Thread: Romex behind dish washer

Does this need to be in conduit, if the area is not accessible. House was built in 08, this is the area behind the dishwasher.

Similar Threads:

• Satellite dish bonding
• Washer on GFCI
• Washer / Dryer Closet
• Satellite Dish
• Satellite Dish Mounted to Chimney

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Does this need to be in conduit, if the area is not accessible. House was built in 08, this is the area behind the dishwasher.

MS: It does not matter if the area is "readily accessible". The cable must be protected from damage.

334.15 Exposed Work.
In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

Thanks A.D. I thought so but was not sure.

The dishwasher is uninstalled and final terminations have not been made. Area is not going to be one determined to be subject to physical damage IMO. That said I don't like where the electrician chose to exit the nm out the floor behind the dishwasher. That's an iffy location based on the mounting pads of the dishwasher interfering with that exit location. I'm going to guess that the other nm cable is either for instant hot water or goes to the waste disposal. Would be interesting to see how the waste disposal has been wired as to the wiring method. I also see a face up receptacle box with blank cover so not sure what the intention there is. I would never cord and plug at that location if that is the final intention.

However considering the final installation method as long as the proper securing of the nm is compliant I do not see where any protection from physical damage for the nm is required if you just want to meet minimum standards. Exposed work in 334.15 (B) IMO does not apply to the wiring method for the area enclosed behind a dishwasher as far as physical protection being required. The wiring is exposed by definition as it will be attached to the surface so it would need to conform with 334.15(A) but I do not believe 334.15 (B) applies.

I would have preffered an entry for the nm to the dishwasher through the floor on the left ...in the cabinet void then to the dishwasher wiring compartment.

It would appear to me that a generic location to punch through the floor was chosen before cabinet install and it also appears that this is remodel or a change in plans ... and not a dwelling new construction?

FWIW .. this installation as shown would be compliant in my neck of the woods for a dishwasher as long as the nm is supported and fastened correctly.

RF: From what I know, the major cities in Kansas have adopted 2002 NEC. So how is this not a requirement where you live?

Next, I suppose that the usual dictionaries are also not in effect in Kansas. In the real world "exposed" and "concealed" are antonyms quite easily understood by the masses.

Also, in places other than Toto Land, dishwashers must be slid in and out of their niches for both service and replacement. This can be damaging to the NM cable if it is not protected.

But hey, if it's good enough for Dorothy and her little dog . . .

RF: From what I know, the major cities in Kansas have adopted 2002 NEC. So how is this not a requirement where you live?

Ok .. just how is that nm supposed to be handled from the point of entry to the cabinet void and the dishwasher wiring compartment ? EMT, rigid metal, sch 80 ? Or do you terminate in a junction box .. then wire to the dishwasher with a wiring method that has a listed physical protection raceway?. I have rarily in my career seen a residential fixed in place cabinet dishwasher hardwired using a listed conduit for physical protection. It is common to see an appliance flex metal whip though....but that isn't listed for physical protection.... Funny but when I look under a dishwasher all the applaince wires are exposed but I sure wouldn't worry about them they not covered by the NEC. Just trying to interject some common sense.


For what it is worth many areas and suburbs of big cities in Kansas are still 1999 NEC ...

Next, I suppose that the usual dictionaries are also not in effect in Kansas. In the real world "exposed" and "concealed" are antonyms quite easily understood by the masses

.

I'm not interested in websters but I am interested in what the NEC defines "exposed" (as applied to wiring methods) says. And I didn't say it wasn't exposed. What I said was it was exposed 334.15 (A) but not exposed where it needs physical protection 334.15(B). If the dishwasher is hardwired to the romex your going to have to disconnect the wiring before you slide it out. I don't think the NEC considers that exposed to physical damage. Think about it. What if it was cord and plug ? Do you protect the power cord you make and install from physical damage?

Also, in places other than Toto Land, dishwashers must be slid in and out of their niches for both service and replacement. This can be damaging to the NM cable if it is not protected.

Do tell ... Last I checked the NEC wasn't concerned about whether you were stupid enough to drag the dishwasher over your nm. Surely you are not saying that is grounds (critera) for an area that requires physical protection of wiring. Do you protect the romex above a suspended ceiling connected to lights or fans.... no ... but it is exposed..... I think it better to think about physical protection of wiring methods as being in an area that is in eminent danger of being damaged after it is terminated and the install is complete. Not when I come to service or replace what I terminate it to....

But hey, if it's good enough for Dorothy and her little dog . . .

Now you better be careful ... insulting Dorothy and toto is a major violation of Kansas statutes and is subject to deportation to Texas....

Ok .. just how is that nm supposed to be handled from the point of entry to the cabinet void and the dishwasher wiring compartment ?

RF: Whirlpool says:

If direct wiring dishwasher:

• Use flexible, armored or non-metallic sheathed, copper
wire with grounding wire that meets the wiring
requirements for your home and local codes and
ordinances.
• Use strain relief method provided with house wiring
junction box or install a U.L.-listed/CSA-certified clamp
connector to the house wiring junction box. If using
conduit, use a U.L.-listed/CSA-certified conduit connector.

If connecting dishwasher with a power supply cord:

• Use Power Supply Cord Kit (Part No. 4317824) marked for
use with dishwashers. Kit contents include:
– Volex, Inc., UL listed 16 gauge 3 wire power supply
cord with 3 prong grounded plug.
– Neer C-500 7/8 inch strain relief.
– 3 wire connectors.
– Part No. 302797 grommet
Follow the kit instructions for installing the power
supply cord.

Please note their first preference.

For what it is worth many areas and suburbs of big cities in Kansas are still 1999 NEC ...

RF: Not according to NFPA.

If the dishwasher is hardwired to the romex your going to have to disconnect the wiring before you slide it out. I don't think the NEC considers that exposed to physical damage. Think about it. What if it was cord and plug ? Do you protect the power cord you make and install from physical damage?

RF: Point taken.

Surely you are not saying that is grounds (critera) for an area that requires physical protection of wiring.

RF: I am saying that the preference of the manufacturer appears to be conduit. The NEC could easily be interpretted that way given this preference.

Do you protect the romex above a suspended ceiling connected to lights or fans.... no ... but it is exposed.....

RF: Protect, not per se, properly support, yes.

Now you better be careful ... insulting Dorothy and toto is a major violation of Kansas statutes and is subject to deportation to Texas....

RF: Sorry, we already have enough of both of them here.

Just use a receptacle and appliance cord then you don't need to figure out which of the installation provisions of various wiring methods you have to violate to do the install.

The added benefit is you have a disconnect built into the install. Not all AHJs are on board with electronic controls qualifying as a disconnect like a "spin the knob" timer with an off position does

RF: Whirlpool says:

If direct wiring dishwasher:

• Use flexible, armored or non-metallic sheathed, copper
wire with grounding wire that meets the wiring
requirements for your home and local codes and
ordinances.
• Use strain relief method provided with house wiring
junction box or install a U.L.-listed/CSA-certified clamp
connector to the house wiring junction box. If using
conduit, use a U.L.-listed/CSA-certified conduit connector.

If connecting dishwasher with a power supply cord:

• Use Power Supply Cord Kit (Part No. 4317824) marked for
use with dishwashers. Kit contents include:
– Volex, Inc., UL listed 16 gauge 3 wire power supply
cord with 3 prong grounded plug.
– Neer C-500 7/8 inch strain relief.
– 3 wire connectors.
– Part No. 302797 grommet
Follow the kit instructions for installing the power
supply cord.

Please note their first preference.

I don't see a preference. I see ... use either armored flex with individual wires or non-metallic sheathed cable (NM-b) as shown in the first post of this thread. Neither are listed for physical protection. But lets don't overreact. Your point is well taken that a flexible armored appliance whip or the like is probably a better quality installation. I'm simply saying that running the nm straight to the wiring compartment of the DW will be passed by inspectors in my jurisdiction. And they will not require physical protection of the NM-b.

RF: Not according to NFPA.

Well I'm sorry but..... Electrical Inspections | City of Olathe

The NFPA usually only lists what the county adopts. Olathe is a major suburb of Kansas city within Johnson county which is the unincorporated areas and is using 2005 NEC at present. Two major cities in Johnson county are still using 1999 ... Olathe being one of them. You will find this to be true all over the state.

RF: Point taken.

Well at least we agree on something....

RF: I am saying that the preference of the manufacturer appears to be conduit. The NEC could easily be interpreted that way given this preference.

To this I would tend to agree but I'm still not sure how you say whirlpool is preferring anything. It appears to be an either /or to me as long as it is approved by local code..

RF: Protect, not per se, properly support, yes.

By golly I think we agree again...

RF: Sorry, we already have enough of both of them here.

Good come back and causes me to grin.

I don't see a preference.

RF: You do not see a preference because you see only what you want to see. Just as in a dictionary (which you may not own), the first definition listed is the preferred definition, so then, the first method listed in the instructions is the preferred method - flexible and armored.

But lets don't overreact. Your point is well taken that a flexible armored appliance whip or the like is probably a better quality installation.

RF: Agreed.

I'm simply saying that running the nm straight to the wiring compartment of the DW will be passed by inspectors in my jurisdiction. And they will not require physical protection of the NM-b.

RF: And that is their prerogative.

Well I'm sorry but..... Electrical Inspections | City of Olathe

RF: Sorry, that is only the fifth largest city in KS. And, at a mere 120,000 souls, barley constitutes a "city" in my book. Anyway it is a moot point since the 1999 version has nothing different to say on this particular issue.

Well at least we agree on something....

RF: Will miracles never cease?

By golly I think we agree again...

RF: Let us not make a habit of this . . .

ADM,

I don't see that as a preference by the manufacturer. We are not dealing with a dictionary that lists by the most common usage. This is a list comprised of 2 items, by default one must come first. To use your logic if I ordered surf and turf, would I need to eat the lobster first?

I agree with the others that protection is not needed. How is the cable going to be damaged under the DW? Someone I think said that the cable is unsecured. If the cable is secured by the hole or near the hole, I doubt that you would have more than 4 1/2' of free cable anyway. NM is allowed to be secured at intervals no greater than 4 1/2'. The only part would be the ability to secure within 12" of the DW JB.

All of the options mentioned for protection are not viable for this install IMO. No flexibility to allow servicing is possible with a rigid conduit system.

I don't see that as a preference by the manufacturer. We are not dealing with a dictionary that lists by the most common usage. This is a list comprised of 2 items, by default one must come first. To use your logic if I ordered surf and turf, would I need to eat the lobster first?

JP: Again, you are seeing it as you wish to see it. Another, and perhaps more cogent, analogy might be: I tell you to STF up and get out of my face. While it is true that doing either would accomplish the first, my first desire is for you to STF up. That is why I listed in in that order. Typically, things are done in a certain order, your surf and turf notwithstanding.

I agree with the others that protection is not needed.

JP: It is certainly needed. The argument here revolves around the requirement and not merely the need.

No flexibility to allow servicing is possible with a rigid conduit system

JP: And that is why they make flexible conduit.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: And that is why they make flexible conduit.

Lets see, Article 356 for LFNC is not for use where subject to damage per 356.12(1). Article 350 for LFMC says the same. Article 348 for FMC again says not for use where subject to damage. Are you advocating the use of a product despite a NEC prohibition?

And this little gem really shows the small person you are when you cannot be civil if there is a difference of opinion. Are you threatened when someone disagrees? I may have missed your humor, but given your past views of people in the electrical trade I doubt it.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Again, you are seeing it as you wish to see it. Another, and perhaps more cogent, analogy might be: I tell you to STF up and get out of my face. While it is true that doing either would accomplish the first, my first desire is for you to STF up. That is why I listed in in that order.

And this little gem really shows the small person you are when you cannot be civil if there is a difference of opinion.

JP: I have been civil with you thus far. That can change, if you so desire.

Are you threatened when someone disagrees?

JP: You give yourself way too much credit if you think I am threatened by you or your ilk.

I may have missed your humor

JP: Yes, you have. You did, however, correctly intuit my general distaste when it comes to electricians. Present company likely not excepted.

I hope we don't get to throwing stones at each other over how a fixed in place dishwasher is wired. It seems disagreement is quite common on this board ...

I believe the root question of this discussion was that the nm-b could not terminate to the dishwasher but whatever wiring method does needs to be in a listed raceway for physical protection in accordance with 334.15(B)

I understood AD Miller to say that a listed means for physical protection must be used. Which would imply that the nm-b must be terminated in a JB then a wiring method using a listed conduit for physical protection from the JB to the dishwasher.

This is what I disagree with .. I see nothing that says you must use physical protection as a wiring method to the dishwasher in the NEC. Maybe local code like in the Chicago area will dictate this as they use pipe everywhere...I think.

Even the means suggested by the manufacturer are not listed for physical protection. They do say though you must install to local code. This installation is in Utah and frankly I do not know what local code requires where this install is being done.

Saying the NEC in 334.15 A & B requires physical protection for that nm-b as is shown by Matt Stouffer is a stretch in my opionion. I understood AD Miller to imply that because it is exposed it needs physical protection. To this I was simply saying ...nope...I do not agree. There are situations where this is certainly true and exposed nm-b needs physical protection ... IMO this dishwsher install is not one of them.

Frankly I have never seen an installation to a cabinet dishwasher using a listed physical protection wiring means. That certainly doesn't mean it is not required by some local codes.

Now to address that I am only reading what I want to read.

No sir I am not. Believe it or not .. I learned a long time ago to keep your mind open to the fact you just might be wrong about something... but I have yet to see anything said on this thread that will require that diswasher to be connected with a wiring method using listed physical protection.

I consider many here much more knowledgable with the NEC than I will ever be but I do know the code pretty well in the areas that I have experience with. I also know that I may have spent my entire career misunderstanding some aspects of the NEC. I've never met anyone else that does not fall into that catagory.

I hold no grudges against Home inspectors many are darn sharp and I have learned from them on more than one occassion.

As for reading into NEC 334.15 A & B that physical protection is required for that NM-b or physical protection to connect any wiring method to that dishwasher based on the pictures supplied by Matt Stouffer I can only say that you are the one guilty of reading what you want that section of code to say and what you think the manufacturer is saying.

I don't see how you can say with any confidence that the NEC requires it in 334.15 but the manufacturers so called 'preferred method' is not a listed physical protection wiring method. IMO the only "preferred method' is what your local codes allow. If you want to go above minimum code that is the electricians choice.

Now unless I missed something the advice given was that the wiring method to that dishwasher had to be in a listed physical protection conduit or raceway. Meaning either you need to run the nm-b in such conduit or change wiring methods in a JB. To that I say ...."Who is pulling whos leg"..... Please show me some install pictures where a NEC listed physical protection means in accordance with 334.15 (B) has been used for a cabinet dishwasher. Or at least show me a local code that requires it apart from areas like Illinois ....Utah is not one of them.

If it is being said that flex metal conduit, MC or similar is in accordance with the physical protection requirements of 334.15(B) I again disagree. I do agree that it offers better protection than nm-b but it is not a listed means if your going to cite 334.15 as the code section that is mandating physical protection of the wiring method to the dishwasher being discussed.

It seems disagreement is quite common on this board ...

RF: That is what makes horse races . . .

Now to address that I am only reading what I want to read.

RF: Now you are writing what you want me to read . . .

I also know that I may have spent my entire career misunderstanding some aspects of the NEC. I've never met anyone else that does not fall into that catagory.

RF: Guilty.

OK, I'll admit that I was way out on a limb with my commentary. Often I only desire to see just how far out there I can get. I have found that if I can float an argument on this board, I can successfully float it anywhere.

So then, it looks like this one won't fly. It's a shame though . . .

Lets see, Article 356 for LFNC is not for use where subject to damage per 356.12(1). Article 350 for LFMC says the same. Article 348 for FMC again says not for use where subject to damage. Are you advocating the use of a product despite a NEC prohibition?

Hi Jim.

I had trouble reading into the term "subject to physical damage" a while back. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that "subject to physical damage" was dependent upon the wiring method used. For example: NM-B would be subject to physical damage, whereas FMC may not in the same situation. Would you agree?

As usual, codes are often vague enough that everyone has to interpret everything based on their own knowledge, experience, etc.

Thanks

I have found that if I can float an argument on this board, I can successfully float it anywhere.

So then, it looks like this one won't fly. It's a shame though . . .

I have a suspicion that you aren't the only one on the board that does this .

I have a suspicion that you aren't the only one on the board that does this

BW: Do tell . . .

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

I had trouble reading into the term "subject to physical damage" a while back. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that "subject to physical damage" was dependent upon the wiring method used. For example: NM-B would be subject to physical damage, whereas FMC may not in the same situation. Would you agree?

The same "subject to physical damage" applies for a given location/use regardless of the wiring method. In fact, it is that location/use which determines which wiring method would be allowed based, in part, on being subject to physical damage. Just like whether or not a location/use is subject to corrosive action is not dependent on the wiring method used, the wiring method used is permitted or not permitted in part based on being subject to corrosive action being present. The same for damp and wet locations ...

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

Hi Jim.

I had trouble reading into the term "subject to physical damage" a while back. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that "subject to physical damage" was dependent upon the wiring method used. For example: NM-B would be subject to physical damage, whereas FMC may not in the same situation. Would you agree?

I would agree that certain methods are more susceptable to damage than others. However, using the strict definition of the suitable methods to protect from damage would have you using rigid conduit to protect a cable under the DW or inside a cabinet. IMO this would be overkill based on the limited potential.

Roger I inspect in KS. You are correct that we have and still install DW in this fashion. My understanding of the code is, that this is a correct install, if the is a lock on the breaker. if not lock out at the breaker THEN a flex wire to a plug would be the correct install.

Any calling this as wrong, in my opinion, could do so only if the maker of the DW said it was required to be done differently.

Ignore the all hat no cattle TX chatter

You can learn from this site on occasion

Hi Stacey or should I say neighbor ....

I retired several years ago but still fool with those wires every now and then. I actually was skilled trades at the Ford Claycomo plant and worked part time for a residential electrical contractor in Miami county and surrounding area. I even tried flat work after retiring from Ford .... forget that..... that's a young mans job.....

I lived in Pleasent valley for severl years, You may want to look into the Home inspection business. more headaches but less backaches

all hat no cattle TX chatter

SVH: You are way out of your depth there, son.

still fool with those wires every now and then

RF: That's what I'm talking about.

A Note to AD Miller:

I'd be careful about using the NFPA as a source for who has adopted which code cycle - or, for that matter, NEMA.

I say this because I was surprised to see Nevada on the list of states having adopted the 2008 NEC. This is simply not correct; the State, as such, does not adopt any codes; it's left to the local jurisdictions.

The only way the State uses the NEC is in testing for contractors' licenses, and they're still using the 2002 edition for that purpose.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

A Note to AD Miller:

I'd be careful about using the NFPA as a source for who has adopted which code cycle - or, for that matter, NEMA.

I say this because I was surprised to see Nevada on the list of states having adopted the 2008 NEC. This is simply not correct; the State, as such, does not adopt any codes; it's left to the local jurisdictions.

The only way the State uses the NEC is in testing for contractors' licenses, and they're still using the 2002 edition for that purpose.

JS: I did not. I located the building inspection departments for the major cities (such as they are) in Totoland.

I like the way Jerry Peck explained "subject to physical damage" that's one of the best descriptions I've seen for awhile.

Protection from physical damage isn't a wiring method it is a means to protect a wiring method. The NEC doesn't define "subject to slight physical damage" so you use mc instead of nm-b nor does it define "subject to physical damage" It does however detail what is acceptable for physical protection of a wiring method once the area where the wire is going to be installed has been classified. That classification either by NEC code or the code authority determines the wiring method and type of wire in part and whether or not it will need certain types of physical protection. A common and probably too simple of example being if I have a wood studded wall that has nm-b ran thru bored holes that places the nm-b closer to the face of the stud than 1 1/4". This isn't a situation that is left up the the code authority to determine whether or not the nm-b needs physical protection the NEC requires it as will your local code to be protected with nail plates where it passes thru the bored holes. Or a riser to a meter can from an underground lateral service ...local code will require physical protection like sch. 80 rnmc from grade to the meter can. Other situations will require an inspector to classify the area where the wiring method is going to be installed as subject to physical protection if not obviously required by codes. Generally speaking after you have pulled wire for awhile you don't normally worry too much about this 'subject to physical damage' thing as far as whether or not a a wiring method or section of a wiring method will need physical protection... because you get to know what the inspectors are going to require if not specifically detailed in the NEC or local code.

'Subject to phys damage' is a determination by the AHJ. Therefore arguing what is,...is futile here. It's unfortunate that a hard and fast description cannot be made to guide all installations, however, as Jerry has said, every situation/wiring method has its own needs.

As an AHJ I personally make the rulings in my county to help set some resemblance of a standard when possible. For what it's worth; I do allow NM to be stubbed up unprotected as long as it's at the very back of the floor at least 4 inches from either side. I prefer a cord and receptacle to facilitate servicing.
Years of installing this method and about a decade of approving such has been uneventful in the negative. Conversely, I'm a stickler for requiring 1 1/4" Clarence from the faces of studs (2" from bottom of joists) and nail plates where necessary due to events in the negative.

My Department is not so concerned what the Manufacture Spec would be in this regard, we have final approval and we will decide what is prudent and safe.
Bob Smit, County Electrical Inspector

I see a couple of things in this thread that bother me. Oddly enough, the disturbing comments all come from one person.

I'm not about to start a flame war ... so, a few general observations ....

First, we all have bad days, and sometimes phrase things poorly. When that happens, whatever you do, don't dig in your heels and defend your stupidity; just say 'oops' and move on. To do otherwise quickly becomes tedious, and undermines your credibility.

When you say something clever, make sure everyone sees your smile. It's too easy to misunderstand sometimes, and take offense.

Sometimes words actually matter. For example, while both conduit and cable are approved wiring methods, thay are not the same thing; indeed, some cables are not always allowed where other cables are.

Be careful about your inferences. To illustrate this example, the Bible may list the 'ten commandments,' but very few religions would maintain that 'place not others before me' is a more important commandment than 'thou shall not commit murder.'

Mind your sources ... and where the source stumbles, there's no shame in saying 'oops.'

Finally, your ideas need to be able to stand on their own merits. It is irrellevant that you think another poster is a weenie, or that you think you have a nicer diploma than the other guy. Every 'great mind' came to prominence for what they proposed as nobodies - not because they had 'credentials.'