Not sure what 110.12 relates to, but, this wiring is putting it plainly, one big mess!. I don't like the idea of them wires touching them pipes either.
In my opinion 110.12 is vague and unenforceable. The terms "neat" and "workmanlike" both show up in Section 3.2.1 of the NEC Style Manual , as "possibly unenforceable and vague". Any inspector that has to use 110.12 to red tag that installation is either lazy or incompetent. There are plenty of real violations that can be cited. Don
[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 04-25-2003).]
FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2000, Standard Practices for Good Workmanship in Electrical Contracting, and other ANSI-approved installation standards.
SUBSTANTIATION:
As presently written , 110.12 is an undefined performance requirement.
Subsections (A), (B), and (C) describe only a few of the important aspects of "neat and Workmanlike" electrical installations.
Safety would be improved by providing an informational reference to a more comprehensive standard on the subject.
Joe, Even if the proposal referencing the NECA/ANSI standard is accepted, the section will still be unenforceable unless the AHJ that has adopted the NEC also adopts the NECA standard. I notice that the proposal was submitted by NECA. I wonder if part of the reason for the proposal is to increase the sales of their "installation standards"? With the exception of "straight, plumb and level" almost all other examples of "sloppy" work are violations of other code sections. Don
I thought the same about the NECA publication too!
I wonder if that proposed new FPN will show up in all of the other areas throughout Chapters 6, 7, and 8 too?
All of the other 2005 NEC proposals that were in support of your concerns about 110.12 being "vague and unenforceable" were rejected, and only the NECA proposal above was accepted.
It is also "Vague and Unenforceable"!
The proposal for the new FPN should be reviewed by the public and comments are in order.
I agree with your 110.12 issues, and also agree that there are rules broken that are available to be cited by the AHJ.
[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 04-25-2003).]
ONe could point out many things -starting with the use of NMC in an industrial setting- but a more general point comes to mind: Ever notict that, for all its' detail, the NEC is absolutely silent at to what a "qualified" person is expected to know, or be able to do? I submit that no control over material will be effective if the rules and techniques are either unknown or ignored.
It seems the 4-S/5-S box is not very well supported (and most likely doesn't have a blank cover)...S Any more guesses? PS, and it seems to be overfilled if I see the # and shape of those dumb romexes correctly. BTW, NM cable is not restricted for use in commercial or industrial facilities by the NEC. (unless I'm wrong)Read the Code Book. Please trash me accordingly...S
[This message has been edited by electure (edited 05-20-2003).]