What is in this article?:
- Whatâ€™s Wrong Here?, September 2011
- Find the Answer
Can you identify the Code violation(s) in this photo?
Find the Answer
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?
‘Tell Them What They’ve Won...’
Using the 2011 NEC, correctly identify the Code sections that show 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 to firstname.lastname@example.org, and we’ll select three winners (excluding manufacturers and prior winners) at random from the correct submissions. Winners will receive a set of insulated hand tools from Ideal Industries, Inc., valued at more than $125.* The set includes 9.25-in. insulated side-cutting pliers, 10-in. insulated tongue-and-groove pliers, and a 0.25-in. 3 6-in. insulated screwdriver. (* Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery of tools.)
We had two winners this month: Ray Keith, construction manager, Electric Motor Shop, Fresno, Calif., and Bill Hillebrand, partner GM, Romanoff Electric Louisville, Louisville, Ky. Both men noted a number of violations with this outdoor control station.
The circular opening in the side of the metal enclosure violates the requirements of 110.12(A). Unused openings shall be closed to afford protection equivalent to the wall of the equipment. The same type of requirement is also noted in Sec. 312.5(A) of the Code.
Based on all the dents and scrapes visible on the cover over the enclosure, the proper physical protection of the equipment can be questioned. Speaking of this cover, it appears to be a homemade unit. Maybe the installer was trying to secure a NEMA 3 rating for this installation.
The unprotected flexible cords and cables also violate the requirements of 400.8(7). They are clearly subject to physical damage. In addition, many of the conduits are unsupported.
Lastly, the lack of proper working clearance in front of the disconnect violates the requirements of 110.26.