Physical protection for SEU and Romex

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Art Horton

Member
Location
Daytona Beach, Florida
Please clarify the following: In a homeowners on-grade one story metal building, (man-cave) in the rear of his residence I have been informed all romex and SEU conductors feeding into his electrical panel must be "protected from physical harm" to 7" from the concrete floor. Either by a protective conduit sleeve or placing a finished wall surface in front of the romex/SEU, 334-15 (B) (C) does not appear to apply to this application. Please advise if this is correct or not. Thank You.
 
If the AHJ decides that cables are subject to physical damage then they can require what they are asking for.

I might run a couple of 2x4s up each side of the electrical panel up to the ceiling. To that screw a piece of plywood that covers the cables. Make the plywood easily removable for adding cables later.

We do this same thing only we use sheet metal to cover MC cables.
 
Why do think this is not 334.15?

Also 300.4 gives the AHJ room enough to swing a large variety of cats. The breaker panel is, by definition, an accessible work area. So people are going to be performing work there. Therefore the conductors are subject to damage.
 
starbolin said:
The breaker panel is, by definition, an accessible work area. So people are going to be performing work there. Therefore the conductors are subject to damage.
Click to expand...

Not the case in my area, it is common, pretty much every home with a basement panel-board has exposed cables running down to the panel.

Each area has their own idea of 'exposed to damage'. :)
 
starbolin said:
Why do think this is not 334.15?

Also 300.4 gives the AHJ room enough to swing a large variety of cats. The breaker panel is, by definition, an accessible work area. So people are going to be performing work there. Therefore the conductors are subject to damage.
Click to expand...


I fully understand the AHJ having "an open door" to interpret the code how he/she wishes, my point for asking is in FL it seems to be a "normal" requirement but not (as far as I can find) specified in the NEC. As the moderator (in NE) stated there are numerous examples (just about each home with the basement) where the romex or SEU cable run from the floor joists above to the panel mounted on the wall with a plywood backer (usually with 2x4 studs behind the plywood) and all the cables are affixed to the plywood from the joist to the panel. The only basements in FL are swimming pools. I guess because many panels are located in the garages in FL the AHJ's have felt the cables needed protection. In my case the panel is located just inside a on-grade exterior door with a framed wall around it, the cables are well behind, actually in the wall cavity and therefore it would appear not subject to "physical harm". The panel top is not usually 7' off the finished floor (can't find in the NEC where the 7' is mentioned) so the area above the panel it would seem in FL all conductors would need to be protected. I hate it when inspectors "go off the grid" and interpret the code to fit their goals. Over the years we have explained the code to many inspectors and usually they end up agreeing with the written word of the code not their interpretation of the code. If anyone can provide me with a code section where the 7' O.F.F. is mentioned or where it actually states that romex and SEU cable must be protected from "physical harm" in that 0 to 7' O.F.F. I would appreciate it. It's not that we mind placing a piece of plywood over the cables, it's now the NEC VS an AHJ. (and actually another contractor that is telling me it's in the code) Yes it's 7 feet not 7inches, my goof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top