What's Wrong Here?

What’s Wrong Here? Hint: If the Shoe Fits

Oct. 22, 2012

Can you identify the Code violation(s) in this photo?

How well do you know the Code? Think you can spot violations the original installer either ignored or couldn’t identify? Here’s your chance to moonlight as an electrical inspector and second-guess someone else’s work from the safety of your living room or office. Can you identify the Code violation(s) in this photo? Note: Submitted comments must include specific references from the 2011 NEC.

Hint: If the shoe fits...

Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2012 10 210ecm Ww Hpic1

‘Tell Them What They’ve Won...’

Using the 2011 NEC, correctly identify the Code violation(s) in this month’s photo — in 200 words or less — and you could win something to put in your toolbox. E-mail your response, including your name and mailing address, to [email protected], and Russ will select three winners (excluding manufacturers and prior winners) at random from the correct submissions. Note that submissions without an address will not be eligible to win. Winners will receive a fluorescent lighting tester from Milwaukee Tool, valued at $199. The product allows complete lamp, ballast, and pin testing, before or after install, without dismantling fixtures.

(Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery of tools.)

AUGUST WINNERS

Our winners this month include: Myron Brubaker, a self-employed electrician from Selinsgrove, Pa.; Mark Mortenson, owner of Mortenson Electrical Contracting in Lake Shore, Minn.; and Frank Velasco, an estimator with Delta Wye Electric, Inc. in Anaheim, Calif. They all correctly identified the missing disconnecting means in this particular equipment arrangement.

Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2012 10 210ecm Ww Hpic2

For this installation, the only disconnecting means present were two circuit breakers in a panelboard located in the electric room in another part of the building. According to 430.102(A) of the 2011 NEC, an individual disconnecting means should have been provided for each controller and should have been able to disconnect the power to each controller. In addition, the disconnecting means should have been located in sight from the controllers.

Exception No. 1 does not apply here, because the equipment is not more than 600V. Exception No. 2 does not apply either, because these are not coordinated controllers for a single machine. Lastly, Exception No. 3 does not apply, because these are not valve-actuated motor assemblies.

In accordance with 430.102(B), the controller disconnecting means could also be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means for the motor if it is in sight from the motor and the driven machinery. However, there were no disconnects located in sight from this location.

About the Author

Russ LeBlanc | Owner

Russ started in the electrical trade as an apprentice in 1985. He worked his way up to become a Journeyman Electrician and then eventually became a Master Electrician and Licensed Construction Supervisor. In 1999 Russ become an Electrical Instructor for The Peterson School of Engineering in Massachusetts where he developed his passion for teaching, and quickly became Department Head of Electrical Instruction. Russ has taught thousands of apprentices, electricians, engineers, inspectors, and other electrical professionals during his career as an instructor. He continues to provide electrical professionals with Electrical Code seminars, Arc-Flash Awareness training seminars and educational material through his LeBlanc Consulting Services in North Reading, MA whose specialty is educating electricians. He has been an active member of the NFPA Electrical Section and has authored hundreds of National Electrical Code proposals and comments which have become Code rules to improve the safety for the electrical industry. Russ is also an IAEI certified Electrical Inspector.

Please visit www.russleblanc.net for more information.