334.30 requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, here it is.

Painful but what I found when I went looking. :D

Read the panel statement.

From the 2014 ROP

7-47 Log #3415 NEC-P07 Final Action: Reject
(334.30)
________

Submitter: Steve Carle, Advanced Currents Corp.

Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
334.30 Securing and Supporting.
Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be supported and secured by staples, cable
ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as to not
damage the cable, at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (4 ½ ft) and within 300 mm
(12 in.) of every outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting. Flat cables shall
not be stapled on edge.
Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be
required to be secured within the raceway.
(D) Connector Fitting with Incorporated Box.
A connector fitting with incorporated box identified for the use shall be
permitted where the cable is secured in place at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m
(4 ½ ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) from the connector fitting, and there shall
be at least a 300 mm (12 in.) loop of unbroken cable which allows the
connector fitting to be pulled forward at least 150 mm (6 in.) from its installed
position for field inspection of connections or to permit replacement.

Substantiation: Just like the “Wiring Device Without a Separate Outlet Box”
needs a service loop of wire as described in 334.30 (C), so does this new
methodology defined in companion proposals. This service loop allows for safe
field inspection and serviceability of the connections and devices.
Note: This is a companion proposal to 100, 300.15 and 314.16.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The loop proposed by the submitter is not prohibited in the
current language of this section and 334.30 only requires that the cable be
supported within 12 in. of the outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting.

Number Eligible to Vote: 14

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________
Click to expand...
 
"Panel Statement: The loop proposed by the submitter is not prohibited in the
current language of this section and 334.30 only requires that the cable be
supported within 12 in. of the outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting."

thanks for finding and posting that, iwire. Very good of you. :cool:
 
Dennis Alwon said:
No, I wouldn't fire you but I would tell you to make sure there isn't more than 12" of cable between the staple and the box. Why? because you will probably fail in some areas around here.


I am sorry but I cannot understand your thinking on this. If you allow this in a ceiling for a can you will have to allow a staple 6" from a switch box with 4' of cable looped. Now there are 3 cables in that box... will you allow all 3 cables with a 4' loop?
Click to expand...

I would never wire new construction with 3 cables in a can, and while I wouldnt leave 4' slack, I would leave 2' or so on old work cans so they can be removed and serviced if necessary without the can being wire-hog-tied to the ceiling. I also put j-boxes in places that are accessible by people who arent 5'2 and contortionists. Why? Because I hate working on those things following others.

I have no problem positioning that 2' (or even 4') of wire in the ceiling so that future construction will avoid hitting it unless they run a 12" sawzall blade to the hilt thru the subfloor or ceiling drywall. and if someone does that they deserve to hit a plumbing pipe or electrical cable.
 
I generally use my sidecutters as a story pole to measure first support either NM or MC cables. They are 9" Linemans so I am within the required distance and allows for a small amount of working loop( not really loop but a little ofset) of wire. It allows for the wire to be supported securely without being stretched. In ceiling applications I agree with leaving a loop to allow servicing , but you can still leave a loop and still meet the requirements.
 
JFletcher said:
thanks for finding and posting that, iwire. Very good of you. :cool:
Click to expand...

Well I went looking in the ROPs for something to prove my point. :cool: Instead I found something that precisely disproved my point. DOH! :ashamed1:

I would have liked to have closed the pdf and forgotten about it but that would not be right.
 
iwire said:
Well I went looking in the ROPs for something to prove my point. :cool: Instead I found something that precisely disproved my point. DOH! :ashamed1:

I would have liked to have closed the pdf and forgotten about it but that would not be right.
Click to expand...

You really hate being wrong so I can just imagine how this is for you now. ;)
 
iwire said:
Well I went looking in the ROPs for something to prove my point. :cool: Instead I found something that precisely disproved my point. DOH! :ashamed1:

I would have liked to have closed the pdf and forgotten about it but that would not be right.
Click to expand...

Yes and that's why I thanked you. A lesser man wouldnt have posted a CMP statement diametrically opposed to his position.

If peter is going to start leaving 10' loops, Im buying stock in copper. :D
 
iwire said:
Well I went looking in the ROPs for something to prove my point. :cool: Instead I found something that precisely disproved my point. DOH! :ashamed1:

I would have liked to have closed the pdf and forgotten about it but that would not be right.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced. I do not read that info as allowing more than 12". IMO, it is talking about a box like one sees in a trailer where the receptacle is incorporated as part of the box.

A connector fitting with incorporated box identified for the use shall be
permitted where the cable is secured in place at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m
(4 ½ ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) from the connector fitting, and there shall
be at least a 300 mm (12 in.) loop of unbroken cable which allows the
connector fitting to be pulled forward at least 150 mm (6 in.) from its installed
position for field inspection of connections or to permit replacement.
Click to expand...
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Well I guess I am reading it differently.
Click to expand...

Yes. You are.

And the Code Making Panel is saying they wrote it NOT your way, but a way that doesn't limit the actual length of the cable, but only limits the distance between the support and the box.

I believe this is the "CMP intent" that people hold so high . . .
 
al hildenbrand said:
Yes. You are.

And the Code Making Panel is saying they wrote it NOT your way, but a way that doesn't limit the actual length of the cable, but only limits the distance between the support and the box.

I believe this is the "CMP intent" that people hold so high . . .
Click to expand...

When I was in school a “few” years back now. We were taught that the reduction from12 inches to eight inches was because of the allowance to use Non metallic boxes not having a box connectors, hickey or some other means of securing the NM cable to the box. I see plenty of NMB with the sheathe pushed out the back of the Non Metallic boxes after the wire is trimmed and the pushed back into the devise box.

Other than that the fasting and securing requirements where the same. I wonder if the original CMP members who drafted the rule in the first place felt the same as the one giving an opinion in and ROP

IMO, if this is not the case I find little reason to require a reduction in the securing requirement to 8 in. or for uniformity the rules should just say within 8 inches.

It’s up to the OP who seems to represent the Authority to clarity this with his authority
 
I would read the rule as limiting unsupported cable.

An allowance for less than 4 ½ ft. of unsupported/secured cable on runs and less than 12 in. of unsupported / secured cable at boxes

I realize others may feel there is a different way of reading the requirement.
 
david said:
I wonder if the original CMP members who drafted the rule in the first place felt the same as the one giving an opinion in and ROP

IMO, if this is not the case I find little reason to require a reduction in the securing requirement to 8 in. or for uniformity the rules should just say within 8 inches.
Click to expand...
See, this is the problem with reading the published words of the Code and saying the Code only means some unpublished "intent", regardless of the actual printed Code words. To paraphrase a famous rule by Charlie B., the Code only says what it says. You have to read it as if for the very first time, . . . it does not say what you were taught it says, it does not say what you want it to say. And, in spite of the CMP's intent to say something else, it only says what it says.

In this particular instance, we even have the CMP that is responsible, today, for this section of the Code, in the quote from the 2014 ROP that Bob (Iwire) found, telling us what the rule says, and it is NOT the popular interpretation.

david said:
It’s up to the OP who seems to represent the Authority to clarify this with his authority
Click to expand...
I agree. And he has stated his municipal rule that is in play, with this:

jerrynoel said:
Our municipal rule is that the code must be very specific and admissible in court. In other words, the "neat and workmanlike manner" is a subjective rule and not enforceable.
Click to expand...

As clearly as you, David, want this rule to only mean what you were taught, it is clear that the CMP states, in writing, something very different. I suspect a court will find with the CMP.
 
Interpretation for most authorities usually happens through conference with other code officials looking at the requirements together, any time there is opposition to the inspectors understanding of a code section.

We do not dismiss quickly generations of our piers understanding of a particular section no more than we dismiss hastily an electrician’s point of view.

Been having work inspected since 1981 be around union and non union men and woman electricians for years.

I have allowed loops as described in this tread though I believe the intent is to limit unsupported / unsecured cable as I stated.

Not that long ago I asked an electrician why he left loops like that he said because he was taught to do so and he thought they where required
 
I dont see where the argument is. Staple within 12" of the box. If the staple is 11.99" of the box, the wire to it might be 11.99, or 12.03, or 22.5". Find another code section to fail a service loop, because 334.30 aint it.
"
eta: if it's exposed, then failing to follow the surface of the building could very well come into play. but we're talking about concealed work here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top