110.12

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sguinn

Senior Member
Location
Blue Ridge, Ga
Has anyone here ever turned down a job or had a job turned down because of 110.12? Seems I read in an older post several months ago one inspector said he had never/would never fail someone on this. Just curious.
 
sguinn said:
Has anyone here ever turned down a job or had a job turned down because of 110.12? Seems I read in an older post several months ago one inspector said he had never/would never fail someone on this. Just curious.
Click to expand...

I've threatened to do so before, but when push came to shove, the installer would make it "look" better. The one's I've had the most trouble with over the years are the communication trades. The electrical contractor will do a superb job and then the tel guy will louse it all up by some of the worst wormanship on the planet. There is a standard they're supposed to use, but that standard is not referenced in the building code and thus not enforceable in my jurisdiction, anyway. :smile:
 
I was failed 28 years ago in an area I didn't normally work in. The inspector wanted all the romex to be run symetrical w/ the framing. Yes he cited neat & workman like manner. My employer woudn't fight him. :mad: I couldn't do it today as an inspector, cuz I don't think I would have a chance in court due to the way it's written in the code. :roll:
 
I never failed anyone for anything. :grin: I have fired some of my workers tho...

It's alot easier.

fired-734715.jpg
 
wbalsam1 said:
I've threatened to do so before, but when push came to shove, the installer would make it "look" better. :smile:
Click to expand...

I have done the same thing. It is very hard to inspect a messy job. I had one where I swear that a conduit left a j-box and as I was tracing it around the job going through vairious boxes, it ended up back in the original box. I think it was because even the EC couldn't figure out what he had done.

As an inspector I would have to ask the other inspectors to be truthful when I ask, you write fewer corrections on neat jobs than messy jobs, correct?
 
I am aware of at least one jurisdiction in South Florida that has placed neat and workmanlike guidelines in their land development code. This document specifically gives powers to the AHJ to reject jobs deemed not workmanlike.

Here is a quote from that jurisdiction:

The issue of "installed in a neat and workmanlike manner" can be a point of contention between the contractor and the inspector.

Establishing a clear definition of "neat and workmanlike" is not as simple as turning to your Webster's Dictionary. Webster's defines workmanlike as: capable; competent. Neat is defined as; clean and tidy, skillful and precise, well-proportioned.

To be enforceable a prescriptive definition is required. That is a definition that is not open for personal judgment.

The following definition of workmanlike appears in the Code of The Town of Jupiter, Section 21-206, Ordnance Number 6-04: Workmanlike shall mean executed in a skilled manner; e.g., generally plumb, level, square, in line, undamaged and without marring adjacent work.



The typical correction notice text is therefore: In violation of NEC 110-12 Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Workmanlike as defined in the Code of The Town of Jupiter, Section 21-206, Ord 6-04.

The attached photos show. . . .well, I'm sure you will figure it out.
Click to expand...

The pictures described above show a "before" and "after" of a pool equipment installation that was rejected using 110.12(B).
 
cowboyjwc said:
As an inspector I would have to ask the other inspectors to be truthful when I ask, you write fewer corrections on neat jobs than messy jobs, correct?
Click to expand...


I agree with that. I should have added to my original post 110.12 along with other violations because there usually are. Thanks for all the replies as I'm by myself in the county I work in and don't get much of a chance to talk with other inspectors. (Other than this site of course.) Thanks again.:smile:
 
I wish I could fail jobs using the "neat & workman like" rule. If it is that ugly there is always corrections that can be backed up with other code sections, but it is still ugly when all is said & done.
 
There's More...

There's More...

What about areas where continuing maintenace of equipment is required? Does that influence your decision. Are these the some of the other violations you are referring to?
 
110.12

mistermudd said:
I wish I could fail jobs using the "neat & workman like" rule. If it is that ugly there is always corrections that can be backed up with other code sections, but it is still ugly when all is said & done.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts has a new amendment to 334.30 for 2008,It reads in part:Where the cable is run diagonally behind strapping of a nominal 19mm (3/4-inch) thickness it shall be considered supported,secured, and in compliance 334.17 where it is not pulled taunt.

IMO that will create a lot of sloppy work. ( Not neat & workman like )

If anyone would like a copy of the Ma. amendments I may be able to e-mail a copy. Send me a pm of your address.
 
romeo said:
IMO that will create a lot of sloppy work. ( Not neat & workman like )
Click to expand...

It might, but IMO that is not any concern for the inspector.

Neat and workman like should be an issue left to the customer and installer. :)
 
110.12

iwire said:
It might, but IMO that is not any concern for the inspector.

Neat and workman like should be an issue left to the customer and installer. :)
Click to expand...

Good point Bob. NEC says it is OK the inspector should have no option other than to accept.

I expect there will be a lot of controversy about what is considered not pulled taunt. I am having a hard time believing that a nm cable can be pulled diagonally across a ceiling over strapping, and under joist, for a considerable distance, and not be made taunt.Aseptically if it passes at the point where the strapping and joist are secured.

JMO
 
cowboyjwc said:
I have done the same thing. It is very hard to inspect a messy job. I had one where I swear that a conduit left a j-box and as I was tracing it around the job going through vairious boxes, it ended up back in the original box. .......
Click to expand...

That is too funny. I wonder if I've ever seen one of these "conduit loops" and didn't realize it...:confused: :grin:
 
I suppose that an inspector would be required to fail work on the basis of "neat and workmanlike" if the installer was a female.
 
110.12

mdshunk said:
I suppose that an inspector would be required to fail work on the basis of "neat and workmanlike" if the installer was a female.
Click to expand...

Way too funny. Inspector better duck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top