jar546
CBO
This was in a convenience store next to the coolers in the public area of the building. Is this receptacle installation code compliant per the NEC?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Is This Electrical Installation Code Compliant?
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
Gregg Harris
SAWHORSE
Yes NEC Article 334.15(A
wwhitney
REGISTERED
Seems like the issue would be 334.15(B) and whether you consider the installation to be one where it is necessary to protect from physical damage.
Cheers, Wayne
jar546
CBO
I don't agree. It is a clear violation of NEC 334.15(B). 334.15 does not say that it only has to meet one of the requirements. Of course, it has to follow the finish, but it must also be protected from physical damage.
NEC 334.15(B) Protection from Physical Damage.
Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary…….
Not all jurisdictions have a blanket requirement to protect NM cable in all cases. The argument could be made that this cable is out of the way and not subject to physical damage. Then there are those jurisdictions that would not allow this under any circumstances.
Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary…….
Not all jurisdictions have a blanket requirement to protect NM cable in all cases. The argument could be made that this cable is out of the way and not subject to physical damage. Then there are those jurisdictions that would not allow this under any circumstances.
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
Can't see the next staple, so we don't know if it complies with 334.30
jar546
CBO
With you, everything is a capital offense.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Only because I hate electricians....I have never seen exposed damaged NM to be a cause of anything...Concealed damaged absolutely. The solution is to run a cord...
For the sake of conversation, let's imagine this was in a residential application. Specifically, R-3, type V construction. Assuming this was permitted to be "exposed work" per 334.15:
Would you allow it to be painted? Or would that be a violation of 310.8.
Or would you consider painting to be "physical damage" and would running NM cable on a surface that's likely to be painted make it "subject to physical damage"?
Would you allow it to be painted? Or would that be a violation of 310.8.
Or would you consider painting to be "physical damage" and would running NM cable on a surface that's likely to be painted make it "subject to physical damage"?
steveray
SAWHORSE
It gets even dumber in 2023:
People make a living coming up with stuff for the code cycles.
Inspectors need not apply.
Or other approved means……
The NM needs to be behind a 15 minute thermal barrier because it is not in a residential application.
I would agree. They aren't going to be walking on it or weed eating it. Unlikely to catch keys and pocketknife clips in that corner. No Labrador retrievers in sight... are we expecting a meteor strike in that location?
Last edited:
I have a picture to illustrate that, but didn't really need that code section to be added to enforce...
jar546
CBO
Yeah, that is a definite fail.
It depends on how hot the conduit gets.
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
"Where necessary." That's clearly a subjective judgment, but it's not an across-the-boards requirement.
wwhitney
REGISTERED
NEC 334.12(A)(1) / 334.10(3) does not permit exposed NM cable in non-residential buildings.
Cheers, Wayne
Cheers, Wayne