Home > National Electrical Code > What's Wrong Here?

What's Wrong Here?

Mar 1, 2006 12:00 PM, By Joe Tedesco, NEC Columnist

Answer:

Hint: Interesting weep hole design.

Vernon Long, owner, Long Electrical Services LLC, Sandwich, Ill., submitted a list of five pertinent violations. “The conduit body in the photograph has been compromised for the following reasons:

“1. Violation of 110.11 — By placing the conduit body at grade level, it is subject to frequent exposure to water. If this were located in an area where snow or ice melting agents are commonly used, this would be very deleterious to ferrous metals.

“2. Violation of 110.12(C) — The hole in the cover of the conduit body will now allow water or vermin to enter the raceway system. This can cause additional damage to the raceway and equipment within the facility, possibly resulting in a catastrophic electrical fault.

“3. Violation of 300.6 — If it was necessary to install the conduit body at grade, a nonmetallic unit would have been a better choice.

“4. Violation of 314.15(A) — By not paying sufficient attention to the mounting environment of the conduit body, moisture is now entering and/or accumulating within the unit — and undoubtedly flowing further into the raceway system.

“5. Violation of 300.7 — If this installation is located in a northern climate, the corrosion could also have occurred from within the conduit body, due to the accumulation of condensation. Sealing the raceway at the interior side of the wall would have eliminated this problem.”

Jayson Ouillette, of Ashcott Electrical in Manchester, Mich., injected a little humor in his reply. “This photo suggests that the term LB might in fact be an acronym for ‘Leaky Back.’ There are several noticeable violations in this installation: reference 2005 NEC, Sections 314.15(A), 314.28(C), 314.72(C), and possibly (A) and (E). We might also consider 314.40(A) or 314.41. Perhaps the bottle to the right indicates the motive for leaving this installation as is.”

Glenn Ross, senior electrical designer, Burns and McDonnell, Kansas City, Mo., added that this installation violates the requirements of 110.27, especially section B, and 314.15(A). “If the cover wasn't damaged, it was corroded, and not corrosion resistant as specified in 314.40(A).”