For Inspectors....

[haskindm]

David,
You are beginning to talk in circles, which I believe is one of the purposes of the NEC!
I agree that the surface of the wall is now the wood since it is not to be covered at this time, however the wiring is NOT "Installed ON the surface", it is installed in bored holes through framing members.
No matter how much you twist it and turn it, this is not surface wiring. It is not exposed wiring. It is wiring through framing members and as such needs to meet the requirements of 334.17 NOT 334.15.
I don't know what else to say. I believe it is very creative interpretation to require that this meet 334.15, it simply does not apply and should not enter into the conversation. You know that type NM is installed where visible all of the time, in unfinished basement ceilings, in unfinished garages, etc. I have given the sections of the code that allow such installations. If you want to insist that other sections apply, we can disagree and still be friends.
As for adding a removable panel making the wiring exposed, that was your idea, and yes that would meet the definition of exposed. That certainly is not the only instance where the code makes no sense. In the meantime it says what it says. This wiring is NOT installed on the surface and it is NOT exposed. It is simply visible which in my opinion is allowed by the code.
It has been fun.

 

[dnem]

As for adding a removable panel making the wiring exposed, that was your idea, and yes that would meet the definition of exposed. That certainly is not the only instance where the code makes no sense.

The NEC isn't the problem here. . The NEC has some problems but this isn't one of them. . It's not making sense to you because your insisting that exposed Romex isn't exposed.

Think about where your interpretation of the word "exposed" is leading you. . Removable panels would make the Romex exposed but visible Romex [that you could hang your clothes hangers on] isn't exposed. . How can you possibly believe that ?

I don't know what else to say. I believe it is very creative interpretation to require that this meet 334.15, it simply does not apply and should not enter into the conversation. You know that type NM is installed where visible all of the time, in unfinished basement ceilings, in unfinished garages, etc.

And you don't dispute that 334.15(C) applies to the basement ceiling. . Within the basement ceiling is Romex that is exposed, no more and no less exposed than what's open in the walls. . 334.15 Exposed Work, 334.15(C) In Finished Basements and Crawl Spaces

I don't know what else to say. I believe it is very creative interpretation to require that this meet 334.15, it simply does not apply and should not enter into the conversation.

There's definitely a creative interpretation. . It's the one that claims that the Romex in the OP picture isn't exposed at the point of the final inspection.

I agree that the surface of the wall is now the wood since it is not to be covered at this time, however the wiring is NOT "Installed ON the surface", it is installed in bored holes through framing members.

I agree completely ! . Now reread what you just posted.

"the surface of the wall is now the wood"
"it is not to be covered at this time" not to be covered = exposed
"wiring is NOT "Installed ON the surface"

It's a violation of 334.15. . 334[Romex].15 Exposed Work (A) Cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish ...

David

 

[haskindm]

David,
It is not MY interpretatio of exposed. It is NEC definition of exposed. Read the definition in article 100. Visible does not = exposed. Romex is allowed to be visible. I do NOT agree that 334.15 applies to basement ceilings, I only used basement ceilings as an example that typr NM is allowed to be visible. Romex installed through bored holes in a basement ceiling does NOT meet the NEC definition of exposed.

 

[dnem]

I do NOT agree that 334.15 applies to basement ceilings, I only used basement ceilings as an example that typr NM is allowed to be visible.

You don't see the word "basement" in the heading for 334.15(C) ?
Are you disputing that "joists" are in the ceiling now ?

It is not MY interpretatio of exposed. It is NEC definition of exposed. Read the definition in article 100.

This is ridiculous. . You make statements that are not only interpretations but interpretations that can't be supported by logic and then you don't even try to use logic to support them because you claim they're fact instead of the interpretation that they are.

I can't get you to even reread your own words and think about what your saying.

I don't care what you do on your jobs, I'm not interested in laboring over the word "exposed". . Common ground is needed for every conversation to continue and we don't have it.

David

 

[Foorsail]

Moving On On

Moving On On

I would just do a "Change of Contractor" (to the home owner, if possible) take the "Passed" rough inspection, get paid and Move On.


NJ Inspector

 

[augie47]

foolishly, I will add my .02 worth.
As Diligaf states about Va., this area would require some type of protection, if the circuits are connected. Often it's running boards
I am a strong advocate of enforcing the Code by "the wording" and not by what I think it says, but in this case, I don't think I would get into a spitting contest over the word "exposed". As someone else mentioned, i've seen too many yard tools hanging on "exposed" romex and I''ve also been on inspections where the contractor's or HO's "rug rats" are climbing on "exposed" romex. Too me, this is a case where common sense would dictate that some degre of protection would be necessary.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

foolishly, I will add my .02 worth.
As Diligaf states about Va., this area would require some type of protection, if the circuits are connected. Often it's running boards
I am a strong advocate of enforcing the Code by "the wording" and not by what I think it says, but in this case, I don't think I would get into a spitting contest over the word "exposed". As someone else mentioned, i've seen too many yard tools hanging on "exposed" romex and I''ve also been on inspections where the contractor's or HO's "rug rats" are climbing on "exposed" romex. Too me, this is a case where common sense would dictate that some degre of protection would be necessary.

The voice of reason.

 

[haskindm]

When the NEC defines a word, they are telling you how it is to be used in the NEC. I understand that the word basement appears in 334.15, BUT 334.15 only applies to exposed wiring as defined by the NEC. It is not unusual that the NEC defines words differently than they are used in general conversation. Words like accesible, readily accesible, and approved have specific meanings in the NEC that differ form the way the are normally used. I maintain that the word "exposed" is also on that list. The wiring that you can see in an unfinished basement is only exposed if it meets the NEC definition of exposed, otherwise it is just visible. Just because I can reach a piece of equipment does not make it "ACCESIBLE" by NEC standards. Just because an item is UL listed does not mean it is "APPROVED". The code says what it says. I maintain that this installation does not meet the NEC definition of exposed. I don't understand the great danger presented by having 16" of wire visible between studs. You are right, unless we can agree on definitions, there is nothing to discuss. That is why they go to the trouble of putting article 100 in the NEC, so we have common definitions of word that may be used differently than their conventional definition. If you refuse to accept the article 100 definition of the word, there is nothing left to discuss.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

haskindm,
If we apply the definition of "exposed" as currently written to 334.10(A)(1), then we cannot install NM where it is "visible". I think you have pointed out a problem with the definition as the term "exposed" is used in many code sections to mean "visible". However since I don't really like NM all inspectors need to start red tagging any visible NM as a code violation
Don

 

[dnem]

If you refuse to accept the article 100 definition of the word, there is nothing left to discuss.

Which is also my point to you. . You don't follow your own logic so why would I expect you to listen to mine.

I agree that the surface of the wall is now the wood since it is not to be covered at this time, however the wiring is NOT "Installed ON the surface", it is installed in bored holes through framing members.
No matter how much you twist it and turn it, this is not surface wiring.

You "split hairs" about the word "ON" and yet refuse to accept that 334.15(C) gives you direction about Romex "run at angles with the joists" and lists this under the heading 334.15 Exposed Work.

You have given me a perfect example of a person being unreasonable.

..... there is nothing left to discuss.

You're very right about that !

David

 

[haskindm]

haskindm,
If we apply the definition of "exposed" as currently written to 334.10(A)(1), then we cannot install NM where it is "visible". I think you have pointed out a problem with the definition as the term "exposed" is used in many code sections to mean "visible". However since I don't really like NM all inspectors need to start red tagging any visible NM as a code violation
Don

Don, that is my point, exposed as defined in article 100 does not simply mean visible. Wiring that is installed through bored holes in framing members is NOT exposed as defined by the NEC and does not need to meet the requirements of 334.15. It is "Through or Parallel to framing Members" and must meet the requirements of 334.17. If you accept the definition of exposed as visible, then the installation is in violation. If we use the definition that we are given in article 100, this installation is NOT exposed and therefore does not need to meet 334.15. As it is installed it meets the requirements of 334.17 and no additional protection is required. Exposed is a narrowly defined term in the NEC. The term visible is not defined in the NEC.
Until and unless the article 100 definition of exposed is changed, I will maintain that 334.15 does not apply to this installation. If this installation is exposed, then why are there two different sections of code? It seems obvious to me that the intent of the code making panel is that different rules apply to wiring installed on the surface and wiring installed through bored holes in framing members. The fact that we may not like an installation does not change the requirements of the NEC.

 

[John Deere Man]

Yes the horizontal runs in the unfinished walls need to be protected as per Art,334.15(B) - but this would be just on the walls & in alot of cases around here I just require boards of some kind nailed over the conductors on the face of the framing members so that somthing can't fall on hang on or run into the cables.

 

[1793]

Ahj

Ahj

I've been informed that the Chief Inspector will allow this to stay "uncovered" if I protect the wire at the source, the panel, with a GFI breaker(s)

 

[haskindm]

John Deere Man,
How does Exposed: "On or attached to the surface, or behind panels designed to provide access" suddenly become "through or parallel to framing members"? One installation method requires that 334.15 be met, the other requires that 334.17 be met. It is either one or the other it should not be both. These two sections are referring to different wiring methods so that different rules apply. 300.4(A)(1) explains that one way that conductors may be protected against physical damage is that they be installed in bored holes through framing members. If that is NOT done then there are other steps that need to be taken such as guard boards or conduit, once it is installed through bored holes it is considered protected. Additional protection is not required the way the code is currently written and "Exposed" is defined in Article 100. Just my opinion, and I can't believe I am alone on this. I see wiring installed in this manner all of the time in unfinished basements and garages so other inspectors must be allowing it. Everyone seems to agree that it is acceptable in the ceiling since 334.15 specifically refers to joists, but when we move the same wiring and same method to studs it is suddenly a problem.
Even if you are claiming that these conductors are "subject to physical damage" because they are visible between the studs, they are protected in accordance with 300.4(A)(1).
I agree that people may place garden tools behind the cable, but they may also hang things from cables installed through bored holes in ceiling joists. If one is allowed why is not the other? People are going to do stupid things regardless of what we do.

 

[John Deere Man]

haskindm,
Installing the NM cables in the walls horizonatly/PARRALLEL is how it becomes subject to physical damage. Not just by hanging things on them but as was listed on my previous post things can be ran into them or dropped on them which is hard to do in the ceiling. Da

 

[lpelectric]

John Deere and others....IMHO, The kind of wiring method that Haskindm speaks of survives the whole construction process throughout a dwelling with all the trades stepping thru studbays each and every day of the construction process. Rarely does an NM-B have to be replaced from damage.
It seems as though if it were a big problem, code panels would step up to the plate and provide language sufficient to make the changes deemed necessary. So in the basement area, long after construction is finished, where does the real threat come from? It's a perceived threat.
Much as it doesn't make sense at one level, it is what the code says....and no amount of stretching the intent is going to rectify the perception of a problem. You'll have to initiate a code change.:smile:

 

[mivey]

...and I can't believe I am alone on this...

For the record, I agree with you.

 

[dnem]

Yes the horizontal runs in the unfinished walls need to be protected as per Art,334.15(B) - but this would be just on the walls & in alot of cases around here I just require boards of some kind nailed over the conductors on the face of the framing members so that somthing can't fall on hang on or run into the cables.

Using 334.15(B) for "horizontal runs in the unfinished walls" isn't a wrong conclusion because 334.15(B) is soo very open to any number of interpretations. . Whenever you put the words "where necessary" into a paragraph, you're practically pleading for multiple interpretations.

But I don't agree with your interpretation. . I think "horizontal runs in the unfinished walls" is a clear case of 334.15(A) and the wording of 334.15(B) is better suited to surface mounted installations.

David

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, that is my point, exposed as defined in article 100 does not simply mean visible.

You missed my point in making the comment. If the definition of exposed does not include "visible", then if you can see the NM run on the surface, it would be a violation. Like I said, being a pipe and wire guy, I would be very happy with this interpretation of the code that prohibits the use of NM if it is visible.

334.10(A) Type NM Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows:
(1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3)

 

[dnem]

It appears that we now have a least 3 people that have chosen an illogical interpretation. . If you actually think logic is necessary when looking thru the NEC, I have a couple of questions for you. . If you think 334.15 should only be used when the Romex is in physical contact with the surface, on the surface [due to your reading of the Article100 def of "Exposed"].

*1]* If the Romex run as stated in 334.15(C) is "at angles with joists" and not in physical contact with the joist [except where touching the inside of the bored holes], then how can 334.15(C) be used at ANY time for ANY installation of ANY kind when it clearly only applies to 334.15 Exposed Work ? . "At angles with joists" is not in physical contact with the joists, so your interpretation demands that it NOT be classified as exposed and therefore whenever you run "at angles with joists" you would never have to comply with something that only applies to exposed work. . 334.15(C) becomes useless and never applies to anything.

I'm seeing an interpretation that's staring at a dead end and if it's unenforceable then it's obviously the wrong interpretation.

*2]* If you run a Romex ON the building surface, which remember that the interpretation here demands that it be in physical contact with the surface, then you comply with 334.15(A) which requires you to "follow the surface of the building". . If you're not in physical contact with the surface, does that mean you have failed to comply with 334.15(A) ?

According to this interpretation, absolutely NOT !

You haven't failed to comply with 334.15(A), you've simply moved your Romex out of the scope of 334.15(A) because 334.15(A) only applies to Exposed Work, which everybody with this interpretation knows only applies to work in physical contact. . You never ever ever have to worry about 334.15(A) because it's impossible to violate it ! . What a great deal. . If you don't like it, ignore it !

Total and complete CIRCULAR REASONING !

If I'm Exposed, defined as ON the surface, interpreted as in physical contact with the surface, then I'm automatically complying with the demand to "closely follow the surface", 334.15(A).

If I'm not in physical contact with the surface, then I'm not Exposed and so I don't have to comply with the demands for exposed Work, such as 334.15(A).

When my Romex is in physical contact, it must "closely follow the surface".
But when my Romex is NOT in physical contact, it's NOT required to "closely follow the surface".

Stop the presses ! . That's a real revelation !

Or just maybe I'm seeing another reason that proves that interpretation is a dead end and obviously the wrong interpretation.

Install your Romex however you wish, but I'm not buying that you have a valid interpretation. . It doesn't "hold water".

David