The most commonly ignored code rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
mdshunk said:
Way to much liberty taken with rubber cord in factories.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. In the industrial inspections that I do this is the #1 most violated section of the NEC. Next in line would be inproperly installed and grounded transformers.

Chris
 
The biggest ongoing problem I have run into since moving to Richmond is 312.5(C).

I find they LOVE to put a 2" RNC conduit nipple in the back of the panel or in the bottom and run all their NM Cables into the panel....I probably see it 3-4 times a day. Also applies to cramming 4-5 NM cables in a single connector that is not approved for more than 2 NM Cables ( also a 110.3(b) issue. )

Thats my choice...lol
 
radiopet said:
The biggest ongoing problem I have run into since moving to Richmond is 312.5(C).

I find they LOVE to put a 2" RNC conduit nipple in the back of the panel or in the bottom and run all their NM Cables into the panel....I probably see it 3-4 times a day. Also applies to cramming 4-5 NM cables in a single connector that is not approved for more than 2 NM Cables ( also a 110.3(b) issue. )

Thats my choice...lol
Click to expand...

Thats because for many years it was excepted.One tag per EC should solve it.If not keep writing it up.Inspectors doing there job right have my full support.
 
radiopet said:
The biggest ongoing problem I have run into since moving to Richmond is 312.5(C).

I find they LOVE to put a 2" RNC conduit nipple in the back of the panel or in the bottom and run all their NM Cables into the panel....I probably see it 3-4 times a day
Click to expand...

How would this violate 312.5(C) ? see excp.'s
 
benaround said:
How would this violate 312.5(C) ? see excp.'s
Click to expand...

The way I read it, the exception applies to surface mounted enclosures with nonflexible raceways coming out of the top, with raceway length greater than 18" and less than 10 feet.
 
I had an instructor once that claimed the most common violation was not wire brushing aluminum conductors before applying inhibiter and terminating. I took his word for it then but I wonder is it in the code book? I can't find any reference to it in my '05.
 
480sparky said:
I vote for 408.4. It's not just violated. It's totally ignored.
Click to expand...

I've written up guys for 408.4 dozens of times. . And with '08, labels like "blue bedroom" or "Tim's bedroom" are going to get included on my writeup.
 
iwire said:
Not busting your chops here just really wondering what you would accept?
Click to expand...

"No circuit shall be described in a manner that depends on transient conditions of occupancy"

How about something like: N bedroom, E bedroom, SW bedroom, master bedroom, bedroom over garage ?
 
dnem said:
"No circuit shall be described in a manner that depends on transient conditions of occupancy"

How about something like: N bedroom, E bedroom, SW bedroom, master bedroom, bedroom over garage ?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the term "bedroom" depend on "transient conditions of occupancy"?
 
480sparky said:
I vote for 408.4. It's not just violated. It's totally ignored.
Click to expand...

That one is almost too common to mention, I bet I write it up on 90% of my finals and I always get the same excuse, "they're in the office being typed up." "Well, when they're in your panel, give me a call.":smile:

Another one I forgot to mention and I'm not so sure that it's ignored as it's not known is 110.16. Some of the manufactures are starting to put them on now. Now many have the arc flash warning, but it is also supposed to mention the use of PPE. Oh and 110.22 a lot though I don't really know why the stickers are always there, but for some reason just don't get installed.
 
Here's how all too many dwellings get a directory:

1. Gen
2. Gen
3. Lights
4. Lights
5. Gen
6. GGDW
7. Gar
8. K1
9. BR
10. BR
11. MB
12. B2
13. F
14. Dry
15. Dry
16. AC
17. AC
18. Smks
19. SP
20. WPH
21. WPP
22. OHD

Some are obvious, especially to us. But think of the poor HO trying to comprehend that gibberish.
 
radiopet said:
Please read the exception as well.........We are not talking in the top or surface mount here.
Click to expand...

Paul, I wrote down the wrong Article it should of been 334.30. I don't do resd.

work, but the reason I posted on this is because I got corrected a couple of

weeks ago stating that it was a violation to run NM cable in a 2" PVC as is being discussed.
 
480sparky said:
Here's how all too many dwellings get a directory:

1. Gen
2. Gen
3. Lights
4. Lights
5. Gen
6. GGDW
7. Gar
8. K1
9. BR
10. BR
11. MB
12. B2
13. F
14. Dry
15. Dry
16. AC
17. AC
18. Smks
19. SP
20. WPH
21. WPP
22. OHD

Some are obvious, especially to us. But think of the poor HO trying to comprehend that gibberish.
Click to expand...

with the small space available just what all do you hope to get.Example,west receptacle on back right bedroom ,lights and receptacles on master bedroom and closet,smoke detectors,etc
give us a break it simply cant be done
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top