Another NM in attics question...

[LPS]

In 334.30 NM Securing and Supporting, the commentary of my 2017 handbook says “Draping the cable over air ducts, rafters, timber’s, joists, pipes, and ceiling grid members without securing the cable with approved means is not permitted except, as allowed in 334.30(B)(1).” Another nationally recognized instructor agrees with this and says cables running perpendicular across the top of attic joists are to be stapled, but when I discuss this with electricians in my area they look at me like I’m crazy. Apparently, nobody staples on top of joists in my area, much less run protective strips. Am I missing something? I’m more of an industrial electrician, so I’m not familiar with what inspectors enforce or ignore. Is this something that inspectors just ignore? Similar issue with cables coming down studs. Many guys just jam several cables under large staples resulting in insufficient distance to the edge of the stud rather than using a cable stacker or simply running half he cables down the opposite stud. Is this just lax inspectors? I don’t think either issue is terribly critical, although a screw in a conductor was reported to have started a fire in a relatives house.... I just can’t get my head around how some things are enforced and some things are not. I expect it’s difficult for a new inspector to come into an area and change the way people have been doing things for 50 years... Sorry for the long message, but this has bothered me for a long time. Thanks

 

[petersonra]

I'm not convinced that stapling Romex where it crosses perpendicular over the top of a joist in an attic improves safety in some way. But, I don't think it's up to inspectors to pick and choose what they want to enforce either. Maybe they were just too lazy to go up in the attic and take a look, or just didn't care because it really doesn't matter one way or the other for the most part.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

There is a difference between securing and supporting. The rafters may support the nm cable but it does not secure it. NM needs to be secure to the rafters per the NEC.

 

[rc/retired]

There is a difference between securing and supporting. The rafters may support the nm cable but it does not secure it. NM needs to be secure to the rafters per the NEC.

You are correct. However, No inspector I had required me to staple romex on rafters & I never made the call inspecting.

 

[hbiss]

The rafters may support the nm cable but it does not secure it.

What difference does it make if the cable is run through bored holes in the rafters or run across the top? Those holes aren't going to "secure" it any better but they are allowed.

-Hal

 

[LPS]

What difference does it make if the cable is run through bored holes in the rafters or run across the top? Those holes aren't going to "secure" it any better but they are allowed.

-Hal

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the lack of staples on top of the joists are the least of the problems, from what I can tell you need to install protective guards on each side of the cables as well. Not saying we should all start doing this, but I’m just doing a sanity check to make sure I’m not misunderstanding the code. When I think there’s a rule about something that nobody adheres to, I want to make sure I’m not mistaken. I usually am... lol

Maybe I need to think of it the same way I think of 70E. The code writers are tasked with creating rules that will provide a safe work environment (NFPA 70E) or a safe installation (NFPA 70). And where the code making panels come upon difficult issues they simply follow their mandate and require safety and let the contractors and inspectors take the responsibility.

 

[macmikeman]

Dewalt Cable Stapler. Bing Bang Done.

 

[James L]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the lack of staples on top of the joists are the least of the problems, from what I can tell you need to install protective guards on each side of the cables as well.

No. Well, at least mostly no.

334.23 (NM section) says attic wiring is to comply with 320.23 (Armored Cable section)

320.23 says protection is only required within 6 feet of attic scuttle where there's no permanent ladder or stairs

 

[James L]

What difference does it make if the cable is run through bored holes in the rafters or run across the top? Those holes aren't going to "secure" it any better but they are allowed.

-Hal

"Secure" is subjective anyway.

If a prisoner is secure, it doesn't mean he can't move

 

[LPS]

No. Well, at least mostly no.

334.23 (NM section) says attic wiring is to comply with 320.23 (Armored Cable section)

320.23 says protection is only required within 6 feet of attic scuttle where there's no permanent ladder or stairs

Yes sir. And everywhere where there is a ladder. Again, I’m not really a residential guy, but I did know this years ago, but Ryan Jackson reminded me in this video...

 

[Eddie702]

Agree. If not within 6' of a scuttle hole and no permanent ladder or stairs you don't have to secure

 

[suemarkp]

That's not what they said. If no permanent ladder or stairs, you don't have to protect the cable from damage with guard strips except for close to the scuttle hole. You still need to secure and support it every 4.5 feet regardless of access.

 

[James L]

That's not what they said. If no permanent ladder or stairs, you don't have to protect the cable from damage with guard strips except for close to the scuttle hole. You still need to secure and support it every 4.5 feet regardless of access.

I think the issue is regarding cables laying on top of joists. That's support.

What is your idea of secure?

 

[suemarkp]

A staple or cable tie. To me, secure means it is attached to a surface and you can't pull it away or slide it back and forth much. Although those "tree branch" type of supports of NM cable seem like a grey area of securing to me. They have little notches you stick the cable jacket in to, but you can pull it right out so not very secure. Bored holes are an explcit allowance for a securing and supporting means. They actually secure pretty well if you've ever tried to rip out multiple runs of NM through bored holes.

I don't see a definition of secure in article 100.

 

[James L]

A staple or cable tie. To me, secure means it is attached to a surface and you can't pull it away or slide it back and forth much. Although those "tree branch" type of supports of NM cable seem like a grey area of securing to me. They have little notches you stick the cable jacket in to, but you can pull it right out so not very secure. Bored holes are an explcit allowance for a securing and supporting means. They actually secure pretty well if you've ever tried to rip out multiple runs of NM through bored holes.

I don't see a definition of secure in article 100.

Yeah. It seems to be very fluid, subjective and up to each person's own ideals or whims. And you're right. It's not defined in article 100

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That is a generic term and would not be defined in the NEC. There are a number of definitions that apply to the term based on how the term is being used. The ones below would reflect the use of the word in the xxx.30 sections of the Chapter 3 articles.

verb: secure; 3rd person present: secures; past tense: secured; past participle: secured; gerund or present participle: securing

1. fix or attach (something) firmly so that it cannot be moved or lost.
   "pins secure the handle to the main body"

adjective: secure

1. fixed or fastened so as not to give way, become loose, or be lost.
   "check to ensure that all nuts and bolts are secure"
   
   
   
   
   

   Article 100Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards. In general, only those terms that are used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. Definitions are also found in XXX.2 sections of other articles. ...

 

[mikeames]

While I agree with Dons post, the NEC is once again silly with their Art 100 scope. If its not intended to included commonly defined terms why are there so many common terms in there? For example "Automatic" = Performing a function without necessity of human intervention. The NEC defines that? Is that not common enough? Officially defining secure seems logical since its applied to many many things in the NEC. Its certainly used in more than two articles. I don't have an issue with it because it is simple to understand but then so is Automatic. Just pointing out the scope is nonsense to me.

So the scope to me is just an excuse for " yea we know we cover somethings explicity and leave other things out."

 

[macmikeman]

Dewalt Cable Staple gun. This thing is so good . I suddenly love stapling cables no matter attic or wherever..............

I shall now tell you a story of an electrical inspector retired many many years ago named Duke. Duke used to carry a broom on his residential inspections. He would hold the handle while standing on the floor and lift up the wire runs in the attic with the sweeping end. He would check it all and make you add staples in places you missed or went more than 4-1/2 feet between . A very thorough guy and I always appreciated his dedication to his duty.

 

[Strathead]

While I agree with Dons post, the NEC is once again silly with their Art 100 scope. If its not intended to included commonly defined terms why are there so many common terms in there? For example "Automatic" = Performing a function without necessity of human intervention. The NEC defines that? Is that not common enough? Officially defining secure seems logical since its applied to many many things in the NEC. Its certainly used in more than two articles. I don't have an issue with it because it is simple to understand but then so is Automatic. Just pointing out the scope is nonsense to me.

So the scope to me is just an excuse for " yea we know we cover somethings explicity and leave other things out."

View attachment 2556691

Yeah, I have never considered conduit run through J hooks secure, but it has been acceptable for decades.

 

[jaggedben]

Do you guys really need an article 100 definition to tell you that a cable draped across ceiling joists without staples is not secured?