Inspector rejects NM in open studs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coppersmith

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I have a detached garage where I have run NM through the stud bays. The HO is not planning on drywalling for at least a year and wants me to trim out the recepts and switches on the open studs. The inspector is saying this is not allowed since the NM is exposed below the ceiling and is subject to damage. All the receptacles and switches are at 4 ft high. There are a couple of stud bays where the NM is within 12" high from the treads on a staircase going up to a loft. Is he correct?
 
That's an AHJ/Inspector call.
Here if we run NM exposed, we have to follow the building structure. Can't run between joists or studs, have to be tight to the structure. They don't want people using the NM as a clothes line or tool holder.
 
Coppersmith said:
I have a detached garage where I have run NM through the stud bays. The HO is not planning on drywalling for at least a year and wants me to trim out the recepts and switches on the open studs. The inspector is saying this is not allowed since the NM is exposed below the ceiling and is subject to damage. All the receptacles and switches are at 4 ft high. There are a couple of stud bays where the NM is within 12" high from the treads on a staircase going up to a loft. Is he correct?
Click to expand...

The answer is simple. Have them put sheetrock on the walls. It doesn't have to be finished or painted. It's a garage.
 
Correction: the upstairs loft area has receptacles at 16" AFF. The NM for those is stapled to the studs below 4ft.


Little Bill said:
That's an AHJ/Inspector call.
Here if we run NM exposed, we have to follow the building structure. Can't run between joists or studs, have to be tight to the structure. They don't want people using the NM as a clothes line or tool holder.
Click to expand...

Is there no formal definition of physical damage for NM?
 
If the inspector thinks/says its subject to pysical damage, I think you are kinda stuck. You could try looking at 334.15 with him, "exposed work". But that could go both ways. (A) says "closely follow the surface". (C) allows running through bored holes, but that is for unfinished basements and crawl spaces which doesnt quite fit what you have.
 
Use cheapest paneling, plywood etc you can find to cover it. Doesn't even have to panel the entire wall, just make sure to cover any wiring he considers subject to damage.

Pegboard - will serve owner additional functions.
 
kwired said:
Use cheapest paneling, plywood etc you can find to cover it. Doesn't even have to panel the entire wall, just make sure to cover any wiring he considers subject to damage.
Click to expand...

Probably just about as cheap to sheetrock the walls and that way it's already done when it comes time to finish the garage.

You are right that they could just cover the areas where there is electrical wiring.

In the long run they will save money by just hanging the rock now. That way any lights, receptacles, switches, door openers can stay where they are and will not need to be dealt with latter.
 
growler said:
Probably just about as cheap to sheetrock the walls and that way it's already done when it comes time to finish the garage.

You are right that they could just cover the areas where there is electrical wiring.

In the long run they will save money by just hanging the rock now. That way any lights, receptacles, switches, door openers can stay where they are and will not need to be dealt with latter.
Click to expand...
But owner maybe has reasons why they don't want to do so now. Insulation that will need to go in first, adds even more cost.

Drywall may be chosen "paneling" but if the bored holes for wiring are all at same level, one may be able to just put in a foot wide strip or so and it is protected, instead of needing enough material to cover entire wall.
 
I think the inspector is correct

334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A)
through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface
of the building finish or of running boards.
Click to expand...
 
Coppersmith said:
... Is there no formal definition of physical damage for NM?
Click to expand...
There is not a formal definition of "subject to physical damage" for any wiring method. It is intended to be subjective. The same exact physical installation may be subject to physical damage in one location or application and not in a different one. This lets the inspector make judgement calls on what is and is not subject to physical damage.

I am not sure you could even write a definition that would be workable.
 
Coppersmith said:
I have a detached garage where I have run NM through the stud bays. The HO is not planning on drywalling for at least a year and wants me to trim out the recepts and switches on the open studs. The inspector is saying this is not allowed since the NM is exposed below the ceiling and is subject to damage. All the receptacles and switches are at 4 ft high. There are a couple of stud bays where the NM is within 12" high from the treads on a staircase going up to a loft. Is he correct?
Click to expand...

well, drop the NM down a piece of pvc, or, tell homeowner s/he needs to pay a little extra for some 1/2 ply and your time to rip the ply so it fits over the bays where your NM is. a few screws to hold it on for inspection. after that the homeowner is free to do what they want with it.

but technically, (eg) if the bays are say 24"oc, an 8" rip held edge flush to the stud that has the NM and extends over the NM, is protection and should suffice. this protects the NM and allows enough wood for you to cut a box hole to fit over you installed boxes, etc. later, homeover takes off the faceplates and removes the plywood, then finishes with whatever they are doing.

ask the AHJ or inspector if either will be acceptable, etc.
 
Last edited:
As some have kinda said have a talk with the owner what they want and make a suggestion to put up something small and cheap and do it in a way that they can just grab it and rip maybe just use 1/2 staples.

Or is it possible to use duplex nails in the corners if they need something more then any size staples.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
electrofelon said:
If the inspector thinks/says its subject to pysical damage, I think you are kinda stuck. You could try looking at 334.15 with him, "exposed work". But that could go both ways. (A) says "closely follow the surface". (C) allows running through bored holes, but that is for unfinished basements and crawl spaces which doesnt quite fit what you have.
Click to expand...

IMO< 334.15(C) is not talking about stud spaces (walls) but rather ceilings. I think it is clear that thru the studs is a violation. If you only have a few places where this is an issue then just cut some 2x4 blocks and install it behind the run of nm and staple to it. Problem is he could still call it on protection from damage
 
When I built my garage/shop, I wired it and lived w/ it for a year before sheetrocking it (and final inspection). By living w/ it for a year, I discovered changes I wanted to make before the final finish went up.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
IMO< 334.15(C) is not talking about stud spaces (walls) but rather ceilings. I think it is clear that thru the studs is a violation. If you only have a few places where this is an issue then just cut some 2x4 blocks and install it behind the run of nm and staple to it. Problem is he could still call it on protection from damage
Click to expand...


Ok, let's go with that Den, so back up to 334.15(B) , and note all the 'protectants' available.

To futher that in stud walls , let's say we've installed everything top down (runs w/stud vertically) , why not 'sleeve' NM with ENT, or any of the others offered in 224.15(B)

??

~RJ~
 
If the nm cable is nailed to the stud then, IMO, it is compliant. Of course, there is an inspector somewhere who will say it is subject to damage.

In terms of methods then 334.15 explains what you can use but only where necessary. I don't believe ENT would be compliant.

Not sure where you are going with this Steve
 
Coppersmith said:
I have a detached garage where I have run NM through the stud bays. The HO is not planning on drywalling for at least a year and wants me to trim out the recepts and switches on the open studs. The inspector is saying this is not allowed since the NM is exposed below the ceiling and is subject to damage. All the receptacles and switches are at 4 ft high. There are a couple of stud bays where the NM is within 12" high from the treads on a staircase going up to a loft. Is he correct?
Click to expand...

Did a similar job last year and had same issue. Inspector said all they required is to place 2x4s horizontally along the walls where the wiring was so if something fell between stud bays the wiring would be protected. Ask you inspector if he/she would accept this.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
If the nm cable is nailed to the stud then, IMO, it is compliant. Of course, there is an inspector somewhere who will say it is subject to damage.

In terms of methods then 334.15 explains what you can use but only where necessary. I don't believe ENT would be compliant.

Not sure where you are going with this Steve
Click to expand...

The code is advocating 'sleeves' , w/o calling it a sleeve , here>

Where passing through a floor,
the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate
metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC
conduit, Type RTRC marked with the suffix -XW, or other
approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the
floor.
Click to expand...

ergo, phys damage mitigated as described , so why not 'sleeve' elsewhere phys damage may be a problem?

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top