ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Recent Posts
Tiny Homes and the NEC
by gfretwell - 12/06/22 01:43 AM
EMC Glands on Motors
by Trumpy - 12/01/22 06:12 AM
Ground Rods: Installation and Hook-Up
by Trumpy - 12/01/22 05:54 AM
Happy Thanksgiving all!
by gfretwell - 11/30/22 05:55 PM
Colt Firearms Switchbox
by NORCAL - 11/29/22 01:04 AM
New in the Gallery:
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Now you know.
Now you know.
by Tom_Horne, September 7
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 102 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#119755 01/21/05 08:50 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 119
The pictures here just make me say Hmmmm. They certainly demonstrate a potential ( and in a couple of circumstances definite) violations of various sections of the NEC as well as the OSHA regulations.

John wrote:
I hate to say this, but the intall might actually be legit, if messy looking.
Drop cords....those plugs coming down from the ceiling...are a common way to power machinery.

I think fundamentally I understand your position (as well as your later clarification on the "permanent" use of flexible cord. But, I would have to say that virtually all of these uses would violate 400.8(1). BTW, the equivalent OSHA standard is 1910.305(g)(1)(iii)(A).

The only exception to the above might (and I say might) be the second picture. In this circumstance I believe the cord is being properly used to provide a pendant receptacle in accordance with 400.7(1). The other pendants made with utility/handy boxes are a definite and violations of listing and labeling.

Another interesting thing to consider with some of these pictures (although I don't see too much evidence of it) is the possibly of noise or vibration. Often with machinery, if its operation may transmit hazardous vibration to the electrical equipment, then you may need to use a flexible cord in accordance with 400.7(7). But... I don't think that was the reason it was use in this case. Here I think we have a lazy EC.

BTW, the equivalent sections of the OSHA regulations to NEC 400.7 and 400.8 are 1910.305(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(iii). Mr. Tanke if unable to convince the EC to change the installation based on the NEC should attempt to enforce the equivalent OSHA standards for his workplace or risk a citation during a "visit" from an OSHA CSHO.

Edited to correct spelling errors. [Linked Image] Gotta get my fat fingers limbered up before I start using the keyboard. [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by safetygem (edited 01-21-2005).]

#119756 01/21/05 02:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2
Junior Member
I would like to thank the true electrical professionals on this site that have assisted me with this issue (including Mr. Tedesco who helped get this posted). Thank you!

Michael Tanke
#119757 01/21/05 06:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749

You are welcome! I am happy that also have OSHA references too.

PS: Please continue to send pictures and ask questions about the problems you face where electrical systems are involved.

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
#119758 01/23/05 08:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 23
what is the purpose of the myers hub on picture 14? i am sure the romex connector connected to it is not waterproof.
looks like the installer had himself a cost plus job from all the kellems and myers hubs
the whole install really is bad and i am sure being at a plant no permit was even pulled

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman


Member Spotlight
Washington...Not DC
Posts: 240
Joined: March 2005
Top Posters(30 Days)
Trumpy 9
Popular Topics(Views)
300,580 Are you busy
230,266 Re: Forum
215,050 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5