NM stapled beside furring strips

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
The OP is not asking about bored holes in furring. Rob introduced 300.4(A)(1) to talk about nail plates. For the OP scenario, his inspector saw a 300.4(D) situation. 300.4(A)(1) does not apply.

So the "wording" is in 300.4(D).
Yes if you go back to my original post the question and answer with the code reference was what it meant when the nail plate was referred to as "marked".
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I hesitate to say it, in fear of another chapter in the code--

Does the problem go away if the wiring is in metal conduit? (EMT or BX)

It's either that or surface-mounted panduit or wiremold...
EMT doesn't need nail plates, see the exceptions in 300.4 sections mentioned. That said I have seen drywall screws penetrate EMT a few different times, so I still try to avoid placing it too close to the stud when possible if it is going to be close to the finish covering.
 

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Like I said above, I normally use nail-on standoffs on furring. Not because I thought I was required to, but just because I expect the drywallers to be incompetent. My main complaint was the inspector was forcing me to fix existing work. I did so and passed a re-inspection. There are definitely inconsistencies in how NM wiring is handled in the NEC.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/3M-SIFS-1-Furring-Strip-Cable-Stacker-White-PK250/148235721
 
Last edited:

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
My main complaint was the inspector was forcing me to fix existing work.
Yeah, that's hard, . . . I imagine this wasn't revealed to you until after your bid was fixed, and then the wall covering was removed.

In my area, they say I have to correct "obvious Code violations" if they are within the scope of my work.

The requirement that is today's 300,4(D) is decades old . . . do you think the materials of the old installation clearly indicate they were inspected, or that they were installed before the Code requirement existed?
 

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Yeah, that's hard, . . . I imagine this wasn't revealed to you until after your bid was fixed, and then the wall covering was removed.

In my area, they say I have to correct "obvious Code violations" if they are within the scope of my work.

The requirement that is today's 300,4(D) is decades old . . . do you think the materials of the old installation clearly indicate they were inspected, or that they were installed before the Code requirement existed?
Nothing I see in this house leads me to believe it wasn't inspected when it was built. I have seen NM stapled to the sides of furring in many existing houses. Must be the inspectors allowed it.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Nothing I see in this house leads me to believe it wasn't inspected when it was built. I have seen NM stapled to the sides of furring in many existing houses. Must be the inspectors allowed it.
If you have seen so much, what does the local head of the Authority Having Jurisdiction have to say. If any one would know of the historic variations for your job's jurisdiction, that's the person to talk to.
 
Top