Thread: securing water heater conductor

Is it ok to secure the power feed for the water heater to one of the copper water pipes? Lets say, with zip ties for instance.

Similar Threads:

• ABS Flue Pipe on LP Water Heater
• Tankless water heater comment
• Water heater Question
• New overhead line securing technique
• Reverse plumbing to water heater

I have never seen an inspector have a problem with zip ties to the cold water line. Solves the problem of securing the cable within the required distance of the JB on the WH.

Why would you not staple it to the studs, keeping it away from the water lines?

That wire looks like it is subject to damage to me-- where's the conduit?

The wire should be secured to the framing or to the top of the water heater.

Being as it will be hard to secure that wire to the framing within 12" of the termination at the water heater, attach a strap over that wire to the top of the water heater.

Now the next securing and supporting location can be 4-1/2 feet back from the one at the water heater.

Jerry,

Shouldn't that wire be in conduit? I recommend conduit all of the time on stuff like that.

In that location (what little is visible in the photo and then the rest visualized possibly differently by everyone) with everything being out of the way, the NM cable could be stapled to the studs, no conduit needed.

Thanks Jerry.

jp,
you are going soft on this one! WTF! i agree with brandon's first comment.wire hanging out there for furnace filters and who knows what else to damage it?

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

jp,
you are going soft on this one! WTF! i agree with brandon's first comment.wire hanging out there for furnace filters and who knows what else to damage it?

Brian,

Nope not going soft.

Brandon asked "Shouldn't that wire be in conduit?" ... "Shouldn't" ... as in "required by code" - at least that is the way I took it.

No, it is not "required by code" to be in conduit.

Also look at those filters again - they are "spare" filters and would not damage the NM cable if the NM cable were properly secured to the wood studs.

You are forgetting, perhaps, that "code" = "minimum require" ... not "best practices". Brandon recommends best practices in that location - nothing wrong with that, just not "required".

So maybe it depends on how Brandon meant "shouldn't" ... as "code" ... or as "best practices".

If we are going with "best practices" then put ALL the wiring in RIGID conduit, with METAL boxes, with FIRE SPRINKLERS, and NO finger joint studs, and copper roofs, and ... you want "best practices"? The list would be quite long, and the house quite expensive ...

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

That wire looks like it is subject to damage to me-- where's the conduit?

jerry,
i was referring to this reply from brandon. 334.15(A) thru(C) for your reading enjoyment. cable SHALL be in conduit etc or SHALL closely following the surface of the framing . as you know the code only uses shall, shall not, or may. there ain't no "should'ts in there. i would give you a b- on this paper .the answer to the op question is "NO"

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

334.15(A) thru(C) for your reading enjoyment.

or SHALL closely following the surface of the framing

I'm trying to figure out where what I said was not what you posted????

No where in there does it say it shall be in conduit, no ifs, ands, or buts.

What I said was: "Now the next securing and supporting location can be 4-1/2 feet back from the one at the water heater.".

Followed by: "the NM cable could be stapled to the studs, no conduit needed".

Now, unless you know of another way to do it, when you staple that NM to the studs, the NM cable WILL BE following the surface of the studs.

I'd say that gives me an A+.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

In that location (what little is visible in the photo and then the rest visualized possibly differently by everyone) with everything being out of the way, the NM cable could be stapled to the studs, no conduit needed.

Ah, but Brandon inspects in Oregon, a state that's modified 334.15(B) by adding the following language, "Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be protected where it its installed horizontally below 8 feet above the floor. Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable below 8 feet above the floor that enters the top or bottom of a panelboard shall be protected from physical damage by conduit, raceway, 1/2" plywood or 1/2" drywall."

So in Oregon, in almost every case, Brandon's recommendation is sound. Most water heater feeders have a horizontal component that, if wired with NM cable, will need to be protected. And conduit is usually the protection of choice.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Originally Posted by Jim Katen

Ah, but Brandon inspects in Oregon, a state that's modified 334.15(B) by adding the following language, "Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be protected where it its installed horizontally below 8 feet above the floor. Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable below 8 feet above the floor that enters the top or bottom of a panelboard shall be protected from physical damage by conduit, raceway, 1/2" plywood or 1/2" drywall."

So in Oregon, in almost every case, Brandon's recommendation is sound. Most water heater feeders have a horizontal component that, if wired with NM cable, will need to be protected. And conduit is usually the protection of choice.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Jim,

Thank you for that Oregon information, however ... as worded it does not apply.

It's all in the wording and because they said too much with too much specificity.

Ah, but Brandon inspects in Oregon, a state that's modified 334.15(B) by adding the following language, "Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be protected where it its installed horizontally below 8 feet above the floor. Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable below 8 feet above the floor that enters the top or bottom of a panelboard shall be protected from physical damage by conduit, raceway, 1/2" plywood or 1/2" drywall."

So in Oregon, in almost every case, Brandon's recommendation is sound. Most water heater feeders have a horizontal component that, if wired with NM cable, will need to be protected. And conduit is usually the protection of choice.

Thanks Jim.

Brandon,

Go back and read what Jim posted.

It does not state that needs to be in conduit.

It's all in the wording of the requirement (or, should I say "lack of requirement" as the wording does not include what is under discussion).

If you would like, I can point out the part which I am referring to, and I am surprised that Jim did not catch that - either that or he is trying to apply it outside of its scope.