- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
romex touching dryer vent pipe
- Thread starter deckscrew
- Start date
- Status
triplstep
Member
- Location
- Aurora, Illinois
Perhaps this has nothing to do with heat. Obviously it is not a NEC violation. Maybe the inspector was thinking safety. Not too long ago a thread reveled that a poor appliance installer was electrocuted installing a dryer. Seems that a nicked conductor energized the metal studs. The vent pipe became energized as well. When the guy went to connect the vent he completed the circuit. Maybe that is why the inspector wanted the cable and pipe to have some spacing......I'm just sayin' 
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
no. no where near. i guess there's nothing to worry about. just seems like an area for concern. i'm trying to mend my rowdy ways and think like the rest of you....a little foreign at times, but hey. :smile:
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I did get a call from a lawyer once that wanted to know if us or the A/C guys had been in the house first, of course I was just a worker bee on this job and it had been 6 or 8 years before, but it turns out the house had burned and they had found that a piece of romex was crossing over an A/C duct and over the years the vibration had caused a short, or so they claimed. Yada yada yada.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
even if that's why he WANTED it to be done that way doesn't mean that he gets to make up the codes as he sees fit. Bottom line is it's not a code and he's just a MORON.Perhaps this has nothing to do with heat. Obviously it is not a NEC violation. Maybe the inspector was thinking safety. Not too long ago a thread reveled that a poor appliance installer was electrocuted installing a dryer. Seems that a nicked conductor energized the metal studs. The vent pipe became energized as well. When the guy went to connect the vent he completed the circuit. Maybe that is why the inspector wanted the cable and pipe to have some spacing......I'm just sayin'
quogueelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- new york
The inspector is definitely wrong. So it's not way too quick for me too say what I said.
The inspector may or may not have been wrong I have in my personal experience been called to troubleshoot houses where the nm shorted to the top of hvac dryer fartfan ductwork due to the vibration. How hard would it be to clear the cheesey nm to prevent some poor unsuspecting service guy from getting electrocuted in a crawlspace from a duct that has become energized due to poor instalation practices????
quogueelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- new york
Is there a full moon tonight??I will remember that next time you say an EC has done wrong.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
How's that a poor installation practice? Sounds like all in favor of keeping the romex off the duct are most likely commercial guys who upon taking a stab in the dark would imagine that it's a good idea to keep romex off the duct and probably a code.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
I think that I do contribute something to this forum every once in a while, perhaps more. But it has been awhile since I've let loose so just relax.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
I don't believe for a second that vibration from an exhaust fan would wear through nm, no matter how "cheesy"
it may be.The original topic is just a case of an inspector who had an idea and wants everyone to follow along. Kind of like an inspection I had a few weeks ago. There was some romex run near a hot water pipe. The inspector said "have the plumber come put some insualation on that pipe. Yeah, sure, I'll get right on that.
Last edited:
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
My comment was, that we cannot judge a call that may be a judgement call. Sometimes the poster of the thread does not give all of the details of what actually happened on his/her job.
When the HVAC installer "pushed" the NM cable up to get it out of his way, a couple of things may/could have occured.
1. He could have damaged the NM cable as he installed his duct work. I do not know of HVAC workers who install plastic duct, so I would think this is metal duct work.
2. As he pushed up the duct work, the NM cable, as it passed thru the holes drilled in the beam may have been stressed beyond their limit - depends on where the holes are in relation to how far up the duct work pushed the cable.
So, without seeing details such as this, it is hard for us to judge from the computer screen to see just what this inspector saw, with so little info from the OP.
As an inspector, when I see other trades have damaged installations, or created a violation of the EC's installation, I always give the EC an option to fix it or I write a violation to the property owner. There are times the EC will ask for a violation to be written, so he can use that for a backcharge. There are times the EC will just fix the issue.
When the HVAC installer "pushed" the NM cable up to get it out of his way, a couple of things may/could have occured.
1. He could have damaged the NM cable as he installed his duct work. I do not know of HVAC workers who install plastic duct, so I would think this is metal duct work.
2. As he pushed up the duct work, the NM cable, as it passed thru the holes drilled in the beam may have been stressed beyond their limit - depends on where the holes are in relation to how far up the duct work pushed the cable.
So, without seeing details such as this, it is hard for us to judge from the computer screen to see just what this inspector saw, with so little info from the OP.
As an inspector, when I see other trades have damaged installations, or created a violation of the EC's installation, I always give the EC an option to fix it or I write a violation to the property owner. There are times the EC will ask for a violation to be written, so he can use that for a backcharge. There are times the EC will just fix the issue.
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
The inspector is definitely wrong. So it's not way too quick for me too say what I said.
I have read about people who can "read between the lines". Maybe this is where you are getting information from this thread, that we are not.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
It's obvious from the OP that the inspector had an issue with the multiple NM cables simply touching the dryer vent duct, not with the cables being stretched out or stressed. He is plain and simply wrong. Accept it and move on or provide the code article.
How about 110.12, 300.4, 310.10, 310.15 without seeing installation it would be impossible to call but 90.4 is avalable however I would never site it. An inspector has to use his judgment and make the call as he see's it. He may be right or wrong but he puts his name on the inspection report and most inspectors have made a mistake now and then they are human.
- Location
- Logan, Utah
What part of 90.4 could be used in this situation?
90.4 is not a catch all for what ever an inspector wants.
Chris
I agree Chris like I said I would never site 90.4. But it does allow the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the code and making interpretations of the rules . I've seen inspectors with 90.4 on their ball caps. Pretty tacky but I'm sure just in fun.:smile:
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
stickboy1375
Senior Member
- Location
- Litchfield, CT
This is exactly why every house should be wired in rigid conduit, and encased in 4" of concrete.
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
- Status