2010, Standard Practice of Good Workmanship in Electrical Construction, and other ANSI approved installation standards.

I have not read that document but it is described as, "This standard describes what is meant by installing equipment in a “neat and workmanlike manner” as required by the National Electrical Code, Section 110.12." Has anyone read this and can comment on the contents?
 
pv_n00b said:
Interesting discussion on 110.12. I would to add that there is additional information that has so far been left out. For instance the NFPA Style manual has this to say about table 3.2.1 (the latest style manual has changed the table number) of possibly unenforceable and vague terms that was posted above:

3.2.1 Unenforceable Terms. The NEC shall not contain references or requirements that are unenforceable or vague. The terms contained in Table 3.2.1 shall be reviewed in context, and, if the resulting requirement is unenforceable or vague, the term shall not be used.

Since 110.12 is in the NEC, and has been for awhile, would it not be safe to assume it has been "reviewed in context" and if the terms were "unenforceable or vague" the section would have been removed? The CMP and technical review panels must consider in enforceable to leave it in. I am reluctant to accept a justification that just says, "ignore that part of the code."

In the NEC there is also an informational note:

Informational Note: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2010, Standard Practice of Good Workmanship in Electrical Construction, and other ANSI approved installation standards.

I have not read that document but it is described as, "This standard describes what is meant by installing equipment in a “neat and workmanlike manner” as required by the National Electrical Code, Section 110.12." Has anyone read this and can comment on the contents?
Click to expand...

If it really came down to a court case there is no way one would prevail trying to enforce neat or workmanlike.

Both of those terms are opinions, not standards.
 
iwire said:
If it really came down to a court case there is no way one would prevail trying to enforce neat or workmanlike.

Both of those terms are opinions, not standards.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

If one is to desire NEC standards of course there would have to be a whole set of binding parameters put forth by the NEC to decide what is or is not, neat and workmanlike- imagine the arcane variables open to still further interpretation, like the meaning of skinned, or damage, end of wire at exactly 3 o'clock on receptacle terminal.......-YUCK.:happyno:

Imo, the NEC needs to stay far, far away from that.
 
pv_n00b said:
I was inspecting an electrical installation and one of the 350MCM conductors on a long pull had the outer covering skinned off for about 2 ½ ft in the panel where it was terminated. This is the part of the covering with the conductor information printed on it, the next layer down looked fine. I expect that the covering might have a few pull marks on it but not look like a snake shedding its skin. Is this a valid reason to reject that part of the installation? The contractor agreed to splice in a new section of conductor and that the way it was damaged represented poor workmanship on their part.
Click to expand...

The nylon jacket on the wire comes off all the time. Particularly if it is installed during a cold ambient temperature.

It is important for the jacket to be intact if you need the gasoline and oil resistance of the wire, but in general applications, it is OK if the jacket peels off. The PVC interior is what provides the insulation against voltage and the general water resistance. The nylon jacket is also important to reduce friction during the pull. But once the pull is complete, there's no need for it in general applications.
 
Here's a v/d/v install I did some 7+ years ago; is it "neat and workmanlike"? (skip backward for more pics):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32712057@N06/3390557337/in/dateposted-public/

I posted these same pics on a telecom forum when they were taken. I got some constructive criticism, some "I would have...", and a few comments that what I installed, my first rodeo, looked better than some 911 call centers.

Could it have been neater? Of course. Was it workmanlike? to most. Did it pass inspection? Yes, it did.

The IT guys who I worked for at the time, their exact words when they saw the finished product were "WOW".

Different strokes for different folks. Im sure Google would have fired me for such a crappy install, but your avg hotel, this is Picasso.

That's why "neat and workmanlike" isnt enforceable.
 
Looks like the 2017 has help add clarity here

300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage. Where subject to
physical damage, conductors, raceways, and cables shall be
protected.


Informational Note: Minor damage to a raceway, cable armor, or
cable insulation does not necessarily violate the integrity of
either the contained conductors or the conductors’ insulation.
Click to expand...
 
Wow--- I just got an email about an errata to the 2017-- so much for what I wrote above

Code-Making Panel 3, Code-Making Panel 6, and the Correlating Committee on National Electrical Codenote the following errors in the 2017 edition of NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®.1. Delete the Informational Note to 300.4:Informational Note: Minor damage to a raceway, cable armor, or cable insulation does not necessarilyviolate the integrity of either the contained conductors or the conductors’ insulation.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top