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 specific Code violation(s) in this photo? Note: Submitted comments must include specific references from the 2017 NEC.
Hint: Storage unit or electrical room?
May winners
Our two winners this month were Kenneth H. Cobb, P.E., project engineer with Ashland Specialty Ingredients G.P., Hopewell, Va., and Nick Tacheny, an electrical engineer with Dunham Mechanical and Electrical Consulting Engineering of Minneapolis. They both knew that this installer came up a little short when wiring this receptacle.
The obvious violation here is the MC cable is not quite connected to the box as required by Sec. 300.10. This rule states, in part, that metal cable jackets must be mechanically connected to the box and fitting in order to create a “continuous electrical conductor” and “to provide effective electrical continuity.” The 2-in. gap between the cable jacket and box connector will obviously not allow that to happen.
In addition, Sec. 330.30 requires MC cable to be installed in a manner that will not damage the cable. This installer may have tried to stretch the cable a bit too far in an attempt to make the box connection work.
A less obvious violation may be the mismatched use of a plaster ring on a surface-mounted box. Plaster rings are designed to be installed behind the wall surface so that a device plate can be mounted flush against the wall surface. Using them this way is a violation of Sec. 110.3(B).
