Thanks for your comments. You have all addressed my basic concerns and seem to have validated my position. [Linked Image] Although it would appear that many of you feel that this would meet the mimimum installation requirements.

In addition to the potential violations each of you mentioned, I'd like to throw out two more. Because of the large number of public buildings where I find NM cable installed in exposed work... I decided to look up the NEMA installation information for NM. In the NEMA's "Application and Installation Guidelines for Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cables", it states that NM cable in structures "other than dwellings" must be "concealed within walls, floors, or ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that has at least a 15-minute finish rating." This requirement is mirrored in NEC 334.10(3).

Also, I would argue that following the NEMA document is a listing and labeling requirement, and therefore deviation is a violation of NEC Article 110.3(B).

You can download for free and read the NEMA application guidelines at: http://www.nema.org/index_nema.cfm/1427/396B751D-3A11-45FA-833C3165A5C4E898/

Also, while we might call this building "agricultural", in reality, it is an assembly occupancy. It primarily houses people, who happen to bring along a few barnyard animals. The building is only used for one week out of the year, but, during that one week thousands of people may pass through while only a couple of dozen animals may be present. I have found people hanging equipment like fans, tools, and other miscellaneous things from NM. They must think this is plastic cable is a clothes line that they can use to hang things. [Linked Image] This (I believe) increases the likelihood of physical damage. And… regardless of whether this is an “agricultural”, “assembly”, or any other type of commercial occupancy… this is definitely not a “dwelling” and therefore I believe the NM must be concealed.

I’m always trying to keep a reasonable perspective when I conduct inspections and want to continue to learn about best practices. If you think I need to rethink my position... I'm always willing consider additional interpretations.

Thanks again for your comments. [Linked Image]

BTW, here is what I put in my original report. I could have "hung my hat" on any of the potential code sections mentioned in this thread, but, I decided to go with the physical damage issue:

Quote

Recommended Action: Have a qualified electrician repair, replace, or install the electrical equipment according to the instructions provided and in accordance with NFPA 70-2002, the National Electrical Code (NEC). Nonmetalic-Sheathed Cable (e.g., "Romex") must be installed in accordance with provisions of NEC Article 334. Paragraph 15(B) specifies requirements for its protection in "exposed work."


National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-2002 (Emphasis added)
Article 334 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM, NMC, and NMS
334.15 Exposed Work.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. The cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetalic conduit, pipe, guard strips, listed surface metal or nonmetalic raceway, or other means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC rigid nonmetalic conduit, listed surface metal or nonmetalic raceway, or other metal pipe extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.


While "physical damage" to insulation is not defined in the NEC, the NEC handbook has wording describing causes of insulation failure, "the principal causes of insulation failures are heat, moisture, dirt, and physical damage (abrasion or nicks) occurring during and after installation. Insulation can also fail due to chemical attack, sunlight, and excessive voltage stresses." It was noted during this visit that NM cable is located in various locations where the insulation could fail based on these exposures.

NOTE: The fundamental requirement to protect NM cable from physical damage has been in the NEC for more than 45 years. For example, NFPA 70-1959, Section 336-6. Exposed Work, "In exposed work, (b) It shall be protected from physical damage where necessary. " The NEC handbook from 1959 further describes the potential of damage to NM cable, "In northern climates where temperatures of 0 F or below are frequently experienced during the winter, the ordinary types of nonmetallic-sheathed cable, where installed in dairy barns and similar farm buildings, have in some cases deteriorated rapidly, due to the growth of fungus or mold inside the cable." While in several buildings, neoprene covered NM cable was found, several other buildings were still wired with older "Cresflex" type NM cable described in the handbook advisory. It is highly probable that this older wiring has significantly deteriorated and should be replaced as soon as possible and when rewired, the building conductors must be protected by conduit, preferably PVC.

You should have a person evaluate all older wiring according to the provisions of "The NETA Maintenance Testing Specifications." These specifications are written by the International Electrical Testing Association and the latest edition was published in 2001. It is available from NETA in 3 different formats. You can contact NETA on the World Wide web at: http://www.netaworld.org/ or by phone: 888-300-NETA (6382).

Edited to correct UBB code error.

[This message has been edited by safetygem (edited 12-10-2004).]