# 110.12



## sguinn (Nov 19, 2007)

Has anyone ever turned down or has been turned down because of 110.12 ? Just curious.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

I have cited people before for 110.12(A) and 110.12(C).

I have never simply failed someone for not installing something in a "neat and workman like manner" if that is what you are asking.

If you see work that you feel is not neat and workman like then most likely there are going to be some legitimate code violations you can cite, such as straping a securing.

Chris


----------



## sguinn (Nov 19, 2007)

Thanks Chris, I should have added(along with other violations) because you're right if the job is super sloppy, then there is probably something else along with that.


----------



## nap (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm sure we could all tell tales of work that _should_ have been tagged for it but I heve never heard or been tagged for it.


----------



## Idaho Abe (Nov 28, 2007)

Squinn I have turned down work for this code violation. Mostly home owner jobs where they bought the entire set of Time Life Books. Our previous inspector would use this when they removed romex cable from the box by pulling it our of the center instead of rolling it off the outside. Removing romex from the center of the box causes curly wiring.


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

Yes. When I was an apprentice, the JW and I were shooting meter sockets to the foundations of houses. We were about four services in when our boss came over to tell us one of them failed. What was the problem? Out of plumb.


----------



## nap (Dec 26, 2007)

truth be told, I believe this section should be struck from the code. The code was intended to insure a safe installation and a "neat and workman like manner" has little, itself, to do with safety.

If there are violations based upon other sections, then cite them but who is to determine what is neat and workman like?

The last I knew, a meter pedestal being out of plumb, although I believe it does reflect on the over all quality of the work, does not cause a safety situation. The curly NM is the same thing.

This is also wide open to the interpretation of the inspector and can easily be misused or abused when an inspector is intent on injuring a contractor for some reason.

Additionally, the only direction as to what is "neat and workman like" is FPN relating ansi/neca 1-2000. Since FPN's are not enforceable sections of the NEC, again, there is no solid requirements put in place by or for 110.12.


Does anybody have access to ansi/neca 1-2000? I would like to read the thing if it is available somewhere.

Just to head off the argument;

I do believe an installation should be neat and workman like BUT requiring it as an enforceable rule is out of place in a safety manual where there are already mechanisms in place to cause the installation to be safe.


----------



## VegasVolts (Jan 15, 2008)

It should just be in the specifications on the plans!


----------



## Sparks 1942 (Feb 2, 2008)

In my area, the Poco will red tag for outof level or plumb.


----------



## nap (Dec 26, 2007)

what are the limits?

1º, 2º..30º. How do they determine what is acceptable.

Do your j-boxes have to have the wires laid in in a specific manner so they look neat?

There are myriad areas where a judgment from an inspector would be a bit too subjective. I knew of an inspector that did tend to be a bit harder on non-union crews as he had a union background. This section of the code allows that with very little defense. While it does refer to ansi/neca 1-2000 as suggested direction, we all know a FPN is merely suggestion and is not enforceable so if the inspector sees something he feels is not neat enough or workman like enough, how would one argue that point?

it is simply to ambiguous



I simply find this point of the code to be improper as anything one would cite for should be included in other sections of the code.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

Sparks 1942 said:


> In my area, the Poco will red tag for outof level or plumb.


Total Bull crap! Abuse of power. APPEAL!!

Nap, I disagree,I feel It should remain for the exact reasons you stated.

"does reflect on the over all quality of the work,--The curly NM is the same thing.---"

I feel the "curly" wire is a hazard, it can get pinched between the rock and what not.

"Just to head off the argument;" Too late for that.


----------



## nap (Dec 26, 2007)

leland said:


> "Just to head off the argument;" Too late for that.


touche`

re the curly NM; this could easily be included in the section concerning NM if the panel believed it is neceessary. Like I said, I believe the install should fit the section in question but looks themselves are not a safety issue. The curly NM is more than a looks thing. It actually has a reason, such as what you have posted. That is beyond neatness.



So to this section; It actaully says nothing yet it is enforcable.

I would rather see additional direction in each section the panel believes this section now addresses but only with specific direction.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

I totaly get your point. I too agree it should not have to be in there.
But truth be told, we all know them, if it wasn't, think of the problems.

I feel a neat install is over all safer, better organized etc. it makes sence.


----------



## randomkiller (Sep 28, 2007)

I helped a friend on a job he took over from another EC that was thrown off the job. Nothing was level or plumb, nothing. There was some romex with staples through the jacket. Boxes so stuffed he had cracked the outlet faces screwing them in. The whole place was roob goldberged.
The sticker on the window didn't have enough room for the violation numbers.


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

I think that GENERALLY speaking the neat and workman part of the code is largely unenforceable. It is simply too subjective. The subsections about KO's being filled and what have you is the real thrust of the section. I think there are a great many problems that could outweigh an unsightly install.


----------

