Where In The NEC Are Articles Addressing Repairing Cables And Conductors?

[Ravenvalor]

Would anyone happen to know where in the NEC are articles addressing repairing cables (romex)?
Would they be under "general repair" and maybe "conductors being damaged"?

Thanks for the help.

 

[tom baker]

The NEC is an installation standard. You won’t find specific sections dealing with damage. Mfg and UL information would be a source to start with, along with any NECA installation guides. The NFPA does have 70B which is electrical system maintenance
Or rely on the wisdom of this forum

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think the only thing close is the repair of hard service or junior hard service cords in 400.13

400.13 Splices.
Flexible cord shall be used only in continuous lengths without splice or tap where initially installed in applications permitted by 400.10(A). The repair of hard-service cord and junior hard-service cord (see Trade Name column in Table 400.4) 14 AWG and larger shall be permitted if conductors are spliced in accordance with 110.14(B) and the completed splice retains the insulation, outer sheath properties, and usage characteristics of the cord being spliced.

.

 

[Sea Nile]

Would anyone happen to know where in the NEC are articles addressing repairing cables (romex)?
Would they be under "general repair" and maybe "conductors being damaged"?

Thanks for the help.

In the 2020 cycle, as that is the only one I am familiar with, I would consider the following:
110.14(B) the last two sentences, "insulation equivalent" etc.

So if I'm reading it right, the code allows you to splice in a conductor. Possibly to replace a failed section.

Edit: just saw someone already said this, sorry, going back to my corner now

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In the 2020 cycle, as that is the only one I am familiar with, I would consider the following:
110.14(B) the last two sentences, "insulation equivalent" etc.

So if I'm reading it right, the code allows you to splice in a conductor. Possibly to replace a failed section.

Edit: just saw someone already said this, sorry, going back to my corner now

I forgot about the provision in 110.114.