For Inspectors....

Status
Not open for further replies.

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
1793 said:
post #1
I have a job where the basement has passed the Rough-In stage and the Property Owner does not want to complete the basement at this time.

1793 said:
First off I'm not complaining about the cover requirement, I don't care. I'm looking for support either way so I can talk with the HO about the requirement so this job can be closed.

"..... so I can talk with the HO ....."

HO = homeowner, right ? . So this is a home / dwelling, right ?

lpelectric said:
1793 said:
According to Article 334.10(3) -- 2005, as I read it, you would be required to cover this install.

I agree, since a one-family dwelling is not a garage.

You agree that 334.10(3) says you have to cover it "since a one-family dwelling is not a garage" ?
I don't understand this !
334.10(1) is single family
334.10(2) is multi family
334.10(3) is other than single or multi family and yet you say (3) applies because it "is not a garage" ? . I don't get it.

If it's a garage [detached], then 334.10(3) applies.
If it's not a garage [because it's a house basement], then 334.10(3) doesn't apply.
Or are you staying something that I'm not understanding ?

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
lpelectric said:
haskindm said:
Look again at 334.15(C). It says that NM installed ON a wall shall be permitted (not required) to be protected by conduit or tubing OR it shall be protected in accordance with 300.4. 300.4 tells me how to bore holes through studs and how far the bored holes must be from the edge of the studs. I don't see anything in 300 that requires that the wiring be "protected" by a wall covering. I also don't see anything in the NEC that indicates that sheetrock or any other wall covering is installed to protect conductors. This seems like very creative enforcement.

I see what you're driving at. In a basement, NM is permitted to be in conduit. Actually, according to this, it's okay not to run it in conduit since the text of this rule doesn't even discuss on the wall having to be protected...It implies in a sense, but doesn't really say it...

How about the midair Romex exposed on the final ? . You still have 334.15(A).
 

lpelectric

Senior Member
dnem said:
"..... so I can talk with the HO ....."

HO = homeowner, right ? . So this is a home / dwelling, right ?



You agree that 334.10(3) says you have to cover it "since a one-family dwelling is not a garage" ?
I don't understand this !
334.10(1) is single family
334.10(2) is multi family
334.10(3) is other than single or multi family and yet you say (3) applies because it "is not a garage" ? . I don't get it.

If it's a garage [detached], then 334.10(3) applies.
If it's not a garage [because it's a house basement], then 334.10(3) doesn't apply.
Or are you staying something that I'm not understanding ?

David

I'm carrying on two (or more) conversations.
  1. I am agreeing in principle with the point made in 334.10(3) that a residential automobile garage is not included in 334.10(1)or (2), therefore (3) assigns the requirement to provide a thermal barrier...etc. This is what this language appears to say.
  2. Next I am having a discussion about basement wiring in which I understand the language to not require physical protection for NM whether it is in uncovered studs or on the wall.
  3. Just trying to learn. What I continue to learn here is that it does not say what I think it says.....:confused:
 

mh183

Member
can you remove the basement from the permit, and disconnect all the romex leave a few pull chains in the ceiling.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
mh183 said:
can you remove the basement from the permit, and disconnect all the romex leave a few pull chains in the ceiling.

This is the key. If the permit is for finishing the basement,then the permit cannot get final approval until said work is done.

For some reason the owner does not want to finish it. No concern of mine. Just get the basement off the permit, disconnect the wiring and happy happy.

I think this more of a permitting issue than NEC issue.

I would say the NM-B has to follow the surface as required for exposed installs.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
dcspector said:
The original point is, it is horizontally bored thru the studs....and visually exposed......Article???

AFLAC !!!
The duck keeps saying AFLAC !
And I keep saying 334.15(A).

sandsnow said:
This is the key. If the permit is for finishing the basement,then the permit cannot get final approval until said work is done.

For some reason the owner does not want to finish it. No concern of mine. Just get the basement off the permit, disconnect the wiring and happy happy.

I think this more of a permitting issue than NEC issue.

I would say the NM-B has to follow the surface as required for exposed installs.

"I think this more of a permitting issue than NEC issue."
I agree.
It's all about finaling exposed Romex. . You have to comply with 334.15(A) to final out exposed Romex.

David
 

1793

Senior Member
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
Occupation
Inspector
334.15(a)-(b)

334.15(a)-(b)

The Inspector is citing 334.15(A) & (B) with emphasis on (B) -- Protection from Physical damage..."or other approved means."
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
Does this inspector also require NM installed in an unfinished basement ceiling (installed through holes bored in the joists) to be protected by sheetrock? I still think that everyone is trying to read into the code that wall covering is required to protect NM. It is just not there no matter how much you read between the lines. Sheetrocking walls is not an NEC requirement. There is no NEC problem with NM run through studs that are not covered with sheetrock. The wiring is "protected" by being installed in bored hole in the studs, whether or not those studs are covered with sheetrock.
 

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
haskindm said:
Does this inspector also require NM installed in an unfinished basement ceiling (installed through holes bored in the joists) to be protected by sheetrock? I still think that everyone is trying to read into the code that wall covering is required to protect NM. It is just not there no matter how much you read between the lines. Sheetrocking walls is not an NEC requirement. There is no NEC problem with NM run through studs that are not covered with sheetrock. The wiring is "protected" by being installed in bored hole in the studs, whether or not those studs are covered with sheetrock.


Thank you........No NEC issue.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
haskindm said:
Does this inspector also require NM installed in an unfinished basement ceiling (installed through holes bored in the joists) to be protected by sheetrock?

For the ceiling of a dwelling [334.10(1)+(2)], I don't think there's anyway that anybody could interpret that 334.15(A)or(B) could apply. . It's 334.15(C) only which allows open Romex and midair sections [that don't travel parallel with the joist].
When you get right on the flat wall surface, then you get 334.15(B).
And if you're between studs that aren't getting covered before the final, then you should look at 334.15(A).

So the wall is subject to different requirements than the ceiling.

haskindm said:
I still think that everyone is trying to read into the code that wall covering is required to protect NM. It is just not there no matter how much you read between the lines. Sheetrocking walls is not an NEC requirement. There is no NEC problem with NM run through studs that are not covered with sheetrock. The wiring is "protected" by being installed in bored hole in the studs, whether or not those studs are covered with sheetrock.

"Sheetrocking walls is not an NEC requirement"
I would agree that drywall/sheetrock covering is not required, but you have to address the midair horizontals between wall studs. . That could mean drywall, it could mean conduit, it could mean adding running boards between the studs, it could mean not running any midair horizontals at all.

Drywall/sheetrock is just one option.

David
 
Last edited:

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.
334.15(C) only deals with ceiling joists, there is no mention of studs.
334.17 deals with NM installed "through" framing members and refers you to 300.4.
300.4 explains that conductors should be protected "where subject to physical damage".
300.4(A)(1) explains that "in both EXPOSED and concealed locations" this protection is provided by installing the cable through bored holes at least 1.25 inches from the nearest edge of the wood member. Once this is accomplished, the cable is protected by the "wood members" EVEN IF THEY ARE EXPOSED. To require protection of the 16" of cable running horizontally between the studs, in my opinion, is NOT required by the NEC. Remember that the NEC is permissive. If it does NOT say that NM must be protected by being concealed, then it is not required. I think many are assuming that if NM is visible, it is subject to physical damage. I do not read that in the code... If it is installed in bored holes that meet the requirements of 300.4(A)(1) it is considered protected with or without some other covering.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
haskindm said:
Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.
334.15(C) only deals with ceiling joists, there is no mention of studs.
334.17 deals with NM installed "through" framing members and refers you to 300.4.
300.4 explains that conductors should be protected "where subject to physical damage".
300.4(A)(1) explains that "in both EXPOSED and concealed locations" this protection is provided by installing the cable through bored holes at least 1.25 inches from the nearest edge of the wood member. Once this is accomplished, the cable is protected by the "wood members" EVEN IF THEY ARE EXPOSED. To require protection of the 16" of cable running horizontally between the studs, in my opinion, is NOT required by the NEC. Remember that the NEC is permissive. If it does NOT say that NM must be protected by being concealed, then it is not required. I think many are assuming that if NM is visible, it is subject to physical damage. I do not read that in the code... If it is installed in bored holes that meet the requirements of 300.4(A)(1) it is considered protected with or without some other covering.

You addressed 334.15(C), 334.17, + 300.4(A)(1) but not 334.15(A). . Now if you're just dealing with a ceiling question then 334.15(C) is enough. . But when it comes to the walls you need to look at 334.15(A).

"To require protection of the 16" of cable running horizontally between the studs, in my opinion, is NOT required by the NEC."
Is that what 334.15(A) says ?

"If it does NOT say that NM must be protected by being concealed, then it is not required."
I never said concealment was required.

"I think many are assuming that if NM is visible, it is subject to physical damage."
334.15(B) talks about subject to physical damage. . I'm talking about 334.15(A). . It's very short, so I'll just post it.

334.15(A)
To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.


Putting it on running boards will not conceal it and the protection from physical damage is nothing like you would get from conduit. . So forget about "protected by being concealed" and "subject to physical damage". . Just address the wording, "closely follow the surface".

How does the Romex in the wall in the OP picture "closely follow the surface of the building finish" ?

I've seen garages and outbuildings with exposed midair horizontal runs used as hangers for rakes and shovels many times. . If there was at least a running board, the board would take the bulk of the abuse. . 334.15(A) won't require concealment or full protection from physical damage, but a run "closely follow the surface" will be far less abused.

David
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
David,
You are stuck on 334.15(A). This does not even apply in my opinion. This is for surface mounted cables, etc. The cable in this case is installed "Through framing members" so 334.17 applies, NOT 334.15. We have all seen customers do stupid things; hang laundry from cables run through bored holes in ceiling joists, install 150 watt bulbs in a 60-watt fixture, etc. As the comedian says, "You can't fix stupid". If I follow the rules of 334.17 and 300.4, I am finished. I have protected the cable as required by the code. You are taking the rules for one wiring method (334.15(A) for SURFACE wiring) and trying to apply them to another wiring method (334.17 THROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS). They are apples and oranges. I have not addressed 334.14(A) because it has absolutely no relevance to this installation. The fact that the customer may do something stupid does not mean that I need to do something not required by code. Using that logic, we would install all wiring in RMC and still protect it with kick plates.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
haskindm said:
David,
You are stuck on 334.15(A). This does not even apply in my opinion. This is for surface mounted cables, etc. The cable in this case is installed "Through framing members" so 334.17 applies, NOT 334.15.

It's 334.15(B) for surface mounted [where protection from physical damage is needed which would be flat surface mounted].

334.15 is titled "Exposed Work" which is followed by 334.17 titled "Through or Parallel to Framing Members". . The OP picture is both Exposed Work and Through or Parallel to Framing Members so must comply with anything that's applicable in both 334.15 + 334.17.

haskindm said:
If I follow the rules of 334.17 and 300.4, I am finished. I have protected the cable as required by the code.

You're not finished if it's "Exposed Work". . You can't claim 334.15 only applies to surface mounted unless 334.15 says so. . You might finish working but that doesn't mean it's code compliant.

haskindm said:
You are taking the rules for one wiring method (334.15(A) for SURFACE wiring) and trying to apply them to another wiring method (334.17 THROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS).

334.15 says "Exposed Work". . It doesn't say "Surface Mounted".

haskindm said:
They are apples and oranges. I have not addressed 334.14(A) because it has absolutely no relevance to this installation.

Does the OP picture show exposed work or not ?

haskindm said:
Using that logic, we would install all wiring in RMC and still protect it with kick plates.

But that's not required anywhere so your sentence is a red herring.

David
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
David,
You are making some good points.
Allow me to try one more time to convince you.

Look at the definition of exposed in article 100.
"Exposed (as applied to wiring methods). On or attached to the surface or behind panels designed to allow access."

In my opinion, this installation doe NOT meet the definition of exposed as used in the NEC. Exposed does NOT mean simply that it is visible.

This wiring is not attached to the surface nor is it behind panels that are designed to allow easy access.

Since the wiring is not "exposed" then 334.15 cannot apply. If it is not exposed, what is it? It is 334.17 Through or Parallel to Framing Members.

The installer has met the requirements of 334.17 and 300.4 which 334.17 refers to. The job is finished.

The code uses language differently than we do in conversation. Exposed is a code defined term. This installation does not meet that definition so it is NOT exposed, it is simply visible, so 334.15 is not relevant to this installation. The code does not require protection for cables that are "visible".
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
haskindm said:
Look at the definition of exposed in article 100.
"Exposed (as applied to wiring methods). On or attached to the surface or behind panels designed to allow access."

In my opinion, this installation doe NOT meet the definition of exposed as used in the NEC. Exposed does NOT mean simply that it is visible.

This wiring is not attached to the surface nor is it behind panels that are designed to allow easy access.

So you're saying that if you added MORE covering [as in, panels that are designed to allow easy access], then you would consider it exposed ?

David
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
I did not write the definition, it is in the code. You are saying that visible = exposed. That is not what the article 100 definition says. The NEC has defined exposed as being a very specific situation. This installation does not meet the NEC definition of exposed, so we need to find out what the NEC requirements are that cover this type of installation. There are very specific requirements for conductors installed through wood framing members as spelled out in 334.17. This installation meets the requirements of 334.17. Since covering the wires is not required in 334.17 they may remain visible. The cables are "protected" by their installation through bored holes. Nothing else is required by the NEC. Since this is NOT an "exposed" installation, you cannot use the requirements for an "exposed" installation, just as you cannot require an installation in a dry location to meet the NEC requirements of a wet location.
According to the code definition this wiring is NOT exposed and the installer has met the requirements of 334.17.
If you wish to submit a proposal to add NEC requirements for "visible wiring installations" you may do so, but at present I don't believe any exist.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
haskindm said:
According to the code definition this wiring is NOT exposed and the installer has met the requirements of 334.17.
If you wish to submit a proposal to add NEC requirements for "visible wiring installations" you may do so, but at present I don't believe any exist.

If there is no drywall then the wood IS the surface. . And exposed is defined as "on or attached to the surface".

I think you need to submit a proposal because if you think adding removable panels makes something exposed but being visible isn't exposed, then your position is so weak that I'm surprised that you believe what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top