Romex wiring in garage

[NEC User]

I'm buying a house and there is romex wiring run through the garage. The installation was approved by the township in 1987 when it was installed. Current standards requireany type of non-metallic wiring, Romex included, to be protected (within conduit). It's 28 years old and I want the seller to fix it. Your thoughts?

 

[david luchini]

I'm buying a house and there is romex wiring run through the garage. The installation was approved by the township in 1987 when it was installed. Current standards requireany type of non-metallic wiring, Romex included, to be protected (within conduit). It's 28 years old and I want the seller to fix it. Your thoughts?

NM, NMC and NMS are specifically permitted to be installed in One- and two-family dwellings and their attached or detached garages, by 334.10(1).

I'm not sure what would need fixing, unless there was some local requirement that supercedes the NEC.

 

[jaggedben]

Romex (NM) shouldn't be run in conduit. That would be a pretty backwards local ordinance of that's truly what it says. Protecting it by covering with plywood or drywall, for example, should be acceptable.

The biggest jurisdiction I work in does not allow NM and other flexible wiring methods to be exposed below 8' above the floor, but exposed above that height is ok.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'm buying a house and there is romex wiring run through the garage. The installation was approved by the township in 1987 when it was installed. Current standards requireany type of non-metallic wiring, Romex included, to be protected (within conduit). It's 28 years old and I want the seller to fix it. Your thoughts?

Personally I would not loose sleep over it. If the wiring is run between studs and not against a running board then add a short board across and staple the wire to it. Not a big issue.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Romex (NM) shouldn't be run in conduit. That would be a pretty backwards local ordinance of that's truly what it says. Protecting it by covering with plywood or drywall, for example, should be acceptable.

The biggest jurisdiction I work in does not allow NM and other flexible wiring methods to be exposed below 8' above the floor, but exposed above that height is ok.

Why shouldn't NM be run in a conduit sleeve? It is specifically permitted by 334.15(B), and is very often the method used to provide physical protection for NM installed in basements and garages.

 

[tkb]

I'm buying a house and there is romex wiring run through the garage. The installation was approved by the township in 1987 when it was installed. Current standards requireany type of non-metallic wiring, Romex included, to be protected (within conduit). It's 28 years old and I want the seller to fix it. Your thoughts?

If this was up to code when installed in 1987 and approved by the town, there is nothing ti have fixed. Just because the code has changed many times since 1987, doesn't mean that it needs to be brought up to the current code.

 

[al hildenbrand]

If this was up to code when installed in 1987 and approved by the town, there is nothing ti have fixed. Just because the code has changed many times since 1987, doesn't mean that it needs to be brought up to the current code.

Great summary. I agree.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The physical protection rules for NM in 336-6(b) of the 1984 code are almost identical to the rules in 334.15(B) in the 2014 code. The issue here is the meaning of the very subjective phase "subject to physical damage", as both codes require that the NM be protected where subject to physical damage.

 

[edlee]

I'm buying a house and there is romex wiring run through the garage. The installation was approved by the township in 1987 when it was installed. Current standards requireany type of non-metallic wiring, Romex included, to be protected (within conduit). It's 28 years old and I want the seller to fix it. Your thoughts?

I still wire (residential) garages in NM without any further protection. If your local jurisdiction now requires conduit, it is grandfathered. Just don't hang your yard tools from it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I still wire (residential) garages in NM without any further protection. If your local jurisdiction now requires conduit, it is grandfathered. Just don't hang your yard tools from it.

In a residence you can do that, IMO as long as there is sheetrock to protect it or you run the cable parallel with the framing members. The problem is the words protection 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.

 

[iwire]

The physical protection rules for NM in 336-6(b) of the 1984 code are almost identical to the rules in 334.15(B) in the 2014 code. The issue here is the meaning of the very subjective phase "subject to physical damage", as both codes require that the NM be protected where subject to physical damage.

The changes have been in allowed uses, for a while a detached garage at a dwelling could not be wired with NM unless it had at least a 15 minute wall finish.

This has been relaxed now so that accessory vpbuildings to dwelling units can have exposed NM

 

[iwire]

In a residence you can do that, IMO as long as there is sheetrock to protect it or you run the cable parallel with the framing members. The problem is the words protection from damage

Dennis, read that code section again. It is not nearly as restrictive as you make it sound.

I could run NM right ontop of the sheet rock fully exposed.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis, read that code section again. It is not nearly as restrictive as you make it sound.

I could run NM right ontop of the sheet rock fully exposed.

Yes you can but I did not think that was an option that we were talking about. I thought the garage walss were exposed and may or may not get sheetrock. However I bet many inspectors would call it for protection needed if it were low