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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge

Pierre C Belarge

Senior Member
Location
Westchester County, New York
If you were to inspect this installation, would you permit this installation?
Remember to cite a code section(s) for the violation - or the permission to install (if there is a section that permits this type of install).

KickPlate-improperUse.jpg





KickPlate-improperUse2.jpg




Backround:
The building is very, very old. There was a fire and the building department is requiring a rewire of the apartments. Some of the framing is 2x4s on the flat.
 
There are no notches ,.. I would say ,violation . If they require protection ,...protect them properly. 300.4 , 334.15 2005 nec
 
Where to start?
Should be installed in a "workmanlike manner" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Then go to Article 334. Is this wiring "exposed" or "concealed"?
If it is to be exposed, it needs to follow the building surface per 334.15(A).
If concealed it may be installed through or parallel to framing members per 334.17, not on the surface of framing members.
If the intent is that it will eventually be embedded, it needs to be installed in a shallow chase.
Also refer to 300.4. Most would consider this cable subject to physical damage. We are given two methods to "protect" this wire when installed "through wood members". Of course the code does not even address such an installation as this as I am sure the code writers did not anticipate anyone trying it.
1. Bored holes.
2. Notches in wood.
Bottom line, the method they have chosen is neither "exposed" or "concealed" but a bastardized method that meets neither definition. A decision will need to be made whether the wring will be exposed or concealed and then the appropriate rules will need to be applied.
 
First, I agree that workmanship is the first item that comes to mind. If this is how the rest of the job is being done, order up some more "correction order" slips, you are going to need them.
If the cables were installed in grooves as provided for in 300.4(E), then I might be more understanding but would expect a single plate to protect the cable, not a couple of them scabbed in place.
Is this a wall view or ceiling view, not that it really matters
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
The first picture is a wall picture, and I placed in this thread sideways by accident.
The second picture is of a ceiling location.
All of the walls/ceilings will be sheetrocked.
Click to expand...

Is all of the lath being removed from the wall section?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
If you were to inspect this installation, would you permit this installation?
Click to expand...

No.

The code sections have been give although I would not bother trying to pin 'workmanship' on this one.
 
Looks good to me. Those cables are supported, secured, and protected by the same piece of hardware.

No, seriously, it does not look good at all, but I'd be hard-pressed to give a reasonable code citation to fail it.
 
IMO 334.30 has been violated. Those straps used in that manor are not 'installed so as not to damage the cable'.

Yeah it's vague but where the NEC is vague the inspector gets to use judgment, kind of like the 'exposed to damage' type situations.
 
stickboy1375 said:
Why on earth didn't they just drill it out? Probably took longer to install the nail plates than drill the holes... :roll:
Click to expand...
They probably didn't have a drill. That's how the handyman rolls.

I bought a 1/2" naileater bit purposely to drill 2x4's laid on the flat, as I run into that pretty regularly in remodel work in old places.
 
iwire said:
IMO 334.30 has been violated. Those straps used in that manor are not 'installed so as not to damage the cable'. .
Click to expand...
If I were inspecting this work, I'd want to fail it for somthing, so that would be what I'd probably pick. That said, none of those cables appear damaged to me any worse than a cable staple would "damage" them.
 
mdshunk said:
Looks good to me. Those cables are supported, secured, and protected by the same piece of hardware.

No, seriously, it does not look good at all, but I'd be hard-pressed to give a reasonable code citation to fail it.
Click to expand...


That's kind of the way I'm looking at it too.
 
mdshunk said:
If I were inspecting this work, I'd want to fail it for somthing, so that would be what I'd probably pick. That said, none of those cables appear damaged to me any worse than a cable staple would "damage" them.
Click to expand...

I hear you, of course where I live we are not allowed to use plain metal stales for those sizes, we have to use insulated staples per local amendment so here a fail for that would be fairly easy.
 
No mud ring on the 4" square box...The Octagon box is too shiny!

FAIL

300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage

(2) Notches in Wood..."steel plate at least 1.6 mm ( 1/ 16 in.) thick, and of appropriate length and width, installed to cover the area of the wiring"

Where the wires protrude from under the plates, they are not protected nor are they 1 1/4" deep.

FAIL :)
 
davedottcom said:
300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage

(2) Notches in Wood..."steel plate at least 1.6 mm ( 1/ 16 in.) thick, and of appropriate length and width, installed to cover the area of the wiring"

Where the wires protrude from under the plates, they are not protected nor are they 1 1/4" deep.

FAIL :)
Click to expand...

I dont see in the code where you have to actually notch the wood.
 
No I would probably call the contractor if it was just these 2 items and give him a chance to correct it quickly without an official fail however if that couldnt be worked into my schedule oh well .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top