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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tight may be tight but what is secure??

And those plates were not designed for securing NM cable

How about a fender washer ,NM on each side of the screw yeah that'll work .. screw her down till she's just tight enough ,.. Heck I bet the word fender doesn't appear in the NEC at all:smile:
 
Go figure:roll: You get my point none the less ,I'm sure

edit to add

Wait a minuet ,.. Hanbook ,...Handbook we don't count no stinking handbook
 
M. D. said:
Wait a minuet ,.. Hanbook ,...Handbook we don't count no stinking handbook
Click to expand...

....but I did argue my case once, based on the handbook comentary and won the battle.

The inspector said, after I laid it on him, "I don't know, let me check with my colleagues."

Phone call 15 min. later, "Ok, you're good to go."

Not enforceable, but handy sometimes. :smile:
 
Lots of responses...it is interesting to see so many different ideas about this post.

I cited:
300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage.
334.15(B) Protection From Physical Damage.



My verbage (not part of the citation I presented to the installer as part of the citation)

Conductors/cables that are installed on the face of a stud that is to receive sheetrock need to be suitably protected. Installation of a kick plate directly on top of the cable is not suitably protecting the cable.
 
I don't feel that is adequately protected. I have seen it before but never quite like that. Usually I see NM fished through a wall with a hole made behind a stair case wall. Minimal plaster damage I guess and I'm assuming immediately patched over. I think I would just let them know that until I felt that was fixed I was going to start count cubic inches and checking out every little thing on the rest of the job.
 
There's no doubt in my mind that whoever did this:
KickPlate-improperUse2.jpg

Was thinking "This probably won't fly with the inspector, but let's take a chance and test the waters."
 
boboelectric said:
Why would anyone argue with an inspector that stands between you and payday?
Click to expand...


Because we have a backbone and some self respect. :rolleyes:

I still don't have a problem with those pictures other than the ceiling pic needing one more plate.

The sheetrock will not be sitting directly on the stud or joist. This makes the wire run across the stud no different then if it was notched or run on the face of the joist that had furring strips.

I also see that plate as less damaging to the wire than an uninsulated staple.

Like I sad, I think you guys are way overeacting just becasue it looks crappy and YOU wouldn't do it that way.
 
Last edited:
Due to the fact that the edit time limit here is not to my liking I have just reposted with my changes. grrr

boboelectric said:
Why would anyone argue with an inspector that stands between you and payday?
Click to expand...


Because we have a backbone and some self respect. :rolleyes:

Pierre I think you went overboard and I don't think you adequately backed yourself up.

I still don't have a problem with those pictures other than the ceiling pic needing one more plate to which 300.4 would apply.

334.15.(B) applies to exposed work. This is not and that can not apply.

Also I don't see how the plate being right on the wire will not provide adequate protection as you stated.

The sheetrock will not be sitting directly on the stud or joist. This makes the wire run across the stud no different then if it was notched or run on the face of the joist that had furring strips.

I also see that plate as less damaging to the wire than an uninsulated staple.

Like I sad, I think you guys are way overeacting just becasue it looks crappy and YOU wouldn't do it that way.


Moderator Edit in Blue
 
Last edited by a moderator:
iwire said:
Overreacting?

I don't see that in this thread, heck compared to other threads this one is dead. :grin:
Click to expand...

Posts 3,7,9,29 are to me over reacting. :D

t minus 9:00 to edit shutdown! 5,4,3,2,........:rolleyes:

Oooohhh still have time....let's see what else can I change...
 
Last edited:
Scott
You are allowed you opinion, that is one of the better conditions of this site. I actually read all of the responses made to the threads I start. I think about them and I can say it has helped me in what I do.

I am surprised that in your anxious replies you have not seen the extisting nail located in the ceiling picture.

BTW: I have learned on this site to not take any of the responses to my posts personally, it helps in being more objective.
 
Pierre:

I posted once before asking if the lath was going to stay or be removed. I may have missed the reply so I'll ask again, Is the lath being removed before the drywall is put up?
 
Good topic. I agree with those who can't find a section to fail it on, but agree it shouldn't pass. Interesting to see something from that perspective for the first time.

110.12 it is, then. :)
 
George Stolz said:
Good topic. I agree with those who can't find a section to fail it on, but agree it shouldn't pass. .... :)
Click to expand...

Then I've got the answer to your problem:smile:

334.30 ,.NM shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hanger, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable...

I think it is a steach to find a nail plate to be similar to those fittings listed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top