Help with Code Violations on Recent Work

Reply

  #1  
Old 06-12-14, 04:26 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 172
Help with Code Violations on Recent Work

I recently had my A/C system replaced and upgraded with a heat pump system. As a result, the existing air handler rated with a 120V circuit was upgraded to a 240V circuit. The outlet for the previous condenser pump was run off that original 120V line feeding the air handler. With that line no longer being in place, they tapped off the 20 Amp AFCI circuit feeding my finished basement. The wall is still open on one side as shown in the picture below.
Unfortuantely, I have found several things I think are code violations and I wanted to run them by you guys before approaching my contractor.



The new box/outlet.


The box that was tapped.



These are the things I think are violoations. Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing anything. The new wire they ran is not stapled after leaving the existing box or before entering the new box. The ground wire in the new box is attached only to the GFCI outlet and not also bonded to the metal box. The ground wire in the outlet they tapped off of is wrapped around the existing ground and is not securely attached in some manner like with a pigtail and wire nut. Also, there is far too much of the 12/2 wire casing left in each of the boxes.

Then there are a couple of things I am unsure of. First of all, is it ok to just tap off this 20 Amp circuit to run the condensate pump. It's only 1 Amp so it's not the load I'm concerned about, but just wasn't sure if code required a dedicated circuit or something.

The box is actually surface mounted to the stud as shown below. I know surface mounting is not necessarily against code depending upon the circumstance, but this one seems odd to me. Since this is a wall with a finished basement on the other side, I would think the outlet should be in the wall bay attached to the side of the stud and not surface mounted. I also would prefer it that way since I plan this summer to drywall this side of the wall as well. However, my preferences aside, is this a code violation?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-12-14, 05:08 AM
bigboypete's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 218
NEC 110.12. Mechanical Execution of Work. "Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner."
 
  #3  
Old 06-12-14, 05:59 AM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,587
To OP, you are correct about the stapling, lack of connector on the grounds, lack of bonding to the metal box, The code requires at least 1/4" of sheath past the clamp or box, They do not state a maximum, but do say that there needs to be at least 6" of free conductor outside the sheath. The surface mount box is fine code wise.

To BBP, that section is so subjective it is unenforceable. What some consider workmanlike vs others is just apples and oranges.
 

Last edited by pcboss; 06-12-14 at 03:06 PM. Reason: removed gfi comment
  #4  
Old 06-12-14, 06:10 AM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 3,314
Was this an electrical contractor that did this? Guys like this give us all bad a bad name,definitely a violation of article 110.12 as bigboypete pointed out. No problem with tap that I can see and no need for a dedicated circuit.
Geo
 
  #5  
Old 06-12-14, 02:54 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,282
The box should have been attached to the side of the stud, not the face. That way the NM cable will be protected, which it is not right now. (Violation 1)

Just twisting the ground is not acceptable (Violation 2)

Cable should be stapled as mentioned (Violation 3)

The new box is not grounded, ground wire should be attached to the metal box. (Violation 4)

I see the receptacle is a GFCI and taping off the basement is fine.
 
  #6  
Old 06-12-14, 05:31 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: VA.
Posts: 813
If the receptacle is self grounding, the code doesn't require both the box and device to be grounded/bonded, if at least one of the insulating washers are removed.
 
  #7  
Old 06-12-14, 05:38 PM
bigboypete's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 218
wirenut1110

If the receptacle is self grounding, the code doesn't require both the box and device to be grounded/bonded, if at least one of the insulating washers are removed.



Your incorrect.

Its a metal box with romex. The box needs to be bonded to the egc. .
 
  #8  
Old 06-13-14, 05:03 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: VA.
Posts: 813
No, you are incorrect. 250.146(A) The use of romex has nothing to do with it.
 
  #9  
Old 06-13-14, 05:39 AM
bigboypete's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 218
OK, your correct but the box needs to be bonded to the EGC. In the photo it is not. If the outlet is self grounding then it too wouldn't need to be pigtailed to the box but you cannot say for sure if that GFCI is self grounding so that would be an assumption.

Bond it to the box instead, takes 30 extra seconds but judging from the photos, time must have been a hot commodity on that job.



-------------------------------
"250.148 Continuity and Attachment of Equipment Grounding Conductors to Boxes.
Where circuit conductors are spliced within a box, or terminated on equipment within or supported by a box, any equipment grounding conductor(s) associated with those circuit conductors shall be connected within the box or to the box with devices suitable for the use in accordance with 250.148(A) through (E).

Where a metal box is used in a metal raceway system and there is a wire-type equipment grounding conductor installed in the raceway, it is not required that the wire-type equipment grounding conductor be connected to the pull box, provided the box is effectively grounded by the metal raceway and the circuit conductors are not spliced or terminated to equipment in the metal box. An example of this provision would be where conductors are run unbroken through a pull box."
 
  #10  
Old 06-13-14, 08:28 AM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,587
Once the device is removed the box would no longer be bonded thus requiring the EGC to be connected to the box.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes