exposed NM in unfinished basement

Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds said:
OK then how do you prove that it is "designed" as required by 334.30?

That means listed, approved or any other term that you may choose to use.

110.3(A)(1)
Click to expand...

It does not mean listed because it does not say 'shall be listed'

It does not mean approved because it does not say 'shall be approved'

If you chose to use 110.3(A)(1) you darn well better use it when someone attaches any electrical equipment to drywall as I have never seen any electrical support specifically listed to attach equipment to drywall.
 
iwire said:
It does not mean listed because it does not say 'shall be listed'

It does not mean approved because it does not say 'shall be approved'

If you chose to use 110.3(A)(1) you darn well better use it when someone attaches any electrical equipment to drywall as I have never seen any electrical support specifically listed to attach equipment to drywall.
Click to expand...

414.7.JPG
 
Cavie said:
1. The world would love to know the definition of "subject to physical damage".

2. On the surface would certinly look like a hack job. Rough it in the joists and sleave down the wall.
Click to expand...

even if it is installed - 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. IMO Running on the ceiling looks like a hack job. I agree installed on the ceiling is not subject to physical damage around the 8' height (average reach is less than 8' IMO) but once it starts down the wall on the surface of a finish a conduit sleeve is required.
Unfinished basement is not restrictive to lack of finishes.
 
mwm1752 said:
.IMO Running on the ceiling looks like a hack job.
Click to expand...

It is no ones business but the customers and the electricians how the job looks.

Are you aware that the NFPAs own 'manual of style' lists both neat and workmanlike as vague and possibly unenforceable?
 
jxofaltrds said:
OK then how do you prove that it is "designed" as required by 334.30?

That means listed, approved or any other term that you may choose to use.

110.3(A)(1)
Click to expand...
Mike,

My thoughts on it for what it's worth....The design statement revolves around similar fittings used for the selected supporting and securing to not damage the cable. The "or" in that statement provides for similar fittings designed for a specific use and permits manufacturer creativity. You are applying the designed verbiage to a listing which are slightly different in the context of this section.

The verbiage in Section 334.15(C) is applying to unfinished basements and crawlspaces. The issue of what is subject to physical damage or not is at the approval or denial of the AHJ and it will remain that way at least for the 2017 cycle as all attempts to define the condition were resolved. Also the use of conduits or tubing as expressed in Section 334.15(C) is related to walls and not ceilings based on the language but clearly if the AHJ felt it was subject to needing that protection they might invoke it.

I would agree with the statements made that installing the Type NM-B on the surface of drywall is really no different than installing them on a running board. Both of which depending on the location, intended use of the space...etc. could warrant an AHJ pulling the "physical damage" card and all we can do is comply as they are charged with making those decisions.

As for the 1.25" from the framing members as also stated, even if on the drywall I would believe at that point they are "likely" to be penetrated. Now, we can't account for a blind cabinet maker (no offense) but I believe Section 300.4 is not for addressing installing the Type NM-B on a finished surface. We have Section 334.15 for that....also the statement on 300.4 is found in the paragraph that is talking about walls..

Just my thoughts on it...
 
iwire said:
It is no ones business but the customers and the electricians how the job looks.

Are you aware that the NFPAs own 'manual of style' lists both neat and workmanlike as vague and possibly unenforceable?
Click to expand...

You need to read post - sorry you don't like my opinion - never said it was non compliant -- certainly you get what you pay for -- do you like the looks of sloppy work? your post seem to attack only specific area's of post & not handle full content most of the time.
 
I am not talking about subject to damage in my arguments only how it is secured. 334.30 applies to all permanent installations.

Well since I can use anything and attach NM on any ceiling I'm going to start using this:

GORILLATAPE12.jpg
 
jxofaltrds said:
I am not talking about subject to damage in my arguments only how it is secured. 334.30 applies to all permanent installations.

Well since I can use anything and attach NM on any ceiling I'm going to start using this:

View attachment 12666
Click to expand...

Who said ANYTHING....(must have missed that part)....Section 334.30 clearly says what can be used..Staples, Cable Ties, Straps, Hangers, or Similar fittings "DESIGNED" and installed as not to damage the cable......now read the definition of fitting in Art. 100......
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Who said ANYTHING....(must have missed that part)....Section 334.30 clearly says what can be used..Staples, Cable Ties, Straps, Hangers, or Similar fittings "DESIGNED" and installed as not to damage the cable......now read the definition of fitting in Art. 100......
Click to expand...

I think he does not believe any product exists that complies with 334.30 and would work with drywall. Like if you used common staples they would pull right out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top