The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#114570 - 04/24/03 09:06 PM What is the Violation?
Webmaster Offline

Administrator
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3142
Loc: NY, USA


Do you think that 110.12 has been violated, or would you have some other rule, or rules that could be used instead?

Joe Tedesco

Top
Tools for Electricians:
#114571 - 04/24/03 10:21 PM Re: What is the Violation?
Trumpy Offline

Member

Registered: 07/05/02
Posts: 8540
Loc: SI,New Zealand
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.
_________________________
Let's face it, these days if you're not young, you're old - Red Green grin

Top
#114572 - 04/25/03 03:24 AM Re: What is the Violation?
pauluk Offline
Member

Registered: 08/11/01
Posts: 7693
Loc: Norfolk, England
 Quote:
110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner....


I'd say it's been violated!

How about 110.13(A) as well? I can see at least one box which doesn't appear to be supported by anything except the cables.




[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 04-25-2003).]

Top
#114573 - 04/25/03 10:13 AM Re: What is the Violation?
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
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).]
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#114574 - 04/25/03 10:32 AM Re: What is the Violation?
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Here's what I believe to be the accepted 2005 NEC proposal for this subject:

 Quote:
Log #2612
NEC-P01
158 - ( 110- , FPN (New) ):
SUBMITTER: H. Brooke Stauffer
Nat' l Electrical Contractors Assn. (NECA)

RECOMMENDATION:

Add a new fine print note as follows:

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 Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#114575 - 04/25/03 10:39 AM Re: What is the Violation?
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
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
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#114576 - 04/25/03 11:42 AM Re: What is the Violation?
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
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).]
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#114577 - 04/25/03 12:15 PM Re: What is the Violation?
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
Joe,
Why doesn't the TCC or Standards Council step in and require compliance with the NEC Style Manual?
Don
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#114578 - 04/26/03 03:43 PM Re: What is the Violation?
Obsaleet Offline
Member

Registered: 04/05/03
Posts: 361
Loc: Pa
Hi Joe,
It looks like non-matetallic sheathed cable. Why not use NEC 334-30 Securing & Supporting, NEC 300-11(A),(C).
_________________________
Choose your customers, don't let them choose you.

Top
#114579 - 04/29/03 04:40 PM Re: What is the Violation?
John Steinke Offline
Member

Registered: 04/03/01
Posts: 509
Loc: Reno,Nv., USA
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.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals