Outrageous Service Situation
Nathan Crawford, owner of Beaver Creek Electric in East Berlin, Pa., shared this photo with us along with a handwritten note. Although it was a little tough to read, I think it said, “I was asked to come out to a farm to fix a problem they had at one of their grain silos. They were only getting 120V instead of the 240V they needed to run the bin fans. The farmer told me the panel needed a little fixing up. He thought it might be best to replace it. He said he had rigged it to work for the present. This is what I found when I got there.”
I would certainly agree with the farmer’s statement that this panel “needed a little fixing up.” In fact, I would say that might just be the understatement of the year.
The missing cover is a dangerous violation of Sec. 110.27(A) because these exposed energized terminals and conductors create a serious shock hazard. All of the corroded terminals and bus bars are a clear violation of Sec. 110.12(B), since the farmer had to bypass overcurrent protection and resort to some other “creative” efforts to restore power.
A Multitude of Marina Mistakes
Sections 334.12(B) and 555.12(A)(1) have clearly been violated here because NM cables are not permitted to be used in this outdoor wet location. These exposed damaged cables were obviously not protected with RMC, Schedule 80 PVC, RTRC-XW, EMT or some other approved means as required by Sec. 334.15(B). These damaged cables are also a violation of Sec. 110.3(B) because they are simply not designed to be installed and used under these conditions.
The missing “bubble” cover for the receptacle is a violation of Sec. 406.9(B), as this receptacle enclosure is no longer weatherproof. As you can see in the photo at the left, it appears as if the rope is being used as a securing means for the box. If so, then I would say it is a violation of Sec. 314.23, since using rope is not one of the many permitted box supporting means.