In supported NM: Is this "ok" in California.

[paullmullen]

I'm licensed in Wisconsin, but helping out my daughter in California. I see routing of NM through the attic without staples or other support; it just drapes over the bottom chord of the trusses on 24" spacing. (See picture.). Is that OK? It was originally done in a development of condos/town homes probably all built at the same time.

 

[ramsy]

I'm licensed in Wisconsin, but helping out my daughter in California

While your State may have electrical inspectors, CA adopted combination inspectors since the 2008 great sequester. May look right at it and miss it.

Or, inspector may be told by GC that cable supports come after insulation, and of course both were skipped.

 

[ModbusMan]

Required or not, I'd be worried about tripping over them, especially after insulation was blown in.

 

[rc/retired]

Green tag from me.

Required or not, I'd be worried about tripping over them, especially after insulation was blown in.

Kind of a low part of the attic to trip over something. JMHO

Ron

 

[electrofelon]

I hate that so much, even if they are stapled. For the love of god use some running boards.

 

[Eddie702]

I have seen plenty of attic done that way and I don't like it even though it probably meets code. To me and this is JMHO if the cables are near the eaves where the roof is too low to walk on the cables then on top of the joists and trusses are ok. Next best to me is running the cables on top and putting a running board on each side higher than the cables. Next best is cables on running boards and best is drilling the joists. Running the cables stapled to the underside of the rafters is ok IMHO.

This is assuming no walk up and just a scuttle hole.

 

[suemarkp]

Laying it on trusses provides the support requirement, but not the securing requirement. Protection from damage is a gray area, but low areas I would consider protected. This is common in garage ceilings to that are open trusses with no drywall to make a ceiling.

 

[paullmullen]

Laying it on trusses provides the support requirement, but not the securing requirement. Protection from damage is a gray area, but low areas I would consider protected. This is common in garage ceilings to that are open trusses with no drywall to make a ceiling.

I should have added that the ceiling was drywalled with no access (until I created it). So very unlikely to be damaged due to activity of living things.

 

[hillbilly1]

Unless they have changed it, running boards are only required 5’? I think, from the attic access hole.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Technically, it is not compliant with the letter of the code; however, most people would not see a problem with it. Adding staples will not accomplish anything.

 

[paullmullen]

Technically, it is not compliant with the letter of the code; however, most people would not see a problem with it. Adding staples will not accomplish anything.

i completely agree with the assessment that there is no practical risk. Practical is not always the criteria for the code or the AHJs.

 

[tortuga]

California. I see routing of NM through the attic without staples or other support; it just drapes over the bottom chord of the trusses on 24" spacing. (See picture.). Is that OK? It was originally done in a development of condos/town homes probably all built at the same time.

I think in Wisconsin where your from all residential electrical work is supposed to be performed by licensed electricians no matter what.
California last I checked and this was a few years ago, they have one of a kind dual system, where they let general contractors "General B" pull all the permits for a home and use their employees to do electrical with no licensing or certifications whatsoever and on the other hand the state regulates EC's to death requiring all their employees to be 'certified' or apprentices.
A builder can use a in house crew to do plumbing, hvac, electrical, roofing, solar you name it.
Electrical contractors that just specialize in electrical work are called a "C10" and are tightly regulated.
Its called the "General B loophole" is common on large developments like condo/town homes and results in comical looking romex jobs like you see.

 

[norcal]

I think in Wisconsin where your from all residential electrical work is supposed to be performed by licensed electricians no matter what.
California last I checked and this was a few years ago, they have one of a kind dual system, where they let general contractors "General B" pull all the permits for a home and use their employees to do electrical with no licensing or certifications whatsoever and on the other hand the state regulates EC's to death requiring all their employees to be 'certified' or apprentices.
A builder can use a in house crew to do plumbing, hvac, electrical, roofing, solar you name it.
Electrical contractors that just specialize in electrical work are called a "C10" and are tightly regulated.
Its called the "General B loophole" is common on large developments like condo/town homes and results in comical looking romex jobs like you see.

C10's do that same crap, tract houses are built as cheap as they can get away with, I refuse to say they are built to minimum code.

 

[Little Bill]

Unless they have changed it, running boards are only required 5’? I think, from the attic access hole.

6'

 

[ramsy]

California ..let general contractors "General B" pull all the permits for a home and use their employees to do electrical with no licensing or certifications whatsoever

That's right, and don't bother complaining about the house flippers, or laborers, since CSLB responds that their hands are tied.

and on the other hand the state regulates EC's to death requiring all their employees to be 'certified' or apprentices.

Its not a level playing field at all. EC's are left bidding against laborer panel flippers, or pulling permits for developer's as their sacrificial RMO.

 

[ramsy]

Its called the "General B loophole" is common on large developments like condo/town homes and results in comical looking romex jobs like you see.

Insurance has become so emboldened by the comical workmanship, of Owner-Builder permits, and GC laborers, they expect proof of uninsurable-additional hazards in all buildings, or proof of missing permits, and insurance fraud, as ignorant people perjure themselves on recorded phone lines.

The latest insurance-industry trend of bailing out of disaster areas, and taking years of premiums with them, doesn't hold a candle to disqualifying claims for application fraud.

This year I went thru 4 General-Liability agents who falsified the underwriter's application for my business insurance.

They change material details on the application to justify application fraud; change years in business, omit prior claims, and wont acknowledge they recived your loss run report. The underwriter says, go complain to the DIR (CA Dpt. of Insurance), which logs your complaint with others, and takes no further action.

My current GL agent refuses to provide a copy of the application at all, so any errors, or falsified info. is my word against his.

 

[ramsy]

C10's do that same crap, tract houses are built as cheap as they can get away with, I refuse to say they are built to minimum code.

The new 16/2 Romex is the cat's meow for GC's, laborers, & flippers everywhere.

EC's trying to peddle 14/2 will be put out of business.

 

[curt swartz]

The new 16/2 Romex is the cat's meow for GC's, laborers, & flippers everywhere.

EC's trying to peddle 14/2 will be put out of business.

Really? Your seeing alot of 16/2? Kind of odd since none of the major manufactures offer it and 10 amp AFCI's are not available.

 

[brycenesbitt]

Is that OK?

I see it all the time, and don't even blink. The work standards for wiring have gone down enough that the age of home more or less corresponds to the skill and craft displayed. There are exceptions. And survivor bias for the old systems.
But I'm afraid that when wiring got easier, everyone and their brother started doing it, without anything other than causal on the job training.