Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2014 02 Nec Violations Boxes 1
Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2014 02 Nec Violations Boxes 1
Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2014 02 Nec Violations Boxes 1
Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2014 02 Nec Violations Boxes 1
Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2014 02 Nec Violations Boxes 1

Code Clusters 3: We Don't Need Any Stinking Boxes!

Feb. 4, 2014
  Code Clusters is a fond look back at some of the most interesting and outlandish Code violations published in the pages of EC&M magazine over the past 15 years — the item below is the ninth in a series of 10. Questions? Comments? We'd love to hear your feedback! Post your thoughts in the box below. All references based on the 2005 edition of the NEC.

Code Clusters is a fond look back at some of the most interesting and outlandish Code violations published in the pages of EC&M magazine over the past 15 years — the item below is the first in a series of 10. Questions? Comments? We'd love to hear your feedback! Post your thoughts in the box below.

We Don't Need Any Stinking Boxes!

All references based on the 2008 edition of the NEC.

This installation photo was contributed by Pierre Belarge, president of Electrical Training Solutions in Elmsford, N.Y. Belarge, who is an Interna­tional Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI)-certified inspector. The installation violates the wording of 300.15, which clearly states that “at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point” a box or conduit body must be used where the wiring method employed is “conduit, tubing, Type AC cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic sheathed cable, or other cables,” unless one of the subsections [300.15(A) through (M)] to the basic rule permits such application. This installation is not covered by any of those subsections, which are essentially exceptions to the basic requirement for some sort of Code-recognized enclosure at each “switch point.”

This attic switch is also in violation of the general secure-support requirements given in 300.11. The use of a single nail to attach the switch to a building structure should not be considered as meeting the criterion of “…securely fastened in place” simply because the switch can still move, which will put stress on the connection point. Note the use of masking tape on the device terminals. Yikes! It makes you wonder what was on the mind of the installer.

See next violation: A Little Tug Reveals a Big Surprise

About the Author

Brian J. McPartland

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EC&M, create an account today!

Sponsored Recommendations

Electrical Conduit Comparison Chart

CHAMPION FIBERGLASS electrical conduit is a lightweight, durable option that provides lasting savings when compared to other materials. Compare electrical conduit types including...

Fiberglass Electrical Conduit Chemical Resistance Chart

This information is provided solely as a guide since it is impossible to anticipate all individual site conditions. For specific applications which are not covered in this guide...

Considerations for Direct Burial Conduit

Installation type plays a key role in the type of conduit selected for electrical systems in industrial construction projects. Above ground, below ground, direct buried, encased...

How to Calculate Labor Costs

Most important to accurately estimating labor costs is knowing the approximate hours required for project completion. Learn how to calculate electrical labor cost.