agreeIMO not a problem.
I am really tired, but am I seeing or not seeing a problem with 334.30(A) here with the cables into the box and such?
It looks like the guy tried to do just that. If he had sleeved it what would you do? Pour concrete around it?I'd sleeve it.
Although it may not be needed, I'd feel better that I tried to do something to improve on this situation.
It looks like the guy tried to do just that. If he had sleeved it what would you do? Pour concrete around it?
He did'nt sleeve it. He put up nail plates and wrapped high heat tape around the 3 romexes.
I would have put an emt raceway between the studs and ran the romexes through it in that area.
The EMT would not have worked. The duct is 3.5" so it was taking up most of the bay so there is no room for EMT. My concern is/was the heat not physical protection.
Looks like your going to gain another 1/2" anyway for another layer of sheetrock, or was the Nailon box fastened to the face of the existing sheetrock for the heck of it?
Tile, I betcha
We're probably looking at something other than the bottom floor since theres no bottom plate.
I submit the reason is simply the language of 300.4.I thought the reason for Nail plates was since the romex passed through a bored hole, the back of the hole provided a solid backing that a screw could penetrate the cable.(No different than the metal backing of the duct in the picture behind the romex).
The only shallow groove that exists in this install is in the wood studs which invokes 2011 NEC 300.4(A)(2), and if one of those visible 2x4s is a cripple (not a "member") then that 2x4 is not required to have a nail plate.To me this install fails in several aspects.
Heat from the duct would be the least of my worries.The possibility of physical damage would be my main concern.
I submit the reason is simply the language of 300.4.
And the 2011 NEC 300.4 language does not talk about how "the metal backing of the duct" is like a framing member.
The only shallow groove that exists in this install is in the wood studs which invokes 2011 NEC 300.4(A)(2), and if one of those visible 2x4s is a cripple (not a "member") then that 2x4 is not required to have a nail plate.
The metal duct is not a metal framing member, so none of 300.4(B) applies.
The metal duct does not have a shallow groove in it so 300.4(F) does not apply.
"I think" the install pictured in the OP is compliant with the NEC.
Looks like your going to gain another 1/2" anyway for another layer of sheetrock, or was the Nailon box fastened to the face of the existing sheetrock for the heck of it?
I think we are looking at the floor. My question is how will the base molding fit in this situation ? I guess molding could stop short of the two gang box.
I thought the reason for Nail plates was since the romex passed through a bored hole, the back of the hole provided a solid backing that a screw could penetrate the cable.(No different than the metal backing of the duct in the picture behind the romex).
On a block wall where the cable could be installed in a shallow groove, a metal covering of at least 1/16" must be installed over the entire cable to protect it.We dont have to install nail plates between the studs of the cable is running horizontally since the cable is less likely to be penetrated by a nail, since it is to be installed at least 1 1/4" back from the face of the stud and has some flexibility to get out of the way. The nail plate is required only when the NM cable is going through the stud and is within 1.25" of the face of the stud at which point it is installed to protect the cable. I always install protective plates regardless if it cripple wall or ceiling, if my cables go through a hole and the hold is within 2" of the face of the stud it gets a nail plate.
To me this install fails in several aspects. Why does it fail inspection? JAP>