NM requiring physical protection

[Wired Wheels]

I recently had an inspector fail a job where I ran new NM on an exiting vertical running board in an unfinished basement to an existing receptacle. He claimed that the cable needed physical protection siting 334.15(B). 334.15 (A) says cable can be installed on a running board. Any thoughts?

 

[ptonsparky]

I recently had an inspector fail a job where I ran new NM on an exiting vertical running board in an unfinished basement to an existing receptacle. He claimed that the cable needed physical protection siting 334.15(B). 334.15 (A) says cable can be installed on a running board. Any thoughts?

We can’t see what you did but if he cited the articles, he must feel you were not compliant.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If the running board is up high at the ceiling then IMO he is being a bit too literal. If the board is down at the baseboard then I see his point. Unfortunately the NEC is not clear on this and one can only try and reason with an inspector on issues such as these

 

[480sparky]

It's not a choice between 334.15(A) and 334.15(B). Both must be complied with. If the AHJ determines a running board is not sufficient, then it needs to be sleeved according to (B).