jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
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)
exposed NM in unfinished basement
- Thread starter E Woolace
- Start date
- Status
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)
- Location
- Massachusetts
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.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
mwm1752
Senior Member
- Location
- Aspen, Colo
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.
- Location
- Massachusetts
That picture has nothing to do with our discussion.
- Location
- Massachusetts
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?
MasterTheNEC
CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
- Location
- McKinney, Texas
- Occupation
- CEO
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...
mwm1752
Senior Member
- Location
- Aspen, Colo
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.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
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:
Well since I can use anything and attach NM on any ceiling I'm going to start using this:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I am sorry you have such a limited imagination, but that tape would likely work. I keep a roll in my truck. :lol:
MasterTheNEC
CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
- Location
- McKinney, Texas
- Occupation
- CEO
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......
- Location
- Massachusetts
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.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
True.
- Location
- Massachusetts
So use something that holds, like an easy anchor with a one hole clip.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
After careful consideration I can find nothing in the code to fail the OP.
- Status