Romex staple UL listing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Hill said:
How can I prove to an inspector that Romex staples do not need to be UL listed?
Click to expand...

Because there is no requirement in the NEC for staples to be listed, the NEC is a permissive document, unless it is strictly prohibited or required it is allowed 90.5 and 334.30 has no requirement for the listing of the methods to secure of support NM
 
Last edited:
Code only requires that cables be secured; it is silent on how they are to be secured. Conceivably, you could meet the requirement by bending over a nail. There certainly is no requirement that the means of support be 'listed.'

I got rather upset a few years ago when Arrow ran full-page ads in the trade press, claiming to have the "ONLY" UL- listed staples. The claim was misleading, in that they had the only staples with that particular mix of cables listed; Power-Fast was most definitely UL-listed at the time, but had a slightly different list of cables specified.

I don't think the hammer-in staples of any make are listed.
 
Dottie makes staples for romex and BX cable.

RX series that is 1/2" is for NM cable and BX series is 9/16" is for NM cable and BX cable.

On a residential project that was wired with MC cable, the local inspectors asked to see the listing of the staples that was used. Poor contractor had to find a manufacturer that made staples specifically for MC or AC cable.
 
infinity said:
I would say that the staples only needed to be identified which may or may not include a specific listing. We've been using these for a while. They're UL listed and the longer ones are listed for securing two cables at a time.

http://www.brisconelectric.com/catalogPages/3_SScableStaples.pdf
Click to expand...

I think Identified is very subjective, but I don't see a requirement for stapples to even be identified?

Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, and so forth, where described in a particular Code requirement.
Click to expand...

Above from the NEC definitions, as we can see it is very open, and it does give us what we should base it being identified on, by what is required in the particular code requirement.

So what is required in 334.30
Simple:
Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (4? ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every cabinet, box, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.
Click to expand...

So besides it meeting the requirement of securing and supporting, it must also meet the requirement of "not damaging the cable" when installed properly<< this last one is what needs to be looked at by inspectors to make sure they are not over driven.
 
Last edited:
Hold on! The NEC requires that very few things be "Listed". There are some things that are, such as luminaires (light fixtures). Other things are required to be "identified" such as circuit breaker handle ties. However, EVERYTHING must be APPROVED. The article 100 definition of approved is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction" (AHJ). Many AHJ's base their "approval" on the UL or other listing. In this case, the AHJ (assuming the inspector is, in fact the AHJ) has not approved your staples. You must either convince him that they are suitable, or find out who the real AHJ is and have them override the inspector. This is not a function of the NEC, you will need to rely on manufacturer literature, etc to make your case that these staples are suitable, or that no "listed" staples are available.
 
haskindm said:
Hold on! The NEC requires that very few things be "Listed". There are some things that are, such as luminaires (light fixtures). Other things are required to be "identified" such as circuit breaker handle ties. However, EVERYTHING must be APPROVED. The article 100 definition of approved is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction" (AHJ). Many AHJ's base their "approval" on the UL or other listing. In this case, the AHJ (assuming the inspector is, in fact the AHJ) has not approved your staples. You must either convince him that they are suitable, or find out who the real AHJ is and have them override the inspector. This is not a function of the NEC, you will need to rely on manufacturer literature, etc to make your case that these staples are suitable, or that no "listed" staples are available.
Click to expand...

I had to actually look at your location to see if you were from another country, laws do not work like that here in the United States, before a code can be enforced it must be adopted into law, as well as the authority of inspectors, AHJ's, And who ever is above them, and who is in charge as to what is acceptable methods of installation of electrical equipment, an inspector does not have a cart blench ticket to disapprove just anything he/she wishes (while there are some who think they can) they have laws they must follow and someone over them who can make a judgment of the call, if that doesn't work then it can go all the way to the court system, sure every state is different, and enforcement can be different, but if a inspector disapproves a wiring method, it better be adopted into law or it is not enforceable under the Constitution of The United States, we do not live in a dictatorship country we have laws that all must follow.
If an inspector didn't like a certain brand of panel do you think they would have the right to not approve it? I would think not.

Sorry for the rant, but I fight this here in my area all the time, while Indiana doesn't have a state wide licensee, we do have state wide codes, and enforcement can go all the way to the state AHJ which is the only person who in authorized in our state to make a call as to approve or disapprove a wiring method, his judgment will be based upon what was adopted by the state on Indiana into law and nothing else, if a wiring method is not approved to be used then here it has to be adopted into law before it can be enforced, about a year ago I was told by an inspector that I was not allowed to use PVC in his city, I ignored it and ran it anyway, e-mailed the state AHJ, and he over ruled the local inspector on the spot, while most here are great to work with we have a few who try to flex their power they think they have, guess what I flex back.

My feelings in a nut shell is don't walk on the very Constitution that so many of our fellow Americans have died to protect.

We need to educate ourselves on not only the code we must follow, but the laws that pertain to the enforcement of them, other wise we are at the mercy of what ever we are told to do, and this is not fair to our customers or ourselves when we are forced to add cost un-nessasarlly to a job for something not legally required, just because we are told it is their wish for us to do it that way.
 
Some folks use a nail with a tie wrap. If that nail has been coated with a chemichal for a cetain type of use. The chemical may have an adverse effect on the insulation to the wire

Just my 2 cents
 
hurk27 said:
I had to actually look at your location to see if you were from another country, laws do not work like that here in the United States, before a code can be enforced it must be adopted into law, ...it better be adopted into law or it is not enforceable under the Constitution of The United States, we do not live in a dictatorship country we have laws that all must follow.

My feelings in a nut shell is don't walk on the very Constitution that so many of our fellow Americans have died to protect.

We need to educate ourselves on not only the code we must follow, but the laws that pertain to the enforcement of them, other wise we are at the mercy of what ever we are told to do, and this is not fair to our customers or ourselves when we are forced to add cost un-nessasarlly to a job for something not legally required, just because we are told it is their wish for us to do it that way.
Click to expand...

The only way that freedom is maintained it to maintain a constant vigilance. Keep ranting!
 
Wayne, 110.2 does not say that, it supports Haskindm's statement. Listing does not guarantee approval. According to 90.7, listing is a convenience to an AHJ to speed approval, it does not legally bind them to approve listed material.
 
Thanks George. The code does not always say what we want it to. The fact is that the code gives the AHJ a great deal of power as they are the only entity that has the responsibility for approval and everything that electricians install must be "approved". The kicker is, who is actually the "authority having jurisdiction"? The NEC has attempted to define it, but it is still murky at best. In the jurisdiction in which I live, when the local government accepts the code for enforcement, it is stated that the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" is the Electrical Board. This makes it clear that the inspector can make his "call", but the electrician can appeal to the Board, and the Board has the final say. Without this, the inspector is fairly free to approve is disapprove material and equipment as they please. Of course everyone has a boss and you can appeal up the chain, I guess until you get to the governor's office. As Mike Holt says, "You need to decide which hill you want to die on".
If you don't like the AHJ having the power granted by the NEC, you may need to find another line of work or submit proposals to have the NEC changed.

For now look at
Article 100 definition of "approved" = Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
Article 90.4 which says "The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the code has the responsibility ... for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials....
Article 110.2 "The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if approved. (see definition of approved)

This not a Constitutional Issue. The jurisdiction has the right to adopt the NEC or not, and to amend it or not. If it is adopted, this is what it says and this is the responsibility granted to the AHJ. We must work within that framework. Is the inspector in this case justified in his action? I don't think so, but if he is the AHJ (or has been authorized to act on behalf of the AHJ) he is within his responsibilities. If he is under the impression that every piece of electrical equipment and material must be listed by UL or some other testing agency in order for him to "approve" it, he is wrong and needs to be educated.
 
George Stolz said:
Wayne, 110.2 does not say that, it supports Haskindm's statement. Listing does not guarantee approval. According to 90.7, listing is a convenience to an AHJ to speed approval, it does not legally bind them to approve listed material.
Click to expand...

I believe Wayne is saying if AHJ is not approving any installation or equipment then they must make it a law, adopt it first before they can enforce it.
 
I suspect that there is a 'creeping' factor to any form of regulation, to where the exception becomes the norm.

It wasn't that long ago that very few things we bought had any 'certifications' on them at all. You wanted a car, you went out and bought a car ... then it had to be licensed, had to meet state rules, had to meet federal rules, had to meet pollution rules, had to meet fuel efficiency rules, ad nauseum. This is also happening in our trade.

Despite the very high-profile and long-time involvement of UL in 'listing' electrical stuff, the fact is that we've been using tons of stuff for decades that were not UL listed; in most instances, UL didn't even have 'standards' for the items. While wire and conduit may have been listed, the various straps and hangers often were not. Anything associated with the phone system was not. "Christy"-type boxes were not. Light poles usually were not. Industrial control panels were not. Etc.

We've seen some expansion over time as either manufacturers desired some form of listing solely for marketing advantage (hot tubs), or code changes have made it a requirement (Christy boxes). It's still a fact, though, that some of the highest-quality electrical equipment is not listed by anybody (Baldor motors for one example).

Naturally, it is tempting for one to abandon their own requirement to think, to judge, to rely upon someone else's opinion. It's so much easier to not have to learn about new things, to deflect critics. Small wonder so many inspectors stop their examination at the sight of a UL lable. Heck, I'm surprised they don't want listed hangers mounted with listed screws (using a listed driver) to listed studs attached to a listed foundation ..... just where will this silliness end?

There's no requirement that Romex be hung using any particular method, let alone by using listed staples.
 
renosteinke said:
...We've seen some expansion over time as either manufacturers desired some form of listing solely for marketing advantage (hot tubs), or code changes have made it a requirement (Christy boxes). It's still a fact, though, that some of the highest-quality electrical equipment is not listed by anybody (Baldor motors for one example)...
Click to expand...
NEMA motors aren't listed for "ordinary locations" although UL has had a standard (UL 1004) for years. Some, but not all, applicable motors are listed for classified locations. Most motors are "recognized components" if they have any label at all and that "label" does not satisfy, the NEC definition of label.
 
renosteinke said:
...... Heck, I'm surprised they don't want listed hangers mounted with listed screws (using a listed driver) to listed studs attached to a listed foundation ..... just where will this silliness end?....
Click to expand...

I think it is far too late to ask that question.

None of what I am about to say applies to public buildings, or buildings for rent... only private residences.

Hurk's rant about freedom and the constitution is already long moot when laws governing the construction of private residences are passed... I think there still may be a state or two which have not adopted them. Good for them .....Pennsylvania caved several years ago... one of the last.

I don't see how you can allow the government to "protect" us by the adoption of construction codes for private residences, and have guys talking about duct tape and bent nails, and yet think the use of approved hangers and screws is silly.

I think the whole thing is a revenue generating racket ...for the government and for contractors.
 
Last edited:
I will agree that some requirements are to extreme in private residences, however I believe most are neccessary. If you don't have codes for private residences just think how many more insurance claims there would be which would in turn raise insurance rates on the people who do good quality work. Inspectors for the most part aren't needed for the contractors that take pride in there work b/c they would do the job right whether an inspector or codes were in place or not, but there are plenty of people that would take advantage of people and there are also some that just don't know any better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top