Thanks to all who gave answers on my previous thread. I now have my Romex mounted on a "runner" board.
I noticed that there is also some BX in place that is just run across the bottoms on the joists with no "runner" board. Is that OK to leave as-is?
Also if Romex is used in an attic does it also need "runner" boards?
The attic is for storage only and accessible by a pull-down stairway.
a) yes.
b) yes, by Code.
Thanks, now I'll have to wait for cooler weather before I work up in the attic. From the way summer has been going, that should not be too long.
I would not really worry about it that much unless you are up there crawling around a lot. That is a fairly recent code change anyway.
What I did in my attic was to nail strips of 1x2 to the tops of the truss members avoiding the wires that were existing, then decked over the whole thing in the areas that were accessible. If you don't have a pneumatic nailer, drywall screws may be more appropriate. You have less chance of cracking the drywall below.
I only put a few screws in the decking, just enough to keep it from moving. That way if I do want to get to the wiring or put in some more it is east to do. Take a magical marker and mark the location of any boxes or wires you cover up, just for future reference.
...
...
It's not so recent; it's in my old "Wiring Simplified" copyright 1971. :)
My house was built in 1898 and wired in 1932
but the Romex was put in some time in the 80's
Now that I'm retired I have time to deal with all the details I never had time for. On a cool day, I'm going up in the attic and get things up to code.
The rules about wiring in attics has evolved over the years. Every few cycles they added another rule.
Might as well err on the side of safety.
I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.
In the event of a total roof replacement if some of the boards needed to be replaced, I don't think I'd want a roofer tearing into a live wire.
On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote: ...
Certainly the right side of the fence, indeed...
...
For the attic, what the Code actually requires is that it be in a channel at least as high as it is in order to keep stuff above it. The running board is for overhead, not underfoot...
A narrow 1x on either side is adequate or anything else equivalent.
...
Just for the record, the requirement for residential comes from Sec.
336-6(d), "The installation of cable in accessible attics shall also comply with Section 333-12."Now here's where the problems come from for trying to read the NEC in pieces-parts--if one only reads Article 333 in isolation it relates to "Armored Cable: Type AC" so you would come to the conclusion for NM it doesn't apply. But as quoted above Section 333-12 is applicable by reference from Section 336-6(d).
Section 333-12 requires, "where run across the top of floor joists (meaning the attic floor joists), the cable shall be protected by substantial guard strips that are at least as high as the cable." This is a "performance" requirement because _how_ isn't specified only that it must be done. It can be readily accomplished by fastening 1x2 furring strips on each side of the cable.
From 333-12 the whole-attic coverage is applicable only if it is accessible by permanent stairs or ladders. Where the attic space is accessible only via a scuttle hole, the protection is required only within 6 feet of the opening.
HTH...
That language has been massaged since the Nixon administration but the intent is similar. They want to protect the cable.
320.23 In Accessible Attics. Type AC cables in accessible attics or roof spaces shall be installed as specified in 320.23(A) and (B). (A) Cables Run Across the Top of Floor Joists. Where run across the top of floor joists, or within 2.1 m (7 ft) of the floor or floor joists across the face of rafters or studding, the cable shall be protected by substantial guard strips that are at least as high as the cable. Where this space is not accessible by permanent stairs or ladders, protection shall only be required within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the nearest edge of the scuttle hole or attic entrance. (B) Cable Installed Parallel to Framing Members. Where the cable is installed parallel to the sides of rafters,studs, or ceiling or floor joists, neither guard strips nor running boards shall be required, and the installation shall also comply with 300.4(D). 300.4(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members and Furring Strips. 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, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less than 32 mm (11.4 in.) from the nearest edge of the framing member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least 1.6 mm (1.16 in.) thick. Exception No. 1: Steel plates, sleeves, or the equivalent shall not be required to protect rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, or electrical metallic tubing. Exception No. 2: For concealed work in finished buildings, or finished panels for prefabricated buildings where such supporting is impracticable, it shall be permissible to fish the cables between access points. Exception No. 3: A listed and marked steel plate less than 1.6 mm (1.16 in.) thick that provides equal or better protection against nail or screw penetration shall be permitted.
Thanks for the replies.
I have some on the floor and some in the ceiling area, so will handle appropriately.
...snip Code quote for brevity...
...
Yeah, I'm not even positive which version that was from...I've not bothered to worry much about recent changes; I don't think there's anything in there that's really a significant change in actual implications for safety since the '80s or so, and here on the farm we're outside City jurisdiction so don't need to worry about the nitty details much. I thought that the above was actually from the '90s era (19-, _not_ 18- :) ) but maybe it was even earlier; it was from a bookmarked link I remembered from another discussion of some time back so I just used it w/o looking for recent. For myself, I still use the Handbook based on '79 Code--since all the outbuildings were done to 50s w/
2-wire, that's always a significant improvement when make any changes/additions :) . Dad completely rewired the house in mid-/late-70s so it's reasonably modern.
AFAIK, there is no requirement for the cable to be in a channel. I see it done all the time with a single guard strip, cable fastened to the side of it, very similar to a running board. I think the concern of the code is they don't want people walking on the cable, sliding boxes over the cable and snagging it, etc.
Out of curiousity, what exactly are you doing? Unless you're changing the wiring for some other reason, there is no reqt that you bring an older attic up to current code. If it was compliant when it was put in, it's still compliant today.
If it were my attic and there was something glaring, like a cable you could snag, in an accessible attic that you use, I'd fix that. But if it looks OK and isn't causing problems, I wouldn't rewire just to make it comply with code today.
The article numbers and formatting puts it in the 20th century. They changed the code in 2002 to align the format with other codes (periods vs dashes etc) The article numbers got changed around too, (NM is 334, AC is 320 now) I might be able to match up the actual language with which cycle it is from but it is not that important. They do massage the language from cycle to cycle.
There have been quite a few significant changes since the 80s so it is worth looking at the newer versions. Things like the AFCI were not even around in the 80s and 90s. The usage of GFCIs has expanded quite a bit too. On a farm, significant changes have occurred in reference to stray voltages and wiring around ponds.
On 07/16/2014 9:25 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...
I didn't say I hadn't looked; just haven't bothered to update the on-hand stuff.
GFCIs are a technology that are in Code but it's one of the areas that I've chosen to disregard as it's just never been an issue I've seen to cause a problem and so I've not bothered to change anything out nor to add them even in some places that by Code should. That's just me; I'm not advocating anyone else necessarily follow my lead... :)
I was going to mention that the previous that I mentioned about the outbuildings with 2-wire, etc., is for the original lighting circuits, etc., all the later heavier usage that's been added since such as the feed mill and elevator leg in the barn is 3-wire as would be expected.
Being located in SW KS, ponds are a non-issue... :)
On 07/16/2014 8:35 AM, trader_4 wrote: ...
...
Agree with the intent; that's a reading that I suppose one could argue--
"...Where run across the top of floor joists, ... the cable shall be protected by substantial guard strips that are at least as high as the cable."
It depends on the interpretation of "strips"; my reading has been for the plural to mean two, one on each side or the second side to be where there's no need as along a wall or otherwise protected. Your interpretation would imply the plural simply means that it takes more than one piece to cover the length. I don't know of any official interpretation of that point.
And "substantial" would almost certainly rule out 1X2 guard strips to any inspector with half a brain.
On 07/16/2014 4:49 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: ...
I've never seen a case they were rejected...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.