Romex From Wall to Garbage Disposal

[GrayHeadedMule]

Okay, here's the deal. There's a discussion going on at another forum. It's a home inspectors forum and I am trying to figure out if my interpretation is wrong or right. I sure hope I don't have to suck up and admit I'm wrong but I've been wrong before!!

You've got your standard residential wiring, romex coming out of a drilled hole at the back of a cabinet. The romex runs over and is connected to the garbage disposal. The electrician slid a piece of ENT over the romex, no j-boxes or connectors on either end.

I am considering the ENT a sleeve and is there for the protection of the romex. I have read on this site where some feel that exposed romex is okay in this type of installation and others on here feel like it needs protection...about 50/50. Some of the others over at the HI site are saying that this is a raceway and needs a j-box and proper connectors and supported as required by the NEC.

Am I way out in left field on this one? Please let me know if I am making a mistake by allowing the electrician to use ENT in this type of installation without boxes, connectors and securing as stated in the NEC for raceways/ENT.

Here is a link to the discussion.
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/13399-romex-through-sheetrock.html#post84516

 

[iwire]

When I used to do that work in the 80s we just ran NM but I honestly can see it being subject to damage and the support would not be close enough to the disposal termination.

IMO the sleeve for physical damage can not be supported by the wiring method it is protecting,

 

[Rockyd]

What's the instructions say?

If it's cord and plug connected appliance, be wondering how/where is the disconnect per 422.23?

I always unplug my unit when I have to put my hand in it to get "something" out of it.

Edit - Iwire would be proud...I have a Badger staring out from under the sink

 

[iwire]

What's the instructions say?

If it's cord and plug connected appliance, be wondering how/where is the disconnect per 422.23?

The switch on the counter top can serve as the disconnecting means as long as it is not a decora switch. (The disconnecting means must be 'indicating' decoras are not)

 

[iwire]

Edit - Iwire would be proud...I have a Badger staring out from under the sink

:grin:



If I was only really connected to them.

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

I-wire, so are you saying it needs boxes and connectors at each end? What if the electrician used the proper fitting at the garbage disposal and secured the ENT at the wall. Would you still use a j-box at the wall or just allow a connector to secure the ENT where the NB goes through the wall?

Rockyd, we allow the switch on the counter as a disconnect.

 

[raider1]

I agree with Bob, the NM cable can't support the raceway.

But raceways used for protection of cables need not be installed between boxes. Take a look at 300.12 and Exception #1.

Chris

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I have read on this site where some feel that exposed romex is okay in this type of installation and others on here feel like it needs protection...about 50/50.

Unfortunately the 50 that think it's subject to physical damage are right. The 50 that think it is not subject to physical damage are obviously right.
The reason is that it is just too subjective.

I think we overthink subject to physical damage. To me subject to physical damage means there is an ovbious threat to the cable right now....not some weird circumstance I can dream up.

By the way flexible cord can't be used where subject to physical damage also but no one blinks twice to cord and plug the disposal and have the cord in the same spot the cable would have been...

 

[iwire]

I-wire, so are you saying it needs boxes and connectors at each end?

I am saying that would be one way to do it.

I was pointing out that IMO that if your just using the ENT as a sleeve then the NM can not be the support of that ENT and that the NM would have to be supported within 12" of the pig.

What if the electrician used the proper fitting at the garbage disposal and secured the ENT at the wall.

It seems that would be code compliant.

Would you still use a j-box at the wall or just allow a connector to secure the ENT where the NB goes through the wall?

I think both ways could be done.

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

raider1, I did refer them to 300.12 Exception #1. For some reason over at the HI forum they think that this section doesn't apply.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

When I used to do that work in the 80s we just ran NM but I honestly can see it being subject to damage and the support would not be close enough to the disposal termination.

IMO the sleeve for physical damage can not be supported by the wiring method it is protecting,

This is an interesting thought iwire. Does that EMT need to be supported?? It makes sense that it would however it is like the code doesn't even consider it conduit any longer...

300.12 ex 1 talks about short sections of raceway in theory but later when you go to specific raceways such as EMT you see this:

358.30 Securing and Supporting. ​

​

​

​

​

EMT shall be installed
as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall
be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance
with 358.30(A) and (B) or permitted to be unsupported in​

accordance with 358.30(C).

Where does it allow this specific raceway to be used when NOT a complete system? Seems like a conflict between 300.12 EX1 and 342,344,352,358.30

 

[cpal]

. The electrician slid a piece of ENT over the romex, no j-boxes or connectors on either end.

I am considering the ENT a sleeve and is there for the protection of the romex. [/URL]

362.12(10) would prohibit the use of ENT where subject to physical damage.

 

[iwire]

This is an interesting thought iwire. Does that EMT need to be supported?? It makes sense that it would however it is like the code doesn't even consider it conduit any longer...

I agree 100% the sleeve is not a conduit system used this way, it could be considered 'non-electric equipment'.

However the NM is a cable assembly and 300.11(C) still applies. :smile:

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

cpal, so that goes back to "is this area susceptible to damage"?

So the electrician installed the ENT over the NB to protect it from damage but the ENT cannot be used where it may be damaged.:-?

Sooooo I'll interprete the installation as ........... crapola.......now I'm totally confused! Not really. I guess it all boils down to how you feel at the time!

 

[cpal]

cpal, so that goes back to "is this area susceptible to damage"?

!

I got into that argument (intent interpertation and language ) the other night . Not Me , Not Again

 

[Rockyd]

I looked at an in-sink-erator web site. They parked it with the EC. I think you could do it either way regarding the ENT, based on what 334.15(B) and 334.30(B) says...providing the AHJ allows it for the call.


362.30 Exception 3 is new and seems possible aimed at this?

 

[iwire]

In my opinion an AHJ could decide NM in a certain location is subject to damage and ENT in that same location is not subject to damage.

The NEC has many areas that specifically require AHJs to make decisions about installations, that to me is far different then an interpretation. :smile:

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

iwire, I agree.

Thanks to all of you for your comments. I appreciate them.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I agree 100% the sleeve is not a conduit system used this way, it could be considered 'non-electric equipment'.

However the NM is a cable assembly and 300.11(C) still applies. :smile:

Gotcha. Nothing to do with the raceway needing support just can't have aything hanging off of cable..

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Just cut in a receptacle and use a cord....End of discussion.