Water Heater, Is There A Better Way

[ivsenroute]

Can you cite a code for this installation in a crawlspace?

 

[chris kennedy]

334.30 and possibly 422.31.

 

[electricmanscott]

Not sure of the actual code I might cite but in general no big deal.

 

[Ragin Cajun]

No drip pan and drain under the EWH. Can't see the air surge tank - or whatever the proper name is.

Maybe the feeder breaker is lockable.

 

[stew]

nm not secured

 

[GMc]

Sleaved in conduit or flex

 

[DARUSA]

Service outlet?

 

[ty]

Service outlet?

what CODE would require it?

 

[roger]

Not sure of the actual code I might cite but in general no big deal.

what CODE would require it?

I agree with both of you.

Unless there is a lot of traffic in this crawl space the physical damage angle is moot and there is no requirement for a service outlet for a WH

The absence of securing is a legitimate violation IMO

BTW, hello Todd, nice to see you back.

Roger

 

[ivsenroute]

A lighting "outlet" is required in this space but not a receptacle under the NEC

 

[ty]

I agree with both of you.

Unless there is a lot of traffic in this crawl space the physical damage angle is moot and there is no requirement for a service outlet for a WH

The absence of securing is a legitimate violation IMO

BTW, hello Todd, nice to see you back.

Roger

Hey Roger. Thanks.
I got really busy with things too numerous to mention here.

Do you still have your 'kicker'?
I have not ridden lately at all.

 

[ty]

A lighting "outlet" is required in this space but not a receptacle under the NEC

I agree.
210.70(A)(3)

 

[roger]

Hey Roger. Thanks.
I got really busy with things too numerous to mention here.

Do you still have your 'kicker'?
I have not ridden lately at all.

Yeah, I still have it but like you, I haven't ridden in quite awhile, just to dang busy

Roger

 

[ivsenroute]

I agree.
210.70(A)(3)

And the Devil just put on his ear muffs and winter gloves due to the icing.:grin:

 

[ty]

And the Devil just put on his ear muffs and winter gloves due to the icing.:grin:

now that was funny.

 

[GMc]

Unless there is a lot of traffic in this crawl space the physical damage angle is moot

Roger

Sorry Roger but I have to ask, why is it ok to wire the hot water heater shown in the picture with romex flopping in the breeze, possibly laying against the hot water pipe, but you can't staple romex to the bottom of the joist in the same space? Just don't make sense to me. Thanks

 

[ty]

GMc,
I believe all that Roger is saying is that NM would be an acceptable wiring method, not the sloppy way that it was installed.

There would not be any 'physical damage' likely, so it wouldn't need to be protected.

 

[GMc]

ty,

It just seems like stappling romex to the bottom of the joist would be less likely subject to any phsical damage but the NEC says you can't do it. It just appears the NEC is not consitant at times.

Thanks for the response

 

[augie47]

Although sometimes they are not rejected, normally, here, an install like that would be rejected on 334.15(A), not following the building surface.

 

[peter d]

Not sure of the actual code I might cite but in general no big deal.

Yeah, no big deal. I'd pretend like I never even saw it.