Romex strapping

[mathew stouffer]

I found this to be very quality work.

[Garry Blankenship]

May have been a bit of a typo in your post, but w/o looking I believe NM cable must be strapped / secured w/i 12" of termination and no more than every 4'. It is also supposed to be consistent w/ building lines, ( right angles ). It's good to know the code, but not so good to quote it.

[Brad Richter]

If you must quote the code at least know the code. It's every 4'-6" not every 4'.

[Robert Meier]

Are those cables fished into a void (can't tell from the photo)? If so securing and supporting are not required in the void only at the top and bottom. {334.30(B)(1)}

[Dom D'Agostino]

I think you guys missed the OP's point.

The NM cable is being used for strapping.

[mathew stouffer]

It;s strapped to the flex duct;)

[Robert Meier]

I think you guys missed the OP's point.

The NM cable is being used for strapping.

Got it, hard to tell from the photo's. Maybe that belongs in the HVAC forum. :D

[mathew stouffer]

I missed it as well, I crawled past it 3 times before I noticed it. Sometimes I think our eye is not looking for items like this, or I just didnt want to put it in the report with all of the other crap.;)

[Garry Blankenship]

If you must quote the code at least know the code. It's every 4'-6" not every 4'.

Having a bad day ? I recall saying I did not look it up and that I believe it is 4' Is that a quote ? The fact that it is in reality 4' 6" is an important distinction for which I'm sure all inspectors are thankful.

I also missed that it may be insulation strapping and not necessarily wiring. Though one photo clearly has a number of cables entering the same area, ( j-box maybe ? ).

[John Kogel]

It's a little bit better than leaving them laying in the dirt. :D

[Billy Stephens]

.
Did The Light Work?:D
.

[Jim Port]

May have been a bit of a typo in your post, but w/o looking I believe NM cable must be strapped / secured w/i 12" of termination and no more than every 4'. It is also supposed to be consistent w/ building lines, ( right angles ). It's good to know the code, but not so good to quote it.

There is no requirement to be at right angles to the building lines.

[Garry Blankenship]

There is no requirement to be at right angles to the building lines.

Yes and no. It's really an AHJ call, but there are multiple code references to to cables and raceways "must be installed in a neat and workman like manner", ( 2008 NEC: 110.12, 640.6, 725.24, 760.24. 800.24, 820.24, 830.24 ). Inside walls nobody cares, but an electrical inspector will make you replace a cable installed on the fly from one room corner to the other even if it is legally protected and supported. Ditto on panel interiors that look like a rats nest. A diagonally run cable in a crawl space would be a pretty gray call on the workman like manner, since only us belly crawlers see it.

[Robert Meier]

Just my opinion but neat and workmanlike manner is so vague and undefined that it's unenforceable.

[Jim Port]

Just my opinion but neat and workmanlike manner is so vague and undefined that it's unenforceable.


Agreed. If an ispector had a problem with a diagonal cable I would like to hear the explaination of the hazard. I would fight having to replace a diagonal cable in a heartbeat.

[Garry Blankenship]

Just my opinion but neat and workmanlike manner is so vague and undefined that it's unenforceable.

I agree, but it is sometimes enforced at the field inspector level. This would be a great rescue for one of our code specialist dudes. The main NEC workman-like reference is 110.12 which refers you to ANSI/NECA 1 2006 ~ Standard Practices for Good Workmanship in Electrical Contracting. I tried to Google it w/o paying unsuccessfully. I would not want to see the whole thing, but would like to confirm references to cables & raceways being consistent w/ building lines.

[Jerry Peck]

I agree, but it is sometimes enforced at the field inspector level.

It should not be enforced as it is unenforceable as it is not really "in the code".

[Garry Blankenship]

It should not be enforced as it is unenforceable as it is not really "in the code".

Thank you Jerry. An interesting web of mystery that you specialize in. So FPNs, ( Fine Print Notes ), are in the code, but not "really" "in the code" ? It all may be mute because I believe it is trumped by 90.4 - - - titled Enforcement. That says the AHJ has the responsibility of interpreting the "Code" and can waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods. That is a-lot-a territory to operate in and it's gotta be a good source of business for your speciality.

[Jerry Peck]

So FPNs, ( Fine Print Notes ), are in the code, but not "really" "in the code" ? It all may be mute because I believe it is trumped by 90.4 - - - titled Enforcement. That says the AHJ has the responsibility of interpreting the "Code" and can waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods.

"Interpreting" is the key word.

Interpreting the code is not changing the code.

- 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.
- - Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
- - - FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2006, Standard Practices for Good Workmanship in Electrical Contracting, and other ANSI-approved installation standards.

Now, if the AHJ were to adopt the ANSI/NECA 1-2006, Standard Practices for Good Workmanship in Electrical Contracting ... THEN ... ANSI/NECA 1-2006 would be enforceable.

Without that standard being specifically adopted by the AHJ, it is a good reference document, but an unenforceable reference document.

Not unlike this:
- 90.1 Purpose.
- - (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.
- - (D) Relation to Other International Standards. The requirements in this Code address the fundamental principles of protection for safety contained in Section 131 of International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60364-1, Electrical Installations of Buildings.
- - - FPN: IEC 60364-1, Section 131, contains fundamental principles of protection for safety that encompass protection against electric shock, protection against thermal effects, protection against overcurrent, protection against fault currents, and protection against overvoltage. All of these potential hazards are addressed by the requirements in this Code.

90.1(D) does not make "IEC 60364-1, Section 131" an enforceable part of the code just because it was included in a FPN for use as a reference document for that information.

Or this:
- 90.2 Scope.
- - (B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:
- - - (1) Installations in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, railway rolling stock, aircraft, or automotive vehicles other than mobile homes and recreational vehicles
- - - - FPN: Although the scope of this Code indicates that the Code does not cover installations in ships, portions of this Code are incorporated by reference into Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113.

The FPN referencing "Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113" does not make that part of the NEC. That is simply pointing out that Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113 incorporates portions of the NEC by reference.

The above leads us to a question to ponder: Being as Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113 incorporates portions of the NEC by reference, and those portions referenced may change with the editions of the NEC, which "edition" of those referenced portions are applicable as being incorporated into Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113?

[Garry Blankenship]

Have mercy; very happy to be licensed as a "generalist"