Please, I just don't understand how "subject to physical abuse" can be so subjective!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

richwaskowitz

Senior Member
Location
Shelby Twp. MI, near Detroit
Please, I just don't understand how "subject to physical abuse" can be so subjective!

I got red tagged on a recent service and panel replacement when the inspector got all excited about some Romex and some UF cable which was exposed (stapled to a plywood panel attached to the wall) where it entered the panel and also where the UF passed through the exterior wall near the same opening as the SE cable and then ran a few feet to an A/C disconnect. He insisted that the cable to the A/C unit (strapped to the siding about 4 feet off the ground) was subject to physical abuse but that the SE cable was OK. How can that be? This is not near a driveway or patio and I just don't see where the risk is. Even if there is a potential risk to the A/C cable, why not the SE cable too? He made me build a plywood door to cover all the NM cables coming down out of the ceiling and running into the top of the panel (or I could have put them all in conduit). Is this inspector paranoid or do I need to anticipate this everywhere I go in the future? I think I might be missing something and I would really appreciate your opinions. I have never been hit for this before in 30 years.
 
Local rule? Old NEC rule? Trade practice? I'm sure someone has an explanation ...

I was taught that exposed romex, or K&T, had to be protected to 7ft. Thus, I've often seen a short stub of pipe on basement furnace disconnects, covering the wires until they got near the ceiling, or were between the joists.

Anyone know the source of such a rule?
 
renosteinke said:
Local rule? Old NEC rule? Trade practice? I'm sure someone has an explanation ...

I was taught that exposed romex, or K&T, had to be protected to 7ft. Thus, I've often seen a short stub of pipe on basement furnace disconnects, covering the wires until they got near the ceiling, or were between the joists.

Anyone know the source of such a rule?
Click to expand...

My guess is that this comes from a mis-application of 300.5(D)(1).

Chris
 
As far as the definition of "Subject to physical damage" there is no NEC definition of when a cable may be subject to physical damage. There is definitely a regional difference of opinion as to when exposed cables are subject to physical damage.

Unfortunately the inspector is the representative of the AHJ and is charged with determining when something is subject to physical damage.

Chris
 
The rule is very subjective and it is my opinion that if you can see it, it is subject to physical damage and that will remain my opinion until the NEC finds a way to define "subject to physical damage".
 
renosteinke said:
Local rule? Old NEC rule? Trade practice? I'm sure someone has an explanation ...

I was taught that exposed romex, or K&T, had to be protected to 7ft. Thus, I've often seen a short stub of pipe on basement furnace disconnects, covering the wires until they got near the ceiling, or were between the joists.

Anyone know the source of such a rule?
Click to expand...

It really comes down to judgement call of the inspector. Almost everything is subject to damage.
Years ago many let anything 7 foot high alone but then we see what creative home owners will do.
 
Here it does not get left exposed, as it shouldn't, 334.15; even in the shade the insulation will deteriorate due to reflected UV rays, and other simple factors from the elements. A few years of these and there is not much left but some bare conductors with patina. Some may not think of the elements as damaging, but they are.
 
Please don't think that I am just trying to be argumentative; I really want to understand this. I will concede that Romex is pretty delicate and that it should not be left exposed. But what about service entrance cable? Even if I use a rigid conduit riser above the meter, what about the section of SEU dropping out of the bottom of the meter for two feet and entering the house through the rim joist? How is that any less subject to damage? Or should I never do that again either? What about the SEU cable run along the siding or brick to an A/C unit?
 
I'd call 4' subject to physical damage, but I think your problem is more to do with the weather exposure. Looked up UL 854 for SE cable and this is what they say:

"1.6 The outer surface of each single- and multiple-conductor cable that is marked for sunlight-resistance use and the outer surface of each Type SE cable that is marked for sunlight-resistance use in cable trays complies with a 720-h sunlight-resistance test. Each insulated conductor under an overall covering on such multiple-conductor cable complies with a 300-h sunlight-resistance test."

I seriously doubt rommex complies with UL 854.

richwaskowitz said:
I got red tagged on a recent service and panel replacement when the inspector got all excited about some Romex and some UF cable which was exposed (stapled to a plywood panel attached to the wall) where it entered the panel and also where the UF passed through the exterior wall near the same opening as the SE cable and then ran a few feet to an A/C disconnect. He insisted that the cable to the A/C unit (strapped to the siding about 4 feet off the ground) was subject to physical abuse but that the SE cable was OK. How can that be? This is not near a driveway or patio and I just don't see where the risk is. Even if there is a potential risk to the A/C cable, why not the SE cable too? He made me build a plywood door to cover all the NM cables coming down out of the ceiling and running into the top of the panel (or I could have put them all in conduit). Is this inspector paranoid or do I need to anticipate this everywhere I go in the future? I think I might be missing something and I would really appreciate your opinions. I have never been hit for this before in 30 years.
Click to expand...
 
It would be nice if there was some concept to damage resistance. It is easier to judge if something is subject to being hit than subject to being damaged. NM cable, MC cable, and flex metal conduit all must be protected from physical damage. Running NM inside flex conduit or sch 40 PVC is certainly more resistant to damage than just NM by itself. I'm not sure you'd get credit for that, but I think you should. But then again, how much damage could occur, and how much mitigation do we need to do? Everything is subject to damage if you give me a big enough hammer.
 
Strife: I was not talking about NM on the wall outside, that was UF I had there. I am trying to figure out why he thought SE was OK but not UF right next to each other. When I tried to get him to explain, he told me that it was because the grounded conductor was wrapped around the ungrounded conductors in the SE, and the would act like a first line of defense to protect the "live" wires adn if someone cut into the cable it would be sure to cause a short. Since the equipment ground was in between the two hots in the UF, the hot wires were more vulnerable. I am not making this up; he really said that.
 
Subject to physical damage IS subjective and will vary from inspector to inspector and EC to EC. When in doubt, call the inspector and explain the situation. There may be some common sense to it and/or regional requirements, but, for the most part it is subjective and will always be subject(no pun intended) to disagreement.

Not all applications are covered but for the most part, this is how I look at it. Other inspectors that work for me may not share this or enforce it this way even though our companies liability. Not much I can do about that.

* SE cable on a service that is right along a sidewalk. If there is some space for plants/landscaping to separate the sidewalk from the service then no problem.

* SE cable on a service on the same side of the house as the driveway, whether not not there is some space. We are in the north and people slide into houses. Subjective of course if the driveway is far enough away.

* NM used under a kitchen sink to connect the disposal or any other exposed wiring under a sink.

Just a few examples of how I look at things which is consistent with most other inspectors in our area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top