ECN Forum
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Do you see any additional violations? - 09/05/03 08:15 PM
The missing screw, and open knockout have been identified by the inspector, and the receptacle is secured with a single 6/32 screw.

The drill bit just happens to be sitting on top of the box.

Do you see any additional violations? If so, please cite the rule in the NEC.

[Linked Image from joetedesco.com]




[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 09-06-2003).]
Posted By: rmiell Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/05/03 08:43 PM
Since there is a commpression conduit fitting, I would think this is outdoors. It is not weatherproof, nor is the cover. Of course, since manufacturers do not make UL listed raintight compression connectors, this whole job is suspect. (Article 314.15(A))

Box fill might be exceeded, if more than 3 conductors are installed. (Article 314.16)

Is the box supported correctly? (Article 314.23 (A))

Now, where is that article about stupidity????

Rick
Rick:

I did not think about the box fill with the 2 wire device deduction in this octagon box.

If it had 2 - 12 AWG THW, for example, and the box was one of the sizes in the table how would we determne if it was too small?

I am pretty sure that this was in a hotel along a wall in an equipment room, and not out 0f doors, if it was I would have taken more pictures of it.

The connector issue is strange, and we have to be careful when they are used in locations that include those other than dry that are defined in Article 100 under "Locations"

The stupidity code? I think that is still being edited and maybe we can ask a few of the members here for some advice, or maybe they can direct us to a place were we can find rules that apply?

You still have one more item to identify before the Red Tag can be left on the Job .....
This is obviously an old installation which was very common. Why are we applying current codes to this? Can I have my drill bit back now.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/05/03 10:06 PM
Rick,
In my area compression type connectors are almost always because they are required by the job specs. It is a very rare set of specs that permit the use of set screw connectors and couplings.
Don
Posted By: wa2ise Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/05/03 10:09 PM
Is there a green pigtail wire to tie the outlet's ground to the box?

And there's a missing screw that should be holding the cover to the box.
Posted By: ThinkGood Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/05/03 10:17 PM
Somebody knocked out a knockout and didn't un-knock it properly.

NEC 314.17(a)???


Oh, also, the device is upside-down [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by ThinkGood (edited 09-05-2003).]
Scott:

You are correct, but if the existing receptacle secured to this flat cover was replaced ..... could the

AHJ make you bring it up to the current code?

Then the greenEBJ, the screws to be more than one securing the receptacle to the cover would be violations.

The KO and missing screw were identified in the first post here.

The drill? That was BJ's and he borrowed it from Bill and Reno was looking for it too because he said that Sparky was using it to do work for Websparky and some of the other electricians in the UK, Belgan, Australia, and France!!

Who owns the drill bit??
Posted By: electure Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/06/03 06:24 PM
Here's one that's a couple of shades of grey.
If it was installed by'02 Code, 406.4(C)..."shall be held rigidly against the cover by more than one screw..."
If by '99 Code, 410-56(f)(3)..."shall be secured by more than one screw"....
If by '96 Code, 410-56(i) only said "Receptacles installed in raised covers shall not be secured solely by a single screw".
This installation appears to be older than the '99 Code. So it wouldn't be subject to that rule.

The box is a 4"X1-1/2" octogonal. Even if the conductors were #10, the box has the necessary volume. (I also seem to remember that in the "bad old days", there was only a 1 conductor per device deduction made from the box fill)...S
Posted By: PCBelarge Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/06/03 06:27 PM
One cannot rely on the fitting for continuity of the equipment ground when using a round box.

Pierre
Posted By: ElectricAL Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/06/03 07:12 PM
Aren't round boxes actually round. I've come across them in old, pre - 1920 black painted rigid installations. The shoulders of the connectors don't rest against flat metal and the locknut is impossible to tighten without turning the whole fitting.

The 8B shown in the photo is octagonal.
Posted By: electure Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/08/03 11:49 AM
That EMT connector looks wrong. Is it possibly an EMT coupling that has been disassembled and the gland nut put inside the box? The body just looks longer than the compression connectors I'm used to seeing....S
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: Do you see any additional violations? - 09/08/03 07:54 PM
If this "existing" (probably for a long time) installation required a "repair" here in NJ, it could go back "as-is"

Most of the electricians around here would replace the octagon box with a 4" sq, with a reaised cover. The "hotel" maintenance guy would judt replace the device, and it would be an acceptable repair.

As to the connectorit appears OK, the box is octagonal, not round. THe cover itself should also be octagonal; Mullbery makes both, although the "round one may not be in all the suppliers.

John
© ECN Electrical Forums