What would you say are the most common problems or Violations seen by you and what are the Hazards involved. ie what is a 'plain english' explanation for the existance of the specific Code rule(s) being violated. Please put in terms that someone with no electrical knowledge would understand.

Bill

2 wires wrapped around a device screw.
This is not good because the terminals are only designed to accomodate one wire. I have seen 2 just laid one over the other and also 2 twisted together and then wrapped around. Proper contact is less likely with these methods.

Sub-panels with grounds & neutrals interconnected.
This allows neutral current to divide and flow on the grounding conductors and probably the metal piping systems of a building that are connected to the grounding system.

Replacement of 2 wire receptacles with 3-wire, where there is no ground.
This provides a false sense of safety. Also, if a ground fault occurs, the ground wire and the metal frame of any 3-wire equipment plugged into the receptacle will become energized, likely hurting or killing someone.

Insufficient conductor lengths in boxes.
This makes it difficult to properly install or replace devices.

Conduits & cables not supported properly.
When I climb up them, I need enough support.


Overstuffed(OK for a deli sandwich, not an enclosure) boxes.
Over heating of enclosures and increased likelihood of a fault occurring while trying to put a cover on, if you even bother to try.

Derating factors not applied, particularly to bundled cables.
This causes overheating of the conductors because air can't circulate.

Working clearances not observed. (Guilty, sir).
Try squeezing between a steel I beam and a control enclosure to take voltage readings. If your back doesn't come in contact with the grounded column, your big a** will.




[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 03-06-2002).]

I would point out Redsy's last 'working clearance' violation, something that any non-tradesman can violate.

Redsy, Sparky,

You've got some good ones there. Now, how would you explain why these things are bad?

Bill

Redsy covered what I feel are the most common, but I will add another one that is really common.

Failure to follow the instructions (this is a listing violation which just might be the #1 violation in WV).

No explanation should be needed, but if explaining to a non-electrician I'd tell them that equipment is tested under a very specific set of conditions. When you do not follow intructions/comply with listing, then you are operating the equipment under a set of conditions that it wasn't tested for. Many times, this isn't a problem, but since you don't know for sure, you are gambling with peoples safety.

Tom

I edited my original reply to include some reasons.

I think redsy covered most of what I find . except the one most common here
#1 Failure to pull a permit!
or just plain ole tryin to do it without one

Here in mass you have 5 days from when you commence the work to do so .

I alone ( we have 4 Elec Inspectors full time ) hand out close to $500 ( unforunately only $50.00 per permit ) in fines a week
on one occasion last week ONE contractor was fined $250.00 alone
and someplace inbetween redsy's list I could put Too many Un-Licensed people on the job or NONE at all !

[This message has been edited by HIGHVOLTAGE (edited 03-06-2002).]

One I see all the time is an exposed ground rod end. It should be protected from physical damage or driven below the surface. 250.52 C(3)

Rdesy pretty much covered them but one I see alot is the equipment grounding concuctor cut off flush where the cable is stripped back to.
Oh and another one is the 'in mid-air areial splices', the wires twisted together and taped with friction tape the thing about it is the wires are about an 1 1/2" long,usually its a piece of old BX spliced to newer romex and of course the grounding conductors are not connected because of the two different cables.
One I see quite a bit is when pvc is used I see alot of white elbows.
I guess ignorance is bliss

#1 is < 1-1/4" to framing edge w/o using a nail plate at bored holes and corners and at staples generally above multi-gang boxes... fires from fasteners shorting romex or MC.

#2 is unprotected cables w/in 72" of an attic access where crossing truss bottom chords or joists... occupants place boxes on cables & slide storage items over the cables.

#3 is mis-identified or un-identified circuit breakers on loadcenter directories... occupants work on circuits they believe they have de-energized, or are unable to locate the correct breaker quickly.

#4 is undersizing conductors... numerous ways... leading to fires from overheated devices and equipment

Bill, you also mentioned most common problems [vs. violations], and there are a few "problems" I see daily doing inspections. First is misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding the basics, like grounding and overcurrent protection, and not just by homeowners. Thinking that wires shorted by a nail or something will instantly trip or blow the OCPD, or that the instant a wire accidently touches a pipe or gutter, that it will trip or blow the OCPD.

Another common "problem" is lack of respect for the potential of fire and electrocution by homeowners, or the tradesmen types that know just enough to be dangerous, jacks of all trades and masters of none, or even improperly trained electrical apprentices or journeymen, whatever there background. Guess we're all guilty of that at times, working equipment hot, shrugging off some nail plates that are needed at hard to reach locations, not double checking terminations.

And here's one more "problem" probably beyond the scope of your question [but I'm bored tonight]. How about roping multistory office buildings, for instance. This new 2002 rule change allowing NM a few more stories indicates to me that lawyers have taken over the code making process. I can't believe that went through. The only possible explanation I can imagine is cable manufacturers buying votes or threatening lawsuits. Step one, we pushed dirt up over 50% of the bottom story of a 4-story building so we can say it's only a 3-story. Step two, we changed the code to allow a few more stories. Step three for 2005 will probably be to prohibit the use of MC and EMT in buildings over 1 story. I don't know who was on that CMP, but somebody caved.

WayneSargent;
the NM deal has little electrical rationale. Something about products of combustion was mentioned, other than that, it's a manufacturer's war......

Sparky, do you know the IAEI Joe from Boston, last name escapes me now, ends every other sentence with "eh?" and has something to do with printing of the Analysis, I believe. He addressed our inspectors recently at a meeting and when we asked him about this change, it sounded like something was rotten in Denmark. It sounds political, and I wish I had time to study the ROP's and listen in on the code panel discussions. But precedents are set with fiascos like this, and I hope it isn't the way it sounds, with manufacturers' attorneys dicating the verbage for code changes to fit their products. It wouldn't be a first. I for one will be writing a proposal with photos from my inspections to put the romex back where it belongs... before this November for the 2005. I'm guessing there will be a few hundred others doing the same on this one change.

Wayne,
Actually they NM people may have lost more than they gained. See 334.12(A)(1). It is no longer permitted in buildings other than dwelling units above drop ceilings. This eliminates its use in many commercial properties where it was permitted in the '99 code.
As far as the three story limit, there is no evidence that NM magically becomes more hazardous when you install it more than 3 floors above grade. It has been permitted by at least one state for this type of use for the last 2 or 3 code cycles. There has been no problems caused by its use.

Best of luck to them. Maybe knob and tube will make a comeback? As far as NM becoming more hazardous above a certain number of stories, "magically," here's my smart a** retort in kind. Its not about stories, its about construction durability and longevity. They set precedents and convolute codes with this kind of change. If we are going to allow NM, allow it. Don't drag another NFPA document into the mess and ask me to spend more time in plan reviews that I don't get enough time to review to begin with. They couldn't use UBC construction types, had to have their own. It never ends. And then they hope to entice other countries to follow our lead and buy our convoluted abortion. The original question here was about "problems" and "hazards" we see. Its all a matter of degree I suppose. My thinking is that allowing any extended useage of NM in commercial and industrial applications will result in increased problems and hazards, which I'm in the business of avoiding. Rope it! I'll pipe it, then we can compare stories in 50 years.

Subpanels with interconnected neutrals and grounds are my beef. Also shared neutrals not on a tandem breaker!

Wayne,
How is the durability and longevity of the product affected by how high above the ground that it is installed? By the way, I have never been paid to install NM cable as a permanent part of a building. I use conduit and wire, but I don't see any increase in hazard when the NM is installed at a higher elevation. No one could prove that there is any increase in hazard and that is why the NFPA Standards Council was forced to permit it in these building under the threat of major a lawsuit. The code cannot be used to support certain products or require the use of additional labor units unless there is proof that these installation methods are required for "the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity".
As far as knob and tube, if you exclude the fact that it doesn't have an EGC it is among the safest wiring methods ever used in a building when it has not been modified by DIYers.
Don(resqcapt19)

Don, 334.12 prohibits "open runs in dropped or suspended ceilings..". Does this mean that NM can't be used at all, or is it just for dropping down (open) to feed fixtures?

Elzappr
It is my opinion that if you can see it by removing a ceiling panel then it would be a violation in any occupancy except dwelling units.