Raceway Application

infinity said:
No you can run the cable right through the studs.
Click to expand...
One of my experiences that still burns my butt. Here in Florida, Gainesville specifically, I have 1 5/8 studs with 2 layers of 1/2" sheetrock on each side. My inspector made me put nail plates on and I didn't carry that in my estimate. He cited. 300, but I argued none of those apply to MC through metal studs, he cited only the subject to damage part of all sections. I actually protested to the he ECLB (Florida Electrical Board) they wouldn't over rule. Estimated $7,000 later is still makes me mad.
 
Strathead said:
One of my experiences that still burns my butt. Here in Florida, Gainesville specifically, I have 1 5/8 studs with 2 layers of 1/2" sheetrock on each side. My inspector made me put nail plates on and I didn't carry that in my estimate. He cited. 300, but I argued none of those apply to MC through metal studs, he cited only the subject to damage part of all sections. I actually protested to the he ECLB (Florida Electrical Board) they wouldn't over rule. Estimated $7,000 later is still makes me mad.
Click to expand...
The inspector was incorrect. Protection is not required for MC cable through metal stud holes even when the studs are 1 5/8". Sounds like you were up against dumb and dumber. Dumb, the inspector who can't read and dumber, the board that agreed with him.
 
Strathead said:
One of my experiences that still burns my butt. Here in Florida, Gainesville specifically, I have 1 5/8 studs with 2 layers of 1/2" sheetrock on each side. My inspector made me put nail plates on and I didn't carry that in my estimate. He cited. 300, but I argued none of those apply to MC through metal studs, he cited only the subject to damage part of all sections. I actually protested to the he ECLB (Florida Electrical Board) they wouldn't over rule. Estimated $7,000 later is still makes me mad.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that.
 
Maybe the inspector and board ruled with 330.12(1).
330.17 refers us to 300.4(A)(C), and D.
Yes I realize 300.4(A) deals with Bored holes in wood, but 330.17 states “in accordance with”.
What is the difference with requiring protection for parallel MC within 1 1/4” of framing edge as stated in 300.4(D)? Wood or metal is not mentioned here. I think this muddies up the water a bit.
Something to think about.
 
Greentagger said:
What is the difference with requiring protection for parallel MC within 1 1/4” of framing edge as stated in 300.4(D)?
Click to expand...
The requirement for parallel to the metal stud would apply but nothing in 300.4 would apply to an MC cable through the hole in a metal stud.
 
Greentagger said:
Maybe the inspector and board ruled with 330.12(1).
330.17 refers us to 300.4(A)(C), and D.
Yes I realize 300.4(A) deals with Bored holes in wood, but 330.17 states “in accordance with”.
What is the difference with requiring protection for parallel MC within 1 1/4” of framing edge as stated in 300.4(D)? Wood or metal is not mentioned here. I think this muddies up the water a bit.
Something to think about.
Click to expand...
THAT is a possible problem with the code. But is doesn't change the fact that the inspector was wrong. I even tried to challenge the inspector. I told him I would install the MC and one side the sheetrock. I would give him a box of screws, let him look and see where the MC was run and try to drive one screw from the box in to the MC. He, of course wouldn't take me up on that challenge.
 
infinity said:
The inspector was incorrect. Protection is not required for MC cable through metal stud holes even when the studs are 1 5/8". Sounds like you were up against dumb and dumber. Dumb, the inspector who can't read and dumber, the board that agreed with him.
Click to expand...
And, since they are citing a code, it makes it sound like I was in the wrong, so no chance to recover cost from the owner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top