# Holes in drywall too big



## 480sparky

wesleydnunder said:


> Yesterday, I turned down the rough-in inspections for two whole buildings in a local outlet mall being built.
> 
> Two reasons:
> 1. The drywall installers had cut the holes for the plaster rings way too big. I explained that he would be allowed a 1/8" gap around the plaster rings so the devices could later be installed properly. The GC was not happy with me and told me in 25 yrs no one has ever mentioned that code reference to him or turned down his inspection for it. I said welcome to Texas City.


Ignorance of the law is no excuse.




wesleydnunder said:


> 2. The EC had installed flex 90s inside the walls to transition to outside wall packs. I showed him how those fittings are not designed to pull wire around and had him change all those drops to emt.
> 
> Needless to say, I ain't the most popular guy in town right now, but the jobs go in correctly or not at all...


As they should!


----------



## sbrn33

I can see they second violation but the first one is really none of your business until finish inspection.
You need to learn to base your decisions on actual code instead of what you want.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

If it's a rough in, how is the drywall hole too big?


----------



## HARRY304E

sbrn33 said:


> I can see they second violation but the first one is really none of your business until finish inspection.
> You need to learn to base your decisions on actual code instead of what you want.


Wrong...

314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
(1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


----------



## TimChaput69

I think thats awsome!! Just had drywallers on a job cut holes way too big and not one ear touches the drywall and to boot they knocked all my back tabs off! So when you plug anything in the outlet and box go to the back wall!! Pissed!! What ever happened to French drywallers? They were the only guys who could do it well and fast. 
Some places let you hang one side of the wall and leave the other side open before an inspection. Thats probably how the drywall issue was discovered on rough.


----------



## HARRY304E

TimChaput69 said:


> I think thats awsome!! Just had drywallers on a job cut holes way too big and not one ear touches the drywall and to boot they knocked all my back tabs off! So when you plug anything in the outlet and box go to the back wall!! Pissed!! What ever happened to French drywallers? They were the only guys who could do it well and fast.
> Some places let you hang one side of the wall and leave the other side open before an inspection. That's probably how the drywall issue was discovered on rough.


These will help you with that...:thumbup:

Attached Thumbnails


----------



## 480sparky

HARRY304E said:


> These will help you with that...:thumbup:
> 
> Attached Thumbnails


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

TimChaput69 said:


> I think thats awsome!! Just had drywallers on a job cut holes way too big and not one ear touches the drywall and to boot they knocked all my back tabs off! So when you plug anything in the outlet and box go to the back wall!! Pissed!! What ever happened to French drywallers? They were the only guys who could do it well and fast.
> Some places let you hang one side of the wall and leave the other side open before an inspection. Thats probably how the drywall issue was discovered on rough.


I doubt you would think it's awesome if some drywaller held up your money. Very unlikely. How does he know it wasn't gonna get skimmed before plates were installed??? This a call to catch on the final, not rough in. I would be pissed at this clown


----------



## TimChaput69

So let me get this straight? You actually like it when your outlet ear tabs don't contact anything??? Also you like to go and buy jumbo wall plates because a drywaller uses a bulldozer to make holes?? You must also love it when they bury your boxes too I guess??!! How on gods green earth can you side with the drywall installer??


----------



## TimChaput69

Thanks for the tip Harry. Those look like they will help! Thanx!


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

TimChaput69 said:


> So let me get this straight? You actually like it when your outlet ear tabs don't contact anything??? Also you like to go and buy jumbo wall plates because a drywaller uses a bulldozer to make holes?? You must also love it when they bury your boxes too I guess??!! How on gods green earth can you side with the drywall installer??


I used midi plates no matter what. If the box is set to correct depth, the ears only need to touch the box in order to be tight. If you need your ears to touch the drywall, then your box is back too far. I'm not siding with the drywaller because it needs to be fixed. I'm just saying the inspector is loopy for calling this on a rough in


----------



## TimChaput69

My problem is that the ears don't touch drywall but touch my mudrings...the real problem is they knocked off the back tabs and on steel studs when you even push lightly on the box the whole kit and kaboodle just pushes into the wall, which in turn is gonna break wall plates eventually.


----------



## TimChaput69

Sorry I snapped a little, I'm just pissed cause this is the exact problem I'm having right now....today.....like right this minuite!!


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

TimChaput69 said:


> My problem is that the ears don't touch drywall but touch my mudrings...the real problem is they knocked off the back tabs and on steel studs when you even push lightly on the box the whole kit and kaboodle just pushes into the wall, which in turn is gonna break wall plates eventually.


You should have used a bracket box that went stud to stud


----------



## sbrn33

HARRY304E said:


> Wrong...
> 
> 314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
> surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
> employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
> (1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


Um, if you are putting a plate on wouldn't that be a finish inspection item. Think first,type second.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

TimChaput69 said:


> Sorry I snapped a little, I'm just pissed cause this is the exact problem I'm having right now....today.....like right this minuite!!


No need to apologize. We like to argue!


----------



## Amish Electrician

Holes too big? I believe it's alloed to fill the space with joint compound. 

Concealed flex 90? Switch to MC as the wiring method; you are allowed to conceal those 90's. The prohibition is only in the flex section of the code.


----------



## TimChaput69

Right on I've noticed . Anyway off to get about 60 oversized wall plates, probably gonna clean out a couple supply houses!


----------



## sbrn33

TimChaput69 said:


> Right on I've noticed . Anyway off to get about 60 oversized wall plates, probably gonna clean out a couple supply houses!


I never use oversized plates. Let the general make the drywaller fix it or he can pay you extra to replate it. Nine times out of ten they make the drywaller fix it


----------



## wesleydnunder

mcclary's electrical said:


> If it's a rough in, how is the drywall hole too big?


The walls had been one-sided with drywall and was allowed so by the building official. The other side of the wall was open and obviously the drywall opening couldn't be assessed since the drywall hadn't been installed yet.

Mark


----------



## wesleydnunder

mcclary's electrical said:


> I doubt you would think it's awesome if some drywaller held up your money. Very unlikely. How does he know it wasn't gonna get skimmed before plates were installed??? This a call to catch on the final, not rough in. I would be pissed at this clown


Really don't think the name-calling is necessary but I guess in lieu of a sufficient vocabulary you need to resort to it. Having done this work since before most of y'all were born, I know that the swipe of mud around the plaster ring is the first thing to break away when device installation occurs. Also, in a commercial job where 5/8" drywall is used, it's ok to use 5/8" plaster rings, no? When attached to the 1900 bracket box that's used, the heads of the 8-32 screws attaching the plaster ring to the box will hold the box slightly back into the wall, necessitating that the ears on the device tighten against the drywall surface. 

Somer of y'all say this is an issue for final inspection. So I'm to have the EC pull all his plates during the final so that I can see the cut openings around the plaster rings? When would you be more pissed...if I caught it during rough in stage while it was easiest to fix or after finished are on and plates already installed?

Mark


----------



## TimChaput69

mcclary's electrical said:


> You should have used a bracket box that went stud to stud


Yep your right...will do so in the future.Thanks.


----------



## HARRY304E

sbrn33 said:


> Um, if you are putting a plate on wouldn't that be a finish inspection item. Think first,type second.


Wrong again.

The electrical inspector is doing his job in this case and is doing us a favor by making the GC fix the drywall so that it complies with the code.


----------



## wildleg

how about some pics wesley ? ((snap em while noone is looking ) (I'm just curious as to whether the holes are borderline, or crazy big)


----------



## wesleydnunder

wildleg said:


> how about some pics wesley ? ((snap em while noone is looking )


LOL I didn't take any this time but I'll try to remember to take some in the future.

Mark


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

wesleydnunder said:


> Really don't think the name-calling is necessary but I guess in lieu of a sufficient vocabulary you need to resort to it. Having done this work since before most of y'all were born, I know that the swipe of mud around the plaster ring is the first thing to break away when device installation occurs. Also, in a commercial job where 5/8" drywall is used, it's ok to use 5/8" plaster rings, no? When attached to the 1900 bracket box that's used, the heads of the 8-32 screws attaching the plaster ring to the box will hold the box slightly back into the wall, necessitating that the ears on the device tighten against the drywall surface.
> 
> Somer of y'all say this is an issue for final inspection. So I'm to have the EC pull all his plates during the final so that I can see the cut openings around the plaster rings? When would you be more pissed...if I caught it during rough in stage while it was easiest to fix or after finished are on and plates already installed?
> 
> Mark


Sorry no offense.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

wesleydnunder said:


> Really don't think the name-calling is necessary but I guess in lieu of a sufficient vocabulary you need to resort to it. Having done this work since before most of y'all were born, I know that the swipe of mud around the plaster ring is the first thing to break away when device installation occurs. Also, in a commercial job where 5/8" drywall is used, it's ok to use 5/8" plaster rings, no? When attached to the 1900 bracket box that's used, the heads of the 8-32 screws attaching the plaster ring to the box will hold the box slightly back into the wall, necessitating that the ears on the device tighten against the drywall surface.
> 
> Somer of y'all say this is an issue for final inspection. So I'm to have the EC pull all his plates during the final so that I can see the cut openings around the plaster rings? When would you be more pissed...if I caught it during rough in stage while it was easiest to fix or after finished are on and plates already installed?
> 
> Mark


We use 3/4 rings for 5/8 rock


----------



## B W E

mcclary's electrical said:


> You should have used a bracket box that went stud to stud


Even those can be pushed in without the tabs in the back. Especially with brand new receptacles.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

B W E said:


> Even those can be pushed in without the tabs in the back. Especially with brand new receptacles.


 
What do you mean tabs in the back?


----------



## kaboler

Other trades will learn, if you show them the small deficiencies they might not be aware of.


----------



## TimChaput69

What really sucks is we have to go out of our way and adds more expense to us because another trade wants to cut a very important corner. I never see a drywall installer even pull out a tape or razor any more when hanging. They push boxes in and bury them, then ram a 6" freekin router bit into the box( with wires in it!!) and proceed to cut the 4" square box out because the mud rings "kinda in the way dude." Thats why I miss old school French drywall installers.....those guys rocked and could blow most guys doing it now away.


----------



## rrolleston

I really hate over sized wall plates they look ugly if you ask me. But I do like the way my home was wired though. Double gang boxes for all switches with a neutral. Gives room for expansion with dimmers and timers.


----------



## sbrn33

HARRY304E said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> The electrical inspector is doing his job in this case and is doing us a favor by making the GC fix the drywall so that it complies with the code.


No he is not doing his job. He is inspecting with an "I would do it like this" attitude. 
He might be a nice guy for telling him but he is a prick for red tagging it on a Rough in inspection. 
Are you an electrician?


----------



## B W E

mcclary's electrical said:


> What do you mean tabs in the back?


http://www.erico.com/products/CADDYcfcAdjFrSdBxSuprt.asp

He said those were knocked of by the drywallers. Without those, even the rbs16s will push in.


----------



## wesleydnunder

sbrn33 said:


> No he is not doing his job. He is inspecting with an "I would do it like this" attitude.
> He might be a nice guy for telling him but he is a prick for red tagging it on a Rough in inspection.
> Are you an electrician?


Thank you for calling me a prick for doing my job. It happens often. I am an electrician and have been doing electrical work since 1972. I am equally sure your opinion of me is well worth the full amout I paid you for it.

I inspect based on NEC and city and state ordinance. I sometimes suggest an alternative if the EC asks for it. In this case, with the walls one-sided, I could see that the openings were cut around the plaster rings a half inch to almost an inch too big...in the interests of hurrying. By code this is unacceptable. By city ordinance this is unacceptable. 

You assume to know the attitude with which I do my job...or, according to you, NOT doing my job. 

I find it mildly humorous that the one bitching the loudest about something that would be beneficial to him in the end, is the one asking who is an electrician. I probably have more time in the sh_t-house than you have in the trade, boy.

Mark


----------



## 480sparky

............


----------



## 360max

....when the drywallers skim coat it to fix the gaps (that extend past faceplate) - weeks, months, or years later, it always cracks (especially in receptacles).


----------



## Awg-Dawg

wesleydnunder said:


> 1. The drywall installers had cut the holes for the plaster rings way too big. I explained that he would be allowed a 1/8" gap around the plaster rings so the devices could later be installed properly. The GC was not happy with me and told me in 25 yrs no one has ever mentioned that code reference to him or turned down his inspection for it. I said welcome to Texas City.


 If the drywallers repair it, How is it a violation?


314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
(1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

Awg-Dawg said:


> If the drywallers repair it, How is it a violation?
> 
> 
> 314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
> surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
> employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
> (1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


 
That was my point. No finish work had been done. How did he know the drywallers weren't gonna fix this? I don't see how he failed it.


----------



## wesleydnunder

Awg-Dawg said:


> If the drywallers repair it, How is it a violation?
> 
> 
> 314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
> surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
> employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
> (1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


Our interpretation of that reference is that the cut opening should be 1/8" or less around the plaster ring. We don't consider that the sheet-rock mud slopped inside and out of the plaster ring, most of the time covering mounting holes and half-filling the box, is sufficient. Usually, by the time the electrician has knocked the mud out of his box and has pulled his box forward (the box having been shoved back into the wall when they screw the drywall on top of it, then cut the opening with a roto-zip), most of the mud has been cracked or knocked off or loosened to the point where it no longer complies with the code.

Once again, would you rather, as the electrician on the job, that we have you pull all your device covers off during the final inspection so that we can check for code compliance then?

Mark


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

wesleydnunder said:


> Our interpretation of that reference is that the cut opening should be 1/8" or less around the plaster ring. We don't consider that the sheet-rock mud slopped inside and out of the plaster ring, most of the time covering mounting holes and half-filling the box, is sufficient. Usually, by the time the electrician has knocked the mud out of his box and has pulled his box forward (the box having been shoved back into the wall when they screw the drywall on top of it, then cut the opening with a roto-zip), most of the mud has been cracked or knocked off or loosened to the point where it no longer complies with the code.
> 
> Once again, would you rather, as the electrician on the job, that we have you pull all your device covers off during the final inspection so that we can check for code compliance then?
> 
> Mark


It's not our job as an electrician to remove any covers for you, or even attend an inspection for that matter. All you had to do is say "make the sheetrockers run a bead of caulk around that before we come back to final"


It doesn't have to be mud slopped everywhere like you said. You're not the most popular guy righ now, because you made a call 99% of inspectors would not have made.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

B W E said:


> http://www.erico.com/products/CADDYcfcAdjFrSdBxSuprt.asp
> 
> He said those were knocked of by the drywallers. Without those, even the rbs16s will push in.


 
Oh, I see now.Thanks. Maybe run a self tapper through that bracket next time.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

Let's keep the thread civil. No need for name calling. IMO, he inspected per his job and if he didn't there is still no need for the negativity. Thanks

I know I am a bit late but I just saw the thread and thought a word would be wise. Thanks again./


----------



## Awg-Dawg

wesleydnunder said:


> Our interpretation


 
Well, why didnt you say that!

It is very clear now.

You are just spending other peoples money..


----------



## guest

wesleydnunder said:


> *Our interpretation* of that reference is that _*the cut opening*_ should be 1/8" or less around the plaster ring. We don't consider that the sheet-rock mud slopped inside and out of the plaster ring, most of the time covering mounting holes and half-filling the box, is sufficient. Usually, by the time the electrician has knocked the mud out of his box and has pulled his box forward (the box having been shoved back into the wall when they screw the drywall on top of it, then cut the opening with a roto-zip), most of the mud has been cracked or knocked off or loosened to the point where it no longer complies with the code.
> 
> Once again, would you rather, as the electrician on the job, that we have you pull all your device covers off during the final inspection so that we can check for code compliance then?
> 
> Mark


Your interpretation is dead wrong and if you pulled that card on one of my jobs I would fight it to the top of your chain. The Code is crystal clear on this one, and acknowledges that there is imperfection in this world and that not all drywall cuts are going to be perfect.:



> 314.21 _*Repairing*_ Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
> surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
> employing a flush-type cover or faceplate _*shall be repaired*_ so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
> (1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.


Does that section say _*"Shall be cut"?*_ No it does not. It says _*"Shall be repaired". Drywall mud is by all building codes an approved and accepted method of repair. *
_ 
Sorry, you have way overstepped your authority on this one.


----------



## wesleydnunder

mcclary's electrical said:


> It's not our job as an electrician to remove any covers for you, or even attend an inspection for that matter. All you had to do is say "make the sheetrockers run a bead of caulk around that before we come back to final"
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be mud slopped everywhere like you said. You're not the most popular guy righ now, because you made a call 99% of inspectors would not have made.


Nor is it my job to remove covers. So, I guess I just have to trust that this will have been done. If I could operate on trust, amigo mio, my job wouldn't be necessary. 

Just because 99% of inspectors wouldn't have made this call is meaningless. The same percentage of inspectors never worked in the electrical trade. They, at best, took an ICC test and, VOILA!, are qualified to inspect the most difficult-to-master trade there is. Don't waste your time arguing this point. I've dealt with these individuals for decades. They couldn't tell you what the proper opening around a plaster ring is.

As for my popularity? Meh.
When I get home from work my dogs still love me.

It's ok though. You got your panties twisted over this...you'll get glad in the same knickers, darlin'.

And, fwiw, I've already received at least one PM and several "Thanks".

Not completely unpopular, sugar.

Mark


----------



## Dennis Alwon

Well I would have to agree that the interpretation is not correct. If the hole is cut too big it can be patched. If there is a local amendment that is one thing but it would not be correct to not allow the mud. I missed that part.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

It is your option to go back and make sure it is correct so if you don't trust someone then feel free to check.


----------



## guest

wesleydnunder said:


> Nor is it my job to remove covers. So, I guess I just have to trust that this will have been done. If I could operate on trust, amigo mio, my job wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Just because *99% of inspectors* wouldn't have made this call is meaningless. _*The same percentage of inspectors never worked in the electrical trade. *_They, at best, took an ICC test and, VOILA!, are qualified to inspect the most difficult-to-master trade there is. Don't waste your time arguing this point. I've dealt with these individuals for decades. They couldn't tell you what the proper opening around a plaster ring is.
> 
> As for my popularity? Meh.
> When I get home from work my dogs still love me.
> 
> It's ok though. You got your panties twisted over this...you'll get glad in the same knickers, darlin'.
> 
> And, fwiw, I've already received at least one PM and several "Thanks".
> 
> Not completely unpopular, sugar.
> 
> Mark



Ok, I'm calling out BS on the bold part. At least as far as California is concerned the percentage is nowhere near that high, average around here (in L.A. County) is less than 20% of the inspectors do not have actual trade experience. Most jurisdictions in the county are picky about who they hire and what their background is. Now I can't speak for Texas' standards....:whistling2:

And "amigo mio"? "meh?" "darlin'"? "sugar"? Are you twelve years old or something? 

It's one thing to be firm with your convictions but you're resorting to the same childish talk you accused others of...


----------



## Awg-Dawg

wesleydnunder said:


> Just because 99% of inspectors wouldn't have made this call is meaningless. The same percentage of inspectors never worked in the electrical trade.


 
Your wrong,99.99% wouldnt have made that call.

You are also dead wrong on the % of inspectors who have worked in the field.


----------



## wesleydnunder

mxslick said:


> Ok, I'm calling out BS on the bold part. At least as far as California is concerned the percentage is nowhere near that high, average around here (in L.A. County) is less than 20% of the inspectors do not have actual trade experience. Most jurisdictions in the county are picky about who they hire and what their background is. Now I can't speak for Texas' standards....:whistling2:
> 
> And "amigo mio"? "meh?" "darlin'"? "sugar"? Are you twelve years old or something?
> 
> It's one thing to be firm with your convictions but you're resorting to the same childish talk you accused others of...


Since you called BS, can you provide any proof of the Ca. percentages you quote? 

I looked back through the posts and don't see where I accused anyone of being childish. Possibly you could link that one for me too.

amigo mio = my friend...nope, nothin' childish there
meh = I don't care how popular I am...again, not the faintest hint of immaturity in my regard for others' opinion of me
darlin', sugar = stop being a whiny ***** ...ok, maybe the teensiest bit of condescencion there but I just couldn't pass it up.

Mark

What's really interesting on a social level is how the membership is split over this ostensibly cut-and-dried subject.


----------



## TimChaput69

I'm sorry guys but I'm not getting this whole argument. Mark is looking out for us in a way that he can and you guys are jumping down his throat for looking out for y'all. I can see if it was one or two questionable boxes but I just dealt with about 80 boxes today that were grossly f'ed up and my complaints to the GC fell on deaf ears. There is still a thing called craftsmanship and ALL trades should be held to it!! ( Oh crap I sound like Holmes !!


----------



## guest

TimChaput69 said:


> I'm sorry guys but I'm not getting this whole argument. Mark is looking out for us in a way that he can and you guys are jumping down his throat for looking out for y'all. I can see if it was one or two questionable boxes but I just dealt with about 80 boxes today that were grossly f'ed up and my complaints to the GC fell on deaf ears. There is still a thing called craftsmanship and ALL trades should be held to it!! ( Oh crap I sound like Holmes !!


No one here is saying that craftmanship should be ignored, the issues are:

1: The OP is clearly applying his own (incorrect) interpretation of the code article referenced;
2: He is doing it with a serious attitude problem just to stir the pot;
3: He is calling people names just to be a wise ass;
4: And here's a novel thought: 

_*Why is the electrician getting the red tag? Did the electrician hang and cut the drywall? NO!! So if anyone needs to get red-tagged (and with the gross errors in cut the OP mentioned, it would be deserved) it should be the DRYWALLERS!! Hello!!!! *_(And in this county drywall IS inspected and the errors OP mentioned would get them red-tagged.) 

Tim, do you think YOU should get the red tag for the f-ups of the drywallers? 

So this whole thing smacks of the OP having a chip on his shoulder about the EC on that job....:whistling2:


----------



## TimChaput69

Ok, I miss understood. I thought he was tagging the drywall installer. That I can understand, but again I'm still miffed about the day I just had dealing with crappy drywall install. Don't know the OP's location but some areas the inspector wears all the hats and will catch other code violations. I still did sound like Mike Holmes there for a second!!


----------



## Jim Port

Which raises a question. Who needs to make sure that the gap is repaired? The EC is going to get the red sticker, not the drywaller.


----------



## TimChaput69

I know I'm kinda new to this site but..........is this post Cletis!!??


----------



## guest

Jim Port said:


> Which raises a question. Who needs to make sure that the gap is repaired? The EC is going to get the red sticker, not the drywaller.



Which again is wrong IMHO. The EC does NOT do drywall just as the drywaller is not supposed to do electrical. Like I said above, here the drywall is an inspection item and the _*drywallers*_ would get tagged for the excessive gaps. _*The EC would not. *_

And we are talking rough inspection here. 

Now, if on FINAL, the EC knowingly trims out with those gaps still existing, then yes IN THAT CASE the EC should get tagged. 

Looking back at the first post, it is not clear WHO got the tag for the gaps...if it was the EC, then the OP is wrong, If it was the _*drywallers*_ who got that tag, then I stand corrected and apologize to the OP on that call.


----------



## guest

TimChaput69 said:


> I know I'm kinda new to this site but..........is this post Cletis!!??


LOL this whole thread is Cletis, Kaboler and B4T all rolled into one. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

I wonder where BBQ is for this one? I'll bet he can shut us all down. :jester:


----------



## backstay

I got red tagged for the utilities service lateral. Inspector thought a non electrician installed it( they did) and he held up my permit for temp power from the meter. I talked him out of it, but the NEC does not cover the poco lines up to the service point(meter here). Cost the framing crew two days.


----------



## TimChaput69

mxslick said:


> LOL this whole thread is Cletis, Kaboler and B4T all rolled into one. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> I wonder where BBQ is for this one? I'll bet he can shut us all down. :jester:


I forgot about those guys!! How about Chicken Steve?? I'll bet he could spin some serious language into this thread too!!


----------



## wesleydnunder

I had to cut my last post short because it was time to lock up and go home. So, with a sparkly glass of Crown beside me, let me give y'all a little history on why we interpret this particular code article the way we do. After that, I'll shut up and move on to the next thread. The horse has been dead for a while...I reckon it's time to stop beatin' it.

This particular item was addressed at the last two electrical board meetings. Our board consists of city and industry reps; other Master Electricians and EC owners. 

We have four inspections that we typically perform inside a commercial building:

1.rough-in - We make sure that the device boxes have the correct wire size pulled into them, the correct length of wire in the box, a green equipment ground appropriately sized, a grounding pigtail screwed solidly into the tapped hole provided. The conduit must be complete up to the first pull or j-box and wire pulled from it down to the device box. This is the only time we can verify the ground was pulled in with the wire, per city ordinance and that the appropriate length of wire was left in the box. If MC was used for the drop we check for the appropriate connector and anti-short bushing.

2.ceiling cover - We check to ensure all boxes and conduits are properly installed and supported, have the covers installed and that the lights have been attached to the ceiling grid with screws or listed clips. If it's a hard ceiling we also check that light boxes have been installed correctly with the correct conductors. Typically, by the time this inspection is called for, the wall devices have been installed and covered.

3.service inspection - We check all the aspects of the service. If the interior panels have been set by then we check the wiring, grounding and bonding in them. If not, we have them opened at the final inspection. We require that an electrician attend each inspection on large jobs.

4.final inspection - we test each device for tightness, correct operation and voltage. If, instead of a Main Disconnect outside, the engineer has elected to use a shunt trip main and PB operator, we test it to make sure it works and verify it's control circuit either originated in the switchgear or, if fed from a branch circuit in a sub panel has been correctly labelled and all possible precautions have been taken to avoid inadvertantly de-energizing the shunt trip circuit. We check to make sure the correct panel schedule is in eack panel. We check to ensure each disconnect, transformer and panel is labelled with its designator, feed point, voltage and phase. We have them turn on exterior lights. We make sure outside gfcis work properly and have the correct covers. If the electrician didn't have his panels installed during the service inspection we have him open them so we can check conduit fills, derates if necessary, proper grounding and bonding and color codes used for different systems. If there is a back-up generator we test it and inspect the wiring of transfer switches and emergency panels. 

In short, we do as thorough a job as we possibly can.

Now, back to the original issue...

The electrical board decided to interpret the code reference as we do because it's the best solution to a difficult situation that we could come up with. It's much easier for the drywaller to take a few more seconds per opening to ensure a tight cut around the box than it is for him to spend money and time and caulk or mud if the opening already meets the requirement. Money gets spent either way, just much less to do right the first time. 

Honestly, how many of you have had a thousand receptacles and switches to trim out and had the GC or drywaller voluntarily fix the openings so your devices could be installed correctly? It was always a huge fight for me, as it is for others. Like Tim said, it falls on deaf ears, so we are relegated to forming coils out of solid wire (if there's solid wire on the job) or making a standoff so that our device fits properly with box and cover. Or, we can spend money unnecessarily on the adapters shown in an earlier post and kick our costs up more. All of these options add time to our trim-out...unnecessary time. More cost.

We don't go out of our way to make unnecessary work for anyone. If the drywallers were doing the job correctly, maybe we would take the particular code reference more literally. The fact is, for the most part they aren't. Period. So we have to hold their feet to the fire to get them to do their jobs right. 

This notion is upheld by the fact that most all of y'all know how to do the electrician's fix to this problem. *You wouldn't be coiling wires or making standoffs unless it was a constant necessity.*

I've been in construction and service most of my life. I've seen a steady deterioration of the quality of work the last two decades. *It deteriorates because people accept it!*

*Mark*


----------



## wesleydnunder

Awg-Dawg said:


> You are also dead wrong on the % of inspectors who have worked in the field.


Please provide the survey that backs this up.

Mark


----------



## wesleydnunder

mxslick said:


> No one here is saying that craftmanship should be ignored, the issues are:
> 
> 1: The OP is clearly applying his own (incorrect) interpretation of the code article referenced;
> 2: He is doing it with a serious attitude problem just to stir the pot;
> 3: He is calling people names just to be a wise ass;
> 4: And here's a novel thought:
> 
> _*Why is the electrician getting the red tag? Did the electrician hang and cut the drywall? NO!! So if anyone needs to get red-tagged (and with the gross errors in cut the OP mentioned, it would be deserved) it should be the DRYWALLERS!! Hello!!!! *_(And in this county drywall IS inspected and the errors OP mentioned would get them red-tagged.)
> 
> Tim, do you think YOU should get the red tag for the f-ups of the drywallers?
> 
> So this whole thing smacks of the OP having a chip on his shoulder about the EC on that job....:whistling2:


MX, the EC only got red-tagged for the flex 90s inside the wall. The drywaller got the one for the openings. I thought the first post was clear on that.

I apologize for the attitude. I have a sarcastic side.

Mark


----------



## TimChaput69

I did read your post right!!! Sweet, here I started thinking I was off and might have read something wrong(wouldn't be the first time). If you giged the drywallers thats awsome(there I said it again) for too long drywallers have been aloud to get away with hackmanship and we as EC's have to pay. Wish we had more inspectors like you here......especially today!! Ok now I'm at camp and I'm gonna get a fire going in the firepit and mix a capt'n and coke and revel in my correctedness!!


----------



## guest

wesleydnunder said:


> MX, the EC only got red-tagged for the flex 90s inside the wall. The drywaller got the one for the openings. I thought the first post was clear on that.
> 
> I apologize for the attitude. I have a sarcastic side.
> 
> Mark


And as I said in post 58, if the drywaller got the tag for the openings then I stand corrected and also apologize for giving you such a hard time. :thumbup:

LOL as you guessed the first post wasn't clear on that point. :laughing: But it did make for an entertaining thread.


----------



## HARRY304E

mxslick said:


> LOL this whole thread is Cletis, Kaboler and B4T all rolled into one. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> I wonder where BBQ is for this one? I'll bet he can shut us all down. :jester:


BBQ is :sleep1:.......:laughing:


----------



## TimChaput69

If I'm not mistaken BBQ is from Boston, so he's either watching the Red Sox, the Bruins, or robbing a bank!!


----------



## HARRY304E

sbrn33 said:


> No he is not doing his job. He is inspecting with an "I would do it like this" attitude.
> He might be a nice guy for telling him but he is a prick for red tagging it on a Rough in inspection.
> Are you an electrician?


No i just play one on TV.

Wrong again...:yes:

Like he said in post #1 he is going after the GC not The Electrician.

He said the job was "one-sided" that is why he saw the sheet rock like that.


----------



## HARRY304E

wesleydnunder said:


> Thank you for calling me a prick for doing my job. It happens often. I am an electrician and have been doing electrical work since 1972. I am equally sure your opinion of me is well worth the full amout I paid you for it.
> 
> I inspect based on NEC and city and state ordinance. I sometimes suggest an alternative if the EC asks for it. In this case, with the walls one-sided, I could see that the openings were cut around the plaster rings a half inch to almost an inch too big...in the interests of hurrying. By code this is unacceptable. By city ordinance this is unacceptable.
> 
> You assume to know the attitude with which I do my job...or, according to you, NOT doing my job.
> 
> I find it mildly humorous that the one bitching the loudest about something that would be beneficial to him in the end, is the one asking who is an electrician. I probably have more time in the sh_t-house than you have in the trade, boy.
> 
> Mark


Well said....:thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E

TimChaput69 said:


> If I'm not mistaken BBQ is from Boston, so he's either watching the Red Sox, the Bruins, or robbing a bank!!


He hate's sports so....:whistling2:


----------



## HARRY304E

B W E said:


> http://www.erico.com/products/CADDYcfcAdjFrSdBxSuprt.asp
> 
> He said those were knocked of by the drywallers. Without those, even the rbs16s will push in.


They almost always break those...


----------



## TimChaput69

I didn't know that!! So yes he's either in jail or rich!!! He's gonna have a cow when he reads this thread after he gets out!! If he makes bail!


----------



## HARRY304E

TimChaput69 said:


> I forgot about those guys!! How about Chicken Steve?? I'll bet he could spin some serious language into this thread too!!


Maybe a little Shakespeare......:laughing:


----------



## TimChaput69

HARRY304E said:


> Maybe a little Shakespeare......:laughing:


I must admit he does have a way with the English language. I think he's in Vermont so he must be cultivating his crop!! Or at an Obama rally!


----------



## TimChaput69

I'm sorry Harry I'm using my phone tonight from camp and I can't see where you're from.....where you from? If you don't mind me asking?


----------



## HARRY304E

TimChaput69 said:


> I'm sorry Harry I'm using my phone tonight from camp and I can't see where you're from.....where you from? If you don't mind me asking?


I'm just a masshole....:lol::lol::thumbup:


----------



## TimChaput69

Right on I thought so!! You guys are the ones that come up here and screw up our finely tuned traffic!! I'm from Nashua but I'm in Dalton (near Littleton NH) for the weekend at camp. Done alot of work in MA.


----------



## TimChaput69

I've been picketed in MA by the union on a couple of jobs before. I love those guys too. I used to buy them coffee in the morning and have lunch with them in the afternoon. Great guys and wish I could join them but I'm in house now and happy where I'm at. MA is wicked pissah!!


----------



## B W E

I thought it was pretty clear from the beginning that he flagged two trades. Jeez, he even numbered them and named them within the first two words... Drywallers and EC. Everyone so quick to jump down a guy's throat......


----------



## TimChaput69

Really? You from the area? You must have been doing the main st. crawl from Marthas to the Irish bar!! Nice to know people on this site are from the area!!


----------



## RIVETER

mcclary's electrical said:


> If it's a rough in, how is the drywall hole too big?


That is a good point.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

wesleydnunder said:


> Our interpretation of that reference is that the cut opening should be 1/8" or less around the plaster ring. We don't consider that the sheet-rock mud slopped inside and out of the plaster ring, most of the time covering mounting holes and half-filling the box, is sufficient. Usually, by the time the electrician has knocked the mud out of his box and has pulled his box forward (the box having been shoved back into the wall when they screw the drywall on top of it, then cut the opening with a roto-zip), most of the mud has been cracked or knocked off or loosened to the point where it no longer complies with the code.
> 
> Once again, would you rather, as the electrician on the job, that we have you pull all your device covers off during the final inspection so that we can check for code compliance then?
> 
> Mark


 
Youur interpretation is wrong. REPAIRED is the first word in the code article. How do you REPAIR a hole, by cutting it one time and not touching it again? Is that a REPAIR? NO, that's called A CUT. and guess what? If the accidentally cuts one wrong and ends up with a hole bigger than 1/8", the it can be REPAIRED.


----------



## TimChaput69

Oh crap, here we go again!!


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

wesleydnunder said:


> Nor is it my job to remove covers. So, I guess I just have to trust that this will have been done. If I could operate on trust, amigo mio, my job wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Just because 99% of inspectors wouldn't have made this call is meaningless. The same percentage of inspectors never worked in the electrical trade. They, at best, took an ICC test and, VOILA!, are qualified to inspect the most difficult-to-master trade there is. Don't waste your time arguing this point. I've dealt with these individuals for decades. They couldn't tell you what the proper opening around a plaster ring is.
> 
> As for my popularity? Meh.
> When I get home from work my dogs still love me.
> 
> It's ok though. You got your panties twisted over this...you'll get glad in the same knickers, darlin'.
> 
> And, fwiw, I've already received at least one PM and several "Thanks".
> 
> Not completely unpopular, sugar.
> 
> Mark


 
When I said you were unpopular, I didn;t mean hear silly. I was directly quoted what you said about yourself. Whewww, you're really confused.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

B W E said:


> I thought it was pretty clear from the beginning that he flagged two trades. Jeez, he even numbered them and named them within the first two words... Drywallers and EC. Everyone so quick to jump down a guy's throat......


 

BEcause he's wrong. The name of the article is REPAIRING holes larger than 1/8", not CUTTING holes larger than 1/8"


----------



## Awg-Dawg

wesleydnunder said:


> Please provide the survey that backs this up.
> 
> Mark


 
You're the one that said 99% of inspectors never worked in the field.


That proves youre an idiot.


----------



## HARRY304E

mcclary's electrical said:


> BEcause he's wrong. The name of the article is REPAIRING holes larger than 1/8", not CUTTING holes larger than 1/8"


 Take a look at the first post he said he was calling out the GC not the EC.






> 314.21 Repairing Noncombustible Surfaces. Noncombustible
> surfaces that are broken or incomplete around boxes
> employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be repaired
> so there will be no gaps or open spaces greater than 3 mm
> (1⁄8 in.) at the edge of the box.





> wesleydnunder
> Member
> 
> Join Date: Mar 2012
> Location: Texas
> Posts: 79
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Holes in drywall too big*
> Yesterday, I turned down the rough-in inspections for two whole buildings in a local outlet mall being built.
> 
> Two reasons:
> 1. The drywall installers had cut the holes for the plaster rings way too big. I explained that he would be allowed a 1/8" gap around the plaster rings so the devices could later be installed properly. The GC was not happy with me and told me in 25 yrs no one has ever mentioned that code reference to him or turned down his inspection for it. I said welcome to Texas City.
> 
> 2. The EC had installed flex 90s inside the walls to transition to outside wall packs. I showed him how those fittings are not designed to pull wire around and had him change all those drops to emt.
> 
> Needless to say, I ain't the most popular guy in town right now, but the jobs go in correctly or not at all...
> 
> Mark


----------



## TimChaput69

Are you guys serious!!?? This thread has been going all day and unfortunately I was directly affected and I'm done with it at this point. Right now I'm thinking about rock climbing tomorrow morning then replacing a shower regulator for a friend......oh crap will I be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for doing that?? Hope there are no plumbers on this site. I miss rock climbing due to the fact that the winter here sucked so bad that there was no good ice climbing this year!


----------



## B W E

mcclary's electrical said:


> BEcause he's wrong. The name of the article is REPAIRING holes larger than 1/8", not CUTTING holes larger than 1/8"


He's flagged the drywallers. Not the EC. Soooooo, how are you using the NEC to argue his actions?? That's kinda stupid. 

He also pointed out the due to the size of the hole, the standard method of repair, slopping in some mud, wouldn't be adequate, because as we all know, that crap ALL breaks away as soon as you try to clear it out of the opening to install devices, once again exposing the sloppy cut.

Funny how you're the biggest loudmouth here and the first to chime in about "hack" work, and this guy comes in and throws the flag on crap, hack, work and you jump all over him. Get a life dude. You of all people, who ignores glaring code violations, to ensure you get to continue working and bill your client, defending yourself by saying "not my fault the plans were bad.". Puhlease!!


----------



## Awg-Dawg

B W E;690049He also pointed out the due to the size of the hole said:


> Not his call.
> 
> Im pretty sure that is an acceptable repair.
> 
> Are you saying it isnt?


----------



## TimChaput69

Hey guys lets not kill eachother for crying out loud!! We're on the same team!!! I like the debate but it's kinda over. Maybe this is why plumbers can charge more than we do!! I'm gonna get alot of s**t for that statement I know but still quit the crud, you cruddy cruds!! (Thats from Bad News Bears).


----------



## B W E

1. Um, he's the inspector on the job, so, I think it is his call.

2. I'm pretty sure you're not the ahj, and his is, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what you think
Is acceptable.

3. Doesn't matter what I think, I'm not the ahj, he is.

Hack work is being corrected, what's wrong with that?


----------



## Awg-Dawg

B W E said:


> 1. Um, he's the inspector on the job, so, I think it is his call.
> 
> 2. I'm pretty sure you're not the ahj, and his is, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what you think
> Is acceptable.
> 
> 3. Doesn't matter what I think, I'm not the ahj, he is.
> 
> Hack work is being corrected, what's wrong with that?


 Youre wrong on most of these........


----------



## B W E

Awg-Dawg said:


> Youre wrong on most of these........


I'm not, but it's really not important to me.... Kings vs. Canucks.... Go Kings Go!


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

I used the NEC because that's the code article HE supplied. I just wanna add that it doesn't matter who he failed, the GC or the EC, he still is interpreting the article incorrectly. Nobody said anything about hackwork. I'm simply saying misinterpretation.


----------



## B W E

mcclary's electrical said:


> I used the NEC because that's the code article HE supplied. I just wanna add that it doesn't matter who he failed, the GC or the EC, he still is interpreting the article incorrectly. Nobody said anything and hackwork. I'm simply saying misinterpretation.


Had the drywall been mudded yet, or just screwed on? I suppose if they hadn't yet been mudded, perhaps he jumped the gun by flagging it. If they had been mudded, then the repair wasn't sufficient, and he made the right call IMO. Perhaps he should have made it a workmanship issue?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

B W E said:


> Had the drywall been mudded yet, or just screwed on? I suppose if they hadn't yet been mudded, perhaps he jumped the gun by flagging it. If they had been mudded, then the repair wasn't sufficient, and he made the right call IMO. Perhaps he should have made it a workmanship issue?


 
The wall was one sided. I'm doubt it was taped and mudded yet because they had not hung the other side yet. THey normally hang everything first, then finish everything. I agree I love my holes being cut tight, and hate big holes, but I just think the article allows for a repair. He seems to think it does not. If it DOES NOT allow for a repair, then why do they use the word twice in that code article?


----------



## TimChaput69

Brad Paisley sings about mud on the tires.....does that count here??.....really guys it Friday and you ain't got no place to, and you ain't got nothing to do......quit it!!


----------



## B W E

TimChaput69 said:


> Brad Paisley sings about mud on the tires.....does that count here??.....really guys it Friday and you ain't got no place to, and you ain't got nothing to do......quit it!!


I'm planted on my couch with a chew in front of a 50" watching the Kings game. The pause button is perfect for coming back here to argue. Can't shoot at people any more, so what else am I gonna do while my wife is outta town?


----------

