ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 260 guests, and 20 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Are the sides of "Gem" Boxes, OK for this required NEC Article 300 protection?

[Linked Image from joetedesco.com]

Photo Courtesy: www.joetedesco.com Gallery

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 06-14-2003).]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
E
Member
Why not? I don't think they are even needed at all in this example.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Electricmanscott:

Yes, I too agree that these are OK, and were required here because the distance was more that 1-1/4 " from the face of the stud to the first part of the drilled hole.

Does the Massachusetts Electrical Code amendments have a smaller distance here?

NOTE: Here's a Proposed Change for the 2005 NEC:

Quote
Proposal 3-24, Section 300.4(A)(1).

The Panel accepted a new type of nail plate
less than the standard 1/16 in. thick plate from previous codes. This plate must be listed as an equivalent to the 1/16 in. plate plus be individually marked so the inspector can verify its listing even after installation.

Now I can see some new inspector calling for "listed plates" if this is put into the code, probably with no field experience!

Everyone knows what a "GEM BOX" is, right?

[Linked Image]
Thanks for you comment!!


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
P
Member
Hey Joe

Take a close look at the right nail plate. If my eyes are correct(?) it looks as though the nail supporting the nail plate is in line with the wire, hopefully it is too short to reach the wire.

Pierre


Pierre Belarge
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 270
E
Member
Note: the nail plate will not always protect the wire. I once found a nail shot right through a nail plate (caused by nailing outside window trim in a modular home), piercing the romex and causing an arcing ground fault. The plates work fine for sheet rock screws, but are no match for nail guns. I keep this in mind when I decide where I am going to drill, so that I don't need to use nail plates for the outside surface of the studs...only the inside surfaces.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
The nail was not long enough to touch the cable, and if it did the place would have probably burned down after the circuit was energized.

Thanks for the hint about the nail penetration at the window trim, sure sounds like a real scary situation!

PS: How many sheet rockers remove the plates anyway after the inspection??


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 197
G
Gwz Offline
Member
Everyone probably has 'horror' stories.

A few years ago, saw where the siding guy's had driven a 16P nail for scaffoldling into the back of Service panelboard. Luckily the nail did not hit an ungrounded portion of the panelboard.

And like Alzappr noted, the drywall usually does not have the 'body' for the screw to thru the metal plate.

Then again when drywallers fasten the drywall to one side of the stud, the metal plates 'fall off of the studs' on the opposite side.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Quote
Proposal 3-24, Section 300.4(A)(1).

The Panel accepted a new type of nail plate
less than the standard 1/16 in. thick plate from previous codes. This plate must be listed as an equivalent to the 1/16 in. plate plus be individually marked so the inspector can verify its listing even after installation.

Am i to take this as being that inspectors cannot visibly discern 1/16" ???

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 449
F
Member
"Yes, I too agree that these are OK, and were required here because the distance was more that 1-1/4 " from the face of the stud to the first part of the drilled hole."

If the distance from the face of the stud to the first part of the drilled hole was MORE than 1-1/4" no plate is required.
I don't mean to nitpick, and I know what Joe meant, but I had an inspector as few years ago that interpreted this rule in reverse, as Joe stated it. He required the near side of a bored hole to be no more than 1-1/4" from the stud face. If it was deeper he required a nail plate. It took better than an hour to explain the reasoning behind a nail plate.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
I've used 4 sq blanks , plumbers larger plates, and various box sides in a pinch also.

To have them all 'be listed' to what is an obvious usage would mean that many field applications such as this would be null and void on a technicality, NOT that of a safety issue

perhaps the nail plate industry is PO'ed here and has infiltrated the CMP ???

Steve~ (aka grassy knollster) sparky

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5