Taking over a job

N

nizak

Senior Member
I got asked if I would take on a residential build that was started by another contractor.

It’s roughed in and has been approved for cover.

As I look through the work I’m noticing things.
- Bored holes thru studs that are in some places less than an inch from the face without guard plates.
- A number of nail on boxes that exceed volume fill.
18 cu in single gang with 4 14/2 and a device.

- NM cable through holes that are caulked.
3-14/2 with ground
1- 14/3 with ground

- 8/2 and 10/3 NM cables stapled to the bottom of the floor joists in the basement.

List goes on.

I know this is petty stuff but do I contact the inspector and raise the issues?

He will be the one finaling the job when I finish it.
 
You can have up to 4 NM cables through a caulked opening if you do the ampacity adjustment calculations for 14/2, 14/3, 12/2, and 12/3 cables. If the 3 14/2 and the 1 14/3 is through the same hole, you would still be ok.

If you want to tell the inspector, you can, but he is likely to tell you he doesn't care and to fix whatever you aren't comfortable with. If he cared, he likely would have checked it. If he does care and just missed it, he would want you to fix them.

The guard plate is going to be your problem if someone hits a cable with a screw - it will be difficult to find the problem when your breaker is tripping or the AFCI keeps doing it's job.

The stapling of cables to the bottom of the basement joists - are the joists dimensional lumber 2x10 or bigger? Because if they are I-joists or trusses they are supposed to have drywall installed to protect the floor assembly from fire. A dimensional lumber floor 2x10 or bigger will last around 25 minutes in fire tests, but unprotected floor trusses or I-joists only lasted around 5 minutes in the tests I have seen.
 
NEC Inspector said:
You can have up to 4 NM cables through a caulked opening if you do the ampacity adjustment calculations for 14/2, 14/3, 12/2, and 12/3 cables. If the 3 14/2 and the 1 14/3 is through the same hole, you would still be ok.

If you want to tell the inspector, you can, but he is likely to tell you he doesn't care and to fix whatever you aren't comfortable with. If he cared, he likely would have checked it. If he does care and just missed it, he would want you to fix them.

The guard plate is going to be your problem if someone hits a cable with a screw - it will be difficult to find the problem when your breaker is tripping or the AFCI keeps doing it's job.

The stapling of cables to the bottom of the basement joists - are the joists dimensional lumber 2x10 or bigger? Because if they are I-joists or trusses they are supposed to have drywall installed to protect the floor assembly from fire. A dimensional lumber floor 2x10 or bigger will last around 25 minutes in fire tests, but unprotected floor trusses or I-joists only lasted around 5 minutes in the tests I have seen.
Click to expand...
My mistake on the cable calculation. For some reason I had 20A rating for the #14, should be 25A
 
I am sure someone else would mention it eventually, but make the corrections you would want to see. Exceeding code because that is your preference is okay. You could tell the GC or home owner that you are going to want to make some changes to the other guy's work to make sure it exceeds your standards (and hopefully also building code). If they disagree then I would call the inspector back and have a talk with the inspector about it. Mainly just telling them that you found stuff that you think might be an issue and let the inspector push the corrections or tell you that you are okay to proceed. I think it is pretty common to loop back an inspector or the engineer when a contractor is changed mid project and new potential problems are spotted.

I will say, at the end of the day, the inspector doesn't get sued. So do what you think is right.

If they already covered walls and you are worried about some of their work that you can not longer correct, then talk about modifying the scope. I don't know how possible that is in this situation though.
 
Presumably they ditched the last guy for a reason -- maybe you only see some of the reasons. Personally, I can stomach things that I don't are preferences in the way things are done, but not things that are possibly safety related.
 
I would not get overly excited by trivial violations. The missing nail plate seems more than a trivial violation to me though. I'd fix that.

Just curious what the point of caulking a bored hole as a special rule about it when you can spray foam the whole wall and not trigger an issue.
 
petersonra said:
I would not get overly excited by trivial violations. The missing nail plate seems more than a trivial violation to me though. I'd fix that.

Just curious what the point of caulking a bored hole as a special rule about it when you can spray foam the whole wall and not trigger an issue.
Click to expand...
Most times I've dealt with the need to seal penetrations was more than just plain caulk it was related to fire stopping, spray foamed wall doesn't do that.
 
petersonra said:
Just curious what the point of caulking a bored hole as a special rule about it when you can spray foam the whole wall and not trigger an issue.
Click to expand...
There are three paragraphs in section 334.80 regarding ampacity adjustment for NM cable.

The first is general guidance on ampacity adjustment in regard to NM cable.

The second applies to bored holes filled with caulk or insulation.

The third, the last paragraph of 334.80, says that any time there are more two NM cables in contact with thermal insulation without maintaining spacing between the cables, it triggers the same requirement. So, spray foaming an entire wall actually would trigger the ampacity calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top