How would you report this

“Subject to damage”-some types of wire is not allowed to be exposed because their construction is “subject to damage”.
Electrical code doesn’t care how it will be damage just that it is subject to damage and not allowed to be installed exterior of the finished wall without additional protection.
I don’t think “hiding behind the electrical box” is adequate protection in their perspective.

Subject to physical damage is not defined by the NEC so it’s in the eye of the beholder. Jim summed it up nicely in post #6. If that cables comes through the floor then it requires protection.

Here is what the NEC says about NM and surface usage.

334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in
334.15(A) through ©.
(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface
of the building finish or of running boards.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be
protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means. Where passing
through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means extending at
least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor. [ROP 7-94]
Type NMC cable installed in shallow chases or grooves
in masonry, concrete, or adobe shall be protected in accordance
with the requirements in 300.4(F) and covered with
plaster, adobe, or similar finish.

As you can see NM is allowed outside the wall with the possible need for protection. In other than dwelling units like an outbuilding there is a requirement for the wiring to be covered by a 15 min or greater finish.

Ah, come on Robert … the codes are always “clear as day” and dont need to be interpreted/applied … (couldnt resist … duck, bob, and weave) … :mrgreen: :stuck_out_tongue: :mrgreen:

Really?

In my opinion if they are subject to damage they require protection from physical damage.

I try not to be quite so anal, but it’s difficult around here!
The" are my quotes, not the NEC.
You read so well, but you comprehend so little.
Don’t you have something better to do? Like joining NACHI?

[size=2] 
[/size]

I’m assuming that this is directed at Jim? You quoted the NEC and left the most important two words out of the quote. :smiley:

David, I am unsure to whom the comments are directed to or where you think the issue is. The NEC is just stating the acceptable methods to protect the cable should the protection be deemed to be required.

I disagree. If the inspector was able to lean over the dryer to snap this photo, something could easily fall on the wire to damage it … maybe even his camera if he had butter fingers … ;-). Dryers are also intended to be removeable, and with the dryer removed the wire would be more exposed. So I think it’s a little more than the clear requirement for at least 6" of protection when passing thru a floor.

Dave … thats just not called for. Guys like Jim Port and Robert Meier are electrical professionals, not home inspectors, who appear to have a lot of experience and like helping and/or discussing/debating some of these issues. It’s very helpful to get thier comments and opinions. Chill out … :wink:

David, it seems like this is a little more then an “obvious” question and that is why I posted.

Ken

Ask away, I never said you shouldn’t.

They love to make big things out of little stuff around here…

I’m just trying to lend “You” a hand and I don’t want to see you get run off like so many do around here for no good reason.

Take it for what it’s worth and if you and I can’t get along, we just won’t.

I have been around here for a long time and I can see things comming that you may not. That’s all.

Bad and sloppy installation. I am surprised that I don’t see a nick on the insulation from the trowel when applying the thin set for the ceramic tile. and looks like the wire originally came straight out of the floor.
That wire should have been in the wall with the box recessed for a flush mount or have use the surface mount receptor as shown by Joe, if the wood base is in the way, you cut it out to make room for the receptacle.
Subject to damage prior to the dryer installation, box is crooked and receptacle plate subject to damage as well which could expose live conductors.
Call out what you see. It is simple. Interior electrical wiring of a home just does not have surface mounted 4 square junctions turned into a receptacle mounted on the surface of the wall like that.
Matches the sloppy tile work. :mrgreen::wink:

Could you please elaborate on why you feel the surface mounted box is so wrong?

I think the sloppy tile work might be dust bunnies. :mrgreen:

Hi David, I have no issues with you or your opinions. I value every persons input and you have posted lots of good information on this site that is very imformative to many.

Thanks,

Ken

Jim, you might be right on the bunnies, but in a house around here we are a little bit more fussy in accepting commercial applications in the house.
The box is crooked and looks like it is the wrong product for the application. Might be ok electrically, but I would not want it in my house. :):smiley: