Legal or not? Spot The Violation, Monday Edition.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jetlag

Senior Member
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.

You beat me to it jim , I was going to say the staples will be poking thru vinyl siding on other side except places where the vinyl by design leaves the wall. Also for some one so generous with the staples where not required still missed the 12'' distance from box as someone else noticed. Do you know a code that says the osb becomes a framing member ? I say done by DIY
 
Last edited:

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
I am not sure if you could inforce osb as framing but common since tells you that it is.
Job looks to neat to be owner/ builder. My guess is the electrician simply was not thinking.
The over 12 inches in my opinion is not big deal but inspector could use it. Just poor judgement and easy fix
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
You beat me to it jim , I was going to say the staples will be poking thru vinyl siding on other side except places where the vinyl by design leaves the wall. Also for some one so generous with the staples where not required still missed the 12'' distance from box as someone else noticed. Do you know a code that says the osb becomes a framing member ? I say done by DIY

OSB is sheathing. A structural member not a 'framing' member.

And as Bob has said we must read the words as written.

For some definitions go here:
http://www.sbcindustry.com/common/kb/KB_SingleWebPage.php?KBID=8183#F
 

arits74

Senior Member
Location
dixie arkansas
around here that would be a big no no ,we work around the same siding guys alot and i have seen them use 3 inch nails,i have even went as far as to draw on the out side of the house where my wires are on the inside so they wont hit them,these same guys once drove a nail through the buss bars on a panel,needless to say i was not very nice to them that time,a real carpenter or siding man never puts nails in between the wall studs or on the top plates between the studs,the mexican framers around here put the nail gun down on top plates and start pulling the trigger i think on purpose
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
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.

Thank God you are not an inspector, your lack of respect for the NEC and your overconfidence would make you a very bad inspector. (IMPO)


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.

Hell no, I would not install that way but unless it is really an NEC violation it is none of the inspectors businesses if the contractor is a moron.

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.

Again you are correct. None specifically.

Generally speaking I believe the first line covers this.

The first line of 300.4? ;)

Interesting, so under that interpretation all the words of 300.4 that follow that first line are not needed.

Why is it that the list after that first line keeps growing, apparently the CMPs do not feel the first line 300.4 covers it all.
 
Last edited:

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
Thank God you are not an inspector, your lack of respect for the NEC and your overconfident ego would make you a very bad inspector.


Interesting, so under that interpretation all the words of 300.4 that follow that first line are not needed.

Why is it that the list after that first line keeps growing, apparently the CMPs do not feel the first line 300.4 covers it all.

Come on Bob. Let us just take one example. Bored holes. There is a measurement there so inspectors and contractors can not argue over what is 'protected'. The panel must have recognized that is is a common installation that may be a hazard. Kind of like the commentary but enforceable.

Or think of it this way. In 300.4 we are trying to protect the wire from nails, screws, etc. away from nailing surfaces. So they give some examples.

The OSB is a nailing surface. So, I GUESS, that they thought that we knew that.

I like 300.4(D) but the OSB is not a framing member. So 300.4(D) does not apply.

So I fall back on the first line as the OSB is a nailing surface and causes the wire to be subject to, now you will like this, possible physical damage.

We could argue 334.15 because it is not concealed yet but that is being a poor inspector.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Come on Bob. Let us just take one example. Bored holes. There is a measurement there so inspectors and contractors can not argue over what is 'protected'. The panel must have recognized that is is a common installation that may be a hazard. Kind of like the commentary but enforceable.

Or think of it this way. In 300.4 we are trying to protect the wire from nails, screws, etc. away from nailing surfaces. So they give some examples.

The OSB is a nailing surface. So, I GUESS, that they thought that we knew that.

I like 300.4(D) but the OSB is not a framing member. So 300.4(D) does not apply.

So I fall back on the first line as the OSB is a nailing surface and causes the wire to be subject to, now you will like this, possible physical damage.

We could argue 334.15 because it is not concealed yet but that is being a poor inspector.

The fact is the NEC shoots you in the foot when they make lists as anything outside the list is unenforceable.

Don points this out all the time.

Why did they just add the section about conduits below roof decks if the first line of 300.4 already gave the inspector the tools to prevent that installation?
 

shepelec

Senior Member
Location
Palmer, MA
I would point to 300.4 D. The sheathing is required support for the framing members. Common sense needs to prevail somewhere. That install would clearly cause an issue down the road. The NEC can not for see every possible install so it is up to the AHJ and the installer to use their head a little bit.

It is funny how nobody has an issue if the AHJ cuts them a little slack but goes nuts when something like this is an issue.:roll:
 
Last edited:

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
So I could nail my NM to the top of a floor and cover it with carpet because it is not on the list?

Or on the wall and cover it with wallpaper?

Both are concealed and not a nailing surface.

I would use the commentary in 334.12 but that is not enforceable.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Not trying to hijack the thread, but when I got up this morning, saw an episode of Holmes on Holmes called "re-in-venting". Main problem with this house was the undersized high-velocity A.C. system, but the main panel was installed on a wall horizontally...is that legal?

He is in Canada, so the rules may be a little different.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
.....I like 300.4(D) but the OSB is not a framing member. So 300.4(D) does not apply...........


I say 300.4(D) does apply.

300.4(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed parallel to framing members, such as joists, rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less than 32 mm (1? in.) from the nearest edge of the framing member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least 1.6 mm ( in.) thick.

As highlighted in red, there is no mention that the cable has to be installed ON the framing member, only PARALLEL TO it. Just eyeballing this install tells me there's at least 4 cables in violation.
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
I would point to 300.4 D. The sheathing is required support for the framing members. Common sense needs to prevail somewhere. That install would clearly cause an issue down the road. The NEC can not for see every possible install so it is up to the AHJ and the installer to use their head a little bit.

It is funny how nobody has an issue if the AHJ cuts them a little slack but goes nuts when something like this is an issue.:roll:

Common sense is the AHJ's job. We are debating what the electrical inspector can enforce in the field with the code at his side.
 

mtfallsmikey

Senior Member
Musings from the house plumber...

Musings from the house plumber...

I know that if I were to strap ductwork or plumbing pipes to sheathing like that, the AHJ would be all over me like a cheap suit....
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
I say 300.4(D) does apply.



As highlighted in red, there is no mention that the cable has to be installed ON the framing member, only PARALLEL TO it. Just eyeballing this install tells me there's at least 4 cables in violation.

At first I was going to use your arguements. But exhibits 300.2 and 300.3 show parallel as something else.

All the sub-parts of 300.4 give us the impression that the wire needs to be away from nailing surfaces. Does not say that but we all understand that.

Again we need not go past the first line to turn this down.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I say 300.4(D) does apply.



As highlighted in red, there is no mention that the cable has to be installed ON the framing member, only PARALLEL TO it. Just eyeballing this install tells me there's at least 4 cables in violation.

I agree with you that some of the cables may be in violation of (D).

But they would not be here in MA as the measurement is reduced to 3/4". :grin:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I would point to 300.4 D. The sheathing is required support for the framing members.

Huh?

The sheathing is support for th framing members? :confused:




Common sense needs to prevail somewhere. That install would clearly cause an issue down the road. The NEC can not for see every possible install so it is up to the AHJ and the installer to use their head a little bit.

It is funny how nobody has an issue if the AHJ cuts them a little slack but goes nuts when something like this is an issue.:roll:

The NEC is about the practical protection from the dangers of electricity.

It has nothing to do with ensuring a quality or good job.

Now sure someone will say a nail could hit this and it could start a fire.
'I agree it could, but so could the homeowner that uses a 16D nail to hang a book shelf.

The fact is that NMs are routinely left pressed against the outside sheathing by the insulation pressed into the walls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top