Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 65 of 78
  1. #1
    Robert Autrey's Avatar
    Robert Autrey Guest

    Default Romex through sheetrock?

    I think I read somewhere that romex cable isn't supposed to simply exit a wall through a hole. Isn't there supposed to be a junction box here (see photo). I run into this all time and I've been writing it up, but for some reason I'm now questioning myself on it. The two places I typically find this is at the disposer power cable and at the water heater power cable. Does anybody else write this up?

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Junction boxes are needed where a cable terminates or where a splice is made.

    I don't see the issue with the NM-B exiting through a hole in the drywall.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    The only thing that needs to be done is to push the flex back through the wall to protect the romex from any sharp edges (cabinet).


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    That's smurf tube (ENT), and it, like the NM cable inside it, have the same need for protection from physical damage.

    Also, that is a raceway and all raceways are required to have appropriate fittings on both ends, and that does not.

    Additionally, how is that smurf tube attached to the disposer? It isn't. That's not allowed either.

    Plus, that smurf tube is required to be secured to the wall and at the disposer end and it isn't.

    Bottom line, that smurf tube should not be used for that use (protection from physical damage) and doing the wrong thin incorrectly just makes it worse.

    That should have had a piece of flexible metal conduit over it with a proper fitting at the disposer end and then a proper fitting at the other end with the other end stuck back into the wall and secured back there ... or ... the other end should have terminated into a junction box mounted to the wall with the NM cable entering the junction box from the back and a blank cover on it.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  5. #5
    Richard Stanley's Avatar
    Richard Stanley Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I, too, call that. Especially on water heater installations. I was trained that there should be a thru-wall connector to prevent wire damage from vibration, etc.


  6. #6
    Robert Autrey's Avatar
    Robert Autrey Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Thanks all. I'm going to continue to call this. Although, I'm bewildered as to why the city inspectors don't. I had an electrical contractor get really upset with me a couple of days ago over this issue. I had called out a bare romex in the same situation only not even a clamp at the disposer junction box. The buyer paid me for a re-inspection and all the guy had done was slipped on a length of ENT. Still no fitting or box at the wall and no fitting or clamp at the disposer junction box. He got mad when I reported back that the repair had not been properly completed. I understand why he feels the way he does. The city inspectors don't even call this on new construction. In fact, the photo I originally posted was from a relatively new house (2006), and they're all that way. I see is on almost every inspection. I'm, of course loath to get all the realtors pissed off at me and that seem surely likely when the electricians are all telling them I'm crazy. Particularly when the city inspectors seem to be backing them up! Very frustrating.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I wouldn't call that a raceway. I would call it a sleeve.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    I wouldn't call that a raceway. I would call it a sleeve.

    The CODE calls it a raceway.

    Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    state of jefferson
    Posts
    520

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    he needs to install a cut in box with a cover that the flex could be secured to. when i see a piece of flex going into sheetrock i like to give it a good hard pull and see what happens. it takes only one time for most electricians to get the message. i write up no device box at rough electrical inspection.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    So I guess a wall cavity is a raceway too then!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    3,177

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    So I guess a wall cavity is a raceway too then!
    "...An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires,"

    "There is no exception to the rule that every rule has an exception." -James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894-1961)
    www.ArnoldHomeInspections.com

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    OK..I still consider it a sleeve


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Romex brought out of the wall in that fashion is fine. Box not needed nor required.
    That installation of ENT is not so fine.


  14. #14
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    The CODE calls it a raceway.

    Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways.
    JP: Good call!


  15. #15
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    OK..I still consider it a sleeve
    WC:

    Problem is that the NEC does not agree with you. There is no definition for "sleeve" therein. And, the definition for raceway applies nicely to this situation.

    This is a prime example of an AHJ making up an "opinion" out of whole cloth.

    By the way, does your shirt sleeve contain wiring?

    Give me a break!


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: Romex through sheet rock?

    The NEC doesn't allow any flexible type of wiring methods to be installed where it is subject to damage. At this point it becomes a call of the AHJ as to whether or not the area involved meets the criteria for "subject to damage".

    The position of some AHJs is that the space under the sink is not particularly subject to damage especially if the wire is run so it somewhat follows the drain pipe. I've seen 50s and older era houses with a Romex whip that is still intact. On the other hand there are people who can figure out how to break a 1500 pound steel ball.

    Metal flex is often used because people evidently figure "subject to damage" somehow has a different meaning for metal flex than for NM-B. While the metal may initially protect the wire better than just a plastic cable sheath, if the flex gets bent it can become a problem because the edges of the spiral become a chunk of metal tape against the cable and can, with movement, eventually cut the sheath and wire insulation. Additionally, some of the household chemicals often stored under the sink are corrosive. If spilled they can penetrate the spiral wound metal and eat it from the inside, usually resulting in a couple of sharp metal edges once the metal corrodes enough to come apart.

    AC and MC both have the same issues as metal flex, and frequently are attached to the disposer with a NM-B cable clamp not listed for them.

    Non metallic flex of some kind is probably a better choice to protect the NM-B cable if required because the likelihood of cable damage is a bit less if the conduit is damaged, and it has chemical resistance.

    In my not so humble opinion a receptacle high on the cabinet back with a cord to the disposer, which is easily replaced, is the best option. Same for the dishwasher.


  17. #17
    Richard Stanley's Avatar
    Richard Stanley Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Autrey View Post
    Thanks all. I'm going to continue to call this. Although, I'm bewildered as to why the city inspectors don't. I had an electrical contractor get really upset with me a couple of days ago over this issue. I had called out a bare romex in the same situation only not even a clamp at the disposer junction box. The buyer paid me for a re-inspection and all the guy had done was slipped on a length of ENT. Still no fitting or box at the wall and no fitting or clamp at the disposer junction box. He got mad when I reported back that the repair had not been properly completed. I understand why he feels the way he does. The city inspectors don't even call this on new construction. In fact, the photo I originally posted was from a relatively new house (2006), and they're all that way. I see is on almost every inspection. I'm, of course loath to get all the realtors pissed off at me and that seem surely likely when the electricians are all telling them I'm crazy. Particularly when the city inspectors seem to be backing them up! Very frustrating.


    Robert
    I got over being bewildered by the short sightedness of the city inspectors a long time ago. I used to go down there and question them when ever one of my callouts was challenged by a bulder, contractor, etc. All I heard is "we don't have enough money, people", etc. So I don't do that any more. And, of course, we all know what is going on with our city building department - FBI, etc
    When I started inserting code references into the reports, the complaints and annoying phone calls decreased dramatically.
    Sometimes, I show them the code reference on site. ( I don't have a spanish version for all of them, though!
    When a contractor says "the city passed it" or "said it was ok" you can remind them ( actually you would be telling them something they probably don't know) it is the responsibility of the contractor to perform the job correctly ( code and/or mfg. installation instructions), not the city inspectors.

    As for the realtors - you can work for them or the clients that pay you - your choice. I prefer the latter.

    Last edited by Richard Stanley; 05-13-2009 at 07:53 AM. Reason: add

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheet rock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    Metal flex is often used because people evidently figure "subject to damage" somehow has a different meaning for metal flex than for NM-B.
    Or not a different meaning, but knowing that it has a greater resistance to physical damage, just like Sch 80 PVC has a greater resistance to physical damage than Sch 40 and thus even Sch 40 PVC *is not approved for protection from physical damage*.

    It is acknowledged that no one is going to run rigid metal conduit or Sch 80 PVC to that disposer.

    Is flexible metal conduit susceptible to physical damage? Sure it is. Is it rated for use for protection from physical damage? Nope.

    In my not so humble opinion a receptacle high on the cabinet back with a cord to the disposer, which is easily replaced, is the best option. Same for the dishwasher.
    It is obvious your opinions are "not so humble" ... ... however, in this case having a receptacle and the disposer having a cord and plug is better. Does the receptacle have to be mounted "high on the cabinet back"? Nope, just on the cabinet, high or low, so the cord and plug can reach it and be plugged in.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    OK so we call it a raceway. Are we in agreeance that in this application the ENT is being used for protection of the romex? I believe so. Why else would it be there?

    The 2006 IRC section E3804.2 states: Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables.
    Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths
    shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other
    enclosures or outlets.
    Exception:
    Short sections of raceway used to provide cable
    assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.

    Doesn't this section of the code say that when using a short piece of ENT for protection of the romex that the ENT does not have to be connected by boxes and fittings?





  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    OK so we call it a raceway. Are we in agreeance that in this application the ENT is being used for protection of the romex? I believe so. Why else would it be there?

    The 2006 IRC section E3804.2 states: Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables.
    Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths
    shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other
    enclosures or outlets.



    Exception:
    Short sections of raceway used to provide cable

    assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.



    Doesn't this section of the code say that when using a short piece of ENT for protection of the romex that the ENT does not have to be connected by boxes and fittings?



    Here is that section and the next section.
    - E3804.2 Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables.Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other enclosures or outlets.
    - - Exception: Short sections of raceway used to provide cable assemblies with support or protection against physical damage. (Jerry's note: the exception is from "continuity" from box to box, not from securing and supporting.)
    - E3804.3 Securing and supporting.Raceways, cable assemblies, boxes, cabinets and fittings shall be securely fastened in place.
    - - E3804.3.1 Prohibited means of support. Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways and nonelectrical equipment. (Jerry's note: This means the raceway is not allowed to be supported by that wiring.)

    That raceway can extend into the wall, as I stated, provided it is supported and secured at the wall, as I stated.

    The problem, then, becomes one of securing and supporting that raceway at the disposer end, unless the raceway has a proper connection to the disposer. And, if that is done, then the NM cable inside does not have a proper connection to the disposer.

    Which gets back to what I also said - install a box at the wall, the NM cable enters it, is proper secured to it, and the raceway goes from the box to the disposer with the wiring in it.

    Of course, though, the better way, the best way - Bill pointed out the drawbacks of using the raceway method - is to install a receptacle in that box and install a cord and plug on the disposer and plug it in.



    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    The romex is secured. It's not like the ENT is being used to "house" the romex as raceways normally do. Raceways....conduit emt or whatever are used for pulling individual wires and protection of the individual strands. This application is not used as a raceway. The definition may fit but this is not what is going on here.

    If one were pulling individual wires to the garbage disposal I would agree that it needed the proper boxes, fittings and secure it properly. This is not what this application is. The ENT is only being utilized for protection of the romex not as a raceway for the use of pulling wires from point a to point b.


  22. #22
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    The romex is secured. It's not like the ENT is being used to "house" the romex as raceways normally do. Raceways....conduit emt or whatever are used for pulling individual wires and protection of the individual strands. This application is not used as a raceway. The definition may fit but this is not what is going on here.

    If one were pulling individual wires to the garbage disposal I would agree that it needed the proper boxes, fittings and secure it properly. This is not what this application is. The ENT is only being utilized for protection of the romex not as a raceway for the use of pulling wires from point a to point b.
    WC: That is typical AHJ-speak. You and your ilk are miraculously able to veritably extrapolate everything from nothing, while simultaneously ignoring near universally agreed-upon definitions, black and white building codes staring you in the face, and the advice of other professionals.

    Lots of nerve with no class makes one an edgy ass.


  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    The romex is secured. It's not like the ENT ...
    ... IS NOT secured!

    I don't know how else to say that where you will understand it.

    THAT ENT *IS REQUIRED* *TO BE* *SUPPORTED AND SECURED* ... it really is as simple as that.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    The romex IS secured. It's secured at the garbage disposal and I can't see in the wall but I would bet a dime to a dollar that it's secured too!

    The ENT is not being used as a raceway! No need to secure it! It is only being used as a sleeve to protect the romex from damage.

    You can read as deep into the code as you want ans interprete however you want.

    In my opinion the ENT is not being used as a raceway!

    I don't know how much plainer I can be!

    You have your opinion/interpretation. I have mine.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    "Does the receptacle have to be mounted "high on the cabinet back"? Nope, just on the cabinet, high or low, so the cord and plug can reach it and be plugged in."

    High on the cabinet back gets the receptacle away from most if not all spills, accidental sprays of various chemicals, and generally away from "stuff" being shoved up against it. The position is a personal preference and one all of my jobs has. I mount the receptacle high for the same reason I elect to use the receptacle in the first place. I think it's a better job. Code is silent on the matter.

    The unsupported ENT causes more issues than it solves IMO. The weight causes the NM-B to sag where it might otherwise stay up out of the way. Im still not sure how {NEC 362.30 Securing and Supporting. ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance with 362.30(A) and (B)} translates into "but you can use it as an unsupported sleeve". My builderspeak-codespeak-inspectorspeak translator is down this evening.

    Seems like if the stuff had fittings on both ends and was supported we wouldn't be having this discussion.


  26. #26
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    My builderspeak-codespeak-inspectorspeak translator is down this evening.


    BK: Well said.


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Okay...say it is supported. How would that change anything. It is still going to go from the wall to the garbage disposal. It will be the same scenario.

    Let me ask you guys this. If they remove the sleeve/ENT/raceway would you accept that?


  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I'm concerned about the electrical being under a DWV plumbing slip joint also. Protection from damage from moisture or water. P-traps often require servicing or maintenance - i.e. clogs, snaking, especially kitchen sinks with disposers.

    Another question, how long is the NM in the smurf? more than 24"?

    I'd like to see water tight conduit & fittings or weatherproof outlet cover and damp location wiring methods in this situation. Faucet leaks, sprayer, sink to counter drips, overflow, condensation outside of sink, are not unrealistic or unexpected events in a kitchen sink cabinet.

    Edit to include: The area is obviously used for storage - its a kitchen cabinet or sink base one would expect storage there. I see two trigger sprayers aimed directly at the exposed NM. The sprayer bottle for the kitchen cleaner if not put away locked in the off position - would saturate the sheath. Some of those kitchen cleaners can do damage to plastics and vinyls and can be corrosive or oxidize metals. There is no protection, or securing, grommet or otherwise, to prevent the cable from being damaged by movement which could easily happen with articles being moved and stored in the cabinet.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 05-14-2009 at 08:18 AM.

  29. #29
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    I'm concerned about the electrical being under a DWV plumbing slip joint also. Protection from damage from moisture or water. P-traps often require servicing or maintenance - i.e. clogs, snaking, especially kitchen sinks with disposers.

    Another question, how long is the NM in the smurf? more than 24"?

    I'd like to see water tight conduit & fittings or weatherproof outlet cover and damp location wiring methods in this situation. Faucet leaks, sprayer, sink to counter drips, overflow, condensation outside of sink, are not unrealistic or unexpected events in a kitchen sink cabinet.

    Edit to include: The area is obviously used for storage - its a kitchen cabinet or sink base one would expect storage there. I see two trigger sprayers aimed directly at the exposed NM. The sprayer bottle for the kitchen cleaner if not put away locked in the off position - would saturate the sheath. Some of those kitchen cleaners can do damage to plastics and vinyls and can be corrosive or oxidize metals. There is no protection, or securing, grommet or otherwise, to prevent the cable from being damaged by movement which could easily happen with articles being moved and stored in the cabinet.
    HG: On of my pet peeves is when they install receptacles in suface-mounted junction boxes face up on the bottom shelves of the kitchen sink base cabinets. Sometimes directly under the trap.


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    The romex IS secured.
    Go back and read my post again. THE ENT *IS NOT* SECURED.

    The ENT is not being used as a raceway! No need to secure it! It is only being used as a sleeve to protect the romex from damage.
    Either you are not paying attention to what is being said and to what the code says which has been posted here, or ... I don't even want to go to the "or" ...

    In my opinion the ENT is not being used as a raceway!

    I don't know how much plainer I can be!
    And THE CODE says it is being used as a raceway, and THE CODE says it is required to be SECURED AND SUPPORTED.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    The unsupported ENT causes more issues than it solves IMO. The weight causes the NM-B to sag where it might otherwise stay up out of the way. Im still not sure how {NEC 362.30 Securing and Supporting. ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance with 362.30(A) and (B)} translates into "but you can use it as an unsupported sleeve". My builderspeak-codespeak-inspectorspeak translator is down this evening.

    Seems like if the stuff had fittings on both ends and was supported we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    Bill,

    Wayne does not seem to be paying attention to either of us on that.

    What you failed to mention in your code above is
    - 362.30 Securing and Supporting.
    - - ENT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance with 362.30(A) and (B).

    - 300.18 Raceway Installations.
    - - (A) Complete Runs. Raceways, other than busways or exposed raceways having hinged or removable covers, shall be installed complete between outlet, junction, or splicing points prior to the installation of conductors. Where required to facilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminating connection at the equipment. Prewired raceway assemblies shall be permitted only where specifically permitted in this Code for the applicable wiring method.
    - - - Exception: Short sections of raceways used to contain conductors or cable assemblies for protection from physical damage shall not be required to be installed complete between outlet, junction, or splicing points.

    What Wayne is missing in there, or should I say 'What Wayne is reading in there which is NOT IN THERE is' ... Wayne is reading that there is also an exception to the supporting and securing in that exception to complete runs - there is no exception to supporting and securing in there.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  32. #32
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    JP: As I have stated on more than one occasion, Wayne is an AHJ. He is not REQUIRED to pay attention.


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    It's not that I'm not paying attention. It's just that I don't agree with you!

    Apparently you guys are not reading and understanding the code either.

    E3804.2 states: Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables.
    Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths
    shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other
    enclosures or outlets.

    Exception:
    Short sections of raceway used to provide cable
    assemblies with support or
    protection against physical damage.

    The exception exempts the requirement for boxes and fittings. How much more plainer can it get?

    I will agree the ENT needs a proper fitting at the garbage disposal. But in the picture it doesn't show the garbage disposal, just the ENT and the area of the back of the cabinet. Attach a strap at the wall so the HI can't pull it out of the wall and all is well.




  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    It's not that I'm not paying attention. It's just that I don't agree with you!

    Apparently you guys are not reading and understanding the code either.

    E3804.2 states: Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables.
    Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths
    shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other
    enclosures or outlets.


    Exception:
    Short sections of raceway used to provide cable
    assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.


    The exception exempts the requirement for boxes and fittings. How much more plainer can it get?




    Wayne,

    Did you not even read my last post?

    Go read post #31 above.

    We understand what you are saying.

    What you do not understand is ... go back and read my post #31. Read the last paragraph.

    What to heck, I'll quote it here to make it easier for you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    What Wayne is missing in there, or should I say 'What Wayne is reading in there which is NOT IN THERE is' ... Wayne is reading that there is also an exception to the supporting and securing in that exception to complete runs - there is no exception to supporting and securing in there.
    Do you understand it and get it now?

    "there is no exception to supporting and securing in there"

    That is referring to the ENT, and you would know that if you read the rest of the post.

    Heck, for fun let's take your IRC code post: (I did this above too, but apparently you did not bother to read it there either.)

    By the way, I am also posting the section following the section you posted, as I did earlier, so you will NOT continue to miss it (unless you do not bother to read it again).

    - E3804.2 Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables. Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other enclosures or outlets.
    - - Exception:Short sections of raceway used to provide cable assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.

    - 3804.3 Securing and supporting.Raceways, cable assemblies, boxes, cabinets and fittings shall be securely fastened in place.
    - - E3804.3.1 Prohibited means of support.Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways and nonelectrical equipment.

    Wayne, see that last part in that last section, E3804.3.1? The part about "Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for ... raceways "?

    You do understand that means that cables ARE NOT allowed to support raceways, right?

    And that the ENT is being used as a raceway to protect the NM from physical damage, right?

    And that the ENT itself needs to be protected from physical damage, right?



    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  35. #35
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    [/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]



    Wayne,

    Did you not even read my last post?

    Go read post #31 above.

    We understand what you are saying.

    What you do not understand is ... go back and read my post #31. Read the last paragraph.

    What to heck, I'll quote it here to make it easier for you:


    Do you understand it and get it now?

    "there is no exception to supporting and securing in there"

    That is referring to the ENT, and you would know that if you read the rest of the post.

    Heck, for fun let's take your IRC code post: (I did this above too, but apparently you did not bother to read it there either.)

    By the way, I am also posting the section following the section you posted, as I did earlier, so you will NOT continue to miss it (unless you do not bother to read it again).

    - E3804.2 Mechanical continuity—raceways and cables. Metal or nonmetallic raceways, cable armors and cable sheaths shall be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other enclosures or outlets.
    - - Exception:Short sections of raceway used to provide cable assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.

    - 3804.3 Securing and supporting.Raceways, cable assemblies, boxes, cabinets and fittings shall be securely fastened in place.
    - - E3804.3.1 Prohibited means of support.Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways and nonelectrical equipment.

    Wayne, see that last part in that last section, E3804.3.1? The part about "Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for ... raceways "?

    You do understand that means that cables ARE NOT allowed to support raceways, right?

    And that the ENT is being used as a raceway to protect the NM from physical damage, right?

    And that the ENT itself needs to be protected from physical damage, right?[/left]
    JP: Spellitoutforhimwhydontya?


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I have to admit I did not read your #31 post. I was having trouble getting anything to come up from clicking on the link from the instant emails and was frustrated not being able to get in to comment. I was only able to read posts that I had not closed out yet...above your #31 post.

    OK, you guys finally got me. Here is what I read in the code but then again a lot of it is intepretation or how the AHJ (me) reads it.

    It is up to the AHJ to determine IF the NB is in an area that is required to be protected from damage. They, the AHJ, could determine that the NB needs;
    1. Protected from physical damage or
    2. No protection needed.

    If the AHJ determines that the area where the NB is installed is in a area where the NB could not get damaged then nothing else is required.

    Now if the AHJ determines that the NB could get then some type of protection must be installed.

    If the electrician installs ENT the AHJ could determine that the area where the ENT is installed is not an area where ithe ENT could get damaged then that would be allowed. That means the AHJ could determine the NB needs protected and it was okay to use ENT.

    If ENT is used then this exception
    Exception:

    Short sections of raceway used to provide cable
    assemblies with support or protection against physical damage.


    means that you are not required to install boxes and fittings on the ENT. However you are still required to secure the ENT because NB is not allowed to be used to support clothes hangers, trash bags, ENT and other items.

    In order for the ENT to be installed in this type of installation the electrician MUST install the proper fitting at the garbage disposal so the NB is not supporting the ENT. Then the electrician would need to strap the ENT at the wall.

    This type of installation would be to code in my opinion.



  37. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle View Post
    This type of installation would be to code in my opinion.

    You are close, real close.

    Now, though, the NM cable would need to be secured within 12" of the end of the ENT which is in the wall.

    And how do you address the fact that the ENT requires the same protection from physical damage as the NM requires?

    The choice for a protection providing raceway would eliminate the use of ENT from that use as it itself requires protection from physical damage. That mean another raceway type would be required, and, yes, all the other problems would still apply, such as supporting and securing the raceway and supporting and securing the NM cable beyond the end of the protective raceway where it ends in the wall.

    Then, how would you connect the NM cable to the disposer with the other raceway connected to it with a proper fitting for the raceway? That means the protective raceway would need to be stopped short of the disposer and allow the NM cable to enter the disposer body through a proper NM cable fitting ... which gets us back to ... supporting and securing the raceway ... how?

    As I said, "You are close, real close."

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I've got to take a break from this thread! It's making my head hurt! I'll answer later!


  39. #39
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    That means the protective raceway would need to be stopped short of the disposer and allow the NM cable to enter the disposer body through a proper NM cable fitting ... which gets us back to ... supporting and securing the raceway ... how?

    JP: If he answers that it would be by installing an ENT box in the wall and using ENT fittings on each end of the ENT, he'll win the Smurf Award!


  40. #40
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Well, hell. He just fell over!


  41. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    I'd like to see water tight conduit & fittings or weatherproof outlet cover and damp location wiring methods in this situation. Faucet leaks, sprayer, sink to counter drips, overflow, condensation outside of sink, are not unrealistic or unexpected events in a kitchen sink cabinet.
    Edit to include: The area is obviously used for storage - its a kitchen cabinet or sink base one would expect storage there. I see two trigger sprayers aimed directly at the exposed NM. The sprayer bottle for the kitchen cleaner if not put away locked in the off position - would saturate the sheath. Some of those kitchen cleaners can do damage to plastics and vinyls and can be corrosive or oxidize metals. There is no protection, or securing, grommet or otherwise, to prevent the cable from being damaged by movement which could easily happen with articles being moved and stored in the cabinet.
    Geez why don't we just require it to be piped in rigid conduit while we're at it and call it a hazardous location?
    Maybe we should also make it required that all residential garages be wired as a hazardous location also. Rigid conduits and seal offs.We use chemicals of all types there and store them there.
    While we're at it maybe we should look into article 517 patient care areas too. We have sick people in our homes. our "patients" are cared for in our "patient care areas" better wire them with health care facility cable!
    So crazy, maybe even insane?
    Hell yes it is. Just as crazy as wanting to use weather proof conduit systems under a residential kitchen sink.
    Wire the structure for WHAT IT IS not WHAT IT COULD BE.


  42. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post

    Then, how would you connect the NM cable to the disposer with the other raceway connected to it with a proper fitting for the raceway? That means the protective raceway would need to be stopped short of the disposer and allow the NM cable to enter the disposer body through a proper NM cable fitting ... which gets us back to ... supporting and securing the raceway ... how?

    As I said, "You are close, real close."
    Cables when inserted in a sleeve are not required to be connected to the final destination, only within 12" of the far end. Recognized Code expert Mike Holt even had graphics to explain this very clearly.

    I have also seen people concerned about the additional weight of the smurf causing additional sagging in the NM cable. Come on, a whole 10 foot stick weights around a pound.

    What is doing the spraying when you forget to turn all those hazardous chemical sprayers safely to the Off position?

    Whenever I look under a sink all those trolls causing all the imagined damage seem to be gone. Maybe it was the warning I posted under there that said " Warning - exposed NM cable has been known to cause unexplained growth spurts, rabid goat attacks and global warming".


  43. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    Cables when inserted in a sleeve are not required to be connected to the final destination, only within 12" of the far end. Recognized Code expert Mike Holt even had graphics to explain this very clearly.
    Yep, he is correct as to what he explained and showed in the graphic, which was not what is under discussion. That is allowed when connected to an enclosure, cabinet or cut out box, and, as I recall, NOT WITH a flexible raceway - RIGID raceways only and only under those conditions. Oh, and with the rigid raceway exposed all the way, with a minimum length of 18", with the other end sealed, and with the NM cable secured within 12", and ... and in fact we had a thread on this very thing not long ago which identified all the requirements of it.

    We are talking about coming off an appliance with a flexible raceway, terminating concealed in the wall, etc.

    What Mike discussed and has a drawing for, and what the code states is allowed is not what is being discussed here.

    Of course, you are always trying to find something wrong, and in doing so you are always ending up showing that you are not reading anything, only grasping at straws to try to make your ludicrous points. Someday you may actually begin to read what is being discussed, read the code as to what is it referring to, and start learning, but until that day ... or wait ... I do remember ONE TIME where you were actually correct ( ONE TIME ), but only after some prodding did you come out correct.

    Jim, you really do need to start reading the posts about what is being discussed, reading the code to see what is being referred to, then increasing your knowledge by figuring out that what you wanted to post that someone else said was not applicable and then you actually state something YOU think.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    My reply was a direct quote of YOU. You appeared to be saying the NM contained in the sleeve would also need to be clamped to the disposal.

    The part you posted about requiring the sleeve to be sealed only applies to the sleeve into the top of a surface mounted panel. Why do you try and take everything off on a tangent?

    I am glad to see that more and more people are starting to see through your smoke and mirror routine.


  45. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    My reply was a direct quote of YOU. You appeared to be saying the NM contained in the sleeve would also need to be clamped to the disposal.
    It would.

    You are not reading the posts again, either that or not understanding what is written.

    The part you posted about requiring the sleeve to be sealed only applies to the sleeve into the top of a surface mounted panel. Why do you try and take everything off on a tangent?
    Not, that only applies to that section which allows for that type of installation (and this is not one of them) and when the raceway goes up (and this does to some extent).

    I am glad to see that more and more people are starting to see through your smoke and mirror routine.
    My smoke and mirror routine is only there to expose you and the few others like you who state non-applicable things and try to apply them to something to which they do not apply. You are my assistant and you are doing very nicely. Next I will show you how to "walk through solid glass", or to appear to do so, and you will play your part convincingly that others will believe too.

    One of these days you will want to play with the sword box yourself and forget, as you always do, what goes with what and end up trying to saw yourself in half with swords and realize that, yes, you have those two tricks mixed up too ... oops!

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I guess the concept of a drip loop and NM not for anything but DRY locations is lost on Mr. Horak.

    Under the slip joint DWV plumbing in the sink cabinet used for storage IS the location.

    The NM is exposed, unsecured, and everything runs downhill to the hole in the wall.

    Unsecured exposed NM in the average residential garage (not conditioned) doesn't belong. Smurf on the wall in the average residential garage doesn't belong.

    Of course I'm of the opinion that NM-B doesn't belong in the average residential attic exposed or protected; or exposed in the average unconditioned residential crawl space either (NMC-B another story), has to do with that pesky dry location definition and dry location only listing, and the cable rating at 60 C. We seal for condensation & water too not just hazardous locations.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 05-14-2009 at 09:50 PM.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    I guess the concept of a drip loop and NM not for anything but DRY locations is lost on Mr. Horak.

    Under the slip joint DWV plumbing in the sink cabinet used for storage IS the location.

    The NM is exposed, unsecured, and everything runs downhill to the hole in the wall.
    How much water is under a sink on a normal basis? How can you really think that inside a cabinet is not dry? This is not a shower stall.


  48. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    UPDATE:

    I just saw Manny Ramirez taking batting practice under a sink. You can't imagine the damage the bat can do to NM, even protected by smurf tube.


  49. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chico,Ca
    Posts
    423

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    How much water is under a sink on a normal basis? How can you really think that inside a cabinet is not dry? This is not a shower stall.


    Too many folks pulling "what ifs" out of the crack of their butts.
    Lets just make everything NEMA 4X & pipe it in Ocal.


  50. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Cord and plug with bubble cover or cable run on the surface of the building finish/running boards (not strapped to plumbing pipes) or protected from physical damage by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetallic conduit, or other approved means. Smurf isn't approved or listed for that purpose. Need a box either way. Box shouldn't be at/under the plumbing cleanout unless its weather tight protected from water.

    Fess up, which one of you is "GrayHeadedMule": Romex From Wall to Garbage Disposal - Mike Holt's Forum

    Because the "Mule" is missing the mark. More than one type of Physical Damage we are concerned about here. The Unsupported smurf is NOT going to prevent physical damage (not visible from the outside of the cable sheath) from Wiggling/bending. The conductors in the NM may break with that wiggling and storage activity. We also have damage concerns of the sheath, kitchen chemicals, moisture entrance, etc. if the sheath is knicked. A cord can handle wiggles and bends that NM cannot.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 05-14-2009 at 10:58 PM.

  51. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Autrey View Post
    I think I read somewhere that romex cable isn't supposed to simply exit a wall through a hole. Isn't there supposed to be a junction box here (see photo). I run into this all time and I've been writing it up, but for some reason I'm now questioning myself on it. The two places I typically find this is at the disposer power cable and at the water heater power cable. Does anybody else write this up?
    Yes you probably read this in Article 300 & 334 which has requirements for protecting the cable from physical damage after it has been installed.
    300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage
    300.6 Protection Against Corrosion and Deterioration
    300.11 Securing and Supporting (A) Secured in Place and (C) CAbles Not Used as Means of Support
    300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings -- Where Required.
    300.16 Raceway or Cable to Open or Concealed Wiring

    334.15 Exposed Work [which provides that except as provided in 300.11(A)] cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C)

    334.17 Through or Parallel to Framing Members
    334.24 Bending Radius
    334.30 Securing and Supporting

    334.116 Sheath
    (A) Type NM
    (B) Type NMC


  52. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On The Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    577

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Last I checked a cabinet inside a dwelling unit IS NOT a wet / damp location,thus it must be a dry location
    So the concept of NM not anywhere but a dry location is not lost on me. What is lost is you folks reading into things then playing the WHAT IF game.

    I never stated UNSECURED nm in a garage either. As long as it is supported to code it is legal. I was playing your game in my last post- WHAT IF..........

    A bubble cover under the sink - now that is crazy. Those pieces of garbage would not last. They would get broken just as fast as they do on the exterior of a building Oh thats right we're playing WHAT IF ..........


  53. #53
    Joao Vieira's Avatar
    Joao Vieira Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    the opening should be sealed with fire-caulk, or other non combustible or limited combustible material such as drywall mud if the wire cross different floors... ideally this work should had been done at the top wall plate to assure the floor fire rating....but in older houses there isn't much of anything my house has several of those as it was built in 78..i really can't fix the hole house per code but I try to close holes that go across floors inside of walls while doing something else...in this situation I would seal the hole because i would not want to remove drywall to see where the wire comes from.


  54. #54
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    I guess the concept of a drip loop and NM not for anything but DRY locations is lost on Mr. Horak.

    Under the slip joint DWV plumbing in the sink cabinet used for storage IS the location.

    The NM is exposed, unsecured, and everything runs downhill to the hole in the wall.

    Unsecured exposed NM in the average residential garage (not conditioned) doesn't belong. Smurf on the wall in the average residential garage doesn't belong.

    Of course I'm of the opinion that NM-B doesn't belong in the average residential attic exposed or protected; or exposed in the average unconditioned residential crawl space either (NMC-B another story), has to do with that pesky dry location definition and dry location only listing, and the cable rating at 60 C. We seal for condensation & water too not just hazardous locations.
    HG: Agreed, across the board.


  55. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: Romex through sheet rock?

    You guys just kill me. The under sink area in a kitchen frequently becomes a storage area for a multitude of household chemicals, some of which are corrosive. Human nature is such that this stuff gets put away with loose caps and gets tipped over at some point and splashes all over. Or, an aerosol spray can gets put away without the cap and when it falls over and gets pushed into something else it sprays allover the inside of the cabinet. These chemicals wind up being everything from Windex like stuff to paint strippers and drain cleaners.

    The NEC is silent on the space as an area needing any special attention and the NM-B whip as a code minimum is legal in most places. I'm not sure I've ever seen ball damage caused by batting practice but I have seen considerable damage caused by chemical spillage and spray. My comments over and above using the NM-B to support a chunk of ENT are directed in a hopeful application of common sense when installing a wiring method in the area. The NEC does hint that common sense needs to be applied once in a while.

    I think the analogy is that you can repair the paint scrape on a car with a generic colored paint spray can or have a pro do the job with proper prep and good paint that matches. Both of the methods get paint on the affected area. One is just a little better job.

    I don't take offense at people who differ with my ideas about how I think some of this stuff needs to be done. I earn a good portion of my living following them around redoing their work. The stuff I get somewhat animated about relates to things I've seen more than a few times in close to 40 years in the business. I take your opinions into account, just not to heart.

    Keep on truckin'


  56. #56
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheet rock?

    You guys just kill me.
    BK: We would never.

    The under sink area in a kitchen frequently becomes a storage area for a multitude of household chemicals, some of which are corrosive. Human nature is such that this stuff gets put away with loose caps and gets tipped over at some point and splashes all over. Or, an aerosol spray can gets put away without the cap and when it falls over and gets pushed into something else it sprays allover the inside of the cabinet. These chemicals wind up being everything from Windex like stuff to paint strippers and drain cleaners.
    BK: Perhaps more importantly, on at least 50% of the houses I see, it gets wet from water leaking; either from the p-trap, the faucet connection, the sink strainer connections, the sink rim, the vegetable sprayer, the on-demand water heater, the jug of distilled water stored there, etc. ad infinitum. But, the chemical varieties are also there and astounding in their sheer numbers.

    The NEC is silent on the space as an area needing any special attention and the NM-B whip as a code minimum is legal in most places.
    BK: Legal in the sense of being allowed through selective code enforcement? Or, legal in the sense of being code-compliant?

    My comments over and above using the NM-B to support a chunk of ENT are directed in a hopeful application of common sense when installing a wiring method in the area. The NEC does hint that common sense needs to be applied once in a while.
    BK: Common sense does not enter into the NEC, and never occured to most AHJs.

    I don't take offense at people who differ with my ideas about how I think some of this stuff needs to be done.
    BK: Why should you?

    I take your opinions into account, just not to heart.
    BK: Attaboy!


  57. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    How much water is under a sink on a normal basis? How can you really think that inside a cabinet is not dry? This is not a shower stall.
    I fully agree with Jim on that.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  58. #58
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    I fully agree with Jim on that.
    JP: You and Jim are both all wet in that respect. JP, you have been out of the saddle for too long. Even when you were there, you were inspecting multi-million dollar properties that tend not to exist in the real world, as you have indicated by this last comment.


  59. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Fess up, which one of you is "GrayHeadedMule": Romex From Wall to Garbage Disposal - Mike Holt's Forum

    By the wording in his posts, I do believe that GrayHeadedMule is Wayne.

    raider1 said:
    I agree with Bob, the NM cable can't support the raceway.

    But raceways used for protection of cables need not be installed between boxes. Take a look at 300.12 and Exception #1.
    GrayHeadedMule then said:
    raider1, I did refer them to 300.12 Exception #1. For some reason over at the HI forum they think that this section doesn't apply.

    Thanks for all the replies.
    Wayne ... er ... GrayHeadedMule,

    raider1 said "the NM cable can't support the raceway", why did you so conveniently skip over that in your reply?

    raider1 said "the NM cable can't support the raceway" AND "But raceways used for protection of cables need not be installed between boxes. Take a look at 300.12 and Exception #1" ... those two are not mutually exclusive of each other, they must both be addressed at the same time.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  60. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by A.D. Miller View Post
    JP: You and Jim are both all wet in that respect. JP, you have been out of the saddle for too long. Even when you were there, you were inspecting multi-million dollar properties that tend not to exist in the real world, as you have indicated by this last comment.
    Aaron,

    If they did not exist in the real world ... how did I inspect them?

    I had no space portal machine at the time.

    Last edited by Jerry Peck; 05-15-2009 at 08:17 AM. Reason: speelin' - 'no' came out as 'not'
    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  61. #61
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Aaron,

    If they did not exist in the real world ... how did I inspect them?

    I had not space portal machine at the time.
    JP: Help me Obi-wan . . . . . . . . .


  62. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Fess up, which one of you is "GrayHeadedMule": Romex From Wall to Garbage Disposal - Mike Holt's Forum

    Because the "Mule" is missing the mark.
    I'll fess up. I'm surprised you even posted that link because it shows that some people have common sense! What is wrong in getting professionals in the field to add their comments. Most of the guys on this forum have never performed electrical work. They have learned from a book and think that they are correct.

    Did you read the thread over at Mike Holts forum? That discussion didn't get near as complicated as this one! Well not near as many replies (yet). And I believe most of them agreed that all that is needed is proper fitting at garbage disposal and ENT secured at the wall. And you know what else???? It's the AHJ's call. It's all about how the AHJ reads the code. Not someone going out after the fact and "thinking" that their way of thinking is correct. Because you know what? The AHJ is the one deciding how the code reads. I'll call it the way I see it.

    From Mike Holts forum:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iwire
    I agree 100% the sleeve is not a conduit system used this way, it could be considered 'non-electric equipment'.

    However the NM is a cable assembly and 300.11(C) still applies.


    Gotcha. Nothing to do with the raceway needing support just can't have aything hanging off of cable..

    What if the electrician used the proper fitting at the garbage disposal and secured the ENT at the wall. It seems that would be code compliant.


    I think we overthink subject to physical damage. To me subject to physical damage means there is an ovbious threat to the cable right now....not some weird circumstance I can dream up.

    Would you still use a j-box at the wall or just allow a connector to secure the ENT where the NB goes through the wall?
    I think both ways could be done.

    In my opinion an AHJ could decide NM in a certain location is subject to damage and ENT in that same location is not subject to damage.

    The NEC has many areas that specifically require AHJs to make decisions about installations, that to me is far different then an interpretation.

    Even tho ent is not really a recognized method of protection I cannot understand the issue. I usually use carflex with a connector at the disposal end. IMO, it is plenty protected-- it's not like you are driving a vehicle under the sink cabinet--- geez. A little common sense-- unfortunately common sense does not always prevail.

    what the heck are these people doing under their sink to inflict all this damage on the nm ? I think the nm is compliant; I think the nm w/emt sleeve is even better. of course, as you know, my opinion doesn't count for much.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nakulak
    what the heck are these people doing under their sink to inflict all this damage on the nm ?

    I have to agree with you I have seen a lot of NM under sinks and it was ugly but not damaged.

    That said it seems if an inspector decided it is exposed to damage under there I see no way to dispute it. It is in fact exposed to damage no matter how unlikely that may be.



    Okay...my opinion again. I'll inspect it and no matter how it is installed, if I give it the OK, I will be correct because I am the AHJ. And if you guys go in behind me and write it up...so be it, I don't care, it was compliant at the time I inspected it! Besides you guys (HI's) have to talk about someone! We (AHJ's) talk about HI's all the time so it's a balancing act! I'm right you're wrong....you're right I'm wrong. It keeps us all in a job.

    You guys are paid to "find" stuff. If you agreed with us you wouldn't have a job! It's the AHJ's way of stimulating the economy!


  63. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,246

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Wayne,

    Selective reading results in selective reporting which results in selective enforcement based on false premises.

    You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink ... you did not drink ...



    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  64. #64

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    Here’s the code section that would apply:
    334.30 Securing and Supporting. Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (41⁄2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every cabinet, box, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.
    (B) Unsupported Cables. Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be permitted to be unsupported where the cable:
    (1) Is fished between access points, where concealed in finished buildings or finished panels for prefabricated buildings and supporting is impracticable
    (2) Is not more than 1.4 m (41⁄2 ft) from the last point of support for connections within an accessible ceiling to luminaire(s) [lighting fixture(s)] or equipment


    Richard Stanley,

    The reason why the inspector didn’t write it up was because it meets the code, in his opinion.

    As soon as you are the Authority Having Jurisdiction, and have some power to “approve” new installations, your bashing of all inspectors is comical.

    I have taken many calls from homeowners asking if their electrical system has to be replaced because it doesn't meet today’s code, per the home inspector. I asked one home inspector what edition of the code he uses: His response “what’s a code”.

    Does that mean all home inspectors are that clueless?
    No, but that one is.


  65. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Romex through sheetrock?

    I drank, it's just not from the same water fountain. You drink water the way you want too, I'll drink it the way I want too!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •