Exposed romex in garage below 7 feet. (help)

[David Nasser]

Detached garage.....outlets test correct wiring, light switches work.
Should the exposed wiring be noted as a serious correction needing
an immediate correction? ( highlighted red in the summary) Or just
noted in the body of the report.

[Dale Duffy]

I would recommend they have a Electrician fasten the Romex properly and protect it, but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

I put it in the Summary. But I don't distinguish between that and a missing drain stop. (I don't use red.)

[Brian E. Kelly]

I would point it out also.

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

I would point it out also.

Especially where a young chap with a Pocket Knife could be a little adventurous---better safe than sorry indeed.

[Billy Boerner]

All defects goes in my summary.

[Gary Bottomley]

Is the concern for a violation of the NEC (if so, does anyone know the section?), local code, or is it just a possible problem for damage?

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by gbottomley

Is the concern for a violation of the NEC

I'd like to know what the concern is as well. . .

Refer to NEC Sections 334.10B and 334.12

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

Other than the Romex not being fastened properly within 12" of the jbox, I have no issue with it (in a garage).

[David P. OKeefe]

In a finished garage, if the romex was run on the outside of the drywall, would it then be a concern?

[James F. McKee]

inside the wall cavity i have no issues with it....on the surface of drywall , that's a different story

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

Originally Posted by dokeefe

In a finished garage, if the romex was run on the outside of the drywall, would it then be a concern?

Yes, then considered unprotected.

[David P. OKeefe]

Thank you.

[Gary Bottomley]

Originally Posted by jpope

I'd like to know what the concern is as well. . .

Refer to NEC Sections 334.10B and 334.12

Following is a similar question and one of the better responses found in the following Message Board: ICC Bulletin Board » Code Chat » Electrical Codes » NM-B cable exposed in garage:

LPElectric
Contributor

In the Residential Code of NYS, at Table E3701.4 column #8 "NM" and row #15 indicate that NM run exposed and subject to physical damage is not permitted. This seems to indicate that wiring a residential auto garage with "romex" in the open stud-bays would not be permitted since the wiring could be deemed "subject to physical damage".

In the 2002 NEC, if I enter the code at 334.10 Uses Permitted, I note that NM is permitted in one family dwellings. Assuming the garage is attached, it is made a part of the dwelling. 334.10(A) permits NM for dry, exposed locations.
334.15 indicates that exposed wiring shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards. 334.15(B) indicates that cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary.

Keeping that in mind, here are the questions:
1) Is romex run through bored holes in open studding at waist level within the garage subect to physical damage?
if so,
2) Is it necessary to enclose the wiring within a sheathing such as 1/2 gypsum board to protect this wiring method from physical abuse?

Thanks in advance for any interpretation you may offer.

Response from:
The Electrical Guru
Contributor

I don't believe the NEC is vague on this. To both answers I would say Yes.

Yes, it is subject to physical damage in the nature of the question asked.

Yes, Putting it behind Gypsum would make it not exposed and would meet the NEC.

90.4 gives us the inspector alot of levy in regards to interp. but we have to be understanding in the application.

If they ran NM Cable up lets say 8' above the floor and it was exposed and in my interp. not subject to unintential physical damage then I would be fine with it.

The quick answer here is we Can't Fix Stupid or Stupid Proof everything for the consumer but we can help protect the obvious.

--------------------
Paul W. Abernathy
NEC Consultant/Lecturer/Author
CEU Provider - Virginia
ICC/IAEI Plans Examiner/Inspector
www.TheElectricalGuru.com
* Mike Holt Video Team Member

So, it sounds to me that this is a gray area that is subject to interpretation as to what could be subject to damage. I don't see it as a code violation but should be noted as something that could be addressed by the buyer after the sale.

[Dale Duffy]

I agree with Paul's answer as well Gary...!!

Better safe than sorry.