strapping romex

[220/221]

Originally Posted by LJSMITH1

IMHO...If an inspector requires a listed staple or strap, so be it. It's their decision which does not necessarily need an actual code article to support.

.

I was about to blast him until I read his "IMHO" disclaimer.


It can't be untrue because it ls his opinion.

It can be stupid, but not untruue

 

[electricmanscott]

I was about to blast him until I read his "IMHO" disclaimer.


It can't be untrue because it ls his opinion.

It can be stupid, but not untruue

Excellent point.

I originally wrote something else but lost my train of thought so I just blurted that out instead. :grin:

 

[LJSMITH1]

Gentlemen, give me a valid reason why ANYTHING needs to be Listed in the first place. Please...

....and don't tell me "because in certain areas the NEC requires it". Why is it even specifically mentioned in the NEC in the first place? Oh...right...its a big conspiracy between the electrical manufacturers and the testing labs to get more hard earned money from everyone.

I could take your advice and try to convince others in the industry that we are all wasting our time because all the electricians around the country don't think Listings are worth anything, and they all know better anyway. Seriously, I would rather not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for such a supposedly 'useless' effort to list a product if electricians every day are going to make up new and exciting applications for said product.


220/221
Now you are calling my opinion "stupid"? Gee, thanks. I guess this is what you get for trying to explain another point of view to a person who has no concept of how any electrical product is designed, tested, and listed for use in your installations. Maybe you don't care, and thats fine. Unlike you, I have heard of a few stories of actual, failed inspections which have had no NEC or local references to back it up. The inspectors, in their experience and wizdom, have made decisions that are not popular, but the NEC gives them the authority, through the AHJ, to enforce what they interpret is the code. I suppose all the design and performance criteria is all 'gobbledygook' to you anyway and you have no use for it. You can go back to using romex straps to secure NM.

I wish I didn't add "IMHO"...Please Blast Me!


P.S. I'm going to start adding gasoline and iced tea to my engine oil. Why? Because the owner's manual doesn't tell me I can't or shouldn't. I will expect that my car will not have any mechanical problem with that....:roll::roll:

 

[LJSMITH1]

Why not use any of those things. :-?

I use romex sheath and two staples sometimes to secure multiple cables.

Could you use a nice, fat band-aid too? What about a folded piece of Duct tape? How about just wrapping the whole thing up against the studs with electrical tape? Heck, why not even use UL Listed electrical tape?

The NEC doesn't say you "can't" do any of those things, so I guess they really are acceptable.

Thanks for enlightening me!

 

[electricmanscott]

Could you use a nice, fat band-aid too? What about a folded piece of Duct tape? How about just wrapping the whole thing up against the studs with electrical tape? Heck, why not even use UL Listed electrical tape?

The NEC doesn't say you "can't" do any of those things, so I guess they really are acceptable.

Thanks for enlightening me!

If it gets the job done why not. :-?

What are you so worried about?

I am smart enough to know what will work and what is safe. I don't need to have my hand held by a book and a testing lab. If somebody is too stupid to figure out driving a nail through a piece of romex is a bad idea then they should be smacked in the back of the head as they are shown the door and their tools are confiscated.

I'll try it again, There is no requirement for staples or whatever you are using to secure nm cable to be listed nor does there need to be.

 

[electricmanscott]

P.S. I'm going to start adding gasoline and iced tea to my engine oil. Why? Because the owner's manual doesn't tell me I can't or shouldn't. I will expect that my car will not have any mechanical problem with that....:roll::roll:

That would be pretty dumb.

 

[electricmanscott]

Gentlemen, give me a valid reason why ANYTHING needs to be Listed in the first place. Please...

:

Before you do that why don't you give us a valid code that says EVERYTHING has to be listed.


You are fooling yourself if you think listing something is a guarantee of safety.

 

[electricmanscott]

I have heard of a few stories of actual, failed inspections which have had no NEC or local references to back it up. The inspectors, in their experience and wizdom, have made decisions that are not popular, but the NEC gives them the authority, through the AHJ, to enforce what they interpret is the code.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Failing something with no actual code to back up the violation is NOT interpreting the code. That is making up code as you go which is totaly different.

 

[electricmanscott]

.

I could take your advice and try to convince others in the industry that we are all wasting our time because all the electricians around the country don't think Listings are worth anything, and they all know better anyway. Seriously, I would rather not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for such a supposedly 'useless' effort to list a product if electricians every day are going to make up new and exciting applications for said product.


:

Nobody said listings are worthless. But I will say this, I'll take a bunch of electricians that are smart, experienced, and creative enough to figure out what will work, be safe and get the job done over a drone who can't do anything without a peice of papper telling them it's ok.


This whole listing BS has gone way to far and it's patehtic. So many times this comes up just here in the forum. Somebody will ask for a solution and a good one will be given only to be met by " NOOOOOO you are violating the listing blah blah blah" It's really ridiculous. Seriously is drilling new mounting holes in a fixture bar really going to kill somebody?

 

[electricmanscott]

Whay can't you people learn to use multiple quotes in one post...oops nevermind. :grin:

 

[iwire]

Gentlemen, give me a valid reason why ANYTHING needs to be Listed in the first place. Please...

Safety, no one has suggested that nothing should be listed what we have been saying is the NEC does not currently require NM supports to be listed.

....and don't tell me "because in certain areas the NEC requires it". Why is it even specifically mentioned in the NEC in the first place?

Again IMO certain items should be listed, a great number of items actually, but stop being angry and answer our question to you.

Why should an NM support be listed?

I could take your advice and try to convince others in the industry that we are all wasting our time because all the electricians around the country don't think Listings are worth anything, and they all know better anyway. Seriously, I would rather not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for such a supposedly 'useless' effort to list a product if electricians every day are going to make up new and exciting applications for said product.

I have said this before and will say it again, you really need to get out in the real world. There is so much that can be done safely using common sense. We are not morons, we can figure out if something is damaging the NM or not.

Then there is the fact we see so many listed products that are just plain crap. MC connectors are a great example, both UL and NEMA say that UL listed MC connectors provide protection to the conductors so that anti shorts do not need to be used. Certainly some MC connectors do provide that protection but there are many that do not. I will be glad to post a pictures of what I mean but it will have to be next week.

P.S. I'm going to start adding gasoline and iced tea to my engine oil. Why? Because the owner's manual doesn't tell me I can't or shouldn't. I will expect that my car will not have any mechanical problem with that....:roll::roll:

Now your just being childish.

We are talking about a simple support, not a chemical mixture.

I guess we all must stop installing any 'strut' type support products, they are not listed so they must be unsafe.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I agree that seeing a picture of the installation may help. Although I am not taking sides, we are only hearing one side of a story here.

With that said, as an inspector, inspectors sometimes need to reflect back in their minds when inspecting and try to remember we are all on the same team, we may play different positions.
I mean we have an industry that we all belong to, and the end goal is the same for all of us...a safe installation. For the contractor add in; it is cost effective, and hopefully produces some profit to help keep the company healthy. Without healthy electrical companies, we are all worse off.


With that said, there is some wording I see that has been missed when reading the section in discussion.
I believe the CMP has purposely left some ambiguity in this section.
1. For the longest time there were no listed products for the purpose, as listing is not required.
2. There are so many ways to install this wiring method, that flexibility of the means for support should be understood.
3. The bottom line is the safety of the installation once it is complete.

With that said, does the method finally chosen to secure/support the wiring method actually offer a secure means of support and provide for the safety of the wiring method?
That is what I ultimately look for. Which means there are many ways to provide support that may not be "conventional", but we do not live in an old conventional world anymore.

 

[LJSMITH1]

I am not the one calling someone's opinion "stupid".

I never said or implied any of you are 'morons' or incapable of making excellent decisions in the field. The fact that many of you are on this forum every day contributing is a great thing to watch, read and learn.:grin:

Being on the manufacturing side of things, I feel I have a valid point of view.

I may have a different view of what listings are for and how they are used to help maintain life safety. While I am not a proponent of the process or costs used to get and maintain these listings, I do understand how and why they exist.

I don't write the code, but I can interpret certain things differently than some of you. Does that mean one of us is wrong? Sure or maybe not. Maybe we can all be right on some things. As much as we want the NEC or any other standard to be "black and white", sometimes it is just not possible. The NEC or other "all ecompassing" document cannot possibly cover all potential configurations in the field. This is why the AHJ has the final approval.

The formula is simple NEC + Listing + proper workmanship = guaranteed level of safety. We all agree that the AHJ has the final approval on any job. I am not saying that everything should be or should not be listed. I am asking why a company would bother listing something if it really wasn't needed. Why would Briscon list a staple if its not required by the code or some jurisdiction somewhere?

electricmanscott: I am not "talking out of both sides of my mouth" as you put it. I am relaying that in some jurisdictions it is not always as straightforward as you make it to be. These are not MY stories, so don't condemn me for relaying them to the discussion. While you may be the best electrician in the area you are in, there are hundreds more that are not as good as you. They need more guidance because they don't have the same interpretation of the code as you do. I am not saying the entire code, just sections of it. The code is not a static document, and many professionals don't take the time to review and understand the multitude of changes made every two years.

Seriously, I am not angry, just baffled how I am somehow the bad guy in this discussion. Someone said there was no listed staple or strap, I showed them that there is. If the issue is that the inspector wants a listed means of securing NM, then there is one available - even if the national code does not require it. Maybe its a local code? I have no idea. :grin:

Iwire: Yes. My little comment about gasoline and iced tea in an engine was silly. I was making a point that an operation or service manual (like the NEC) cannot possibly address all of the combinations of stupid things that people do to mechanical things (like electrical product). I might sincerely believe that putting these things in my engine will make it run cooler and more efficiently. However, any experienced mechanic would cringe because they know the "why" its not a good idea. Maybe I could have come up with a better analogy..but it was late and I was tired..:grin:

 

[LJSMITH1]

I agree that seeing a picture of the installation may help. Although I am not taking sides, we are only hearing one side of a story here.

With that said, as an inspector, inspectors sometimes need to reflect back in their minds when inspecting and try to remember we are all on the same team, we may play different positions.
I mean we have an industry that we all belong to, and the end goal is the same for all of us...a safe installation. For the contractor add in; it is cost effective, and hopefully produces some profit to help keep the company healthy. Without healthy electrical companies, we are all worse off.


With that said, there is some wording I see that has been missed when reading the section in discussion.
I believe the CMP has purposely left some ambiguity in this section.
1. For the longest time there were no listed products for the purpose, as listing is not required.
2. There are so many ways to install this wiring method, that flexibility of the means for support should be understood.
3. The bottom line is the safety of the installation once it is complete.

With that said, does the method finally chosen to secure/support the wiring method actually offer a secure means of support and provide for the safety of the wiring method?
That is what I ultimately look for. Which means there are many ways to provide support that may not be "conventional", but we do not live in an old conventional world anymore.

Well said. :grin:

 

[LJSMITH1]

Safety, no one has suggested that nothing should be listed what we have been saying is the NEC does not currently require NM supports to be listed.

My point has always been that if you take a listed product and modify it in a manner not consistent with the design or performance intent (i.e. taking a protector plate and converting it into a NM 'staple'), you have violated the listing and it is no longer applicable. The listing is a static 'snapshot' evaluation of a product as it was submitted for evaluation to a defined standard. It either passed or failed.

The fact that some may think that modifying any product for any reason does not affect a UL listing is just plain wrong. You can contact UL and ask them directly if you don't believe me. If modifying product is deemed ok just because the NEC doesn't say you can't, then why have listed product in the first place?? Does that make sense? Maybe I am confusing...:grin:

Then there is the fact we see so many listed products that are just plain crap. MC connectors are a great example, both UL and NEMA say that UL listed MC connectors provide protection to the conductors so that anti shorts do not need to be used. Certainly some MC connectors do provide that protection but there are many that do not. I will be glad to post a pictures of what I mean but it will have to be next week.

Some of you have at least implied that the listing process is somehow a waste. All I know is that it is very involved and costly. I think the issue you are witnessing is what happens to the product after it has been listed. Many companies may not control the quality or finite elements of the design that may be critical to the product's performance. I agree that there is a lot of crappy product out there - I see it every day.

I think that the listing companies should be required to perform spot re-tests to verify that the product still meets the same criteria as when it was first listed. While the listing labs perform 'spot checks' on site at the manufacturer, most of it is paperwork related and they only get involved with retesting if they 'suspect' something is amiss, or there are numerous complaints from the field.

My company is doing everything we can to listen to the installer to help us improve *our* product. That is one of my primary purposes from being on this form and others. If I can learn more from you and others about what is actually going on in the field, I feel that I will have a better handle on what we can do to help. While I have been to quite a few job sites around the country, my job keeps me in the manufacturing plant most of the time.

Thanks for your continued feedback and conversation.

 

[raider1]

LJSMITH1, I don't think that anyone here is saying that listing products are worthless. As Bob pointed out there are many items that we install as electricians that need to be listed for safety reasons.

The point of my comments on listing of NM staples is that not every single thing that is installed as part of an electrical system must be listed or needs to be listed. As many others in this thread have already pointed out, we as electricians are capable of judging whether or not the methods that we use to secure and support NM cables will damage the cable or not.

As an inspector I look at the methods of support of NM cable and judge whether or not the method causes any damage to the cable. I don't necessarily look for listed products or care if the method is listed.

Chris

 

[LJSMITH1]

LJSMITH1, I don't think that anyone here is saying that listing products are worthless. As Bob pointed out there are many items that we install as electricians that need to be listed for safety reasons.

The point of my comments on listing of NM staples is that not every single thing that is installed as part of an electrical system must be listed or needs to be listed. As many others in this thread have already pointed out, we as electricians are capable of judging whether or not the methods that we use to secure and support NM cables will damage the cable or not.

As an inspector I look at the methods of support of NM cable and judge whether or not the method causes any damage to the cable. I don't necessarily look for listed products or care if the method is listed.

Chris

I see your point and I can agree. The NEC is very specific when it comes to deciding what must be listed. Today, NM staples or other securing means are not required to be listed. Tomorrow, they might. The folks who change the NEC supply very specific information to support their reasoning of why the code must be changed.

Let's say that using romex scrap to secure romex runs causes some safety concern (i.e. lack of support, etc.). The code eventually gets changed to require listed securing means. Problem solved.

I am sure that you know that there are some inspectors who always defer to the fact that a product may or may not be listed. They use the listing as reasoning for their decision to allow or reject an installation.

An example of this is a new fitting we released a year ago. UL was not able to list the product because it did not fit into a specific evaluation 'category' in the UL standard. The fitting passed all relevant tests (mechanical, electrical, etc) that would typically be associated with this type of fitting. UL was hung up on a design requirement that conflicted with another requirement in the same specification. The end result was that they said the fitting was unlistable. We put it on the market anyway, knowing that there are plenty of fittings out there that are not listed and still used (and approved by AHJ's). Some jurisdictions had absolutely no problem with it. However, we had multiple instances where the AHJ flatly rejected the fitting due to the fact that it was not a listed product. Period. We tried to reason with those individuals, with only a couple changing their mind.

The bottom line is we realized what one inspector thinks as safe, can be completely opposite with another inspector in another jurisdiction. I wish it was uniform throughout the country, but its not.


From the NEC:

Section 90.4 advises that all materials and equipment used under the requirements of the Code are subject to the approval of the AHJ. The text of 90.7, 110.2 and 110.3, along with the definitions of the terms "approved", "Identified", "labeled" and "listed", is intended to provide a basis for the AHJ to make judgments that fall within that particular area of responsibility.

By special permission, the AHJ may waive specific requirements of the Code, or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.

That is pretty clear to me. If a AHJ requires a listed product to be used, they are able to do so within the confines of the NEC and local codes.

 

[riggenbw]

I use the plastic straps with the two nails (brads). Using a hammer sideways, they can be installed.