Legal or not? Spot The Violation, Monday Edition.

Status
Not open for further replies.
arits74 said:
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
Click to expand...

They do put the tack for vinyl between studs every 12 '' in slots they cant see where studs are anyway because covered with house wrap. Lap and sheet siding does nail to stud they have to sound with hammer and miss alot. with nail gun they never worry about stud they pop them everywhere
 
iwire said:
Looks like the CMP will have to add another section to 300.4. :grin:
Click to expand...

Maybe for clearity but the first sentance covered it. "Protection against physical damage"
unless you don't believe they are subject to damage. NEC can not mention every possable condition.
Either siding or metal lath for stuco will go thru 1/2 inch of OSB unless they use 1/2 nails and then they are not any good as they would come out. And my guess is the stables he used went thru to the other side.
 
shepelec said:
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:
Click to expand...

The first line 300.4 gives AHJ the right to call it , if valid reason or not
 
iwire said:
Looks like the CMP will have to add another section to 300.4. :grin:
Click to expand...

300.4(H) Raceways and cables installed by fools shall not be secured to portions of a structure that are pretty darn likely to be penetrated by fasteners in the close future.

Exception: If the cables or raceways are protected by a steel plate not less 1/4", it is okay.

How is that?:grin:
 
iwire said:
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:
Click to expand...

Well the 3/4 clears the cable out the back of a deep rec box, it winds up 7/8 from stud edge . but I think the 3/4 is an awful idea for MA
 
300.4 I - If a siding job goes green all cables must be kept 2.75 '' from the exterior edge of framing then protected with nail plates inside. cables between framing members must receive wood blocking to maintain 2.75'' from inside of exterior wall coverings

Exception: cables ran in rigid metallic conduit are exempt from 300.4 I
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
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)
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you that the city inspectors here disagree with your opinion strongly and frequently ask for MY help in interpreting questionable items. Of course they have the final say, but sometimes my point of view clarifies what they were looking to enforce. (And many times they disagree with my take on the situation as well.) At least they keep an open mind and are willing to consider other interpretations of Code language.

You seem to keep forgetting that despite my current occupation, I have over 10 years experience working as an electrician.

And despite what you keep saying, the Code IS subject to interpretation in many cases as there is NO WAY it could ever be written to be 100% concrete in 100% of all installs.

I have high regard for the NEC but I will not hesitate to point out its shortcomings, errors or omissions.

I would, by all inspectors I have had contact with, make a good inspector because I am so picky and stubborn.

Guess it's a good thing that Bob and I aren't in the same jurisdiction. :)


iwire said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of all the things I would have thought I would never hear you say, that one in bold tops the list. So what your saying is that if the contractor does something moronic, the inspector should just look the other way? :roll: If the contractor does something like the op's pics, knowing full well that there is a very high probability of nails/screws damaging the wire, who knows what other "non-violations" that are potentially very hazardous are hidden elsewhere?


iwire said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because of situations like this thread, where there seems to be a lot of folks who can't apply a bit of common sense and logic to things that are obvious to even a non-electrician.

iwire said:
<snip>
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?
Click to expand...

Because of situations like this thread, where there seems to be a lot of folks who can't apply a bit of common sense and logic to things that are obvious to even a non-electrician. And yes I repeated myself on purpose.

Looks like I can add 300.4 to my signature list. :grin:
 
The only thing that I strongly disagree with Bob on is "it is none of the inspectors businesses if the contractor is a moron".

Bob and most of us respect what the code says. Not what our personal opinions are.

We disagree on many things but what the code says is what we are debating.
 
I believe that 300.4 does require physical protection by itself and that A through G identifies how this protection is accomplished in specific situations. If the first statement of 300.4 was meant to only apply to the imediately following articles it would say "as specified in 300.4(A) through (G)" as it does in numerous other articles when that is the intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top