Charlie

What is the violation?



NM looks like a strap to me.

Not saying I would do this, just saying I do not see it as the end of the world or a violation.

You can now start throwing rocks....

Bob

In the last pic is that multiple cables into 3/4" romex connectors?
Bob, i wouldnt use that type of "strap" either but is that a bundling issue?
Kelley

in pic #3

how bout the violation of multiple romexes going into one connector (looks like 7 0r 8 into 1 1 1/4 inch connector as im sure the connector is not listed for this use

Denny

As Bob has mentioned, it is not pretty, but does seem to comply. When we see a method that may be unorthodoxed, that does not mean it is incorrect. The only issue is this method does seem to lead itself to the chance of bundling.

I also wonder about the use of the 1 1/4 fitting for all of the cables.

When I did new construction res 6 years ago we strapped with the remains of romex scrap (not my choice), inspector always passed it.

Is this California? Sure looks like it to me. That is very common, and I don't see the violation either.

Peter

Might have a problem with bundling and de-rating.

334.30 Securing & Supporting NM shall be...straps..., or similar fittings DESIGNED and installed...
I do not believe NM cable is designed to support and especially secure NM cable.
Also the multiple cables in one clamp may exceed the mfg. listing for that clamp.
Junk looking work.
Alan--

I have no problem with this method of support. Code Nazi's could argue the legality of it but to me it's fine although cheesy.

For all 3 photos see 300.11(2)(c) NEC 2002
"Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables,raceways,or nonelectrical equipment."

Photos 1&2 NEC 2002 See 300.4(D) "In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed parallel to framing members, such as joists, rafters, or studs, the cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less than 1-1/4" from the nearest edge of the framing member where nails or screws are likely to penetrate."

Picture 2, where the romex is taken up and over the back side of the box, the romex is clearly less than 1-1/4" to the nearest framing member. now, whether or not they are "likely" to become penetrated is up to the AHJ. Why not just come out of the bottom of the box and know it is safe from the drywallers?

Picture 1- 200.7(c)(2) NEC 2002 Unless i mis-interperate this article, a grounded conductor can be re-identified as an un-grounded conductor if it is used as the supply to the switch, and not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. the conductor shall be re-identified to indicate its use by painting or other effective means at its termination and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.

I would consider using a white wire as a traveller to be a violation: 1) it is not for use as "the supply to the switch" and 2) is shall be permenantly reidentified if it is no longer used as a grounded conductor

I would have to pick up my clip board and put on my hobnailed boots for this one.
I would not approve this installation.
The NM cables are not secure, they can slide in the looping. It is not secure.
Alan--

They can also slip in stackers, ty wraps, and properly installed staples.

Haven't seem this handiwork around here....yet. As to getting a 'pass'; reasoning with Bob's explanation, it's "strapped", so no 'red sticker'.

"Workmanship" is not a violation that can be cited in NJ; that also saves a lot of 'reds'

John

That sure looks like ent is going into an attic in the picture with the panel board. Don't know where the picture was taken, but most attics will get above 50 dg centigrade ambient at some point. Ent is not allowed to be used in ambient above 50 dg centigrade.

It doesn't look like complete romex to me. It only looks like the outer casing, at least in the center picture.

[This message has been edited by jdevlin (edited 12-14-2005).]

Is this how we want to teach our apprentice electrician's? Ok it might work as good as another strapping method but the piece of romex is not a U.L. approved method for support, and not to mention the multiple cables in one romex clamp and the use of the ENT in the attic are surely violations. That being said look up article 110.12, from the 2005 handbook, Examples of installations that do not qualify as "neat and workmanlike" include exposed runs of cables or raceways that are improperly supported(e.g., sagging between supports or use of improper support methods) etc., and I know it says exposed but come on make it code compliant and nice looking even if it is going to be covered with sheetrock, that is why we use this thing called the NEC.

UL only "lists" materials for use, "Approval" is up to the AHJ.
Other non-UL supports include Unistrut and clamps, staples, one and two hole straps, wood, angle iron.....well, you get the idea.
I agree with Electricmanscott. Limburger-stink-cheesy, but gets the job done.
Nothing that you'd teach someone to do.

Actually, I kinda like this method of support, or at least the idea of it. I've never tried this myself.

It seems to me that something like this has the benefit of sufficiently supporting the cables while at the same time being more forgiving of small movement. A cable staple becomes a focus for any tension on that cable, but these straps would be somewhat flexible, and would 'give' if the support structure moves slightly.

-Jon

OK, as I said above, based on Iwire's thoughts, I would not fail the use of NM jacket as a strap/support. It is NOT something I as an EC would do.

The only place that I have seen ENT is in a few masonry driveway pillars as a 'sleeve'. Noone uses it around here.

BTW; welcome to SD

John

"Not one violation was found."

Reguardless of the romex straps (Which I have seen done before, and hope not to see again...) There are quite a few visable violation... Just in these few pic's, the whole job is probhably littered with them...

White switch wire in #1... Others that have been mentioned. And if that romex "Strap" (not that I would call it that) has conductors in it, it is a "cable", and a violation. IMO

Just on the basis of the photo, what evidence do you have that says the red/white is a switch leg and not a outlet feed? I think you'd need to wait a bit on that one.

I suspect you could find yourself in a battle over the use of dual copper-reenforced, vinyl-insulated strapping material.

Not the kind of work I'd do but I'm not sure how bad it really is.

Cause it has "SSS" written on the wall next to a 3 gang.... Where does someone get some of that?

those red and white wires are probably a three way switch leg where the light is either being fed and switched there at the first box, or at another wherever that three wire runs to.

Maybe this will help you to identify who belongs where

Picture #1:

• 200.7 (as mentioned)
• I'm not a big fan of forcing the trimmer to use one conductor to bond three switches, but legal
• Really not a fan of forcing them to do the same thing with the ungrounded conductor.
• Are the other conductors really 6" long?

Picture #2:

• I'll betcha this is in violation of bending radius (334.24)
• Is that water running out of the box?

Picture #3:

• The #12's are not secured within 12" of the panel.
• An 1.5" SER connector is not listed for umpteen NM runs.
• I wouldn't say that the NM cables are bundled.

In conclusion, I'd say this is horrible - my work isn't all that pretty, but I do better than this in a hurry.

Do you have a hard time getting your staples approved? They're conductive and more intimate with your romex than the copper conductors in these unattractive "straps."

If it's not being used as a wiring method, then this doesn't really apply.
Safer, maybe, but not safe. Carlon manufactures it's boxes super deep under the presumption that their boxes will be installed in locations not prone to drywall screws.

[This message has been edited by Just George (edited 01-02-2006).]

I have seen that often up here in new construction, only difference is the cables are against the stud and not " free-aired" like that... gone are the days where people took time to make it look neat in the wall, houses are not built with "quality" in mind, its all " quantity.. just git it built!"

Wow, all the romex entering under a couple of large connectors?? Not good thats a failure up here for sure!
that second pic where the cables loop over the back of the box and in... not really a violation that I can see but that is the hard way of doing it isn't it???? Like there are K/O's in the bottom of the box right?

Switch loop that I see, I guess it is a pair of travelers... Up here anyway I always thought you HAD to I.D the white as something elseif its an ungrounded conductor, but I was told in school that "Neutral is ALWAYS white, but white is NOT ALWAYS a neutral"!!
As long as its a 3-way traveller OR the FEED to a switch, it may be white and does not have to be identified... ... I was also told that if you connect a white identified as a hot" to a fixture or device thats also not legal! (phasing tape is also not considered permanent in Canada, coloured heat shrink is!


A.D

[This message has been edited by Rewired (edited 01-02-2006).]

200.7(C)(1)&(2) state otherwise. If the conductor is used for other than a grounded conductor, it must be re-identified.

That part is correct, 200.7(C)(2).

Don't believe everything you hear, unless there's a code to support the "rule."

FYI George the above poster was Quoting Canadian Electrical code.

Hey George sorry about that with the code thing, ( Thx Doug)... Don't forget we are all screwed up up here in Canada!! Wasn't until not too far in the past they started allowing " T-slot " receptacles and 20 A breakers supplying them... 20A circuits to feed lights AND outlets on the same branch circuit is still unheard of and illegal here... when will we ever learn!

Nice until you start carrying a load through all of them at once lol!

Looks cheesy I'll agree, nice use for those insulation scraps though.

Bundling/derating would make it a bigger PITA than it's worth though.

Ian A.

That is a picture taken from this closed thread: https://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122006/1

Just what is a code Nazi?
I don't like it geuss that makes me one.

I suppose one might start the definition of 'code nazi' with: Someone obsessed with his authority, who is unable to distinguish between his oersonal preferences and actual code requirements.'

Let me illustrate the point with an actual example: A maintenance guy with some extra time on his hands took to painting the cabinets, including the "Flamables" cabinet, in the workshop. For his pleasure, he painted them blue with white doors. Another person objected, saying it was required that the 'Flamables" cabinet be painted yellow. Here's a summary of the discussions that followed:

MG: "Really? What code says that?"

CN: "Well, how come you only see yellow ones then?"

MG: "Here's a catalog. I see them in yellow, red, white, green and even black."

CN: "well, code says it."

MG: "Here's an ANSI standard for these cabinets, It says nothing about the color of the cabinet, just that it has to be marked."

CN: "Well, it the local code."

MG: "Here's the local code. From what I see, the HAVE to be blue, because there's propane stored in them."

CN: "Well, it still isn't right, there must be another code."

MG: "Good. You find it and I'll follow it. I've done more than my share already."

And the issue continued to fester, with the work subject to all manner of critique. One bearing had too much grease, while another didn't have enough; one drive was too tight, while another wasn't tight enough. Etc. I think that explains what is a 'code nazi.'

In the examples shown here, it's not the installers' fault the NEC is vague on this point, only saying the cables will be 'supported.' Perhaps the code panel left it vague on purpose, only wanting the stuff not to 'flop around too much.' There's certainly no requirement that any sort of listing or approval be necessary for the support means.

I have nor read through all the post so I apologize before hand if I repeat other people's comments.

From the inspector POV, bundling/derating would be an issue. The workmanship would be another giving the intent of supporting cable. In the event of a short, an unsupported cable will whip that will put strain on the connections at the end.

As a contractor, I would be mad as hell for the waste of time to install the wire if it was scrap, motifided if they used good wire. Pissed off for the lack of planning for not having the correct material on site.

Reno, that is not a code nazi that is an incompetent jerk.
A code nazi would be someone who wanted to enforce the code to an absurd level.
"That staple is 12.25" away from the box" when there was no easy way to get one any closer or "that PVC pipe strap is white instead of gray".
I have actually heard of inspectors saying you can't use "all purpose" PVC cement on RNC because it was for plumbing.

I stand corrected

I like that example. I got caught with 2 plugs 12'2" apart, because, "You don't expect the inspection department to give you two inches, do you?" Since then, I haven't given an inspector an inch, either.

Anyway, on topic, around here everything must be approved for it's use. We get away with using a conduit strap on cable, because it's approved as a support. I doubt that a piece of wire is rated as a support. If you allow the cable as a support, do you require a minimum size - like #12awg for 3/3? How would an inspector word that rejection notice so it referred to the code?

When I wear my inspector hat, I enforce the intent of the code, not just what is written. The codes as written at least the NEC in the US, is to be consider the absolute minimum to be safe. It even states that code is not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use (Yes I plagerized. Sue me ).

For example, a sparkie puts a 120 volt pump 500 feet from the panel, uses a 20 amp breaker and #12 wire. Is it a violation of the code as written? Nope. Will I red tag it? If I could not get the right answer out of the electrican, you bet. As an inspector, it is your job to protect the ones you serve. If the contractor is dumb enough, to install it, he will likely fight it. There are standards and exceptable practices, building and now even energy codes coming into play when inspecting too that will back you up. I do believe that voltage drop will finally become a code issue, not just a standard or specification here in the future.

When I wear my elctrician hat, I install in a manner where my work does not need to be scuntinized. I do not try to place a staple exactly at 12 inches from a box nor do I try to hit 4 1/2 feet after that. Not to boast, when you look at my work, there is no guessing if it is to code or not, ever to a code nazi, as someone put it on this board.

My conduit straps are rearly at 10 feet. If they are, I can gurantee that you can tell at any distance they are 10 feet apart. This is a another good example. If a emt conduit is supported at every 9 1/2 feet, can it be red tag for lack of support? The code states not to exceed 10 feet.

Functonality=Passes
NEC= Fail
To me it works, and saves a hell of alot of staples.

Romex is NOT a listed method of support>

Have you ever seen a listed romex staple?
I haven't.

UL doesn't list Pipe Clamps, Romex Staples, J-Nails, Strut Clamps etc.

Yes they do , Romex staple for one is Briscon SN401B.
Theres other Listed romex Supports as well as fasting methods , Same for Conduit supporting .
Yoopersup

I just checked a box of GB staples, and a box of 'King' staples, and there's no UL label on either box.

edit to add:

Yes, I checked out Briscon, and they do have UL staples and fastners within their products on their website.

Guess it all depends on brands, areas, and .....cost!!!

Its not Code Nazi's , Its proper installition, Workmanship, Code compliance.Neat & Workman like manner to name a few.
Yoopersup