ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
twh 10
Admin 4
Recent Posts
Correct rotation, wrong sequence
by Potseal. 05/27/17 12:15 AM
Dryer, Range grounding from "Main" panel
by sparkync. 05/25/17 05:49 PM
210.70 / Wall Switch / When adopted?
by gfretwell. 05/24/17 09:18 PM
Any UL 508 experts out there?
by sparkyinak. 05/23/17 11:04 PM
Heat pump conundrum
by sparkyinak. 05/21/17 08:49 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
236,849 Are you busy
171,859 Re: Forum
164,763 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 45 guests, and 12 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#114570 - 04/25/03 12:06 AM What is the Violation?  
Admin  Offline

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,443
[Linked Image]

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

Tools for Electricians:

#114571 - 04/25/03 01:21 AM Re: What is the Violation?  
Trumpy  Offline

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,211
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. [Linked Image]

Let's face it, these days if you're not young, you're old - Red Green grin

#114572 - 04/25/03 06:24 AM Re: What is the Violation?  
pauluk  Offline
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,520
Norfolk, England
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).]

#114573 - 04/25/03 01:13 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
resqcapt19  Offline
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
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.

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 04-25-2003).]


#114574 - 04/25/03 01:32 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
Joe Tedesco  Offline
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Here's what I believe to be the accepted 2005 NEC proposal for this subject:

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


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.


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

#114575 - 04/25/03 01:39 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
resqcapt19  Offline
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
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.


#114576 - 04/25/03 02:42 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
Joe Tedesco  Offline
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Boston, Massachusetts USA

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

#114577 - 04/25/03 03:15 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
resqcapt19  Offline
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Why doesn't the TCC or Standards Council step in and require compliance with the NEC Style Manual?


#114578 - 04/26/03 06:43 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
Obsaleet  Offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 362
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.

#114579 - 04/29/03 07:40 PM Re: What is the Violation?  
John Steinke  Offline
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 518
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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Member Spotlight
Posts: 421
Joined: September 2005
Show All Member Profiles 

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8192 MB (Peak: 0.9968 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-05-27 04:19:27 UTC