jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
If the wire, cable, is installed per code the insulation should not be able to 'hold', move the NM. Isn't that why we have a rough inspection?
Legal or not? Spot The Violation, Monday Edition.
- Thread starter 480sparky
- Start date
- Status
If the wire, cable, is installed per code the insulation should not be able to 'hold', move the NM. Isn't that why we have a rough inspection?
I see this in very simple terms, i.e. common sense (which the Code is frequently lacking).
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is an extremely high probability that one or more nails or screws are going to penetrate those cables.
Additionally, those cables do not appear to be fastened within 12" of the panel entry.
So I would politely and firmly request that the EC pull those staples and add the sideways 2x4 headers to space the cables away from the OSB. If the EC argues with this, keep in mind that like EC's, inspectors are human and if he gives static over such an obvious potential safety issue, it would prompt the inspector to dig deeper and find more violations, no matter how minor. In other words, why start a p-ing contest over something that would take about 15-20 mins. to correct?
I would still cite 300.4, as it is the blanket statement requiring physical protection, the follow-up paragraphs simply EXPAND and CLARIFY the conditions of Bored holes and Notches in wood.
Again, another example of poor Code writing in regards to intent vs. the literal text.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is an extremely high probability that one or more nails or screws are going to penetrate those cables.
Additionally, those cables do not appear to be fastened within 12" of the panel entry.
So I would politely and firmly request that the EC pull those staples and add the sideways 2x4 headers to space the cables away from the OSB. If the EC argues with this, keep in mind that like EC's, inspectors are human and if he gives static over such an obvious potential safety issue, it would prompt the inspector to dig deeper and find more violations, no matter how minor. In other words, why start a p-ing contest over something that would take about 15-20 mins. to correct?
I would still cite 300.4, as it is the blanket statement requiring physical protection, the follow-up paragraphs simply EXPAND and CLARIFY the conditions of Bored holes and Notches in wood.
Again, another example of poor Code writing in regards to intent vs. the literal text.
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Mentioned in post 2.
Again another example of you deciding you know the intent when none of us were there when the rule was written.
The only thing that can be enforced is the literal text, you cannot enforce intent even if you have the entire CMP beside you backing you up.
Have you never watched 'Law and Order'? :grin:
But worth mentioning again, yes?
CMP or not, I refuse to let such an obvious hazard pass when my neck will be in the noose when (not if) someone puts a nail or screw through those cables and either shocks someone or sets the building on fire.
Especially when a corrective action is so simple and inexpensive to implement.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Are those staples listed for two cables? 
The cables coming out from the first hole on the right are stapled less than 1.25" from the edge of the framing member (stud).
The cables coming out from the first hole on the right are stapled less than 1.25" from the edge of the framing member (stud).
- Location
- Massachusetts
Yeah.
You can be just as much on the hook for trying to enforce your own wants and desires.
I see, now not only do you 'know the intent' of the NEC you can also predict the future.
Irrelevant.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Well it's neater than a lot I see and since we use mostly stucco here it probably wouldn't be an issue, but since it's known that siding is going to be installed, I would probably mention it along with a strong suggestion.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Oh and if they don't like the suggestion, just go to the other side and start pounding nails into the osb.
"See? I told you it could get hit by a nail.":roll:
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
- Location
- Massachusetts
Is there a code section that says I cannot?
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
cant use short , code requires the tapered nail point to completely exit the wood so not back out , any way they use roofing tacks and the shortest made is 3/4 " but they wont use them , will burst your finger. Ouch
<snip>
You can be just as much on the hook for trying to enforce your own wants and desires.
I see, now not only do you 'know the intent' of the NEC you can also predict the future.
Yep and I would rather be on that hook than be held accountable for an electrocution or injury/death from a fire.
Again, there are times (like this case) where the hazard is BLATANT and OBVIOUS no matter what the Code thinks about it.
A responsible EC will agree and make the correction. C'mon, it doesn't cost THAT much in time or materials to fix this.
(In reference to my statement "Especially when a corrective action is so simple and inexpensive to implement. ")
So you'd rather have to pay out the time and labor (and possibly re-run the damaged romex and/or set a junction box) when it does get punched by a nail or screw? I just don't get the logic there. But to each their own.
For the record I DO agree that the Code apparently does not EXPLICITLY prohibit the install as pictured. But I stand by my interpretation of 300.4 and what it is meant to say.
Oh and if they don't like the suggestion, just go to the other side and start pounding nails into the osb.
"See? I told you it could get hit by a nail.":roll:
I like that idea. It would definitely drive the point home. :grin:
Last edited:
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Again you are correct. None specifically.
Generally speaking I believe the first line covers this.
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
Think about a conductor going thru the osb into a surface mount w/p receptacle box the wire inside is either pushed against the osb or comes in , clears the osb and makes a turn in air to go over to stud to staple, the insulator will ignore the clearance you left and the conductor will be push against the osb. What do we do I have a house now with 3 that way to decide on . Do I install blocks to hold the cable away from the osb ? The house has vinyl siding already on
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
90.1(A) Practical Safeguarding.
Anything can happen after the installation and the inspection.
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
The first line of 300.4?
I believe 300.4 first line should cover it but try to convince every one involved where to draw the line on subject to damage . I complained to vinyl siding installers for using 1 3/4 tacks and I got told by green boys to kiss off and keep wire away from siding.
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
Thats one I never do there , I dont care what code says , people nail all kind of things thru the floor like cement board and tar paper for water proof. They usually nail or screw thru the 3/4 decking and dont worry about joist location . But I believe I read a violation for fasten cable to bottom of floor
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
I see a few issues
1st the nails in the staples must be very short or pokeing thru the osb and maybe thru the sideing
2 nd the osb is now frameing member and should be 1 1/4 inches away but code words it bit wrong to inforce
3 rd knowing the high chance of getting a nail in it the EC should not want to risk this.
4 th an inspector should use what ever he can to get it corrected
All that was needed is a couple 2x4 's and never been a problem.
as an inspector i would at min call the EC and make writen notice of this problem and picture. Then if problem comes up such as FIRE let the EC find his own way out.
1st the nails in the staples must be very short or pokeing thru the osb and maybe thru the sideing
2 nd the osb is now frameing member and should be 1 1/4 inches away but code words it bit wrong to inforce
3 rd knowing the high chance of getting a nail in it the EC should not want to risk this.
4 th an inspector should use what ever he can to get it corrected
All that was needed is a couple 2x4 's and never been a problem.
as an inspector i would at min call the EC and make writen notice of this problem and picture. Then if problem comes up such as FIRE let the EC find his own way out.
- Status