I was on a new construction 5 story multi-family apartment complex,(40-60 apartments per flr.)just a few weeks ago. And while walking through the multible floors,I was looking at the NM branch circuits and the SE feeder cables from main disconnecting means at meter enclosers outside to the tennent space load centers, inside the apartments.During the walk, I noticed that none of the NM cable from the house panel (ground level) or the SE cable feeders had any protection provided (334.15 & 338.10(4) for the cable rising from bottom to the top floor.When I seen this, I was kinda shocked.ALL is "Wood" supported structure, slab on grade.The only protection provided for the NM and SE cable between wood floors is a "Cauked-gun fireproofing" at floors.I aproach the "head amigo" running the crew and brought it to his attention, feeling a little "out of place" bringing it up about his work. (none of my affair)But thought it being a issue of cable protection,and a NEC violation.Its not like the cables were comming up in dedicated chases, but rising though the studs between floors.I asked him about his Rough in Inspection, and he said it passed.Said Electrical Inspector said it was "OK" and "wasn't going to hold him to it".Now,I checked back in my book,Art.80.21(c)& 80.13(15)and I must say, I'm confused.This County of Electrical Inspection, is in the Capital of our State.One county from mine, and I know the Inspectors in my county,would never let this fly.This has been eating at me. Wish I hadn't seen it..
Inspectors and art. 80
- Thread starter dillon3c
- Start date
- Status
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
Is article adopted in your area? I don't think most jurisdictions even adopt it.
Is article adopted in your area? I don't think most jurisdictions even adopt it.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
I can't really see a problem with your description. What is the potential for damage to the cables?
[ December 27, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]
I can't really see a problem with your description. What is the potential for damage to the cables?
[ December 27, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
Well, like I stated, I'm just a like confused about when an what a Inspector chooses to inforce code,and not.Let me say, I've got the highest regard for what they do.I don't falt a Inspector for doing his job.I have respect for them,trying to become one myself.Have passed level II & III Inspector training,taking Adminstration & Enforcement classes at first of year and preparing for testing by the department of Insurance first of next year also.But if you read my post,I'm just confused about when a Electrical Inspector can toss the book to the wind.Not trying to start a pissing contest,and yes Ryan, did read the very top of artical 80 "after the fact" and don't know if art. 80 has been adopted in my area.Thought it might be,I'm starting class on it.
Well, like I stated, I'm just a like confused about when an what a Inspector chooses to inforce code,and not.Let me say, I've got the highest regard for what they do.I don't falt a Inspector for doing his job.I have respect for them,trying to become one myself.Have passed level II & III Inspector training,taking Adminstration & Enforcement classes at first of year and preparing for testing by the department of Insurance first of next year also.But if you read my post,I'm just confused about when a Electrical Inspector can toss the book to the wind.Not trying to start a pissing contest,and yes Ryan, did read the very top of artical 80 "after the fact" and don't know if art. 80 has been adopted in my area.Thought it might be,I'm starting class on it.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
dillon3c What code sections do you think the inspector let go in the wind?
What protection do the cables need if they are in stud bays?
dillon3c What code sections do you think the inspector let go in the wind?
What protection do the cables need if they are in stud bays?
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
Well,I'm looking at 334.15(b):The cable she be protected from physical damage where necessary.Yes I see "Where Necessary"....But passing through the floor, the cable shall be inclosed..(sleeved)Is this not a mandate of art.#334.15 and 338.10(4)..I'm reading this right,there's not a exception to it.Just wondering why It wasn't inforced, I guess.
Well,I'm looking at 334.15(b):The cable she be protected from physical damage where necessary.Yes I see "Where Necessary"....But passing through the floor, the cable shall be inclosed..(sleeved)Is this not a mandate of art.#334.15 and 338.10(4)..I'm reading this right,there's not a exception to it.Just wondering why It wasn't inforced, I guess.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
Dillon3c
But you were saying this "wouldn't fly" in your county? does your inspector reject you for this?
WE had this same miss interpretation too until I had to show that this is where a NM runs out of a floor (Exposed) and they agreed.
Welcome to the forum
Dillon3c
But you were saying this "wouldn't fly" in your county? does your inspector reject you for this?
WE had this same miss interpretation too until I had to show that this is where a NM runs out of a floor (Exposed) and they agreed.
Welcome to the forum
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
Wayne,Sir thank you for welcoming me to the form. I've sat in the "Peanut Gallery" for the better part of 6 months,while having the 2000 NEC electronic disk plugged in, and injoying reading the post of well informed people like yourself Wayne,Ryan,Bob, and of course Mr. Roger Deas.In this current post of mine,I allmost sure I got ahead of myself and missinterpreted 334.15 "Exposed work".In turning back to Art. 100,Exposed(as applied to wiring methods)a standard piece of sheetrock screwed to a wall and taped/bedded,is not a panel of designed access.And no,haven't been red tagged for said installation, due to limited background of NM installation(dwelling) residental wiring methods.As far as the Inspection Department in my area(Bull City)they are a "well respected team" (they just don't miss much),and governed by the "Ellis Cannaday Chapter" of Electrical Inspectors,based in Charlotte,NC..Chief Inspector in my area,is the Director of Education, Instructor of said classes for Inspectors.Not being an Inspector myself,I strive to attend, and pay for his classroom time,his vast knowledge.Being Bull-Headed,I skipped Level I,and attended, passed II & III.Thus my mistake in my current posting of interpretation of "334.15".Also, I take my hat of to the moderators of this form,as also being " well informed".. another great team..
Wayne,Sir thank you for welcoming me to the form. I've sat in the "Peanut Gallery" for the better part of 6 months,while having the 2000 NEC electronic disk plugged in, and injoying reading the post of well informed people like yourself Wayne,Ryan,Bob, and of course Mr. Roger Deas.In this current post of mine,I allmost sure I got ahead of myself and missinterpreted 334.15 "Exposed work".In turning back to Art. 100,Exposed(as applied to wiring methods)a standard piece of sheetrock screwed to a wall and taped/bedded,is not a panel of designed access.And no,haven't been red tagged for said installation, due to limited background of NM installation(dwelling) residental wiring methods.As far as the Inspection Department in my area(Bull City)they are a "well respected team" (they just don't miss much),and governed by the "Ellis Cannaday Chapter" of Electrical Inspectors,based in Charlotte,NC..Chief Inspector in my area,is the Director of Education, Instructor of said classes for Inspectors.Not being an Inspector myself,I strive to attend, and pay for his classroom time,his vast knowledge.Being Bull-Headed,I skipped Level I,and attended, passed II & III.Thus my mistake in my current posting of interpretation of "334.15".Also, I take my hat of to the moderators of this form,as also being " well informed".. another great team..
B
bthielen
Guest
Re: Inspectors and art. 80
I think this is a good example for you to keep in mind in the future, especially if you succeed at your quest to become an inspector. Being an inspector doesn't necessarily denote infallibility. Codes are misinterpreted in precisely this same way by contractors and inspectors alike. Seeing every word and taking it exactly in context is not so easily done as we many times think. A single overlooked word can change the entire understanding.
Good luck and always remember to keep an open mind.
Bob
I think this is a good example for you to keep in mind in the future, especially if you succeed at your quest to become an inspector. Being an inspector doesn't necessarily denote infallibility. Codes are misinterpreted in precisely this same way by contractors and inspectors alike. Seeing every word and taking it exactly in context is not so easily done as we many times think. A single overlooked word can change the entire understanding.
Good luck and always remember to keep an open mind.
Bob
- Status