For Inspectors....

[1793]

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.

The Local Inspector is requiring the walls be covered, not finished, just covered to "protect from physical damage" where there are electrical wires. Most of the circuits are not connected in the panel, but in the panel.

As an Inspector would you require this as well?

PS.. I did not do the wiring for this. I have been asked to come in after another contractor to finish the job.

 

[Cavie]

Remove the wires from the panel and he has no issue. Work in progress does not need to be covered. This will simply be a long progress. It can be inspected for damage on rough inspection before drywall.

 

[chris kennedy]

Not an inspector but IMO 334.10(A) (1) would allow this.

 

[M. D.]

When you say finish the job ,.. do you mean energize the circuits?? 334.15 (b)

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Why has it been partially trimmed before getting drywall ?I suspect something is not right.I understand inspectors concern but legally i dont think he can force it.

 

[1793]

Why has it been partially trimmed before getting drywall ?I suspect something is not right.I understand inspectors concern but legally i dont think he can force it.

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.

There had been an Inspection for the rough for the rest of the house and I thought it covered the basement. This house was partially gutted and therefore needed extensive electrical work. The rest of the house is cleared and only the basement is lacking final for C.O. There was other work here and there in the rest of the house to get it ready for the final that I took care of in anticipation of one "final" inspection.

I talked with the Inspector before I agreed to take over this job. He was told that the basement was not going to be finished at this time. I asked what to do in the basement if it was not going to be finished right away so the HO could rent the property. I was told to blank all of the boxes so no one could stick their fingers or other items in the boxes and to make it safe. I put on all of the plates and called for the Inspection.

 

[bikeindy]

Tell him to cite a code I don't think he can.

 

[1793]

When you say finish the job ,.. do you mean energize the circuits?? 334.15 (b)

The lighting circuits are "hot" but not the receptacles.

 

[M. D.]

Well I have never had to "cover" wires in a basement ceiling ,.. they either follow along the joist or are drilled through them .. I think he is a little overzealous,.. I think he could make a valid argument for the wires trough the studs though ,...if the were live that is.

I failed my first inspection , as in , the inspector would not sign the card, until I resolved the issue.

The issue ,two 14/3 cables between strapping stapled to bottom of joist in 10' ceiling of a garage . I had assumed or misunderstood that the garage ceiling would be sheet rocked, hence the strapping.

The capenter coverd them with a board ,He came back looked at it and signed the card. Funny thing is , had I stapled them to a stapping he would have signed off.

 

[lpelectric]

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.

The Local Inspector is requiring the walls be covered, not finished, just covered to "protect from physical damage" where there are electrical wires. Most of the circuits are not connected in the panel, but in the panel.

As an Inspector would you require this as well?

PS.. I did not do the wiring for this. I have been asked to come in after another contractor to finish the job.

I'm wondering if the inspector is thinking about energy code requirements. I know here in NY state we are required to have basement walls insulated where there is electric heating as per N1102.2.6 RCNYS. But, even though the basement could be deemed a dry location, I think the wiring cannot be left exposed as per 334.10(A)(1) because of 334.15(C). Here it says it has to be protected by conduit, etc., if it's mounted on a wall. This seems to say that if it's run thru an unfinished wall it could still be subject to physical abuse. In this sense, I can see where the inspector's coming from.

I am preparing for another meal of crow, here, so have at me....

 

[dcspector]

Norb,

I see no problem with this installtion left exposed. One cannot what if on physical damage. This installation what I can tell on the pics meets 334.10 as Chris mentioned.

 

[haskindm]

I also see no problem with leaving the job as is. I don't recall anything in the NEC that requires that NM be "protected" by sheetrock. In fact we wire unfinished residential garages with NM on a regular basis. Trim out the receptacles and switches, install a couple of porcelain lamp-holders, energize the circuits and call it done! I don't believe the inspector will be able to site a section of the NEC that you are violating.

 

[dnem]

But, even though the basement could be deemed a dry location, I think the wiring cannot be left exposed as per 334.10(A)(1) because of 334.15(C).

The 1st part of (C) talks about cables in the ceiling and the 2nd part talks about the wall and is the only way to look at installations on the flat surface of the wall. . It's also one of the 2 ways to interpret installations on the sides of exposed studs. . The 2nd way to interpret installations on the sides of exposed studs is 334.15(A) which limits Romex, that's not in conduit, to run with the stud. . According to this interpretation, the Romex horizontals in the picture are the problem.

Well I have never had to "cover" wires in a basement ceiling ,.. they either follow along the joist or are drilled through them .. I think he is a little overzealous,.. I think he could make a valid argument for the wires trough the studs though ,...if the were live that is.

According to the pictures it's an issue with the walls.

Not an inspector but IMO 334.10(A) (1) would allow this.

Tell him to cite a code I don't think he can.

If you get a flat surface application, it's 334.15(C).

Depending on the interpretation, the sides of the studs would be 334.15(A) or (C). . If he's looking at 334.15(A), you might be able to eliminate the horizontal, hanging in mid-air sections instead of covering the Romex with drywall or conduit.

David

 

[lpelectric]

I also see no problem with leaving the job as is. I don't recall anything in the NEC that requires that NM be "protected" by sheetrock. In fact we wire unfinished residential garages with NM on a regular basis. Trim out the receptacles and switches, install a couple of porcelain lamp-holders, energize the circuits and call it done! I don't believe the inspector will be able to site a section of the NEC that you are violating.

I certainly agree with you. I am just troubled with the headline "(C) In Unfinished Basements." It's hard to imagine why there would be a need to protect exposed-on-the-wall NM-B in a basement, but not afford protection to it run thru studs and exposed.in the same location..even though it's done all the time in a garage, the garage doesn't have a heading in this article. :smile: What d'ya think?

 

[dnem]

I certainly agree with you. I am just troubled with the headline "(C) In Unfinished Basements." It's hard to imagine why there would be a need to protect exposed-on-the-wall NM-B in a basement, but not afford protection to it run thru studs and exposed.in the same location..even though it's done all the time in a garage, the garage doesn't have a heading in this article. :smile: What d'ya think?

Why wouldn't 334.15(A) apply to the basement, the garage, and anywhere else the studs remain exposed during the final inspection ?

 

[1793]

I certainly agree with you. I am just troubled with the headline "(C) In Unfinished Basements." ... even though it's done all the time in a garage, the garage doesn't have a heading in this article. :smile: What d'ya think?

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

 

[haskindm]

I certainly agree with you. I am just troubled with the headline "(C) In Unfinished Basements." It's hard to imagine why there would be a need to protect exposed-on-the-wall NM-B in a basement, but not afford protection to it run thru studs and exposed.in the same location..even though it's done all the time in a garage, the garage doesn't have a heading in this article. :smile: What d'ya think?

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.

 

[lpelectric]

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.

 

[lpelectric]

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...

 

[Dilligaf1220]

In Virginia inspectors are concerned with protection of wires which are ran horizonaly, this can be completed by installing 2"X4"'s to protect wires, also as brought up before remove wires from panel.
Jim