Tape?

[sandsnow]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by peter d:
Larry,


The installation I mentioned is still safe, and no inspector has the right to fail the job just because it doesn't look nice.

Yes Peter he, does. And it's a subjective requirement. Historically it has been a way to pick on contractors you didn't like and then brag about it. I have never invoked that section. I was told a long time ago "not to go there"

Todays FPN's could be the text of tomorrows CODE

 

[kpepin]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by peter d:
kpepin,

Read the code rule again. 210.4 (D) only applies to conductors of multiwire branch circuits.

I think that opening a juncion box and assuming that a wire color means something is very dangerous.

Thats why I quoted 201.5 of the 2005 NEC which is right after 210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits

 

[peter d]

Re: Tape?

kpepin,

2005 210.5 (C) no longer requires identification by phase, only by system.

Read this thread for more details.

As Don said, we can use all one color for one voltage system, and another color for the other, with no regard to phase whatsoever.

For me, this is still a long way off. We just started using the '02 in CT.

[ December 22, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[peter d]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by sandsnow:
Yes Peter he, does. And it's a subjective requirement. Historically it has been a way to pick on contractors you didn't like and then brag about it. I have never invoked that section. I was told a long time ago "not to go there"

Todays FPN's could be the text of tomorrows CODE

Larry, you seem like a reasonable guy , so are you saying you wouldn't fail the installation I just described?

I will say this, a sloppy installation does raise red flags, but as long as no violations exist, it should pass inspection.

 

[iwire]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by sandsnow:
Yes Peter he, does. And it's a subjective requirement.

Isn't neat and workmanlike in NFPAs list of vague and unenforceable terms?

I would like to see those words removed from the code.

 

[apauling]

Re: Tape?

i would love to see those terms defined ("neat and workmanlike").

SF requires, or did, that there are only two phases in residential construction, and they are red and black, and the colors better match the phase or the job is failed.

it's not nec, but i can see the need in sf.

paul

 

[physis]

Re: Tape?

What sucks is that Bob and Peter will get to cash in on the benefits of our neat, color coded boxes if they ever get to work on them.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Tape?

Neat and workmanlike

Bob, I agree. The CMP should either go all the way and define it or reference the NEIS standards directly OR take it out.

Peter
Yes, I would not fail you for that. It would not be an issue. It might raise a red flag if the whole job was sloppy. It would appear the person did not know his trade and closer inspection of conductor sizes etc, would be in order.

 

[iwire]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by apauling:
i would love to see those terms defined ("neat and workmanlike").

Paul it is not possible to define either of those terms.

One persons 'neat' is another's disaster.

IMO it is the customer who should be deciding what is workman like.

As I have seen Don say, if there are real safety issues they can almost always be addressed with an enforceable code section.

A conduit that is not run level does look bad but it is not a safety issue.

Bob

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Tape?

I think we all know what sloppy work looks likes.Now some do look a lot better than others.And if its 2 identical houses 1 wired by fast buck freddy and the other by a caring electrician it will be easy to tell them apart.However they both will pass.Our company recently hired a guy that seen our work on a store build out and was embarrased over the type of work the company he was working with did in a store beside ours.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by sandsnow:

Originally posted by peter d:
Larry,


The installation I mentioned is still safe, and no inspector has the right to fail the job just because it doesn't look nice.

Yes Peter he, does. And it's a subjective requirement. Historically it has been a way to pick on contractors you didn't like and then brag about it. I have never invoked that section. I was told a long time ago "not to go there"

Todays FPN's could be the text of tomorrows CODE

Blood boiling....finger trembling....can't type...

 

[iwire]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Tape?

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Blood boiling....finger trembling....can't type...

Scott
I didn't mean to cause your blood pressure to go up.
I am in no way advocating that an inspector take this course of action. Just that it's a possibility.
That requirement has sat in the Code forever. All of a sudden they make reference to an installation standard. Could it be they are finally (eventually) going to define it?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Tape?

All of a sudden they make reference to an installation standard. Could it be they are finally (eventually) going to define it?

In my opinon the reference to the installation standard in the ccode book is nothing more than a ploy by NEMA to sell more books. This sort of thing does not belong in a safety code and should really only be used or referenced in things like project specs or contract documents.
Don

 

[woofy]

Re: Tape?

Bob Wrote:
One persons 'neat' is another's disaster.

A conduit that is not run level does look bad but it is not a safety issue.

It's one of my pet peeves that a guy will run a piece of conduit level when the wall or ceiling is out of plumb or level.

When I get done with a room that has surface mounted conduit I think I've done a good job when nobody notices it.

I've had to work on so much Junk work out here that I've become real mindfull of the guy that comes behind me. They will never have to wonder "what the heck was that Idiot thinking." I Hope

Wheeewww...I'm better now.......Mike