REQUIREMENT TO PROTECT ROMEX WHERE RUN AROUND BATHTUB/SHOWER SPACE

[inspectorsparky]

We have several apartment complexes being constructed in our city. I have been requiring the EC's to either sleeve the romex run behind the bathtub/shower spaces with metal flex or allowed them to relocate the romex below the flood rim of the tub, as this ensures the future installation of a soap dish or towel rack protects against damaging the cable and the accessories becoming energized. I am finding it difficult to solidly support this requirement through the NEC. Any assistance on a referrence would be appreciated.

 

[John120/240]

I am sure that you will not find any requirement to support your reasoning in the NEC. If you as an inspector for the city or county

cite a violation you need to back up your point with NEC chapter & verse. That is the only way that the contractor will know what

he needs to correct. Please leave the shirt pocket rules in your shirt pocket.

 

[big vic]

And how would you bond the metal flex?

 

[Strathead]

In addition to John's reply, what is your logic? The code already requires the Romex to be 1 1/4" minimum back from the front of the stud. add to that, 5/8" of sheet rock and either 1/8" of tub enclosure or 3/8" of tile and the screws would need to be at least 2" long to penetrate the romex with existing code.

 

[inspectorsparky]

Whats my logic? The possibility of a resident being electrocuted because a handyman used 2-1/2" screws to mount a soap dish. Look outside the box guys.

 

[inspectorsparky]

Bonded by metal boxes, flex connectors and grounding pigtails in the boxes.

 

[roger]

Whats my logic? The possibility of a resident being electrocuted because a handyman used 2-1/2" screws to mount a soap dish. Look outside the box guys.

IMO, unless you make this a formal addendum to the your local codes or NEC (assuming you have adopted the NEC) you have no basis to require this.

Inspectors should not blind side EC's with their personal wishes regardless of how logical they may be.

As an aside, "what ifs" are never ending.

Rog

 

[Strathead]

As an aside, "what ifs" are never ending.

Roger

I was trying to think how to say this without sounding holier than though!

 

[Danny R Chavez]

slippery slope

slippery slope

I have to agree with Rpger, by that logic electricity should be outlawed that would be the only way to guaranty nobody would be electrocuted.

 

[infinity]

We have several apartment complexes being constructed in our city. I have been requiring the EC's to either sleeve the romex run behind the bathtub/shower spaces with metal flex or allowed them to relocate the romex below the flood rim of the tub, as this ensures the future installation of a soap dish or towel rack protects against damaging the cable and the accessories becoming energized. I am finding it difficult to solidly support this requirement through the NEC. Any assistance on a referrence would be appreciated.

If you have the authority to make up rules as you see fit then you can enforce this. If you're required to follow the NEC then you cannot.

 

[inspectorsparky]

Obviously you gentlemen have had bad experiences with electrical inspectors and I can understand some of your responses. I do not however, appreciate the condescending remarks especially from a moderator.
I can assure you my intent is not to "blindside" my electrical contractors. Because of my method of inspection and the successful professional relationships I develop with these contractors beginning at pre-construction I have had great success with them williingly routing the cabling around the bathtub/shower areas or below the flood rim of the tubs. I have explained my concerns. This is a serious issue, as I have had experience with this very hazard as I too am an electrical contractor. Would this be important to any one of you if your child or family member was electrocuted in this manner?

Obviously this forum lacks the fortitude to attempt to develop and evolve the NEC based upon real life hazards. I believe Mike Holt founded his success on the passion to protect persons from hazards. My job is to protect my citizens from hazards that are avoidable.
Ill take this issue before our local COG.

 

[ceb58]

Sorry but the wording "out side of the box", "what if" and "I like to see it this way" do not fall under any articles of the NEC. Nicely put, it is things like this that give inspectors a bad reputation. Inspect my work, if you find a ligament, enforceable code violation then call me on it, I will gladly correct it and respect you for doing your job. Don't inspect my work and make up "out of the box" violations that you "like to see". When you do that you have lost any respect I may have had for you and your position and I now question your ability to do the job you are paid to do.

 

[petersonra]

There are all kinds of things that arguably are "safer". The code just does not require what you are asking people to do. If you think it is a good idea, instead of making up requirements that are not present in the code, you perhaps should submit a proposed change to the NFPA.

 

[inspectorsparky]

Thank you, Bob. That is exactly what I intend to do.

 

[infinity]

The NEC is updated every three years. Part of that process is having electricians and inspectors (among others) write proposals to change the code. Many members of this forum have written code proposals to correct something that was in error, to increase safety or just because something is a good idea. Those of us who are inspectors are given legal guidelines, in this state it's the adoption of the NEC which we are to enforce as the electrical code. Around here an inspector cannot make up his own rules, for areas that are gray (yes quite a few exist in the NEC) he can interpret accordingly. If you were offended by my last post I apologize for it's tone, maybe it could have been said differently, although the statement was accurate.

 

[roger]

I'm sorry if you took my statement as being condescending but, if I had wired something per the applicable adopted code and an inspector showed up making me redo things per his whims and wishes before he passed my work I would call it being "blindsided".


Since you feel strongly about this let me ask you, have you ever made a formal proposal? There is a form in the back of the NEC.

How would you take it if you were issued a traffic ticket because the particular cop thought you should have stopped twice before going through a stop sign when the law only required you to stop once?

The point is, there are proper ways of getting things done and you should follow those paths instead of enforcing your own rules.

Roger

 

[Sandman1110]

A "cite and write" policy is best. Cite the violation, and back it up with a code reference. No ambiguity.

 

[inspectorsparky]

I cant speak for other inspectors in other cities but I can assure you my method is not to require changes on a whim after the work is complete nor would I tolerate any other of our inspectors practicing that way. I work with my contractors not against them and therefore have no problems with them whatsoever. I try to educate prior to enforcement. I do not understand why an EC would know there is a concern such as this yet just because there is not a specific code referrencing it they continue to practice a hazard when it is so easy to avoid.
The reason I came to this forum was to get feedback from fellow inspectors and electrical brothers. I didnt just wake up one day and say I wanted to be an inspector and jump in to it with zero experience. I wish before people knee jerk jumped on someones question or concern on this forum they would have some respect for that persons knowlege and skill and appreciate the passion they have for the National Electrical Code and for peoples safety.
I am familiar with the process of code change in the NEC.

 

[mjf]

Change the framing requirements instead of the electrical requirements.

Tell the handyman to empty the water out of the tub before he drives his screw into my wire:thumbsup:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I cant speak for other inspectors in other cities but I can assure you my method is not to require changes on a whim after the work is complete nor would I tolerate any other of our inspectors practicing that way. I work with my contractors not against them and therefore have no problems with them whatsoever. I try to educate prior to enforcement. I do not understand why an EC would know there is a concern such as this yet just because there is not a specific code referrencing it they continue to practice a hazard when it is so easy to avoid.
The reason I came to this forum was to get feedback from fellow inspectors and electrical brothers. I didnt just wake up one day and say I wanted to be an inspector and jump in to it with zero experience. I wish before people knee jerk jumped on someones question or concern on this forum they would have some respect for that persons knowlege and skill and appreciate the passion they have for the National Electrical Code and for peoples safety.
I am familiar with the process of code change in the NEC.

I don't think anyone "jumped" on you personally. They "jumped" on the idea of an non-existant rule being enforced. That is called malicious prosecution and the contractor and or electrician has remedies in civil court if they so choose.
There are cases of the AHJs being required to pay the contractor the costs of the non-code required work that was required by an inspector.