I new to this board and you might of already coverd this.
On the photo section of this board there is a thread that asks members to send pics of of what you look like. One gentleman has his pic standing in front of a laod center which has surface (exposed) mounted romex neatly stapled to the backboard entering the side of the load center, each one in its own connector. Is that leagal where he is from? Does he live in another country?
I'm just curious.
Rob

I believe you referring to Ed MacLaren and he is from Canada. I would have to say yes it's legal to run the NM like that. This might be debatable, but I feel that 336-6(a) of the 99NEC allows it, as it closely follows the surface of the structure. Some might argue that it's still subject to physical damage.

steve

How else would you bring RX out of a panel in a residence?
I suppose if you are in one of the "pipeland" areas the whole Romex thing is foreign but stapling it up a running board is the usual way if it is not exposed to physical damage.

gfretwell
Here you would have to build a chase and enclose the NM.
Rob

Protecting Romex does seem to be a local option thing. I have lived in places that think, stapled to a running board in unfinished areas, is fine. Other places want varying degrees of protection.

Here you go:

In the photo, I'm curious about the panel brand; is the lug area cover desirable or not?OK, 2nd look and I think it's a Sq.D
About that cover though.....

I'm also from Canada and I will tell you Ed's installation is 100% legal. The code allows loomex to be run on the surface if it is 5 feet or higher and not subject to mechanical damage. The cable is not subject to mechanical damage stapled to a backboard then run into a panel, how would this cable ever be damaged? To answer your question Derater, the Canadian Electrical Code requires a steel barrier to separate the service conductors from the branch circuit area, the panel is a square D.

[This message has been edited by CRM (edited 02-25-2005).]

334.15(B)( Amendment ) Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable shall be protected where it is installed horizontally below 8 feet above the floor.Exposed nonmetallic sheathed cable below 8 feet above the floor that enters the top or bottom of a panelboard shall be protected from physical damage by conduit,1/2 plywood or 1/2 drywall.

I don't see what the big deal is. It's funny how some areas of the country have so much Romex Phobia.

Ed's picture shows a widespread, standard practice (minus the separate compartment for the service conductors of course. ) in my area.

Peter

Here in NJ ( Where I think we are too crazy about codes sometimes) That kind of install is done and allowed all the time. The only difference is where the RX enters into the sheetrock above an electrical panel if it is in the garage. The Building inspector wants to seal off with insulation for fire rating of the garage.

A model installation if ever there was one. Really Ed should be a model! Seriously I don't know what the fear is with this installation. As Peter pointed out could be RPS. "Romex Phobia Syndrome". As for that amendment, 1/2 drywall for physical protcection? I'd rather have the romex visible.

Here in Oregon,Having exposed romex like that has been a violation for years.
It use to be accepted up until the 70`s until someone figured out that exposed romex ends up in some cases getting damaged from leaning up and hanging there tools on the cables. That install would not fly here.