garbage disposal wiring

[Vinniem]

Ran a seperate 20 amp circuit for a garbage disposal.

Disposal I'm told also has a heater.

Disposal is cord and plug.

Can I staple the romex inside the cabinet to my recp/switch or do I have to convert it to bx or mc?

 

[stickboy1375]

I normally just strap NM to the back of the cabinet, but your inspector may see it as subject to physical damage...:roll:

 

[peter d]

I normally just strap NM to the back of the cabinet, but your inspector may see it as subject to physical damage...:roll:

Yeah, just like SEU cable is subject to physical damage.

 

[stickboy1375]

Yeah, just like SEU cable is subject to physical damage.

As a side note: If there are moving parts inside the cabinet and the NM is not strapped and routed properly, then I would have to agree with subject to physical damage.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Can I staple the romex inside the cabinet to my recp/switch or do I have to convert it to bx or mc?

I usually sleeve the nm cable in a piece of carflex. Not expensive and covers my butt.

Disposal with a Heater?????? Why?????

 

[Vinniem]

Thanks for the quick response guys.

Dennis,

I thought that was odd also.

I've never run across that before.

That's why I'm asking the pro's.

 

[bradleyelectric]

I'd have to see paperwork on that. (heater) Usually 15A dedicated circuit nm to a surface mount rec.

 

[tallguy]

I usually sleeve the nm cable in a piece of carflex. Not expensive and covers my butt.

Disposal with a Heater?????? Why?????

Maybe it's a variant of one of these?

 

[electricmanscott]

I normally just strap NM to the back of the cabinet, but your inspector may see it as subject to physical damage...:roll:

I would agree with the inspector.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis, I thought that was odd also. I've never run across that before. That's why I'm asking the pro's.

I love to know more about this. Perhaps you can post the make and model # so I can check it out. Thanks.

 

[stickboy1375]

I usually sleeve the nm cable in a piece of carflex. Not expensive and covers my butt.

How does that work since LFNC is not allowed to be subject to physical damage? :roll:

 

[iwire]

How does that work since LFNC is not allowed to be subject to physical damage? :roll:

That is an interesting point, one that brings up the personal choice allowed by physical damage.

That said I agree with Dennis' method.

I can see an inspector looking in the cabinet, seeing exposed NM and saying that NM is subject to damage from the products likely to be stored in the cabinet.

But if the same inspector looked in the same cabinet and sees LFNC they might say LFNC is not subject to physical damage from the products like to be stored in the cabinet.

 

[1793]

That is an interesting point, one that brings up the personal choice allowed by physical damage.

That said I agree with Dennis' method.

I can see an inspector looking in the cabinet, seeing exposed NM and saying that NM is subject to damage from the products likely to be stored in the cabinet.

But if the same inspector looked in the same cabinet and sees LFNC they might say LFNC is not subject to physical damage from the products like to be stored in the cabinet.

So, "Is one more subject to physical damage than another"?

 

[stickboy1375]

So, "Is one more subject to physical damage than another"?

That was kind of my point..., so what do you sleeve the LFNC in?

 

[stickboy1375]

IMO, you would have to follow 334.15 (B)

 

[1793]

That was kind of my point..., so what do you sleeve the LFNC in?

Well I've used MC in the past and I have read where other here use MC as well and according to the Book "MC" is not to be installed where "subject to physical damage."

 

[iwire]

So, "Is one more subject to physical damage than another"?

In nut shell yes, that was what I was saying.

Do you think NM is easier to damage then LFNC?

IMO the NEC has left a lot of leeway to the inspectors to decide what is and what is not subject to damage.

The truth is everything is subject to damage, it becomes a question of likelihood and I don't think that can be spelled out in a code.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

That is an interesting point, one that brings up the personal choice allowed by physical damage.

That said I agree with Dennis' method.

I can see an inspector looking in the cabinet, seeing exposed NM and saying that NM is subject to damage from the products likely to be stored in the cabinet.

But if the same inspector looked in the same cabinet and sees LFNC they might say LFNC is not subject to physical damage from the products like to be stored in the cabinet.

I have not thought of the different reasons for being "subject to physical damage", that makes sense.

When I do think of physical damage under a sink, I am usually thinking of damage from storing items or moving stuff around under there, creating stress on the cable or fittings. In that case, then Carflex would be subject to the same physical damage.

 

[Kessler4130]

I use the plastic wiremold to protect wires inside cabinets, as long as the surface is clean the tape sticks just fine.

 

[1793]

In nut shell yes, that was what I was saying.

Do you think NM is easier to damage then LFNC?

IMO the NEC has left a lot of leeway to the inspectors to decide what is and what is not subject to damage...

Yes, I do believe that NM is more subject to damage.