Help want to make sure this is right ?

MarqElec

Member
Location
NY
Occupation
Electrician
I want to make sure this installation is NEC compliant. I already checked Article 330, but my concern is the MC is exposed, and the boxes are mounted at 4 ft from the floor. The room will be a locked closet. This is in NYC. Any advice? My foreman is on vacation, and I just want to confirm I did it right.IMG_2948.jpeg
 
I want to make sure this installation lighting control is NEC compliant and if is good for inspenction. I already checked Article 330 and mc can be exposed but still concern about the MC exposed, and the boxes are mounted at 4 ft from the floor. The room will be a locked closet. This is in NYC. Any advice? My foreman is on vacation, and I just want to confirm I did it right. One of the workers told me MC can’t be exposed below 8 ft — that it can only be exposed when it’s 8 ft or higher, and that I’d have to use conduit when running it down. But I don’t see that rule in the NEC. Am I missing something?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2948.jpeg
    IMG_2948.jpeg
    43.6 KB · Views: 12
You may be questioned on usage of unistrut straps with multiple MCs.
 
I think MC is considered as vulnerable to damage as NM is.
What makes you think that? If you look at article 300 and read the various rules for protection you will find that there are several that allow MC in locations that Romex is not allowed.
 
I already checked Article 330 and mc can be exposed but still concern about the MC exposed, and the boxes are mounted at 4 ft from the floor. The room will be a locked closet.
There is no 8' rule. Subject to physical damage is not defined so it's up to the inspector to decide. Since it's in a locked closet I see no issue. How is this any different than a panel in a basement of a house wired with exposed NM cable? We typically put these lighting controls above the ceiling to avoid having to deal with an overzealous inspector.
Lighting Controls 001.jpg
 
There is no 8' rule. Subject to physical damage is not defined so it's up to the inspector to decide. Since it's in a locked closet I see no issue. [...] We typically put these lighting controls above the ceiling to avoid having to deal with an overzealous inspector.

IMHO this is the issue the OP _may_ have to deal with.

The '8 foot rule' is not explicit in code, but is sometimes the way inspectors will interpret 'subject to physical damage', and 'subject to physical damage' is in the code.

On the one hand this leaves wiggle room for inspectors to be overzealous, on the other it gives them leeway to look at the situation as a whole and make allowances for the specific situation. Eg: "Are these cables exposed to the eyes of trained employees or exposed to the ladders stored on the other side of the room that might tip over?"

-Jonathan
 
The white cable ties would be a flagged here. Are they listed for support?
Imaginative use of strut straps, but a no go. Back to the black cable ties.
What's wrong with the white cable ties? They're just making the cables neater and are not required if the cable is supported every 6'. They could have used tape, tie wire, scrap copper or anything else since they're not providing the support.
 
It a locked closet. Physical damage ruled out

Is it a locked closet dedicated to electrical installation (maybe a telecom room with different bits of wiring on all the walls), or is in a 'maintenance closet' where the janitor might store any number of things. "Locked closet" doesn't actually tell you the risk of physical damage.
 
Is it a locked closet dedicated to electrical installation (maybe a telecom room with different bits of wiring on all the walls), or is in a 'maintenance closet' where the janitor might store any number of things. "Locked closet" doesn't actually tell you the risk of physical damage.
OK but appropriate enclosure for individual component used or not to see, final judgement for physical damage liability
 
Top