Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NM stapled beside furring strips

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • al hildenbrand
    replied
    Originally posted by Coppersmith View Post
    Nothing I see in this house leads me to believe it wasn't inspected when it was built. I have seen NM stapled to the sides of furring in many existing houses. Must be the inspectors allowed it.
    If you have seen so much, what does the local head of the Authority Having Jurisdiction have to say. If any one would know of the historic variations for your job's jurisdiction, that's the person to talk to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Originally posted by al hildenbrand View Post

    Yeah, that's hard, . . . I imagine this wasn't revealed to you until after your bid was fixed, and then the wall covering was removed.

    In my area, they say I have to correct "obvious Code violations" if they are within the scope of my work.

    The requirement that is today's 300,4(D) is decades old . . . do you think the materials of the old installation clearly indicate they were inspected, or that they were installed before the Code requirement existed?
    Nothing I see in this house leads me to believe it wasn't inspected when it was built. I have seen NM stapled to the sides of furring in many existing houses. Must be the inspectors allowed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • al hildenbrand
    replied
    Originally posted by Coppersmith View Post
    My main complaint was the inspector was forcing me to fix existing work.
    Yeah, that's hard, . . . I imagine this wasn't revealed to you until after your bid was fixed, and then the wall covering was removed.

    In my area, they say I have to correct "obvious Code violations" if they are within the scope of my work.

    The requirement that is today's 300,4(D) is decades old . . . do you think the materials of the old installation clearly indicate they were inspected, or that they were installed before the Code requirement existed?

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    Originally posted by LarryFine View Post
    Colorado Jims are easier to screw on and fasten than stapling to the edge of a furring strip anyway.
    That's what I say.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Like I said above, I normally use nail-on standoffs on furring. Not because I thought I was required to, but just because I expect the drywallers to be incompetent. My main complaint was the inspector was forcing me to fix existing work. I did so and passed a re-inspection. There are definitely inconsistencies in how NM wiring is handled in the NEC.

    https://www.walmart.com/ip/3M-SIFS-1...K250/148235721
    Last edited by Coppersmith; 08-21-19, 08:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    Colorado Jims are easier to screw on and fasten than stapling to the edge of a furring strip anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulMmn View Post
    I hesitate to say it, in fear of another chapter in the code--

    Does the problem go away if the wiring is in metal conduit? (EMT or BX)

    It's either that or surface-mounted panduit or wiremold...
    EMT doesn't need nail plates, see the exceptions in 300.4 sections mentioned. That said I have seen drywall screws penetrate EMT a few different times, so I still try to avoid placing it too close to the stud when possible if it is going to be close to the finish covering.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by jap View Post

    That's wording I was looking for.

    I agree with the inspector now.

    JAP>
    same here.

    Leave a comment:


  • infinity
    replied
    Originally posted by al hildenbrand View Post

    The OP is not asking about bored holes in furring. Rob introduced 300.4(A)(1) to talk about nail plates. For the OP scenario, his inspector saw a 300.4(D) situation. 300.4(A)(1) does not apply.

    So the "wording" is in 300.4(D).
    Yes if you go back to my original post the question and answer with the code reference was what it meant when the nail plate was referred to as "marked".

    Leave a comment:


  • al hildenbrand
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulMmn View Post
    I hesitate to say it, in fear of another chapter in the code--

    Does the problem go away if the wiring is in metal conduit? (EMT or BX)

    It's either that or surface-mounted panduit or wiremold...
    Armored Cable, AC, has to be protected like NM, (2017 NEC 320.17).

    EMT is safe, with exception of "severe" physical damage, therefore Article 358 does not invoke 300.4.

    Edit to add: MC has to be installed per 300.4 (2017 NEC 330.17).

    Leave a comment:


  • jap
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulMmn View Post
    I hesitate to say it, in fear of another chapter in the code--

    Does the problem go away if the wiring is in metal conduit? (EMT or BX)

    It's either that or surface-mounted panduit or wiremold...
    I'd bet it does, .

    JAP>

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulMmn
    replied
    I hesitate to say it, in fear of another chapter in the code--

    Does the problem go away if the wiring is in metal conduit? (EMT or BX)

    It's either that or surface-mounted panduit or wiremold...

    Leave a comment:


  • jap
    replied
    Originally posted by al hildenbrand View Post

    The OP is not asking about bored holes in furring. Rob introduced 300.4(A)(1) to talk about nail plates. For the OP scenario, his inspector saw a 300.4(D) situation. 300.4(A)(1) does not apply.

    So the "wording" is in 300.4(D).
    That's wording I was looking for.

    I agree with the inspector now.

    JAP>

    Leave a comment:


  • al hildenbrand
    replied
    Originally posted by jap View Post
    By the wording, to me, the OP is correct and understood the rule more so than the inspector.

    Unless there's some wording otherwise that I'm not aware of.

    JAP>
    The OP is not asking about bored holes in furring. Rob introduced 300.4(A)(1) to talk about nail plates. For the OP scenario, his inspector saw a 300.4(D) situation. 300.4(A)(1) does not apply.

    So the "wording" is in 300.4(D).

    Leave a comment:


  • jap
    replied
    Originally posted by hbiss View Post

    Apparently he is aware of the 1-1/4" rule. So I'm confused about what he is talking about. Are these the usual 1x furring? [COLOR=#FF0000]Did you just assume that because you only had 3/4" that you could just staple your NM down it and the 1-1/4" rule didn't apply?[/COLOR]

    The 1-1/4" rule allows you to go horizontally away from the edge of the framing member also in order to comply. So in this case that's the only way to do it. You should have stackers and/or Colorado Jims on your truck- use em'.

    -Hal
    That's exactly what I would assume.

    What part of the rule states that you can't ?

    If you have a 1x furring strips which are generally 3/4" thick 2 or 3" wide attached to a block wall, and you're running NM along side that furring strip, how does moving the cable horizontally any distance away from the side of the furring strip make it any more safe?

    It doesn't.

    You don't gain any more than 3/4" of an inch clearance no matter where you move the cable in the void.

    JAP>

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X