Lack of Maintenance and Unqualified Persons—Their Impact on Electrical Installations

Proper maintenance of electrical installations is a key component of ongoing compliance with the NEC.

Modifications to a premises wiring system by unqualified personnel may also impact an initially compliant installation.

Please give me your thoughts so that I can include them in my presentation on these subjects.

Supply all information necessary for credits.

Thanks!

Joe,
The maintenance and repair of existing electrical systems does not appear to be within the scope of the NEC. The scope statement in 90.2(A) seems to indicate that the code only applies to new installations or the installation of new equipment in existing facilities. NFPA 70B covers the preventive maintenance for industrial type electrical systems and equipment. Maybe we need a standard like that for other occupancies.
Don

Don:

See 90.1(B) for ...... "proper maintenance, etc." ........, the term "maintenance" also appears many times throughout the code .. ?

The term "maintenance" was also included in the new Article 80 in many sections as well ... so how can you can say:


The NEC covers a few situations were the term "existing" is considered.

Joe,
90.1(B) actually reinforces my point that the code does not cover maintenance.
If the code does cover maintenance, then why does the wording say that compliance with the NEC when combined with proper maintenance will result in a safe installation?
As far as Article 80 goes, how many places have adopted or would be permitted to adopt that article? In Illinois, I see no way that Article 80 can be adopted because most of the subject matter therein is covered by state law. Local units of government cannot supercede the state laws.
Don

Joe,
It apears that you have changed your position on this issue. Below are a couple of posts from from another thread . Look at your response to me.

resqcapt19 Moderator posted 12-10-2003 1:49 PM
Joe,
I don't think that the correction of problems with the electrical system that occur after the installation of the system are within the scope of the NEC.

quote:
_____

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electric conductors, electric equipment, signaling and communications conductors and equipment, and fiber optic cables and raceways for the following:
_____

It appears that once the installation is complete, the NEC no longer has any jurisdiction over the electrical system. Maybe that is what the panel means when they said that the NEC "doesn't cover this type of wiring".
In the first picture in this thread, it is clear that some parts of the installation were not in compliance with the NEC and should have been red tagged at the time the installation was made.
Don


Joe Tedesco Member posted 12-10-2003 03:41 PM

Don:

I agree, and in the next 2008 Cycle I think that the rule should read as follows:

quote:
_____

(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and use of electric conductors, electric equipment, signaling and communications conductors and equipment, and fiber optic cables and raceways for the following:
_____

Don:

I suggested that the words "and use" be added to the rule you show.

What does that have to do with the issues surrounding the maintenance of equipment (see Article 100 Definition)? You still have not looked further in the code.

When I searched for that term, it appeared with many "hits" on my CD Version of the 2002 NEC.

You mean to say that the recent installation of switchgear, or cable trays, etc., don't need periodic maintenance on a 6 month or yearly basis?

I am aware of some who are charged with that responsibility in an industrial occupancy, and I cannot imagine anyone who doesn't follow up and "maintain" their equipment?

I found a song titled:

"Maintenance Crisis Song" for everyone to hear! Some very true words, and it's the Bottom Line that is the culprit!
http://www.bin95.com/Download/Maintenance%20Crisis%20Song.mp3

Joe,
First, you said in your post in the previous thread that you agreed with my comment and that the code should be changed to require such maintenance. If the code already requires electrical maintenance, why would you suggest a wording change?
Yes, the word "maintenance does appear in the NEC over 150 times, however I find no NEC rules that require the electrical system to be maintained. Where the word "maintenance" appears it is in rules that are designed to allow maintenance to be performed in a safe manner, or to allow access to the equipment, but these rules in no way require that such maintenance take place.
No, I don't mean to say that periodic maintenance of electrical systems is not needed, I just say that the NEC does not require such activity.
Again, I agree with that statement, but I'm just not aware of any NEC rule that requires this. If you have a specific rule in mind, please cite it for me, I may have missed something.
Don

Don:

For any rule in the NEC where the term "maintenance" is used in a sentence where the word "SHALL" also appears, should not be questioned.

90.5 gives the specifics.

I was advised by NFPA that the title of my presentation in Salt Lake City in May would be changed to what you see above in my very first post. I have modified my presentation accordingly.

Look here for the specifics.
http://www.nfpa.org/ProfessionalDev/necforum/NECtopics/nectopics.asp#sun

I really posted the message to see if anyone want to write a short story to be considered.

I expect that that will happen here in the day to follow.

Are you going to the NFPA annual meeting to vote?

Joe
I'm not a member of the NFPA.
Please cite a code rule that says "you shall maintain your electrical system". I'm not aware of any.
Don

Just what is maintenance? changing a fuse, or the whole disconnect?

the former rates some safety concerns all fine & well...

the latter probably constitues half the trades dilemas. there's a story behind every one of your violation pix right Joe?

here's an idea~
how's an adoption/enforcement spread sheet, all applicable states X (say the last) 20 years

factor % of taxpayer $$$ , adjust for inflation, calc construction growth per capita, divide by incident...

should paint a good pix for any 'state of the maintenance' addy

good luck Joe
~Steve (no violation left behind) aka sparky~

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 01-05-2004).]

Don:

Most all listed or labeled equipment comes with instructions that are required to be followed, and include detailed guidelines to keep the products operational.

I see where the rules in 110.3(A) and (B) apply.

What if there was a switch that was defective like this one?



Sparky:

Please clarify what you are trying to say. We find it very difficult to understand you!

Joe,
Only instructions that are part of the listing and labeling are required to be complied with by 110.3(B). If all manufacturer's instructions were required to be followed, then there would be no code compliant use for "classified" breakers. I have rarely seen "maintenance instructions" as part of the listing and labeling information. Yes, they are almost always included in the manufacturer's instructions, but not in the listing and labeling, and yes these maintenance rules should be followed, but I still see no NEC rule that requires this.
The switch in your last post certainly should be repaired or replaced, but it has already been installed, and was apparently in compliance at the time of installation. At this point, unless it is being replaced, it is outside the scope of the NEC.
Don

Each State or Town adopts "model" codes, such as the NEC, as they see fit to be law. Included in each building code are the requirements where these model codes are to be referenced. Invariably, the building code is adopted for building, i.e. new construction and remodeling. The existing buildings section of building codes deal with remodeling concerns. The fire codes are adopted, side by side, with the building codes. Fire codes address the maintaince issues. Take a look at NFPA 101, for the maintenance of buildings. Talk to your fire marshal with your concerns, it is his job to inspect the buildings in your town for proper maintenance.

This issue opens up a whole can of worms. If we assume maintenance is required by the NEC, who is responsible for this maintenance in one and two family dwellings? The original installer? The current homeowner? In my area the only time it comes up is in the sale of a home and then the seller is responsible for systems to be compliant to a certain extent. And that is by the authority of the lending institution, not the building inspector or fire marshall.

Don:

I think we may begin to see our way towards a clearer understanding of the issues we have been discussing here. I (we) can thank some of my colleagues for their opinions quoted below.

This thread can remain here, and we can continue to discuss the subject.



I concede, Joe

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 01-06-2004).]

Vermont, in an amazing moment of lucidity, instituted the TQP (technically qualified person) certification for fire alarm systems.

a sticker is applied to the system panel, much like a vehicle inspectons

you wouldn't believe the boo-boo's we found the first few years, entire zones in schools nfg, on & on...i would wager 20%-30% of the states fire alarm systems to have had major problems.

~sigh~
the latter is an example of Lack of Maintenance

Your photo's are an example of Unqualified Persons, are they not?

Enforcement (or rather lack of it) is the Impact on both

yrs
~S~

sparky:

OK - Right On!!

Most of the pictures I capture and post in the violations area here, and in many other locations, show where the lack of maintenance, repair, replacement (or whatever you want to call it), where the equipment was damaged, or otherwise just old and corroded, rusty, ripped out, and with thieving hands constantly tampering with the stuff people who live in the street!

Unqualified, you bet, lots of the stuff is put in by those who are without any clue whatsoever!

Yes, there are many persons who know nothing about the code, or installation practices who are often responsible for work that can be criticized.

I just returned from shopping in the two "big box stores" because I had to buy something to finish up a "honey do" list.

Whenever I do go into those stores, I always walk down the aisles where the electrical equipment can be found. Today, I stopped behind a person who was holding two device boxes, one of metal and the other of nonmetallic material. He also had a roll of metallic cable, looked like "BX" in his cart.

He said to his partner, I think that I will buy the nonmetallic boxes because they are not as expensive as the metal boxes, and I won't need any connectors.

I said nothing (shook my head) and moved on to the checkout counter!

Joe

Joe,

In NJ as an AHJ I am only allowed to look at new work that is installed under the NEC as adopted by my state. In my case the state of NJ does not adopt the NEC in it's entire condition. The remove sec. 80 of the NEC and they remove section 210.12 that requires arc-fault. (That is a whole other discussion.) I am not allowed to walk into an existing building and cite code violations for things that I see. (That is the job of the Fire Prevention people.) They come in once or twice a year for inspections and they are suppose to cite those violations. YET, Fire prevention people do not enter 1 and 2 family dwellings.(or condo units.)

i might be sorry i bring it up here ....

i've noticed quite a few poco updates, x-formers are closer , and of a higher kva

existing services come to mind....

concerning the arc flash calc, which is done in part with via the poco's Xformer kva and impedance , the AIC then changes....

~S~

More important than the arc flash calculation is the withstand rating of the premise electrical system. As transformers are located closer and upsized only a truly sharp electrician will recognize the hazard that may be created by a newly inadequate withstand rating of the previously installed premise wiring system. I doubt that the idea ever crosses the power utilities collective mind to check for the withstand of installed equipment when they effectively increase the fault current that the served premises wiring systems will be subjected to.
--
Tom Horne

Maintenance is a subject worthy of it's own seminar. This is something that goes well beyond a simple codebook or handbook.

The electrician installing the equipment has to understand the application, and design for it- not merely do as little for as cheap aspossible. Clear communication, and an ongoing relationship, with the customer is essential.

The maintenance guys have to understand that there are reasons we do things the way we do them. When they have to "get clever," there is usually a reason; that reason must be apparrent to the electrician when he shos up.

Employers need to investin training, parts, and pay for (and respect) the professional judgement of those they hire.

Work, besides being 'neat and workmanlike,' must be done with an eye out for the next guy that has to work there, and allow for anticipated changes. Technique will often have to go beyond code simply to reduce power quality and control reliability issues.

John:

Words well spoken!!

NFPA 70B is a good source of information! Maybe there is some hope for my concern, at least by those who are aware of the hazards involved and are qualified.

How many CMP members would walk across the street on a rainy day barefoot over a metal cover where splices are made!

Look at the following for some of the real world problems found everywhere!!















Joe

Look here there is more ... !!!!!!















Joe

A 4AM conversation when I went into a production plant and found a couple of production workers inside the controls of a 100A, 480V chiller. S=Me, T=Them



S-"What are you guys doing in there?"
T-"We've got to fix the machine"
S-"Why don't you call maintenance?"
T-"We've got no 3rd shift maintenance, Why are you taking pictures?"
S-"It's OK, I always take pictures. Don't you know that's dangerous in there?"
T-"It's OK, we do this all the time! We'll get in trouble if we don't get our parts out, and we'll get sent home if the machine breaks. All I usually need to do is push this reset button!"



He then pointed to the contactor's indicator. Sorry about my amateur arrow.

Blue masking tape held the cabinet door closed, rather than the original locking mechanism.
There was a door switch, meant to disconnect the control circuit, that was also defeated with blue tape.
I told their manager, but I'll betcha not a thing's changed, except that I'm out of their plant, now. ...S




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 01-18-2004).]

Let’s get back to the original question. Joe, if you are asking if the NEC applies to maintenance activities – absolutely. The rules of the code address individual tasks – not job descriptions. Chapter 26 of NFPA 70B clearly references NFPA 70E.
70B Committee falls under the auspices of and reports directly to the NEC Correlating Committee.

An example of one maintenance activity listed in 70B requiring use of the NEC:

“19-3.13.2 Adequate Static Grounding.
… However, where a conductor used for static grounding is also the equipment
grounding conductor for a power circuit, the conductor should be sized in accordance with Table 250-95 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (changed to Table 250-122 for the 1999 NEC).”

So, if I am a maintenance person working a maintenance work request in accordance with NFPA 70B and am about to install a conductor for static grounding that also is used as the EGC, do the rules of the NEC apply? Of course they do. The maintenance standard says so.

If I am not to follow the NEC when I perform many electrical maintenance activities from adjusting overloads to replacing faulty receptacles, then someone please provide me a better reference to follow to ensure my facility will be safe. The NEC is the only reference for many electrical maintenance activities.

Thank you! Your words are well spoken and thought out, and you seem to understand the problem associated with the title of the original question!

I have received similar comments support from some of the members of both of the committees you mention above.

I fully agree that when you are doing any type of maintenance or repair work on the electrical system that you are required to follow the rules in the NEC. I don't agree that the NEC itself requires that this maintenance or repair work be performed. There are other codes and standards that require this type of work and when you do the work, you must comply with the NEC rules.
Don

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 01-21-2004).]

great photos & story electure. i've many times been called into similar situations...

my experiences are that companies who can do the math , (i.e.~ cost of widgets vs. lack of maintainence downtime) are the only ones who take the incentive to do more than the typical crisis management.

they could give a rodent's rear end about any document from the NEC or other entity that i might point out....

~S~

There is not a soul here who drives or walks down the street on a daily basis and does not see some situation where maintenance of an existing wiring installation could be done to improve a scenario where something is either damaged or weathered to the point of it being an unsafe condition. The NEC presently is not setup to administer to this type of situation. I know of no NEC requirement that says to the building owner to fix the situation.

How or what is proposed to change this? Do we want the NEC to address this?

I for one do not want to see the NEC address this situation. It is hard enough to have some people follow the NEC in new work. Policing of existing work should be under the auspices of another document and group of individuals (inspectors).
If the NEC has a clause in it that would make maintenance a part of its requirements, I believe that less jurisdictions would adopt it.

Joe Tedesco, I know how strongly you feel about this subject, but is there not a better venue to direct your attention where all would be more agreeable to see this turn around, as well as have the authority to enforce it?

Pierre