Brick Tie nail in 4/0 SER

[76nemo]

What do they have to do with anything here? :-?

As you know, in some area's the EC is responsible from the weatherhead down, some only from load side of the meter can. Even though it's his drop, the fault is line side of the main disconnect. I think I'd get them involved too if the HO wants to be stubborn! This way here, he can pull the meter, address the issue, and have a second party not willing to replace the meter until the issue was fixed. Two parties are better than one

 

[scwirenut]

this is SER, which means assume its a feeder. its on the load side of the main. I have a 320 MB with 200amp MB discos on either side. the 2 ser cables leave these on to 2 200amp mb loadcenters. Im just glad they only hit one. I have wired literally hundreds of homes without plates on the exterior wall, after this Im considering installing them. (at least for the feeders).....

 

[al hildenbrand]

Even though it's his drop, the fault is line side of the main disconnect.

If it were line side, the main breaker wouldn't "shoot fire". It's not clearly stated, but I believe this is load side.

Edit - SCwirenut beat me, while I was typing.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I have wired literally hundreds of homes without plates on the exterior wall, after this Im considering installing them. (at least for the feeders).....

I totally get that.

 

[electricmanscott]

Back to reality here, Scott. You install nailplates on the outside of a wall? How would you find the right spot to nail it on? .

This is reality. Look at what happened. I would absolutely make sure that cable is protected. Just by the size of it you'd have to protect from both sides in a 2x4 wall. As pointed out you just hammer a 4-11/16 blank cover between the plate and sheathing.

Everyone jummped right on the brick guy, and back charging them or billing the homeowner. The way it looks to me is that the op should foot the bill for the entire cost of the repair. The HO shouldn't even be given an option. The only option is for the EC to step up and do the right thing. Sucks but live and learn and thank your lucky stars nobody was injured.

As for getting the poco involved, in my neck of the woods they wouldn't have any involvement with a feeder like this nor should they.

 

[220/221]

Everyone jummped right on the brick guy, and back charging them or billing the homeowner. The way it looks to me is that the op should foot the bill for the entire cost of the repair

I agree. If the 1.25" isn't there, it's his issue.

Whoever is at fault, it MUST be replaced/repaired.

 

[ceknight]

As for getting the poco involved, in my neck of the woods they wouldn't have any involvement with a feeder like this nor should they.

I dunno, if I'm faced with a main breaker shooting off serious fireworks, I'm not even going to discover that it's a feeder problem until I've shut down the works. And once I've done that, the PoCo's automatically involved.

 

[480sparky]

Every POCO in my area is only concerned up to the first breaker. After that, they don't care. So if the main tripped, it's obviously after the main, and the POCOs here wouldn't give two hoots and a holler about it.

 

[growler]

Just by the size of it you'd have to protect from both sides in a 2x4 wall. As pointed out you just hammer a 4-11/16 blank cover between the plate and sheathing.

Everyone jummped right on the brick guy, and back charging them or billing the homeowner. The way it looks to me is that the op should foot the bill for the entire cost of the repair.

Look at the picture again Scott, it looks as if the cable is damaged where it was going through insulation and not a bored hole in a framing member ( stud or joist). He said it was a nail in the top plate and not that the cable was in the top plate.

You are only required to have an 1 1/4" clearance from the edge of the stud or top plate. I don't see wood closer than at least 1 1/2 inches to where the cable is penetrated.

If people want to drive 3 inch nails they had better look where they are driving them.

The required nail plate only covers the wood area, if they miss and shoot 1/2 inch high or low there is no protection.

 

[electricmanscott]

He said a nail in the top plate. If the nail was in the top plate I would assume that would be where it penetrated the cable. Unless it was a magic nail. :wink:

That nail is obviously penetrating the top plate into the hole that was drilled. Maybe we're looking at a different picture.

The cable is pushed to one side of the hole because the nail being driven probably pushed it as far as it could go then punctured it.


I am of the opinion that the cable should have been protected to prevent exactly what happened. It was not and the op is at fault.

 

[220/221]

It is hard to tell what's up in the pic but I thought the nail was coming from the top right. If so, it's not 1.25"

 

[George Stolz]

As pointed out you just hammer a 4-11/16 blank cover between the plate and sheathing.

The last new construction residential job I was on, I was lucky to be able to drill a 7/8" hole through the top plate - I think the framers were paid by the nail, it was typical to find a nail 50% of the time drilling an exterior wall. I would definitely not be able to drive a blank plate in between in that circumstance.

I'd be interested to hear how you'd protect this, if the exterior was sided and there were nails driven through the siding/sheathing every 1.5".

Everyone jumped right on the brick guy, and back charging them or billing the homeowner. The way it looks to me is that the op should foot the bill for the entire cost of the repair.

If that nail had been an inch higher, then it would have missed the top plate, penetrated the OSB and the SER, and we would have the same results. Who do you think should pay then?

My only point is, this is an area where I see gray, and apparently you see black and white, and I am interesting in hearing more of what you have to say.

 

[augie47]

'stuff' happens. From the looks of the pic, there would have been no Code reason to install a nail plate. Thousands of square ft of wall space and some lucky guy found the right spot. Credit goes to the CMP and inspector that ruled on the necessity of outside overcurrent in these situations. Thanks go to God that it didn't result in a fire. The cable needs to be replaced as part of the cost of construction.
We install overcurrent devices for such events.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'd be interested to hear how you'd protect this, if the exterior was sided and there were nails driven through the siding/sheathing every 1.5".

I've taken a sawzall with a ~12" hacksaw, or equiv., blade and plunged it into the edge of the plate and the sheathing (the blade follows the crack), then used the blank cover plate.

If that nail had been an inch higher, then it would have missed the top plate, penetrated the OSB and the SER, and we would have the same results. Who do you think should pay then?

We put the nail plates on the framing 'cause that's where the framers are supposed to put their nails. If they can't hit their own framing, that's their fault. And if they miss the framing and still hit the cable, it's doubly their fault.

 

[electricmanscott]

The last new construction residential job I was on, I was lucky to be able to drill a 7/8" hole through the top plate - I think the framers were paid by the nail, it was typical to find a nail 50% of the time drilling an exterior wall. I would definitely not be able to drive a blank plate in between in that circumstance.

I'd be interested to hear how you'd protect this, if the exterior was sided and there were nails driven through the siding/sheathing every 1.5".


If that nail had been an inch higher, then it would have missed the top plate, penetrated the OSB and the SER, and we would have the same results. Who do you think should pay then?

My only point is, this is an area where I see gray, and apparently you see black and white, and I am interesting in hearing more of what you have to say.

As far as I can see, that SER should be protected. How you go about it is up to you.

If the nail had penetrated somewhere other than a framing member this would be an entirely different story. But that isn't what happened here so I won't address it. (Really I don't feel like typing right now. )

 

[Cow]

I have to agree with Scott. It says 1.25" from framing members. There is no mention of interior, exterior, or how practical it is. The fact he's never had a problem with nails until now is irrelevant. Bottom line, they shot a nail through a framing member which he should of had protected. This is HIS oops, not the customers, and they should not have to pay for it IMO.

 

[growler]

The cable is pushed to one side of the hole because the nail being driven probably pushed it as far as it could go then punctured it.

In legal mumbo jumbo that's know as speculation. The cable may in fact have been on the far side of the hole to start with and thus would meet the code requirement of 1 1/4" clearance.

So long as the cable was stapled in a manner that gave 1 1/4 clearance from the edged of the top plate it doesn't matter where the edge of the hole in the insulation is located. Insulation wouldn't be expected to hold a cable of that size in place anyway.

 

[Cow]

In legal mumbo jumbo that's know as speculation. The cable may in fact have been on the far side of the hole to start with and thus would meet the code requirement of 1 1/4" clearance.

So long as the cable was stapled in a manner that gave 1 1/4 clearance from the edged of the top plate is doesn't matter where the edge of the hole in the insulation is located. Insulation wouldn't be expected to hold a cable of that size in place anyway.

I disagree. The code says hole clearance, not cable in hole clearance.

 

[480sparky]

I disagree. The code says hole clearance, not cable in hole clearance.

I agree. 300.4(A)(1) states clearly it is the hole that is measured. Bold is mine.

(A) Cables and Raceways Through Wood Members.
(1) Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed through bored holes in joists, rafters, or wood members, holes shall be bored so that the edge of the hole is not less than 32 mm (1? in.) from the nearest edge of the wood member. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by screws or nails by a steel plate(s) or bushing(s), at least 1.6 mm ( in.) thick, and of appropriate length and width installed to cover the area of the wiring.

 

[growler]

I agree. 300.4(A)(1) states clearly it is the hole that is measured. Bold is mine.

I don't see holes bored in insulating materials covered anywhere so he must stay 1 1/4" from the edge of the top plate ( framing member). The code (handbook)doesn't show this particular situation but examples are given of staying 1 1/4" from the edge of a furring strip.

The code refers to holes bored in framing members and insulation is not a framing member. It also refers to running exposed and staying 1 1/4 from the edge of the framing member.

When we have to start putting nail guards on styrofoam that will be the days I give up. We punch holes in the sheathing all the time with no guards. Only the proximity to the top plate would make the nail guard necessary if at all.