I have an area of a SFD remodel that is labled "attic" with over 8' of headroom.
The EC wired the area as a habitable area.
The homeowner has ran out of money and does not want to cover the framing in the area at this time.
I told the EC to either to remove the outlets or protect the NM cable up to 8' above the finished floor.
My supervisor says we cannot force the homeowner to cover the NM cable since the area is labled attic on the plans.

Thank you,,
Neal Burdick
COT
Construction Inspector II

Keep in mind, I have not seen the dwelling. So take this reply for what it is worth:

There are very few "attics" here in Florida. If it is "roof space" (space between trusses) where equipment is placed, other codes may even come into play.

My first suggestion is to take up the problem with the general contractor, not the EC.

Certainly whatever the space is, would not in my opinion relieve the burden of protecting NM cable that is "subject to physical damage." Normally the electrical inspector can make this call, since he is the one that was there. So my second suggestion is -- if your supervisor is satisfied that the NM cable isn't subject to physical damage, then ask him/her if they would not mind signing off (provided of course, that everything else is OK). I'm sure they went there and took a look for themselves prior to making any decisions.

If someone gets shocked or killed because they came into contact with an unprotected cable, then the supervisor's signature is on the inspection record.

Again, take this response with a grain of salt because I did not personally view the situation.

Thank you for your reply Nick.
My supervisor cannot sign off as he only has a standard building inspectors license.
I guess another electrical inspector is going to sign off on it so at least I wont have to worry about it.

Other comments would be appreciated.

Neal
COT
Construction Inspector II

Then how can he even make the call????

LOL,
Its the way things are now.
We cant make a homeowner do anything they dont want, they might complain to the Mayors office.
You must drink the koolaide and be thankful you have a job(so they keep telling me).

neal

It is a shame to say the least. I'm sure you are not the only one. I have experienced some of that in my career. True building code enforcement professionals understand that our function protects the end user, NOT "the homeowner at that particular time." Houses can be bought and sold and then the next poor sap gets stuck with it.

There are good and bad city and county managers, same as any other profession. The trick is to find the good ones and work for them. Maybe they are too few and far between.

I agree this is a GC question.
I may be naive here but if it is clear this is going to be an un permitted room I would treat it like a rough inspection and visualize where the walls are going to go. We are not tax cops, we are safety inspectors. Try to give the re-modeler as safe as a start as you can. Maybe even try to get them to permit the finish and get a final look, see to be sure they won't burn up.

How about if you just disconnect the circuit from the breaker and safe it off. Now there is no hazard. Have the home owner provide a letter for the file about the disconnected circuit. If they enegize later, not our problem.

I would make the licensed electrical contractor choose to either route the cable vertically up and down the framing (less subject to damage) or install 1x2 guards along the face of the framing to protect the horizontal cable runs (poor routing of cables in my opinion)and no keyless fixtures without globes. This is an unfinished storage space and the permits should be revised to record this fact.
Reasonable customer service is a fact of life...

I think what Neal described is not an issue of "reasonable customer service."

Hey Nick...God love ya. All the players are customers nowadays. And I really don't mind it. There is plenty of Code to go around and plenty of liability as well.
The owner in this case is obligated by record to obtain a 'change-of-use' permit to finish the attic at a later date. They are happy, the contractors are happy and we have done our job.

How can you make that call when you haven't even seen the "attic in question?"

I don't know Neal really, but I know he's no slouch. He participates in Code discussion, conducts research on his own and goes the extra mile when he's not paid to, or required to. So knowing this, whatever he saw, I bet that it is subject to physical damage. I was going to make the comment about stapling wires parallel to framing members, but I was hesitant to suggest anything since I did not view the actual problem. If he's not signing off, something isn't quite right and I would be money on it.

I agree Ron. AS long as the romex is stapled parallel to the framing methods we would consider it protected, much the same as we would using the 6 foot or 7 foot rule near attic access. We would make them protect if they ran on 90 degree to the framing member. I didn't understand Nick in regards to few attics in Florida nor the 8 foot rule Neal mentioned. The designer of the job decided this was an attic and so be it. We can't enforce future violations.

If it is truss construction (most homes are) then it will not meet the definition of an attic per Code no matter what the designer may have written on the plan. There are very few true "attics" here in Florida. But I don't know as I was not there.

The real problem with trusses is that the bottom chords are generally not rated for much load. They are basically just designed to carry the ceiling and some other incidental load.

You can get them designed with a lot of open space but be sure you also specify the floor load. You will most likely also end up with what would normally be considered partition walls doing load carrying duty.
That is probably one of the most violated rules when it comes to that area.

Mirriam Wester defintion:

The FBC section 202 definition is

ATTIC. The space between the ceiling beams of the top story and the roof rafters.

What do the plans show? If no wiring on plans then they will need to revise plans or remove wiring if in the inspectors opinion the are not "protected from physical damage".

I think we are reading to much into this.
Neal is trying to be customer friendly but at the same time adhere to the code.
Like Nick stated did not see the installation.
Assuming that a outlet may be required or a swiched outlet.
Why not disconnect the extraneous wiring . Marked as future. Protect the required outlet or outlets per use as a attic.
We all know future means we probably will never see it again. But it happens every day.
We have stub outs for future pools,spas, Bla bla. But we never know if they are ever used or used for.

When you start second guessing what will be, you will go crazy.

Am I missing the point?? Is the issue "protecting the non-metallic sheathed cable"? If it was installed 'as if was going to be a habitable room' then it would seem to be protected by being in the space beside the studs, trusses, or other framing members, just like the rest of the house. Sheetrock does not "protect" wiring. location beside the framing member and off the face of the framing member protects it.

Or is the issue that of having additional outlets in a space and having a finished (potentially) room? What is the access? Regular stairs or fold-down ladder?

If it is considered 'another level' it should have a smoke detector tied into the detectors below.

Lynn Adams
Escambia County

My Building Official thinks the same way. The room is what the architech labeled it. He explained that the other codes he is responsible for enforcing must all look at a structure from the same position. Any change in use from the drawings is the owner's responsibility and should be resubmitted for plan review. So, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and the drawing calls it a frog - it's a frog and the building department is not liable for any misuse by the owner. So, in your situation, I would say look at the drawings, if there is a change, then they have to be revised/resubmitted.