NM stapled beside furring strips

[infinity]

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]

That's wording I was looking for.

I agree with the inspector now.

JAP>

same here.

 

[kwired]

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.

 

[LarryFine]

Colorado Jims are easier to screw on and fasten than stapling to the edge of a furring strip anyway.

 

[Coppersmith]

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

 

[hbiss]

Colorado Jims are easier to screw on and fasten than stapling to the edge of a furring strip anyway.

That's what I say. :thumbsup:

-Hal

 

[al hildenbrand]

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]

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]

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.