Moving Violations Video No. 74, by Russ LeBlanc, NEC Consultant: Insufficient Receptacle Protection

Discuss this Video 3

on Jun 26, 2014

From the looks of the rust on the lock nut, this installation has been there for some time. Is it possible that when this receptacle was installed, it met current codes? You seem to imply that everything you find must meet the latest Code requirements.

on Jun 26, 2014

Keep in mind that this may not be a violation if it was installed prior to the Code having these requirements. The Code is not retroactive.

on Jul 1, 2014

I see two others have the same thought I did. As the installation appears to be existing, it may have been compliant at the time.

On the flip side, I found the requirement for the outlet cover being weatherproof whether a cap is plugged-in or not to be in each Edition going back to the 2002 NEC (oldest version I have at hand.)

Besides, appearing to be a ball park with young children present wouldn't it be a good idea to at least replace the cover so it is compliant?

Please or Register to post comments.

Electrical Testing Feed

EC&M Webinars
Jul 21, 2015

ON DEMAND: Mitigation Methods for Arc Flash Hazards - Enhancing Personal Safety

The energy released during an arc flash event can result in severe damage to personnel, equipment, and property. While there are solutions which seek to improve the protection for each, this program will focus on personnel....More
Jul 14, 2015

ON DEMAND: Understanding the 2015 Edition of NFPA 70E and the Arc Flash Hazard

Get more information on the important changes to the 2015 edition of NFPA 70E. More specifically, this event will address hazard analysis and FR clothing performance testing, focusing on the quantification of incident energy and ATPV (or Arc Rating)....More
EC&M Learning Center

Connect With Us

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×