This is a "C Conduit Body" and the cable connector was added. That violates the code, and splices in a conduit body are allowed only when the cubic inch capacity is maked on it.

The termination of the green EGC is not acceptable.

Joe:
A question; is the smaller side fitting (at the top in the pic) an "aftermarket" modification?

Mike (mamills)

Yes, the installer added the connector to the side of the conduit body. This could have been a T Conduit Body.

So I'm assuming the installer drilled a hole in the side of the C-Body to install the cable clamp?

The correct way to splice something in like that would be to use a junction box instead of one of those conduit bodies, right?

What about that box underneath the C-body, shouldn't the open side of the box be facing front instead of being jammed in sideways like that?

Pls. correct me if wrong.

Almost looks like the vertical raceway may have previously terminated in the 5-square j-box cover knockout and maybe the added "C" turned "T" was the fix.

This is a good example of the kind of "inspection" where you wish you had on insulating gloves, protectors and an arc-resistant face shield.




[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 11-05-2002).]

Another well planned, quality installation!
"Sparky", no; butcher, yes!
John

This (multiple) violation was found by a
5th year apprentice in the Jefferson Valley Mall, Mahopac, NY.

The installation was done to bring 110V to an outlet for general use in an area that only had 277/480.

The most noticable violation is the 12/2 MC that was drilled and mounted to the side of the C condulet of which the neutral (white from the MC) was spliced to an existing blue THHN within the condulet that apparently was swung over to the neutral buss in the
panel it was comming from.

The blue wire was not identified with white to show that it was being used for this purpose even though it is in a location
accessible by only authorized personnel.

Also, the condulet is not listed for use as a junction box.

Looking further we see that the MC ground is attached to the screw of the cover of the condulet.

Further violations include the installation of an unsupported 4-11/16 box that obstructs access to another condulet above it, and is obstructed by the aformentioned condulet.

This is a perfect example of what we had to deal with around the mall while retrofitting all lighting and power to the main areas.

This is what happens when the company doing the work has been in the building solely for 20 years.

Its upsetting to know that this was installed by a "qualified" union mechanic.

I assume however conduit fitting modifications ARE allowed for Class 2???

I just did one for a multi satellite dish cable install. I neded a 2in PVC "T" body. Very hard to find. So I cut a 1&1/4 with locknut into the back of a "C" body.

Again this is RG6 CATV cable only. Do most AHJ's allow this?

As an "AHJ", I would not allow the "custom" condulet, nor would I allow a 1-1/4 cut into a 2" PVC. Here in NJ, 2" PVC "T's" are readily available, as are reducers to 1-1/4"
The handi-work from the "mall" is a red sticker, and notice to correct within 7 days.

PS: With my contractors hat on, if one of my employees did someting like the above pic, they would be at the unemployement office ASAP.

John

[This message has been edited by HotLine1 (edited 12-17-2002).]

John, did you read CLASS-2. I know modifications are forbidden on CLASS-1 for good reason. But how can this be considered a safety violation.

This is where I have a problem with some AHJ's. Now I am not a licensed electrician, but rather an architect/engineer for broadcast television facilities. I work with AHJ's quite often on work projects.

This job was actually inspected as part of a SFD addition. It's at my house and here in Los Angeles county, class-2 requires no permits or code compliance in residential work. Commercial however does.

Gus:
With all due respect to an architect and engineer, the meat of my comments are directed to the original photo posted on this thread. I got on my soap box regarding the "modification" you referenced, and it was not my intention to direct harsh criticism at your solution for a fitting you could not locate.

Have a good day, and Happy Holidays.

John