Abandoning wire

Status
Not open for further replies.
kacper said:
I think people on the board already notice that we a little bit of from the original question. The answer to is provided in 372.13
I respect healthy arguments and conversation.
It was a pleasure talking to you my friend. Believed me: The reason behind 110.12 being in the code is only for the safety reason.
I am sure i do not have to explain that
Click to expand...
If the inspector can't find a real code violation and has to use 110.12 for a "safety reason" either the inspector has no idea what he is doing or there is no real safety issue.
Even the NEC Style Manual says the wording used in 110.12, "neat and workman like" is vague and possibly unenforceable.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the inspector can't find a real code violation and has to use 110.12 for a "safety reason" either the inspector has no idea what he is doing or there is no real safety issue.
Even the NEC Style Manual says the wording used in 110.12, "neat and workman like" is vague and possibly unenforceable.
Click to expand...


Working as an inspector for years, I never used 110.12, as we have been told it is unenforceable.
More than just being unenforceable, I agree with Don, that the inspector is grasping thin air when citing 110.12.
 
macmikeman said:
The title is mechanical execution of work. If you are killing those circuits via a mechanical means, then it applys.:grin:
Click to expand...

MAC,

Sometimes it helps to define your terms:grin::

Mechanical Execution: ma*KAN*i*kul eks*i*KU*shun

1. N. to achieve a conclusion to a material installation.

2. V. to be killed by means of a machine which ends life.

I always kill my circuits with a mechanical means.:cool:

Trying to help,
Karl

BTW, As someone said, I'm all for labelling wire for future use. Or send it to Larry.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the inspector can't find a real code violation and has to use 110.12 for a "safety reason" either the inspector has no idea what he is doing or there is no real safety issue.
Even the NEC Style Manual says the wording used in 110.12, "neat and workman like" is vague and possibly unenforceable.
Click to expand...

It must not be enforceable.

That would explain the some of the worst work I have seen recently.

An auto repair shop, 200 amp panel 10 or so risers with no offsets, strut. Just pushed back to the wall with a big bow and 1 hole straps. In a concealed space maybe but this is exposed work.
 
Power Tech said:
An auto repair shop, 200 amp panel 10 or so risers with no offsets, strut. Just pushed back to the wall with a big bow and 1 hole straps. In a concealed space maybe but this is exposed work.
Click to expand...

Oh, the old 'Bow and go' method of running raceways. I am no supporter of that method, it looks bad in my opinion but the only question an inspector should consider is this one.

Did it conform to the NEC or not?

If yes it should pass with all questions about the quality of the job left to the customer and the contractor. The NEC should not be used as a workmanship code. It is not the stated purpose of the NEC.

At least thats how I see it. :)
 
iwire said:
Oh, the old 'Bow and go' method of running raceways. I am no supporter of that method, it looks bad in my opinion but the only question an inspector should consider is this one.

Did it conform to the NEC or not?

If yes it should pass with all questions about the quality of the job left to the customer and the contractor. The NEC should not be used as a workmanship code. It is not the stated purpose of the NEC.

At least thats how I see it. :)
Click to expand...

One concern would be the integrity of the connection of the conduit to the panel.
 
Speaking of neat and workmanlike, what is up with the trend of using unistrut for single runs of conduit like I see everywhere I look now. I am old school. Box offsets are not that difficult. Yes I do think strut is great for multiple runs of conduit. By the way, it never looks good on a dwelling. That is a macmike personal pet peeve, unless the channel is flush with the dwelling's finish.
 
If 110.12 is deemed as unenforcable text why doe's it still exist?

I'm in total agreement that it is vague and it should not be cited by an inspector as a reason for failing a job.
 
joebell said:
If 110.12 is deemed as unenforcable text why doe's it still exist?
Click to expand...


In some facilities, where the owners are the AHJ, 110.12 can be enforceable.
The specs for jobs at these facilities may contain verbiage similar to 110.12 and include 110.12 as a spec.
 
celtic said:
In some facilities, where the owners are the AHJ, 110.12 can be enforceable.
The specs for jobs at these facilities may contain verbiage similar to 110.12 and include 110.12 as a spec.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but the style manual focuses on positive enforcable text. Even in a facility the interpertation of this rule is too subjective

What may be neat and workman like to one may not be so for another.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top