Inspector says my zigzagged vanity wires have to be in a box

[Buck Parrish]

Though not normally a problem in a single family dwelling, I believe boxes in a wall that requires a fire rating must be supported by something other than the wall covering or something to that effect. Wall between garage and house maybe where you might run into this the most in a SFD, but not where I am. Many just have OSB on the garage wall - no building inspectors though. I have OSB on mine, but there is 5/8 rock behind it.

Yes, thanks most of us know that about a fire wall. That's not the issue here.

 

[dpcarls1598]

I had an inspector many years ago that allowed an abandoned wire to be left in a wall without a box as long as the 3 wires were shorted together, wirenutted and taped. His main concern was the cable becoming hot at some point when someone found the other end and tried connecting it. Might be the same issue with zig zags behind the rock…. In case the homeowner decides not to finish the bathroom or something that could cause a live wire behind the rock.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I had an inspector many years ago that allowed an abandoned wire to be left in a wall without a box as long as the 3 wires were shorted together, wirenutted and taped. His main concern was the cable becoming hot at some point when someone found the other end and tried connecting it. Might be the same issue with zig zags behind the rock…. In case the homeowner decides not to finish the bathroom or something that could cause a live wire behind the rock.

Perhaps I should be using the term " A little slack in the wires" and not "Zig zagged wires" I understand electricians do many different types of electrical work. If you have worked mostly your own bussiness you may have not seen this. . But residential electricians that wire thousands of homes use this method every day.
NEC 110. 12 The practice gets passed to generations. But what I'm telling you and James is that this is the way electricians have been wiring millions of homes for 50 years at least. This is standard practice .
If you don't know how to use a UL listed product then I don't blame you for not using it.
As Fred stated .. "314.23(C) specifically allows a box mounted in a finished surface by clamps, anchors, or fittings identified for the purpose. No mention of when permitted to use. If there was one it would be there I would think."
You all need to cut it out with the "what if's "

 

[James L]

You all need to cut it out with the "what if's "

But the code is full of "what-ifs"

What if you plug in a saw outside that has a mangled cord? We have GFCI protection for that.

What if some kid wants to start jabbing silverware into a receptacle? We have tamper-resistant receptacles for that.

What if somebody wants to cheap out and not put any lights or switches in a room? We have minimum requirements for such as that

What if somebody wants to use a gazillion extension cords in their house? We have minimum receptacle spacing for that

And what if somebody wants to pretend that their zig zag wire in the wall is going to get landed in a box after drywall?

 

[kwired]

Perhaps I should be using the term " A little slack in the wires" and not "Zig zagged wires" I understand electricians do many different types of electrical work. If you have worked mostly your own bussiness you may have not seen this. . But residential electricians that wire thousands of homes use this method every day.
NEC 110. 12 The practice gets passed to generations. But what I'm telling you and James is that this is the way electricians have been wiring millions of homes for 50 years at least. This is standard practice .
If you don't know how to use a UL listed product then I don't blame you for not using it.
As Fred stated .. "314.23(C) specifically allows a box mounted in a finished surface by clamps, anchors, or fittings identified for the purpose. No mention of when permitted to use. If there was one it would be there I would think."
You all need to cut it out with the "what if's "

Can you mention this to some the inspectors out there as well?

 

[retirede]

But the code is full of "what-ifs"

What if you plug in a saw outside that has a mangled cord? We have GFCI protection for that.

What if some kid wants to start jabbing silverware into a receptacle? We have tamper-resistant receptacles for that.

What if somebody wants to cheap out and not put any lights or switches in a room? We have minimum requirements for such as that

What if somebody wants to use a gazillion extension cords in their house? We have minimum receptacle spacing for that

And what if somebody wants to pretend that their zig zag wire in the wall is going to get landed in a box after drywall?

IMO, that’s a ludicrous comparison.

You take 4 examples of code requirements to take into account user behavior in the finished system and try to compare that to a method that a licensed professional uses to complete his work?

That dog don’t hunt!

 

[James L]

IMO, that’s a ludicrous comparison.

You take 4 examples of code requirements to take into account user behavior in the finished system and try to compare that to a method that a licensed professional uses to complete his work?

That dog don’t hunt!

Sure that dog hunts. Be careful how loosely you throw around words like "professional" - especially coupled with "licensed"

I've seen more licensed hacks than you can imagine. So many that I'd bet money on a "licensed professional" being more likely hang a vanity light on only drywall than a child is to jab silverware into a receptacle.

So we have codes to protect the ignorant from themselves, but nothing to protect the ignorant from hacks masquerading as electricians?

That dog for sure doesn't hunt

 

[retirede]

Sure that dog hunts. Be careful how loosely you throw around words like "professional" - especially coupled with "licensed"

I've seen more licensed hacks than you can imagine. So many that I'd bet money on a "licensed professional" being more likely hang a vanity light on only drywall than a child is to jab silverware into a receptacle.

So we have codes to protect the ignorant from themselves, but nothing to protect the ignorant from hacks masquerading as electricians?

That dog for sure doesn't hunt

I made my comment because I don’t believe the OP (Buck) to be a “hack”. His contributions on this site would indicate he is a professional.

 

[Buck Parrish]

Can you mention this to some the inspectors out there as well?

I intend to, thanks. I am going to print out this entire thread and give it to Bill at the Tippecanoe Co inspections office.

BTW The house is all ready except the lights. All the outlets are in switches, covers. They've not picked out the lights yet

 

[James L]

I made my comment because I don’t believe the OP (Buck) to be a “hack”. His contributions on this site would indicate he is a professional.

I get that, and I agree.
But an inspector may not know that, and code panels don't specifically have him in mind. At least I can't imagine they do.

I can honestly say, I would trust Buck or almost anyone on this forum without having ever seen their work. But I know too many guys personally - licensed hacks - that have to be wrangled by inspectors, or else two-thirds of their work would be unsafe or otherwise shoddy

 

[mytoiletsclogged]

Yet another example of why there should not be government electrical inspections. Have it be private third party like in New York and other states. If you get a dumb electrical inspector you can just use another company.
Better yet, not even have any mandated electrical inspections, let the customer decide if they want a third-party underwriter then fine but let me be a professional and do my job and be trusted, and not have some idiot who doesn't know nearly as much as me bark out orders.

I don't know that would fix the problem. Can you say Arthur Andersen? There needs to be a self-policing organization of inspectors to ensure they are competent and ensure their integrity.

 

[James L]

I don't know that would fix the problem. Can you say Arthur Andersen? There needs to be a self-policing organization of inspectors to ensure they are competent and ensure their integrity.

Maybe in an ideal scenario. But rest assured, in no time it would be a popularity contest, political jockeying, financial kickbacks, and all the problems we currently have

 

[sparky1118]

On a rough-in inspection. The Inspector says the zigzagged wires for the vanity lights. All stub outs such as wires stubbed down for flourescent lights.

He says all those wires have to be in a box for rough-in inspection to pass...

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. How about y'all? Did I miss something in the last 30 years of doing it like that ?

I had an inspector say the same thing to me about 11ish years ago. Absolutely ridiculous. I still do it and no one has ever said a thing to me about it. Besides that one moopsie poopsie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[hillbilly1]

Somebody had a fire somewhere, lawsuits were filed. That’s usually where those rules come from. Especially since it’s more than one municipality requiring it.

 

[kwired]

Somebody had a fire somewhere, lawsuits were filed. That’s usually where those rules come from. Especially since it’s more than one municipality requiring it.

And some inspectors just want things done "their way" even though they have no real reference to any written rule to back them up. The installers (even if they know beter) give in just to keep project moving along

 

[hillbilly1]

And some inspectors just want things done "their way" even though they have no real reference to any written rule to back them up. The installers (even if they know beter) give in just to keep project moving along

Yeah, sometimes it’s better to go ahead and do it, unless it costs a lot of money. I’ve had a state inspector want the GEC and neutral bonds on the load side of a service rated 2000 amp ground fault protected transferswitch. Couldn’t get it through his head that it nullified the ground fault protection. Changed it back right after he passed the installation.

 

[kwired]

Yeah, sometimes it’s better to go ahead and do it, unless it costs a lot of money. I’ve had a state inspector want the GEC and neutral bonds on the load side of a service rated 2000 amp ground fault protected transferswitch. Couldn’t get it through his head that it nullified the ground fault protection. Changed it back right after he passed the installation.

It doesn't really nullify the protection so much as it can cause undesired tripping or even prevent resetting if neutral current is high enough.

 

[hillbilly1]

It doesn't really nullify the protection so much as it can cause undesired tripping or even prevent resetting if neutral current is high enough.

Actually it does nullify the protection, any fault current goes thru the neutral CT instead of around it like it’s supposed to during a fault.

 

[kwired]

Actually it does nullify the protection, any fault current goes thru the neutral CT instead of around it like it’s supposed to during a fault.

I guess I was presuming there is still enclosure bonds on supply side but if you had non metallic raceway to the service disconnect then you would be isolated and all fault current would pass through the neutral CT. If you had metallic raceway and bonds ahead of service disconnect then you would have parallel neutral current on the raceway as well as parallels for fault current.

 

[hillbilly1]

I guess I was presuming there is still enclosure bonds on supply side but if you had non metallic raceway to the service disconnect then you would be isolated and all fault current would pass through the neutral CT. If you had metallic raceway and bonds ahead of service disconnect then you would have parallel neutral current on the raceway as well as parallels for fault current.

Yeah, knowadays, just about all 480 volt services are underground, and in PVC to the main service disconnect. Their is some strange localities that pull an equipment grounding conductor out to the transformer. Don’t know if it’s a poco or AHJ requirement. I’ve seen it in Louisiana and Arkansas, and I think lower Alabama. May have been a local contractor.