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.

On 07/14/2014 1:12 PM, philo wrote:
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.

--

On 07/14/2014 02:04 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 1:12 PM, philo wrote:
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.

On 07/14/2014 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:28 -0500, wrote:
....

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.
....

It's not so recent; it's in my old "Wiring Simplified" copyright 1971.

--

On 07/14/2014 04:26 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:28 -0500, wrote:
...

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.
...

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.

On 07/14/2014 08:12 PM, wrote:


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:
....

Might as well err on the side of safety.

Certainly the right side of the fence, indeed...


I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.
....

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.

--

On 07/15/2014 12:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote:
...
....

I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.
...

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...

--

On 07/15/2014 03:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:48:51 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 07/15/2014 12:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote:
...
...

I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.
...

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



snip


Thanks for the replies.

I have some on the floor and some in the ceiling area, so will handle
appropriately.

On 07/15/2014 3:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:48:51 -0500, wrote:

On 07/15/2014 12:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote:
...
...

I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.
...

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."

....snip Code quote for brevity...

That language has been massaged since the Nixon administration but the
intent is similar. They want to protect the cable.
....

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.

--

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:02:25 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote:

...



Might as well err on the side of safety.



Certainly the right side of the fence, indeed...





I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.

...



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.



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.





--

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:40:21 PM UTC-4, philo* wrote:
On 07/15/2014 03:14 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:48:51 -0500, dpb wrote:



On 07/15/2014 12:02 PM, dpb wrote:

On 07/14/2014 8:25 PM, philo wrote:

...

...



I like the idea of mounting the Romex to a running board.

...



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







snip





Thanks for the replies.



I have some on the floor and some in the ceiling area, so will handle

appropriately.

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.

On 07/16/2014 9:25 AM, wrote:
....

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.

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:
....

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.
....

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.

--

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:01:11 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 07/16/2014 8:35 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

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.
...

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, wrote:
....

And "substantial" would almost certainly rule out 1X2 guard strips to
any inspector with half a brain.

I've never seen a case they were rejected...

--

On 07/16/2014 08:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:





Thanks for the replies.



I have some on the floor and some in the ceiling area, so will handle

appropriately.

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.




I did all the wiring myself years ago and was in a hurry when I did it.

I recently paid a qualified electrician to upgrade my service from 100
to 200 amps and it's all of course compliant to today's code.


Now that I'm retired I have sufficient time to go back over all the
stuff I put in and do it right. The basement is all done now and though
the attic *might* have complied to the code at the time, I might as well
do it right.

To bring the stuff I did up to "current code" is going to cost me about
$40 in parts, it's just my own time. As I mentioned somewhere else, I
also want to be sure there is no chance a roofer will ever hit anything
in the event I get a new roof.

On 07/16/2014 8:35 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

AFAIK, there is no requirement for the cable to be in a channel.
....

While not official NEC, this is what I've seen in the past and my
interpretation of the words in the Code.

http://books.google.com/books?id=e4LAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=NEC+guar d+strip+over+attic+floor+joists&source=bl&ots=kzIe xzMb6d&sig=HJDJYwv0fNG65Xi7P6TDMwQbZ1U&hl=en&sa=X& ei=3CXQU5PnLM6IogTo94GQDA&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepag e&q&f=false

--

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:22:13 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 07/16/2014 8:35 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



AFAIK, there is no requirement for the cable to be in a channel.

...



While not official NEC, this is what I've seen in the past and my

interpretation of the words in the Code.



http://books.google.com/books?id=e4LAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=NEC+guar d+strip+over+attic+floor+joists&source=bl&ots=kzIe xzMb6d&sig=HJDJYwv0fNG65Xi7P6TDMwQbZ1U&hl=en&sa=X& ei=3CXQU5PnLM6IogTo94GQDA&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepag e&q&f=false



A very weird pic, no? If you look at the far end, those strips look
like furring strips or similar. If you look at the near ends, they
morph into somthing flat and thin vertically.

On 07/24/2014 10:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

A very weird pic, no? If you look at the far end, those strips look
like furring strips or similar. If you look at the near ends, they
morph into somthing flat and thin vertically.

Nope, not a great architectural drawing granted, but they're just cut at
a diagonal at near end, at least on the rendition here...the vertical
thickness still shows at the front edge, just the rear along the slice
is hidden...

--

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:41:57 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 07/24/2014 10:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



A very weird pic, no? If you look at the far end, those strips look

like furring strips or similar. If you look at the near ends, they

morph into somthing flat and thin vertically.



Nope, not a great architectural drawing granted, but they're just cut at

a diagonal at near end, at least on the rendition here...the vertical

thickness still shows at the front edge, just the rear along the slice

is hidden...


Not what I see here. The far end laying on the joist does look like strips
one could use and they look wider than they are tall. At the near end,
they are tall, thin, little thickess, more like strips of sheet metal standing vertically.

On 07/24/2014 1:00 PM, trader_4 wrote:
....

Not what I see here. The far end laying on the joist does look like strips
one could use and they look wider than they are tall. At the near end,
they are tall, thin, little thickess, more like strips of sheet metal
standing vertically.

That would seem to be a fignewton of your renderer, then...

--

On 07/24/2014 2:06 PM, dpb wrote:
On 07/24/2014 1:00 PM, trader_4 wrote:
...

Not what I see here. The far end laying on the joist does look like
strips
one could use and they look wider than they are tall. At the near end,
they are tall, thin, little thickess, more like strips of sheet metal
standing vertically.

That would seem to be a fignewton of your renderer, then...

Or you got the M. C. Escher version, mayhaps...

--