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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M. D. said:
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.
Click to expand...


Does the installation change much even if the wires were notched into the wood? IMO, it does not.
 
stickboy1375 said:
Does the installation change much even if the wires were notched into the wood? IMO, it does not.
Click to expand...

when I run wire between the stappings we use here in New England there is no need for protection , securing yes ,..There seems to be two uses for those nail plates shown,... some say they are providing protection some say they are a fitting similar to a staple / strap/ tie/ hanger Some say they are doing both at once...
 
Those times where I just can't repull all the wire through bored holes I will notch then staple then nail plate. At some point it just has to be given over to the sheetrocker to do their job properly
 
M. D. said:
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 stretch to find a nail plate to be similar to those fittings listed.
Click to expand...
An NM cable strap is a lot like a one or two hole conduit strap.

c11strai.jpg


All that I have seen are made of very light gage metal that can be deformed if the hammer misses the nail (that is almost always used to attach the strap to the surface).

This is very "similar".

The photos in the OP show screwed nailplates. IMO the installer has more control and more time within which to exercise control with thick gage (by comparison to NM straps) steel attached with screws.

If I use screws to secure a two hole NM strap to the surface, I am pressing the steel of the strap to the cable. . . just like the nailplates in the OP. The difference is a nailplate has many times greater surface area, making it much harder to damage the cable, while protecting the cable from drywall screws (something a strap can't do).

As for "securing" within the last inches at the cable clamp or box KO, how do the "standoff straps" that can accept a range of cables NOT secure the NM even though the grip is loose?

CS7.jpg
 
Al,.. I would say that nails "were" most likly used ,..as in the past .In today's world the screw has become the "nail" owing to the extensive use of battery powered tools. Nails were used because two or three strikes were faster than a screw driver.

And the only thing similar is the application the fittings are very different one was designed for the application and the other was not,..IMO it could be cited

As for the hanger you've shown pehaps it does not secure the NM ,...It says what it says though.
 
Last edited:
M. D. said:
Al,.. I would say that nails "were" most likly used ,..as in the past .In today's world the screw has become the "nail" owing to the extensive use of battery powered tools. Nails were used because two or three strikes were faster than a screw driver.
Click to expand...
You aren't speaking to my point. . .the OP photos show a more conscientious install, IMO, for using screws than the more common hammer and nails method.

It's definitely much better than these:
10050180.jpg
M. D. said:
And the only thing similar is the application the fittings are very different one was designed for the application and the other was not
Click to expand...
334.30 does not say "similar designed fittings", simply similar fittings "designed . . . so as not to damage the cable" which is a much broader set of possibilities. Both the one or two hole metal NM strap and a nailplate, as shown in the OP photos, sandwich the plastic cable between metal and the mounting surface. The real test of the nailplate is whether it has undressed sharp edges. All the ones I've ever purchased haven't had burrs. I'm not saying they don't exist. The question to Pierre is whether those plates in the OP photos were dressed or undressed.
M. D. said:
As for the hanger you've shown pehaps it does not secure the NM ,...It says what it says though.
Click to expand...
:-?

Think of what that standoff fitting is used for. When ?" firring is put against a concrete wall, one nails or screws the standoff to the ?" side of the firring with the long flat part of the standoff against the concrete.

NM is "secured" in the clip end of the standoff where it is held just an 1?" away from the firring strip. The NM is sandwiched between the drywall and the concrete in this ?" space, secured and supported by the standoffs, without any more physical protection. . . no nailplates. The standoff is used at wall cases and along the run of cable.

Bottom line, the NEC doesn't prohibit a nail plate from being a "similar fitting" for the purposes of 334.30.

When rope is installed to the absolute minimum standard of the NEC, it is not pretty. . .but that is not a NEC issue.

The photos of the OP show an installer that was doing more than the NEC minumum.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Bottom line, the NEC doesn't prohibit a nail plate from being a "similar fitting" for the purposes of 334.30.

When rope is installed to the absolute minimum standard of the NEC, it is not pretty. . .but that is not a NEC issue.

The photos of the OP show an installer that was doing more than the NEC minumum.
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion 334.30 and 90.4 .

Now,.. the interesting thing is you can cite the same sections to support your point .

Edit to add ;

Hey Al ,.how about a nail bent over to secure the cable??

Sub nail plate ,for bent over nail and this is pretty much how I feel about it.
http://iaei-western.org/Files/2006/2006_Section_Code_Panel.pdf

Can I secure NM cable with bent-over nails?
Click to expand...

Panel Response: No. Section 334.30 requires NMC to be supported by staples, cable ties,
straps, hangers or similar fittings designed and installed so as to not damage the cable. A bentover
nail is certainly not “designed” to not damage the cable. If the inspector likes bent-over
nails, then 90.4 would allow him/her to accept the nails.
Click to expand...
​
Click to expand...
​
​
​
 
Last edited:
JohnJ0906 said:
I am not this trusting of any other trade. Especially this one.
Click to expand...

I don't trust them one bit either but I also can't be there to watch them sheetrock and make sure they have sized the screws properly or stubbed out all the wires etc... At some point you just have to let them mess up what they are going to mess up and back charge accordingly. And when you had something that looks like the original picture did it's much harder to convinve that it was you doing your job right and giving the protection you could give
 
M. D. said:
Hey Al ,.how about a nail bent over to secure the cable??

Sub nail plate ,for bent over nail and this is pretty much how I feel about it.
http://iaei-western.org/Files/2006/2006_Section_Code_Panel.pdf
Click to expand...
This stuck with me, and I haven't been able to let it go.

You are saying, simply, that you feel a nail plate is the same as a bent over nail.

Your feeling is not a Code issue.

Show me a citation from the Code that tells us how to "physically protect" NM from the "physical protection" of nail plates.

There is no citation.

Nail plates, in order to prevent damage to the cable, are "designed to protect the cable from damage".

A nail plate is permitted to be in direct contact with cable because there is no NEC prohibition of it.

If a nail plate, in my hand, has undressed burrs capable of cutting to the conductors of a cable, I have a defective nail plate that I will throw away, or return for credit, but will not install.

Other than an AHJ writing its own Code, there is no NEC basis for violating the installations shown in the opening photos, save adding a second nail plate to cover the ceiling joist edge, or turning the existing nail plate ninety degrees.
 
Last edited:
90-1, 110.3(b), 300.4.

I would be willing to be that the nail plate manufacturer would say that was not the intended use for the nail plate.

An insurance undrwriter would take one look, and say -"Are you kidding me?"

The inspector would exercise 90-4 because of the previous aforementioned.

Notice how the electrician backed off when confronted with a camera and new the BS he was making an effort to pass was over the top.

As a solution, I would consider notching the board. Second, can I wire it different route in a timely manner?

Guys that try to fly this kind of work through ignorance (or stupidity if they know better), contribute to highter insurance rates. Ever notice how the first thing after a house fire is that the electrical is the first on the list of suspects?
 
Fell asleep at the wheel! I would notch the board enough to allow the wire to pass through the groove, and put a nail guard on top of it. I have an electric chain saw on board for "bigger wood projects". It's ten times faster than a sawz all when things have to "change" radically.
 
Rockyd said:
Fell asleep at the wheel! I would notch the board enough to allow the wire to pass through the groove, and put a nail guard on top of it. I have an electric chain saw on board for "bigger wood projects". It's ten times faster than a sawz all when things have to "change" radically.
Click to expand...
Again, how is the notch going to make the install safer?

Remember, this is a drywall over old lath on old joists and studs. The nail plate is already behind the plane of the drywall. Notching physically compromises the structure. Moving the nail plate further away from the drywall, by the thickness of the lath, is better?
 
mdshunk said:
That type of hardware is not required to be listed, and I'm not sure if there's even a white book category for it anyhow.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that question's probably been answered a dozen times. I read page one, then posted that.:confused:
 
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. Interesting to see something from that perspective for the first time.

110.12 it is, then. :)
Click to expand...
Some guys here don't like it but 110.12 works here for me. This install is fugly.:smile:
 
I've never seen a 110.12 wrote and made to stick as the lead violation. I'm going to stick by the notching to make it legal -structural inspection is not my problem, and perhaps force others into solving the problem.

The notching would at least get the wire down to grade so that when the mud is sprayed, it won't cause a high spot. Has all the armarkings of a fugly job that won't be pretty no matter what you do to it. Check our insurance again would you?
 
Rockyd said:
The notching would at least get the wire down to grade so that when the mud is sprayed, it won't cause a high spot.
Click to expand...
Do you know what a drywall on lath skin over is? Your words here don't show that you do.

The lath on the face of the "two bys" is sandwiched between the drywall and the two by. The nail plates and NM in the OP photos are flush with the lath. That means the nail plates and NM are behind the drywall, without "high spots".

For the third time, how does notching make this installation safer or more NEC compliant? Citation(s) please.

I just searched for "fugly" in the NEC and the Handbook, ;) , and had zero returns, so that point is not a NEC issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top