Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
- Thread starter electron
- Start date
- Status
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Article 110.12!!!!!
Article 110.12!!!!!
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Noxx
Look at 334.10 (A) (1)
And also 334.15
Noxx
Where in the NEC does it say you can not run N/M surface mount if it is installed corectly?
Look at 334.10 (A) (1)
And also 334.15
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
"Neat and workmanshiplike" is a vague and legally unenforceable. A violation cited by the use of these terms would never be upheld in court. It would be very rare that there are not real violations in a sloppy looking job. An inspector who resorts to citing "Neat and workmanshiplike" violations is lazy or incompetent.
The NEC Stryle Manual says "3.2.1 Unenforceable Terms. The NEC shall not contain references or requirements that are unenforceable or vague.
The terms contained in Table 3.2.1 shall be reviewed in context, and, if the resulting requirement is unenforceable or vague, the term shall not be used." The terms "neat" and "workmanlike" are both shown in Table 3.2.1.
Don
[ May 29, 2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
"Neat and workmanshiplike" is a vague and legally unenforceable. A violation cited by the use of these terms would never be upheld in court. It would be very rare that there are not real violations in a sloppy looking job. An inspector who resorts to citing "Neat and workmanshiplike" violations is lazy or incompetent.
The NEC Stryle Manual says "3.2.1 Unenforceable Terms. The NEC shall not contain references or requirements that are unenforceable or vague.
The terms contained in Table 3.2.1 shall be reviewed in context, and, if the resulting requirement is unenforceable or vague, the term shall not be used." The terms "neat" and "workmanlike" are both shown in Table 3.2.1.
Don
[ May 29, 2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
I agree that 110.12 is not exactly enforceable, but I do believe that it will certainly call to attention the qualification and character of an electrician.
Article 110 covers all installations and the existence of this requirement still needs to be met.
All a lawyer will have to do is convince a judge and or jury that the particular job was done very carelessly and unskillful to place doubt into their minds. This with the other minor violations all together makes for a real hard case to defend. Just my opinion.
Would you hire an electrician that performs this type of work?
I agree that 110.12 is not exactly enforceable, but I do believe that it will certainly call to attention the qualification and character of an electrician.
Article 110 covers all installations and the existence of this requirement still needs to be met.
All a lawyer will have to do is convince a judge and or jury that the particular job was done very carelessly and unskillful to place doubt into their minds. This with the other minor violations all together makes for a real hard case to defend. Just my opinion.
Would you hire an electrician that performs this type of work?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Bryan,
I'm sure that there would be multiple "real" violations made by the person who installed that mess.
Don
Bryan,
No, but that should be between the owner and the contractor, not the contractor and the inspector. This case, if it only involved the inspectors red tag, would never see a jury. The judge would issue a summary judgement ruling that the section is too vague to be legally enforced. If it is a civil case involving an incident, that would be different.
I'm sure that there would be multiple "real" violations made by the person who installed that mess.
Don
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Hurk, I was referring to 334.15(b), and chose my words poorly. By referring the the cable as simply "surface mounted" I meant to imply that it is not protected by any of the approved methods, conduit, guard strips, etc. You may not simply tack NM cable to a finished wall.
-Noxx
P.S. Fairly certain you could cite that mess for 314.21 as well.
[ May 29, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: noxx ]
Hurk, I was referring to 334.15(b), and chose my words poorly. By referring the the cable as simply "surface mounted" I meant to imply that it is not protected by any of the approved methods, conduit, guard strips, etc. You may not simply tack NM cable to a finished wall.
-Noxx
P.S. Fairly certain you could cite that mess for 314.21 as well.
[ May 29, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: noxx ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Of course you can staple NM to a finished wall, although the installation in the picture would still fail for lack of supports and not following the surface
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
The only question is "where necessary", which as far I'm concerned is anywhere NM cable is not concealed within finished walls, floors, ceilings, etc. I appreciate the point of argument but you would not seriously endorse running exposed NM inside a dwelling?
A through C, not A OR...etc. This includes "(b) protection from physical damage." The cable shall be protected where necessary by conduit, emt, rnc, guard strips, surface metal, etc.
The only question is "where necessary", which as far I'm concerned is anywhere NM cable is not concealed within finished walls, floors, ceilings, etc. I appreciate the point of argument but you would not seriously endorse running exposed NM inside a dwelling?
physis
Senior Member
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
2003 National Electrical Code Style Manual
1.2 Scope. ....................... the NEC shall comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.
If 110.12 is not enforceable then it has no purpose.
[ May 30, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
2003 National Electrical Code Style Manual
1.2 Scope. ....................... the NEC shall comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Ok, so here it's stated that these terms are enforceable by the mere fact that they exist in the NEC, other wise they cannot be there.
Talk about context, shall not be used by who? The writers of the NEC, a court, an inspector?
If 110.12 is not enforceable then it has no purpose.
[ May 30, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Noxx, not trying to give you a hard time, and not trying to defend that ugly work in the picture
In the area I work NM is exposed in every unfinished basement and most garages.
Panels are surface mounted to a piece of plywood on a basement wall, so all the NM feeds along with the SE cable are exposed here and throughout the basement.
"Where exposed to physical damage" is different to everyone, but the installation I describe is common.
I have not wired a house in years but a common thing to see is an outlet on the basement wall for a sump pump, this is done by putting a running board down the wall and stapling the NM to it.
If you have the 2002 NEC Handbook look at Exhibit 334.1, this shows NM exposed in basements.
Noxx, not trying to give you a hard time, and not trying to defend that ugly work in the picture
In the area I work NM is exposed in every unfinished basement and most garages.
Panels are surface mounted to a piece of plywood on a basement wall, so all the NM feeds along with the SE cable are exposed here and throughout the basement.
"Where exposed to physical damage" is different to everyone, but the installation I describe is common.
I have not wired a house in years but a common thing to see is an outlet on the basement wall for a sump pump, this is done by putting a running board down the wall and stapling the NM to it.
If you have the 2002 NEC Handbook look at Exhibit 334.1, this shows NM exposed in basements.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
physis,
Every code cycle there are changes made in the NEC text to bring it into compliance with the style manual. There are many cases of the use of terms that are too vague to be enforced. These terms should not be used and are not legally enforceable. Again, I say, that an inspector that has to resort to citing 110.12 violations is either lazy or incompetent.
Don
physis,
Every code cycle there are changes made in the NEC text to bring it into compliance with the style manual. There are many cases of the use of terms that are too vague to be enforced. These terms should not be used and are not legally enforceable. Again, I say, that an inspector that has to resort to citing 110.12 violations is either lazy or incompetent.
Don
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Don: Don't you mean only the first sentence of 110.12 is unenforceable?
Paragraphs A, B, C, are important to enforce.
The chief inspector of the State, informed us that 110.12 was not to be used for a non-compliance issue. I asked him, "have you read the entire section?"
Don: Don't you mean only the first sentence of 110.12 is unenforceable?
Paragraphs A, B, C, are important to enforce.
The chief inspector of the State, informed us that 110.12 was not to be used for a non-compliance issue. I asked him, "have you read the entire section?"
physis
Senior Member
Re: Does this installation violate any NEC Rules?
Don,
I don't disagree. Without further definition workman like is practacally meaningless.
The reason this was cited by the inspector I mentioned befor was that the NM was twisted pretty baddly because there was very limited space through a series of closely spaced studs. 334.24 I don't think applies and I don't know of another code that says this wiring was illegal. But it certainly didn't look very good and I wouldn't blame someone for being offended by it.
Thank you again for the link.
Don,
I don't disagree. Without further definition workman like is practacally meaningless.
The reason this was cited by the inspector I mentioned befor was that the NM was twisted pretty baddly because there was very limited space through a series of closely spaced studs. 334.24 I don't think applies and I don't know of another code that says this wiring was illegal. But it certainly didn't look very good and I wouldn't blame someone for being offended by it.
Thank you again for the link.
- Status