renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Recently the question was asked: must all NM be run 1-1/2" back from the face of the wall, or is the requirement only for where it contacts a framing member?
I believe the case was made that the NEC only requires the set-back, or nailplate protection, at the framing members. I took this opportunity to visit one active jobsite, where the wiring illustrates this interpretation rather well.
First, here's a picture of the opened wall:
Demolition is in progress. Please note the paneling applied atop the 1/2" drywall. This is 2x4 frame construction, with the stud bays stuffed with mineral wool insulation. Now, let's look closer at the wiring method:
The wiring is run atop the insulation, just under the drywall. Looking to the studs, it does appear that they attempted to set their holes back:
Also within this wall is the unfused cable from the outside meter pan to the panel on the opposite side of the room. That is, about 20ft. of cable is run up the wall, across the ceiling, and down another wall to the panel. There is NO way to kill power to this cable without calling the PoCo.:
Now, the 'eagle eyed' amongst us might notice that this cable is not quite perfectly parallel to the stud - it's not attached to the stud for support - so one might argue that the 'parallel' requirement would not apply.
Finally, to make sure everyone feels all warm and fuzzy, here's the backside of one piece of paneling:
Please note that not every nail is lined up with the studs, and that the nails are plenty long enough to hit a wire; just wait until Granny hangs a picture from that service feed.
Personally, I think NM ought to be set back from the wall as much as possible; I recognize that the last inch or so where it enters a box is within the 'set-back' distance; there's not much we can do about that.
What say you of this installation? Allowed, or not? Would you sign off on it? If yes, do you see a need to alter the code?
I believe the case was made that the NEC only requires the set-back, or nailplate protection, at the framing members. I took this opportunity to visit one active jobsite, where the wiring illustrates this interpretation rather well.
First, here's a picture of the opened wall:
Demolition is in progress. Please note the paneling applied atop the 1/2" drywall. This is 2x4 frame construction, with the stud bays stuffed with mineral wool insulation. Now, let's look closer at the wiring method:
The wiring is run atop the insulation, just under the drywall. Looking to the studs, it does appear that they attempted to set their holes back:
Also within this wall is the unfused cable from the outside meter pan to the panel on the opposite side of the room. That is, about 20ft. of cable is run up the wall, across the ceiling, and down another wall to the panel. There is NO way to kill power to this cable without calling the PoCo.:
Now, the 'eagle eyed' amongst us might notice that this cable is not quite perfectly parallel to the stud - it's not attached to the stud for support - so one might argue that the 'parallel' requirement would not apply.
Finally, to make sure everyone feels all warm and fuzzy, here's the backside of one piece of paneling:
Please note that not every nail is lined up with the studs, and that the nails are plenty long enough to hit a wire; just wait until Granny hangs a picture from that service feed.
Personally, I think NM ought to be set back from the wall as much as possible; I recognize that the last inch or so where it enters a box is within the 'set-back' distance; there's not much we can do about that.
What say you of this installation? Allowed, or not? Would you sign off on it? If yes, do you see a need to alter the code?