Is this to code/how would you handle this?

[geojag]

In a major house remodel, added a 240 plug in the laundry for an electric dryer. Ran a single 10/3 through a new conduit out the top of the breaker box through the eve.

A sub contracted electrician later ran some new circuits and ran 2 - 12/2 wires through some poorly installed flex into the bottom of the breaker box less than 2' from the nearly empty new conduit that they were told to run through. They actually made more work for themselves. They really botched the hole through the eve, and the flex looks terrible. Photo attached.

Were they lazy, was there a reason they did this, and is the flex to code? If they were just being lazy, is it reasonable to make them fix this?

Thanks for any input.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[The Cobbler]

can't comment on the code , but that looks sloppy .

 

[wyliesdiesels]

I can comment on the code-

NM-b aka Romex, is not permitted outdoors.

Both you and the electrician have violated that code...

as far as aesthetics- looks like sh*t IMPO.

 

[geojag]

I can comment on the code-

NM-b aka Romex, is not permitted outdoors.

Both you and the electrician have violated that code...

as far as aesthetics- looks like sh*t IMPO.

Oops. I could easily change the wire for the dryer, what wire would be to code? I figured it would be fine with the hard conduit.

It would be hard to get any thing through the original interior chase. I had suggested using one of the abandoned 240 wires (went from electric to gas appliances) to a sub for the 2 new circuits, but I'm not sure that is allowed either.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Dirtydan69]

Looking for the Rolex. Don’t see it.

 

[Bert_]

I wouldn't have a problem with romex in the pvc sleeve. No water can ever collect there, it will not get wet anymore than the part in the attic. What might be more of a concern is how you entered the top of that panel? Is it sealed?

The flex looks bad.

 

[wyliesdiesels]

Oops. I could easily change the wire for the dryer, what wire would be to code? I figured it would be fine with the hard conduit.

It would be hard to get any thing through the original interior chase. I had suggested using one of the abandoned 240 wires (went from electric to gas appliances) to a sub for the 2 new circuits, but I'm not sure that is allowed either.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Theres a number of ways to fix this-

THWN individual conductors end to end if conduit goes end to end.

THWN in the exterior pipe switching to NM-b in the attic in a j box.

UF-b for the whole run.

Or UF-b in the exterior pipe switching to NM-b in j box in the attic.

I wouldn't have a problem with romex in the pvc sleeve. No water can ever collect there, it will not get wet anymore than the part in the attic. What might be more of a concern is how you entered the top of that panel? Is it sealed?

The flex looks bad.

Still not code compliant and the electrician shouldve know this.

The PVC doesnt change the code restriction.

 

[MrSurly]

I wonder if that might be an outdoor load center with a couple dozen breakers and chock full of NM-b?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bert_]

Still not code compliant and the electrician shouldve know this.

The PVC doesnt change the code restriction.

I would and have run romex in vertical sections of conduit just like the PVC in the picture. It doesn't follow the letter of the code but common sense says inside that pipe will never be wet. I would want to redo the wire in flex since it looks bad and the flex could actually collect water unlike the section of pipe.

I'm far more concerned with how the conduit enters the top of the panel. It doesn't look like there is a hub and that will let water in and cause issues.

 

[ard]

IMO, the 'big picture' here is that the liscensed electricna did some work that looks like **** and OP wants it fixed.

Since OP likely has ZERO leverage in terms of a clause in a contract that says "job shall not look like ****" then OP needs other leverage.

The 'other leverage' is therefore "no NM-b outside" in a precise reading of the code. If electrician had done a great job, then one might overlook this technical violation. But since he screwed up, it seems reasonable to use this violation to drive corrective action.

imo

OPs errors in the part he did are his concern. He can fix them or not, as he sees fit. Those are on him- the errors by the professional need to be addressed by said professional. also imo

 

[MrSurly]

Another thought: what is the amp rating of the dryer? What type of plug and receptacle? I’m thinking that #10 is light for a dryer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wyliesdiesels]

Another thought: what is the amp rating of the dryer? What type of plug and receptacle? I’m thinking that #10 is light for a dryer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A dryer circuit by code is 30a.

So #10s are correct.

And Ive never seen a reaidential dryer that needed more than 30a.

 

[geojag]

I wouldn't have a problem with romex in the pvc sleeve. No water can ever collect there, it will not get wet anymore than the part in the attic. What might be more of a concern is how you entered the top of that panel? Is it sealed?

The flex looks bad.

The PVC going in the top is guess into a threaded coupling secured with a nut inside and sealed with silicon.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[geojag]

I wonder if that might be an outdoor load center with a couple dozen breakers and chock full of NM-b?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every circuit in the house runs to this breaker box with NM-b, all but 3 of the circuits come through the back of the box.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[geojag]

IMO, the 'big picture' here is that the liscensed electricna did some work that looks like **** and OP wants it fixed.

Since OP likely has ZERO leverage in terms of a clause in a contract that says "job shall not look like ****" then OP needs other leverage.

The 'other leverage' is therefore "no NM-b outside" in a precise reading of the code. If electrician had done a great job, then one might overlook this technical violation. But since he screwed up, it seems reasonable to use this violation to drive corrective action.

imo

OPs errors in the part he did are his concern. He can fix them or not, as he sees fit. Those are on him- the errors by the professional need to be addressed by said professional. also imo

You are right in your evaluation. Contract did stipulate electric to code, although it sounds like having the breaker box on the outside, with all the NM-b wires from the whole house going into it, might not be to code.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[geojag]

Another thought: what is the amp rating of the dryer? What type of plug and receptacle? I’m thinking that #10 is light for a dryer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30 amp and about a 15' run.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[AntonLargiader]

That looks awful, and if they were told to use the existing conduit (as you say) then I would consider THAT the grounds for re-doing the work. Just asking them to get rid of the NM-B means they can run THWN or UF-B in that flex.

What does the contractor that subcontracted the electrician think? That's the guy who is actually responsible for enforcing the fix.

 

[willy (traer)]

I cant remember for sure but does the electrical code state somewhere that all work shall be completed in a workmanlike manner? Regardless, that is not workmanlike manner....

 

[Stuart in MN]

Article 350 in the NEC says liquidtight flexible conduit needs to be properly supported within 12 inches at each end, and at intervals greater than 4 1/2 feet. It looks like the ends probably aren't supported within that 12 inch distance.

 

[MrSurly]

Bottom line this: It looks like ****. Do it over, existing pipe only, no flex. Use a proper sealing blank plug to fix the box.

 

[alfredeneuman]

I cant remember for sure but does the electrical code state somewhere that all work shall be completed in a workmanlike manner? Regardless, that is not workmanlike manner....

That section is virtually unenforceable.
One man's crappy work is another man's golden work.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that ****.

 

[Evan(CA)]

That section is virtually unenforceable.
One man's crappy work is another man's golden work.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that ****.

In my experience the inspectors don't give two shits what your work looks like as long as it's "technically" to code. The users on here are way more **** than any inspector I've ever dealt with

 

[CJ7VFR]

In my experience the inspectors don't give two shits what your work looks like as long as it's "technically" to code. The users on here are way more **** than any inspector I've ever dealt with

True. But I have seen my share of inspectors that will be a bit more lenient on other parts of their inspection if things are done in a neat and orderly fashion, and comply with all applicable codes.

Jim