If you were an Inspector, Would you permit this install?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Rick,

167h-2008.gif


The fastening of these lends a structural quality when done to the included instructions.

The OP is not a structural issue.
 
True

True

It is true that this plate can be used either as a protective plate or as structural repair. I use them above electrcal panels instead of 12 1.5x3 plates with the prongs. Just like the better coverage. Our county inspector insists that because it has a specific installation in the catolog stating either use the prongs or nails....no screws. The nail plates in the picture are installed using sheetrock screws. I know that here the inspector would make me get the installation instructions from the manufacturer before he would pass me. Thats just the way he is. Personally I think if the plate aint gonna move I dont care what fastener you use. IMHO the way the plates are being used in the pictures some one got lazy and was looking for a short cut.

Rick
 
This is from DWMU Guide Information for conduit and cable harware

This category covers conduit straps, staples, and similar types of hardware for installation in wiring systems in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70, "National Electrical Code" (NEC).
The mechanical strength of these products is investigated with consideration given to the intended installation. Metallic devices are also investigated for resistance to corrosion, and nonmetallic devices may be for flammability and exposure to elevated or cold temperatures.
Click to expand...
Fail,..334.30
I doubt very much that the manufacturers of nail plates intended them to be used for cable support/securing.
I also think 300.4 could be cited as they are not protected as they emerge from beneath the plate .
 
M. D. said:
I doubt very much that the manufacturers of nail plates intended them to be used for cable support/securing.
Click to expand...
And this is published by the manufacturer. . . where? And what is the word for word text of that intention?
M. D. said:
I also think 300.4 could be cited as they are not protected as they emerge from beneath the plate .
Click to expand...
:-? Are you saying that 300.4 tells us how to put physical protection at the edges of the required physical protection? Or are you talking about the second photo with the 4" steel octagon that needs to have the plate turned 90? or a second plate added (SEE: post #70 last sentence)?
 
r_merc said:
IMHO the way the plates are being used in the pictures some one got lazy and was looking for a short cut.
Click to expand...
Lazy compared to what? If the installation can't be shown to violate the NEC, regardless of what the aesthetics of the observer register, then, one electrician's perception of "lazy short cut" is another electrician's earlier quiting time (and money in the bank).
r_merc said:
Our county inspector insists that because it has a specific installation in the catalog stating either use the prongs or nails....no screws.
Click to expand...
If there are no structure issues, then the plate is just a steel plate, not a structural steel plate. I agree with you that your install over a panel, when not structural, is fine with 1" screws.

Sorry you got gigged on that.
 
Get the angle drill off the truck

Get the angle drill off the truck

Yes there are times to get done and get gone. To me I sticking with what I said someone got lazy took a short cut and deserves to be rejected.

'Well lets see... let me work the gray zone...there really isn't anything specific telling me this is ok or not ok but it's faster...yeah that's it that makes it OK!'

Maybe I'm that way because of out inspections departments where I work. they have higher expectations of all of us. I've done many a job rewiring with real 2x4 that are hard as rock. Eat up auger bits. frustrate you etc.
Bring the grinder..buy extra bits. Add more time and cost to your bid. Or walk away and do a new construction job.

If I were the inspector I would make the electrician show me were this is an acceptable installation technique. Get me the listing and manufacturers recommended install method. Or go over my head to the State Department of Insurance (North Carolina). Send them the picures... they might send out the regional inspector. Good Luck with that.

ok I'm done ranting now

Rick
 
It fails. PERIOD and I would fail that if it was in my jurisdiction very quickly, no arguments and there is a process of appeals if the electrician chooses.

For that installation I would cite:

110.2
110.3(B)
300.4
334.15
334.30

And since we currently have the IRC adopted in my state:

E3303.3
E3304.9
E3702.1


And require a letter from the manufacturer of the protector plates stating that the installation is approved.

Let them go through the appeals process and make their case.

No argument, that is how it would happen.
 
ivsenroute said:
It fails. PERIOD and I would fail that if it was in my jurisdiction very quickly, no arguments
Click to expand...

That is sad you have chosen to ignore the facts and have gone with the 'it's ugly so it must fail' point of view.

That was my first response to the pictures back in post #8 but after reading the facts and leaving my personal feelings out of it I have to say al hildenbrand is right.
 
I am glad that there is so much discussion here. It does help me to figure how I will sometimes make decisions for inspections.
How this has helped me for this job, and future jobs similar to it is now going to be in my arsenal...I will request a letter from the manufacturer as to the installation in particular.
Let a qualified "3rd party" help make the decision. :wink:
 
Can you or should you.

Can you or should you.

iwire said:
That is sad you have chosen to ignore the facts and have gone with the 'it's ugly so it must fail' point of view.

That was my first response to the pictures back in post #8 but after reading the facts and leaving my personal feelings out of it I have to say al hildenbrand is right.
Click to expand...


To me it has nothing to do with being ugly. We have all seen ugly jobs that are code compliant. To me it's the intent of the product. It is intended as a protective plate not as a support for wire. Pull the router out notch the stud, staple the wire for support and nail plate. Letting Romex rest on the sheet metal is asking for trouble in the future (1 yr, 5yrs,30 yrs +). That place could/will be someones home 50 Years from now. Oh I forget the warranty on the work is just one year. To some it is always faster is better... I don't agree

Rick
 
r_merc said:
To me it's the intent of the product. It is intended as a protective plate not as a support for wire.
Click to expand...
You haven't quoted the text of that "intent".

What text says a nailplate is "not. . .a support for wire"? Those are your words.

You won't find it in the NEC or the White Book.

Perhaps ivsenroute can post the text of the IRC citations he's listed, so we can all see that text. The NEC citations have been examined in this thread and have been unsupportive of this claim of violation, except when the AHJ makes its own code.

Perhaps LJSMITH1 will offer text from UL2239.
 
ivsenroute said:
It fails. PERIOD and I would fail that if it was in my jurisdiction very quickly, no arguments and there is a process of appeals if the electrician chooses.

For that installation I would cite:

110.2
110.3(B)
300.4
334.15
334.30

And since we currently have the IRC adopted in my state:

E3303.3
E3304.9
E3702.1


And require a letter from the manufacturer of the protector plates stating that the installation is approved.

Let them go through the appeals process and make their case.

No argument, that is how it would happen.
Click to expand...

Well at least you sound like a reasonable inspector. Yikes...
 
al hildenbrand said:
You haven't quoted the text of that "intent".

What text says a nailplate is "not. . .a support for wire"? Those are your words.

You won't find it in the NEC or the White Book.

Perhaps ivsenroute can post the text of the IRC citations he's listed, so we can all see that text. The NEC citations have been examined in this thread and have been unsupportive of this claim of violation, except when the AHJ makes its own code.

Perhaps LJSMITH1 will offer text from UL2239.
Click to expand...
From the IRC 2003:
E3303.3 is the "shall be listed, labeled, installed according to instructions" bit like we are all familiar with

E3304.9 "In locations where electrical equipment is likely to be exposed to physical damage, enclosures or guards shall be so arranged and of such strength as to prevent such damage."

E3702.1 "Wiring methods shall be installed and supported in accordance with Table E3702.1"
the gist of the table for NM is:
parallel run: 1.25 inches from edge or physically protected

bored holes in studs or vert: 1.25 inches from edge or protected with 0.0625 inch steel plate or sleeve or other physical protection

wiring methods installed in grooves which will be covered: same protection as above for the entire length of the groove.

bored holes in joists, etc or horiz: 2 inches from edge

4.5 foot maximum on center support & flat cables not to be stapled on edge.

12 inch max support distance to box or termination (8 inches without cable clamps) and cables not to be stapled on edge.
 
I agree to disagree

I agree to disagree

Well let's see here the code tells us what to do if we cant...... whatever it doesn't matter anymore. I think its a poor installation technique (Now I see the reason for AFCI's) and you think it's ok because it's not proscribed anywhere.


besides mush might have nutrition in it but the texture is all wrong

Rick
 
mivey said:
From the IRC 2003:
E3702.1 "Wiring methods shall be installed and supported in accordance with Table E3702.1"
the gist of the table for NM is:
.
.
protected with 0.0625 inch steel plate or sleeve or other physical protection
.
.
wiring methods installed in grooves which will be covered: same protection as above for the entire length of the groove.
.
.
Click to expand...
ItsHot said:
I see it coming in the 2011 NEC...finally a definition for "physical damage".
Click to expand...
I see a definition of groove. :roll:

Drywall over lathe on studs is drywall over a carpenter assembled grooved surface. Take out a lathe, or a couple lathe, and the surface is still grooved. Some of the grooves just got wider.

I'll bet this Table E3702.1 has absolutely no requirement that the 0.0625 inch steel plate or sleeve extend over all the groove, 'cause the groove's got nothing to do with the physical protection of the NM-B.

Here, think of a sleeve. An EMT sleeve. If the studs are firred out so a stud face mounted run of EMT can be covered by drywall without bulges, do we think the stud has to be grooved and the EMT set inside the groove for the wires inside the EMT to be physically protected?

The break in the firring is the groove.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top