ch0mpie

A kitichen that I just completed is not passing electrical inspection because existing wires in the basement are attached the bottom the floor beams. The inspector says that my electrician has to rerun all the wire through the beams. All wires are 12 and 14 gauge.

My questions are: first can he make us fix something we did not even install? second what does the NEC say about basement wires being attached to the bottom of floor beams in basements?

mdshunk

Install a drop ceiling, and those wires attached that way become legal.

The inspector is penalizing you probably because this was never legal for exposed work in basements. If he found this sort of work, it was surely done without a permit or inspection.

Here's the code section:



334.15 Exposed Work.

mdshunk

Mind you, if you're working the the Bronx, you likely have NYC amendments to the NEC to tend with also. I don't know squat about those, but if Joe Tedesco stops in, he just might. I understand that was his old stomping grounds.

ch0mpie

The wires are partially inside of a drop cieling because half the basement is finished. The job is in NJ. Much of the existing work was inspected as it is either original or for an addition put on in the 80's and the ho had all there paperwork.

The thing that sucks is everything passed the rough inspection, but that inspector quit now the new one failed us on the final.

So your saying if, in the unfinished part of the basement, I pull the staples, nail strips 3/4 ply to the beams, then restaple, this will pass? When I restaple what should the distance between staples be?

mdshunk

Yes, you can read that in the code section I posted. Just make sure that the jurisdiction you're working in hasn't deleted that method from that section.

The maximum distance between staples is 4-1/2 feet. You might have to make them closer to make it neat. Here's the code on that:


334.30 Securing and Supporting.

ch0mpie

thanks for the advise md, I'm going to call the inspector monday morning just to make sure this will fly with him

mdshunk

Notice that section does say "...or on running boards". Technically speaking, a strip of plywood may not qualify as a board. A prick inspector could make you use an actual S4S type board, such as a 1x4 or a 1x6 and such.

I must admit that I'm puzzled how the inspector has the authority to make you correct 80's vintage work. Sometimes it's easier to do it and not fight city hall, and that's a shame. I'm somewhat torn. Part of me likes the fact that violations get corrected, and the other part of me is mad because you didn't cause these violations and didn't alter those circuits. They just happened to be in the same room as your work.

ch0mpie

good call. On another job I did the other week in for a neighbor of the kitchen person. I replaced some a water damaged sheetrock on a cieling. In the process my electritian put in some high hats. Failed the rough because some of the 2x8's were 7 1/4" deep not the ussual 7 1/2 deep (normal variation imo). Said there was not enough clearance for the cans to the second level, and i had to furr out the floor beams.

mdshunk

Bummer for you, but that was a good catch on the part of the inspector, in my opinion. Whatever the clearances are marked on recessed lights need to be observed. It's this funny thing about heat starting fires if the cans are too close to things that burn.

ch0mpie

Now that you put into perspective maybe I should be thanking old eagle eyes

ch0mpie

I agree with you 100% that the code violation should be fixed, but if you do work in someones house that cannot put your name on everything in that house. If I can do the boards I'm just going to shut my mouth and do it, but if my electrian needs to come back and rewire everything its another story. If I go to the client and explain why this needs to be done and that it is not up to code, they will probably pay for it. But if they point out that I didn't mention it during the intial meeting or over the course of the job...well it could turn out ok but it could to be the kind of thing is not good for ones reputation. I guess my point is people just don't like when you ask for more money but what else is new.

JoeTedesco

Marc has touched upon what came to my mind earlier today, and I did see "the Bronx", as far as the existing stuff having to be changed, he may have thought that these cables were installed without the benefit of an inspection.

For what ever reason, he goes that way stating that they should be supported by some rule in the code, and now the NY has adopted the NEC drastically modified.

You can find the amendments over on www.nema.org look for them under the field representatives area.

Running boards also came to mind, as Marc mentioned.

When you speak to the inspector, ask him about the possibility of his agreeing with the suggestions above, and if you want tell him about our discussion here, and that Joe T also from the Bronx over on Crosby avenue years ago, was reminded of how much he appreciated the fact that just down a ways from his Grandma's house he saw actual colored wires for the service entrance conductor supplying a dwelling with one white, one black, and one red in a RMC.

The next time I pass that was again I will drive down that street to see if I can find that service and snap a picture of it, or maybe he can do that for me. Good luck!

__________________

Magnettica

It seems silly to have install running boards instead of just attaching the NM directly to the floor joists. But the reason for the running board is to avoid having people use the NM as a means to hanging their laundry by use of a hangar. Then the argument is made that if the beams are drilled for the wires people can still use the NM to hang their laundry and they are right.

The exception of attaching a 6/2 or an 8/3 directly to the underside of the beam is also stupid. I know it's a P.I.T.A. to pull those bulky wires throught the beams, but people are still going to use this wire to hang their laundry with a metal hangar.

Running boards are in my opinion the way to go especially in any new construction. Sometimes on a remodel job it isn't feasible to do this because of the clutter in some of these basements. Anytime I can install a new sub-panel on a remodel, I do. This seems take care of this "problem" of running numerous wires through an unfinished basement.

jrclen

I took a few code courses with Greg Bierl (I think that's right), one of your fellow electricians from New Jersey, and he taught the "hanging the laundry" reason for the code not allowing attaching romex to the bottom of the joists. Hanging the laundry is not the problem per se, it's pulling out all the staples and having a big droop of wire hanging down for hubby to put back up. When the NM is run through holes it will hold the laundry just fine. Ask my wife. I guess the bigger nails and clamps for 8 or bigger will hold laundry ok and not pull out.

tmdelisle

Not an electrician here but really enjoy all you guys offering up so much info.
I'm remodeling our own home and have removed the suspended ceiling for the time being in the basement (access to other items). Part of the 'old' wiring is in this area attached to bottom of joists, others run to panel in open "exposed" portion of basement. Following advise above I've run 1x6 on bottom of joists and have enough slack in old wiring to attach to bottom of this board, is this correct, stapled at 32" intervals. This board will have 3 existing lines and leaves room for anthing new I may need due to remodel. Also, would this technique be acceptable for the top of attic floor joists.

Thanks in advance guys/gals too if you're out there.

jrclen

I'm glad you are enjoying the info and find it useful. Here is another bit of info for you - NM (romex) is not allowed above a dropped ceiling.

Celtic

Actually, it IS allowed...

2005 NEC - which is where NJ at this point in time and when this thread started - states:
Clearly, NM is allowed in dwelling units of any size in drop ceilings.


HOWEVER....

NJ has amended 334.12(A)(2) as shown:(See: http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/c...20051107nj.cfm)
Deleting that section forces us to use 334.12(A)(1), which states:

As this is a dwelling unit, we are only concerned with (1) & (2)....I see NO language prohibiting NM in a drop ceiling here.

__________________

tmdelisle

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE COMMENTARY, I'M IN MAss AND HAVE NOT FOUND ANY ISSUES WITH NM IN THE 2008 CODE THAT YOU CAN VIEW FOR FREE AT NFPA SITE. MY ORIGINAL QUESTION AND PERHAPS MY IGNORANCE WAS REGARDING THE 1X6 RUNNING BOARD BEING FLAT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE JOISTS (6" DIMENSION PARALLEL TO FLOOR), I'VE STAPLED THE WIRING TO THE BOTTOM AT 32" O.C. (ALIGNED WITH FLOOR JOISTS, IT HELPED ME ENSURE LESS THE 4'6" SPACING)

WHILE I THINK THAT THE WHOLE BOTTOM OF JOIST / PENETRATION THING HAS IT'S MERITS I DON'T SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE FOR THE BOTTOM OF RUNNING BOARD (ASSUMING I HAVE IT IN CORRECTLY) AND THE BOJ, THERE ARE STILL SMALL DROPS IN THE WIRING BETWEEN STAPLES, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, THERE IS A 1" THICK BOARD ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CABLE. NOW I'VE GOT ALOT OF SMALL 'SHELVES' ABOVE THE WIRING

BUT I'M ALL FOR CODE COMPIANCE.

jrclen

Ooops. You are correct of course. My bad.

dSilanskas

Just go to Home Depot buy some straping and strap the basement instead of moving the wires