Exposed NM-B

[Towzzer]

I see this many times and it doesn't feel proper according to other nec code requirements, but I could be wrong. Using a surface mount 30/50 receptacle (dryer stove etc) A hole in the wall is used to have nm-b come out make a quick turn up and go into the knockout on the bottom of the surface mounted receptable. Doesn't this count as exposed wire that could be a potential danger. If so what code reference would prohibit or allow it.

Thanks

 

[bphgravity]

See 334.15 - I personally don't feel the NM is exposed to physical damage when installed exposed and along the surface of the wall behind the range, dryer, dishwasher, and other various fixed appliances in a dedicated space.

 

[George Stolz]

I agree with Bryan. But some don't agree.

I have no idea what might damage that cable, but thanks to one stringent enforcement of it in one jurisdiction, I have begun using flush receptacles for all ranges (always have for dryers, anyway). It makes for a cleaner look. Not much more to it than that, IMO.

I suppose something could come bouncing out the back of that drawer and strike the romex, but I've never heard of it. Doubtful something of any consequence could slide down the back of the range.

But, it's not worth the effort to argue the point in the long run, IMO. My opinion is 49% as valid as the next guy.

 

[dlhoule]

I agree with Bryan. But some don't agree.

I have no idea what might damage that cable, but thanks to one stringent enforcement of it in one jurisdiction, I have begun using flush receptacles for all ranges (always have for dryers, anyway). It makes for a cleaner look. Not much more to it than that, IMO.

I suppose something could come bouncing out the back of that drawer and strike the romex, but I've never heard of it. Doubtful something of any consequence could slide down the back of the range.

But, it's not worth the effort to argue the point in the long run, IMO. My opinion is 49% as valid as the next guy.

:roll:

If you make that 48% I'll agree with you.