REQUIREMENT TO PROTECT ROMEX WHERE RUN AROUND BATHTUB/SHOWER SPACE

Status
Not open for further replies.
inspectorsparky said:
Obviously you gentlemen have had bad experiences with electrical inspectors and I can understand some of your responses. I do not however, appreciate the condescending remarks especially from a moderator.
I can assure you my intent is not to "blindside" my electrical contractors. Because of my method of inspection and the successful professional relationships I develop with these contractors beginning at pre-construction I have had great success with them williingly routing the cabling around the bathtub/shower areas or below the flood rim of the tubs. I have explained my concerns. This is a serious issue, as I have had experience with this very hazard as I too am an electrical contractor. Would this be important to any one of you if your child or family member was electrocuted in this manner?

Obviously this forum lacks the fortitude to attempt to develop and evolve the NEC based upon real life hazards. I believe Mike Holt founded his success on the passion to protect persons from hazards. My job is to protect my citizens from hazards that are avoidable.
Ill take this issue before our local COG.
Click to expand...
No your job is to inforce the nec not make up your own rules do to personal opions
 
mjf said:
Change the framing requirements instead of the electrical requirements.:
Click to expand...

I like this idea. Require 2 X 6 framing around all tub and shower spaces in order to keep wiring in the center of the stud away from

damage by over zealous carpenters. This also would allow more room for sound absorbing insulation to combat noisy bathroom activity.

:roll:
 
I have ran into this with an inspector a couple of times. In the end we had to place nail plates up. His thoery was what if a home owner wanted to place safty rails up in the bathroom
 
And this can happen anywhere, not just a shower. Perhaps they want a 50" TV on the wall, or are hanging a heavy picture. There are many things that come with screws way longer than 1 3/4" that could penetrate a cable. I'll try a non-contact voltage tester on the wall near where I want to drill deep, but not sure they are sensitive enough to find a wire 1.5" behind drywall.

With that mindset, every stud should have a nail plate....
 
inspectorsparky said:
I cant speak for other inspectors in other cities but I can assure you my method is not to require changes on a whim after the work is complete nor would I tolerate any other of our inspectors practicing that way.
Click to expand...


I think you need to read your initial post again. With all due respect, You CLEARLY stated that you require electricians to run romex in a manner that exceeds the NEC, and then ASKED us for a code to back you up. So "require changes on a whim" is EXACTLY what you did! IMO, there was not one condescending remark toward you. The remarks were challenging, aggressive, in your face, and maybe, derogatory, but not condescending. If you do what you stated in the first post, then you are wrong period! You owe those electricians an apology at least.
 
The NEC is a minimum standard and as an inspector it is all I can require. I applaud and respect contractors that go
beyond the code to make thier installations safer and trouble free but I cannot enforce anything but the approved codes of my state and this should be the approach of all inspectors.
 
inspectorsparky said:
Obviously you gentlemen have had bad experiences with electrical inspectors and I can understand some of your responses. I do not however, appreciate the condescending remarks especially from a moderator.
I can assure you my intent is not to "blindside" my electrical contractors. Because of my method of inspection and the successful professional relationships I develop with these contractors beginning at pre-construction I have had great success with them williingly routing the cabling around the bathtub/shower areas or below the flood rim of the tubs. I have explained my concerns. This is a serious issue, as I have had experience with this very hazard as I too am an electrical contractor. Would this be important to any one of you if your child or family member was electrocuted in this manner?

Obviously this forum lacks the fortitude to attempt to develop and evolve the NEC based upon real life hazards. I believe Mike Holt founded his success on the passion to protect persons from hazards. My job is to protect my citizens from hazards that are avoidable.
Ill take this issue before our local COG.
Click to expand...

your initial question was how would you reference this through nec articles to inforce this wiring method. so lets just keep it simple , you cant
 
Strathead said:
I think you need to read your initial post again. With all due respect, You CLEARLY stated that you require electricians to run romex in a manner that exceeds the NEC, and then ASKED us for a code to back you up. So "require changes on a whim" is EXACTLY what you did! IMO, there was not one condescending remark toward you. The remarks were challenging, aggressive, in your face, and maybe, derogatory, but not condescending. If you do what you stated in the first post, then you are wrong period! You owe those electricians an apology at least.
Click to expand...

I have to say "Amen, brother".
The OP took offense that Forum members challenged his "applying his own rules".
I take offense that he feels that way toward my fellow members.
As you noted, he stated his requirements and asked for Code references supporting his requirements and there are none.
I think his "requirement" has valid rationale but he needs to accept the Forum input that the CORRECT way to enforce it is to adopt it as a local documented requirement or have it adopted by the NEC.
 
bobbymari said:
your initial question was how would you reference this through nec articles to inforce this wiring method. so lets just keep it simple , you cant
Click to expand...

Right on......a good practice doesn't translate into enforceable code.....I had a habit or running my wires for the recepts in the kitchen in the area between the upper and lower cabinets and then nail plated them regardless if they were centered in the stud or not....just because I got tired of three inch cabinet screws being drilled into my wires. no code required that, but something I just did on my own.
 
Actually, the OP has a point ....

As was so nicely explained to me at this site, the NEC does NOT require Romex to be run back away from the face of the wall. Code only requires the cables to be set back where it passes through framing members.

If you recall, I posted pics of an instal where the cables ran just under the face of the drywall, wrapping around the insulation to pass through set-back holes in the studs. No one here thought that was the least bit unusual; some posted their pics of a construction method where the cables ran in the spaces between firring strips, with a similar result.

Now, as for the bathroom ....

Forget about little drywall screws and the rocker aiming for the studs. Hand rails, shower doors, sinks, and who knows what else are mounted to the walls, and it's rare for any of the anchoring bolts to line up with the framing. That's why walls in those areas often have sections of lumber - 3/4 plywood or better - on the walls. That lumber is there to hold screws - even lag bolts.

If you're smart, you'll run the wires to avoid these reinforced sections as much as possible. I've still had one job where the cable was shorted by the guy putting up some trim molding in the shower, though. Metal trim, metal plumbing, metal framing- that whole house became "live," but that's another tale.

We're still stuck with a code that allows us to run wire in harms' way. What can I say? You can't fix stupid .... and call-backs are no fun at all. Sure, you can argue 'minimum code,' but really - you want to try to explain to the customer next month, when the wall is opened up and the new bath has to be re-done, how it was perfectly reasonable for you to run your wires right under the surface of a board that was installed for the specific reason of holding screws? Good luck.
 
Sandman1110 said:
Right on......a good practice doesn't translate into enforceable code.....I had a habit or running my wires for the recepts in the kitchen in the area between the upper and lower cabinets and then nail plated them regardless if they were centered in the stud or not....just because I got tired of three inch cabinet screws being drilled into my wires. no code required that, but something I just did on my own.
Click to expand...

i do this as well after i tore open finished kitchen last year, you took words out of my mouth 3" cabinet screws. it's not that I dont like op idea on safety procautions, just dont agree with him forcing methods upon contractors when it's not the code. I have called on one or 10 supervisors when I've been "required" to make unjustified changes. And by unjustified Im of course referring to nec and local codes, not that inspector didn't have a point
 
Last edited:
renosteinke said:
Actually, the OP has a point ....

As was so nicely explained to me at this site, the NEC does NOT require Romex to be run back away from the face of the wall. Code only requires the cables to be set back where it passes through framing members.

If you recall, I posted pics of an instal where the cables ran just under the face of the drywall, wrapping around the insulation to pass through set-back holes in the studs. No one here thought that was the least bit unusual; some posted their pics of a construction method where the cables ran in the spaces between firring strips, with a similar result.

Now, as for the bathroom ....

Forget about little drywall screws and the rocker aiming for the studs. Hand rails, shower doors, sinks, and who knows what else are mounted to the walls, and it's rare for any of the anchoring bolts to line up with the framing. That's why walls in those areas often have sections of lumber - 3/4 plywood or better - on the walls. That lumber is there to hold screws - even lag bolts.

If you're smart, you'll run the wires to avoid these reinforced sections as much as possible. I've still had one job where the cable was shorted by the guy putting up some trim molding in the shower, though. Metal trim, metal plumbing, metal framing- that whole house became "live," but that's another tale.

We're still stuck with a code that allows us to run wire in harms' way. What can I say? You can't fix stupid .... and call-backs are no fun at all. Sure, you can argue 'minimum code,' but really - you want to try to explain to the customer next month, when the wall is opened up and the new bath has to be re-done, how it was perfectly reasonable for you to run your wires right under the surface of a board that was installed for the specific reason of holding screws? Good luck.
Click to expand...

There are good requirements in the code and ridiculous requirements in the code. And actually the code requires protection when run through , or parallel to the framing members. That said, everything in the code is written in consideration of safety, cost, and politics. If the goal was to protect everyone from everything, GFCI breakers on all circuits in the house would be a far better deterrent, but still not perfect, because for example I once saw a guy drill through the back of a panel in to the bus to mount a picture. Figure out a way to prevent that. Lobbyists have already increased the cost of a home greatly by requiring Arc fault breakers, GFI's, in use covers, additional circuits all over the place, and any of dozens of other requirements. Everything has a cost and I am not saying any one of the situations above is right or wrong. The day that one of my workers takes a sawzall and cuts right through a PVC water line, I am going to lobby for all water lines to be installed in gold sleeved 1/4" thick hardened galvanized piping, or if they cut an ABS sewer line, they will probably lobby for it. In the mean time, if you feel that the code is that lacking, then propose wording that prevents it. Personally, I think the risk presented by this scenario is minimal.
 
renosteinke said:
Actually, the OP has a point ....

As was so nicely explained to me at this site, the NEC does NOT require Romex to be run back away from the face of the wall. Code only requires the cables to be set back where it passes through framing members.

If you recall, I posted pics of an instal where the cables ran just under the face of the drywall, wrapping around the insulation to pass through set-back holes in the studs. No one here thought that was the least bit unusual; some posted their pics of a construction method where the cables ran in the spaces between firring strips, with a similar result.

Now, as for the bathroom ....

Forget about little drywall screws and the rocker aiming for the studs. Hand rails, shower doors, sinks, and who knows what else are mounted to the walls, and it's rare for any of the anchoring bolts to line up with the framing. That's why walls in those areas often have sections of lumber - 3/4 plywood or better - on the walls. That lumber is there to hold screws - even lag bolts.

If you're smart, you'll run the wires to avoid these reinforced sections as much as possible. I've still had one job where the cable was shorted by the guy putting up some trim molding in the shower, though. Metal trim, metal plumbing, metal framing- that whole house became "live," but that's another tale.

We're still stuck with a code that allows us to run wire in harms' way. What can I say? You can't fix stupid .... and call-backs are no fun at all. Sure, you can argue 'minimum code,' but really - you want to try to explain to the customer next month, when the wall is opened up and the new bath has to be re-done, how it was perfectly reasonable for you to run your wires right under the surface of a board that was installed for the specific reason of holding screws? Good luck.
Click to expand...

again, noone disputing that his concerns are valid, the dispute is that he is inforcing these upon ec's when he shouldn't be
 
renosteinke said:
We're still stuck with a code that allows us to run wire in harms' way.
Click to expand...
Reno, if it makes you feel better, by all means, run this NM in RMC behind a 1/4" steel plate inside a poured concrete wall. You may also want to buy a used military tank and convert it to make it street legal since typical atomobiles only meet DOT standards which are minimums. There is a point where safety runs into practical and affordable limitations. If a customer or an inspector wants to come out of pocket and pay me to install beyond the minimum I will be happy to do it.

The truth is, the "minimum code" is well above anything dangerous but, yes, you can always go as far above these minimums as you want.

Roger
 
Last edited:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but i actually found the code section .It states under no circumstance shall an inspector put his beliefs or methods before that of the nec or local codes. It's an old book. :thumbsup::lol: ok im done
 
bobbymari said:
again, noone disputing that his concerns are valid, the dispute is that he is inforcing these upon ec's when he shouldn't be
Click to expand...

Actually, I would argue against that code wording and/or requirement, so I am disputing the validity. I think this is smaller version of many issues we are having today on a National level. I am not willing to support legislation against stupidity. Please, in the nature of the forum, don't think this is an attempt get outside the electrical discussion, just intended to tie it in to to distinct and BOTH VALID philosophies on life. You can put a value on Human life and the writers of the NEC, the building code and etc. do it every code cycle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top