Romex laying on top of furring

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

romeo

Senior Member
Is NM cable permitted to lay on top of furring in concealed work of a new home without securing as described in NEC 334.30? Secured at 41/2ft. and 12" from metal boxes .

If it is where is the 1/4" space in 334.17 ( 3/4" ) In Massachusetts

romeo
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

I don't have the book here to look at, but.

Why would you not have to support it as required?

There's an allowance for unaccessible cavities. If I remember right that would have to be in existing construction.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

334.30(B) NMB shall be permitted to be unsupported where it is fished between access points in finished buildings and structures and supporting is impracticable. I hope I am following You here. When We add circuits in new construction either down a wall or thru joist cavities it can not be secured with out damaging finishes and I believe the code understands this if I am interpreting this correctly. If an attic check 320.23 requirements.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Triphase thanks for the reply. Sorry typo I meant 11/4" as required in 300.4 (D)in the Massachusetts code that measurement
changes to 3/4". To better explain, I inspected the rough wiring in a new home and did not pass it because the electrician laid romex on the furring parallel to the ceiling joist without securing it with staples or any other means.

I consider that a violation of Section 334.30 He says that it is code compliant
by 334.30(A) and he tells me that his code provider agrees. I feel that 334.30(A) applies only to horizontal runs through drilled holes.

I am looking for opinions from electricians, especially those that do new residential wiring.

Thaks romeo
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

what version of the code? and i dont know about mass local code, but I remember when the nec used to say supported for a number of wireing methods. we ran conduit between bar joists because they were supported.

Recient changes now say fastened in place. I see the 2005 nm section says with staples or......

I am assuming that you are talking about running the cable on top of the framing members, and not in holes. the distance when the wire is run in holes is so that drywall screws wont stick into the wire. if the wire is on top of the wood, then one would need a very long screw.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

romeo, this install was done before finishes? Also, secured less than 1-1/4" from edge, does require protection. romeo, I have been doing res and comm. for 18 years and if (like I mentioned above) not secured per code on install at rough-in then You have a "leg to stand on" not fished as an added run ? let Me know
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

JB Thanks for the reply just want to clarify one thing. Furring strips (strapping) is 3/4" trade size (not really 3/4") as a 2x4 is not 4". It is secured under the wood frame for attaching the drywall. When a mn cable lays on top of it the nearest edge of the cable is less than 3/4" from the top side of the drywall

Thanks again romeo
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by romeo:
. When a mn cable lays on top of it the nearest edge of the cable is less than 3/4" from the top side of the drywall
Click to expand...
And the problem with that would be?
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

300.4 (D) in 2005 would not allow this. But it will allow them to install nail plates in the exception.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

The problem would be that now the drywall screws can penetrate the 3\4" furring strips and anything laying on top of them. :eek:
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

300.4(D) does not apply to NM laid across the top of the furring strips as the NM is not parallel with them.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by g3guy:
The problem would be that now the drywall screws can penetrate the 3\4" furring strips and anything laying on top of them. :eek:
Click to expand...
OK let me rephrase the question.

What is the code problem with this?
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

triphase I wish I could send a picture. This is a rough inspection on a new home,everything is open. The wires are laying on top of the furring without any staples etc. in lengths of up to 25ft. without securing. The electrician considers the cables secured because they are laying on the furring that is 16" apart. the distance from the edge of the cable ( romex ) to the bottom of the furring is less than 3/4". the question is securing of the cable because Massachusetts changed the 1 1/4"requirement to 1 1/4" Thanks romeo
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Ok guys one more time. The Romex is laid on the furring unsupported in long lengths Is this a violation of NEC Section 334.30. Yes or No

This is a great forum and all of you are great to put up with me. bet your glad I am not inspecting your work. HE HE HE
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

I misread, I though that the OP said that the wire was parallel to the furing strips.

I think that laying on top of the furing strips in any direction is just as "cheezy" but now that I brought that word out, I am sure to get slammed. :eek:

perpendicular to the furing strips would be parallel to the framing members, would they not need to then be secured to the framing member, 1 1/4 inches in from the face?
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Regardless of the 3/4" or 1 1/4" space the NEC and MEC codes requires the NM to be Secured. Right now it is only supported which is fine through holes or notches but not across furring stripes.

2005 MEC
334.30. Revise 334.30 as follows [(A),(B), and (C)unchanged from the NEC]:

334.30 Securing and Supporting.

Nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, or similar fittings so designed and installed as to not damage the cable. Where staples are used for cable sizes smaller than three 8 AWG conductors, they shall be of the insulated type, or listed noninsulated staples driven by staple guns shall be permitted. Cable shall be secured in place at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (4? ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) from every cabinet, box, or fitting. For other than within 300 mm (12 in.) of a cable termination at a cabinet, box, or fitting, cables passing through successive holes in adjacent framing members no more than 600 mm (24 in.) apart shall be considered to be secured.
Click to expand...
I do not see what is unclear about the above section.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

I would say that those wires are parallel to something, and what ever it is that they are parallel to, they need to be supported to and have a min clearance from the face of.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members
and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed
locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is
installed parallel to framing members, such as joists,
rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the
cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the
nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less
than 32 mm (11⁄4 in.) from the nearest edge of the framing
member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to
penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the
cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by
nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least
1.6 mm (1⁄16 in.) thick.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by jbwhite:
I would say that those wires are parallel to something, and what ever it is that they are parallel to, they need to be supported to and have a min clearance from the face of.
Click to expand...
Your right they have to be min distance from the members that they are parallel to.

So if they are out in the middle of the bay laying across the furring strips they are away from what they are parallel with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top