Pass or Fail Real Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
It was a legitimate question - do you have an ammendment that allows you to enforce a 7' rule for NM cable? Or it is simply a misapplication of the rules that you think you've been enforcing correctly?

As this is an NEC forum we don't want to confuse these young electricians you are referring to with made up rules or out of context rules.
Click to expand...

The answer is yes. Refer to 411.5 (2008) as mentioned earlier as NM cabling is applicable to the feeding primary supply side for the secondary output. I believe California is still on the 2005 NEC adoptions, the Title 24 recent adoptions are parallel to the NEC 2008 in LV operating systems.

For those young electricians without the 2008 NFPA70, mentioned under [411.5(D)(2)&(3)] Secondary circuits "Conductors, cord, and cable of the listed system and installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft) above the finished floor unless the system is specifically listed for a lower installation height." and..."(3) Wiring methods described in Chapter 3." In many cases the primary side is connected internally to the transformer barrier strip (Depending on type) along with the 12 or 24V output to the luminaire.

I hope this clears up an understanding of NM and exposed wiring that requires up to a minimum 7' height application. rbj
 
peter d said:
You're not serious, are you? You actually used 398.15 to defend your argument? :confused:

Ok, I think you are serious. Did you actually read what 398 applies to? Industrial and agricultural establishments. It has absolutely nothing to do with NM cable. Talk about taking a code rule way out of context. :confused:
Click to expand...

Peter - as gndrod says in a later post....this 7' 'rule' does seem to be 'the rule' on the West coast. I've always wondered about this measurement and figured [as he posts], this must have migrated from the 7' rule with knob & tube.

That said, there is a bit of ligitimacy to this measurement [at least on the West coast]. 334.15(B) says, 'cable shall be protected from physical damage...'.

On the WC, folks don't seem to use their garages for parking their cars [nice weather], they use it for storage...rakes, shovels, tree trimmers, etc. all leaning up against the garage walls. In fact, if there is a laundry in a basement, folks use the NM passing through the overhead floor joists as a clothes hanger for their clothes! [They do it in the garage too if the sheetrock has been damaged and thus exposed the cable].

Yes, this 7' 'rule' is common on the WC, but from the 1000's of inspections I've performed it seems practical. I personally have never used this 'rule'; I used 334.15(B). As an aside, it's pretty common in my area for contractors to protect the cable all the way to the ceiling [finished garages are pretty much the rule rather than the exception].
 
gndrod said:
The answer is yes. Refer to 411.5 (2008) as mentioned earlier as NM cabling is applicable to the feeding primary supply side for the secondary output. I believe California is still on the 2005 NEC adoptions, the Title 24 recent adoptions are parallel to the NEC 2008 in LV operating systems.

For those young electricians without the 2008 NFPA70, mentioned under [411.5(D)(2)&(3)] Secondary circuits "Conductors, cord, and cable of the listed system and installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft) above the finished floor unless the system is specifically listed for a lower installation height." and..."(3) Wiring methods described in Chapter 3." In many cases the primary side is connected internally to the transformer barrier strip (Depending on type) along with the 12 or 24V output to the luminaire.

I hope this clears up an understanding of NM and exposed wiring that requires up to a minimum 7' height application. rbj
Click to expand...

Wow...how you even reply to this? :confused:
 
ivsenroute said:
Nice install Todd. I always liked the terminal bar setup in those panels. The lower level BR is almost as nice.
Click to expand...

Thanks. He does good for 2nd year app. He's in trade for about 3 1/2 years, but is in 2nd year apprenticeship.

These are the new CH snap on neutral loadcenters. The bus is oversized rated to allow for PV installs also (don't know how many guys realize that)
 
dana1028 said:
Peter - as gndrod says in a later post....this 7' 'rule' does seem to be 'the rule' on the West coast. I've always wondered about this measurement and figured [as he posts], this must have migrated from the 7' rule with knob & tube.



Yes, this 7' 'rule' is common on the WC, but from the 1000's of inspections I've performed it seems practical. I personally have never used this 'rule'; I used 334.15(B). As an aside, it's pretty common in my area for contractors to protect the cable all the way to the ceiling [finished garages are pretty much the rule rather than the exception].
Click to expand...

I understand that it's a practice. I just have not seen any proof of it with a code rule yet. I do know that member e57 has said that San Francisco does have a local code rule to that end - I believe he said no exposed cable is permitted under 8 feet if memory serves.

At any rate, here in New England we are at the exact opposite end of the scale. We never have to protect exposed NM cable under 7 feet in garages and basements. Obviously local practice is in play here. My contention is rbj using code sections that have nothing to do with NM cable to justify the enforcement.
 
gndrod said:
The answer is yes. Refer to 411.5 (2008) as mentioned earlier as NM cabling is applicable to the feeding primary supply side for the secondary output. I believe California is still on the 2005 NEC adoptions, the Title 24 recent adoptions are parallel to the NEC 2008 in LV operating systems.

For those young electricians without the 2008 NFPA70, mentioned under [411.5(D)(2)&(3)] Secondary circuits "Conductors, cord, and cable of the listed system and installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft) above the finished floor unless the system is specifically listed for a lower installation height." and..."(3) Wiring methods described in Chapter 3." In many cases the primary side is connected internally to the transformer barrier strip (Depending on type) along with the 12 or 24V output to the luminaire.

I hope this clears up an understanding of NM and exposed wiring that requires up to a minimum 7' height application. rbj
Click to expand...


And yet there is still no '7' rule in the NEC'
 
Sorry for the delay, real life gets in the way. :)

mpd said:
iwire, i wll asked you again, a new home is found to have several NEC violations that are not life safety but are still NEC violations (no matter how minor) this homeowner is demanding a code compliant home and wants to know why you as an inspector passed it, how would you handle it, because that is real world,
Click to expand...

But that is not what we have been talking about, or at least not me. I have been talking about a specific violation, the specific violation the OP asked the question about. Not several, not major violations just one specific issue ....

this issue here ....

IMG_0330.JPG


and how would I handle it if the 'homeowner is demanding a code compliant home and wants to know why you as an inspector passed it'

First off lets be real, this is thread is about real life.:) Do you really think a HO is going to call you out on this ..

IMG_0330.JPG


.. I can tell you they do not here, that looks like SOP to me.

.... but if I was an inspector and the HO happened to call me about this I would likely say not to worry about it.

Of course there is always a chance that the person wants to take this all the way they can and make your life hard. Well that is life, some of the customers I deal with try to make things harder then they have to be.

and your police comparison makes no sense
Click to expand...

I do not understand how my comparison 'makes no sense' IMO it is dead on.

What is you're issue with it?
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I do not understand how my comparison 'makes no sense' IMO it is dead on.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a good comparison. Considering how some inspectors think they have a "no-knock" warrant to enter a premises, it might be better than originally thought.
 
gndrod said:
The answer is yes. Refer to 411.5 (2008) as mentioned earlier as NM cabling is applicable to the feeding primary supply side for the secondary output. I believe California is still on the 2005 NEC adoptions, the Title 24 recent adoptions are parallel to the NEC 2008 in LV operating systems.

For those young electricians without the 2008 NFPA70, mentioned under [411.5(D)(2)&(3)] Secondary circuits "Conductors, cord, and cable of the listed system and installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft) above the finished floor unless the system is specifically listed for a lower installation height." and..."(3) Wiring methods described in Chapter 3." In many cases the primary side is connected internally to the transformer barrier strip (Depending on type) along with the 12 or 24V output to the luminaire.

I hope this clears up an understanding of NM and exposed wiring that requires up to a minimum 7' height application. rbj
Click to expand...


This clears up nothing and in fact is just bizarre.

Please stop trying to teach young electricians.
 
mivey said:
I thought it was a good comparison. Considering how some inspectors think they have a "no-knock" warrant to enter a premises, it might be better than originally thought.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe that actually exists. Northern New England (really north) that kind of thing would end up with justifiable shooting.

This statement is not to provoke or annoy anyone. People get shot when they trespass inside someone's private residence, unless you have a gun with that badge.

And that 7' rule is wicked bizarre to me as well.
 
20 pages on if romex should be strapped comming into a panel. Ive got the right answer why not just to it the right way . What ever happened to craftsmanship in this trade.Had a inspector tell me one time he couldnt enforce the code that says installed in a neat and workman like manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top