The first violation that comes to mind is "workman like manner". I would be flat embarrased of that if it were mine. It looks like a weekend hack job. I guess at least they used firestop on the penetrations.

for the first photo there is lack of support of the MC's and I don't think it will fly very well in some area.


Then again in second photo the same issue not engouh support there and also with looks like 10X10X6 3R box there did someone screw up with MC mesurement ?


on Third photo either I am missing something but is that black wrap is legit type of materal to use to hold the MC's and also the distance from upper support to lower support or breaker box is a mite too far apart?


What up with that?? few tight bends with MC cables and where is support from the floor to breaker box to the left ?


It will be alot neater and quicker if ran few 1 or 1.5 inch conduits between breaker box and " splice box "


Now for last photo I don't what to say here if this is a real EGC it should be irrevsbale compression fitting or cadweld it.

useing the water pipe bonding clamp do not fly either side of pond anyway.

Merci,Marc

Caddy 'CJ's' for bundling MC?? What's with the blue connectors? A few of the connectors don't appear to be MC?

Pipe clamp on GEC/EGC? Support, cable bend radius; open KO,tape, can't really tell if the foreign piping is in electrical space.

I don't have a big enough red sticker

John,

That seems to be Paint.

Tip 1: If you click on the picture above it will take you to the E-P page where you can see a larger image - if you click on that one. (Tip 2: a second click will sometimes close down the larger image on that site)

Bill

Then supersized it that will keep them busy for while to read all the art's numbers.

Merci,Marc

For all the "ugly," there's really not that much that's really 'violation,' and the only violation I see that really worries me is the 'spliced' ground wire.

Other than that, I see an open KO on one panel, and that flex curving under another panel would be a working space issue.

Code doesn't really spell out how MC has to be supported; I suppose even zip-ties to the strut would have sufficed.

Being an electrical room, one is tempted to assume that an electrician did this - if so, the job screams 'cheap,' and the workmanship is a disgrace. It's almost as if they took a life-long 'rope monkey' and let him have his first crack at a commercial job.

Snakeing the flex amongst the plumbing (for support?) is setting the stage for a noce leak. I don't have a lot of faith in the pipe-wrap tape I see used.

I see a sprinkler pipe, but no sprinkler. That's another type of violation.

Heaven help the next guy, who has to add another circuit to this mess!

Are the double flex connectors being used because the runs are parallelled for increased ampacity? That flex doesn't look big enough to have wires that are eligible to be run in parallel.

Also, that sprinkler pipe travelling through the room is a no-no; not to mention that it's directly above the electrical equipment.

This install is so terrible that I'm getting nauseous just looking at it.

John.,
Ya there is spinker head in there you look at the first photo it toward to left centre you can see the shadow that is the spinker head.

( it is about 18 inches from the lightbulb just wait until someone jammed in 200 or 300 watts I am sure it will kick it off )

Merci,Marc

That EGC just looks rediculous, all that copper and a little clamp on the thing.
I agree with Marc here, it should be cad-welded.

I see they at least did use flame retardant duct tape in the first three pics though.

Marc ... good eye! You can make out the shadow!

Sprinkler codes have precedence, and are just about the only thing that can infringe upon 'working space.'

Mike ... the clamp used is intended to be used to attach a Ground wire (GEC) to the ground rod. It is NOT intended to be used to splice wires together. Our code would call for either cad-weld or a crimp connection here.

omg my jaw was on the floor, and that all looks new!

Ghost:

"Are the double flex connectors being used because the runs are parallelled for increased ampacity? That flex doesn't look big enough to have wires that are eligible to be run in parallel."

The duplex conn are commonly used for 2 cables in 1 KO. Cables in the pics are probably 12 or 14AWG. I would hope they are NOT paralled, Bill will have to check that part.

John,

not me, BTW. This Bill is from Nevada.

Bill

What ever! Get on it!!

Oops. Wrong Bill I guess!

It looks very,very shabby,but Im with reno, not too many code issues. Open KO and cold water clamp on bare copper slice, temp. adjustments for mega j-box Workspace maybe, around here we get 8" for mounting panels on top of CT cabs, gutters ect.. All really common violations in my world at least, the fact that it looks like someone had all you can eat pasta bar and puked it up draws lots of attention to it. I bet the real badness and safety issues are behind the dead fronts and devices.

Good catch frenchelectrican I was just thinking too. I would have used a split bolt. I like your signature too, rather appropriate here, especially for the last picture.

Let's get the Ranting over with first!

Rant Mode = Enabled.

The installation looks horrible!
It resembles the same base material found inside of Fertilizer Bags, and therefore should be rated to it's "Bandini Value" - which, in this case, is a very high Bandini Value (+95.50% Bandini Factor)

EMT is as readilly available as MC Cable and Flex (Flexible Metallic Conduit).
It does require some "Talent", so there is a challenge for installation.

In the 4th Image, the "Appears to be recently installed" Panelboard could had been fed with a short EMT section between the two Panelboards, instead of running the Flex in to the bottom.
Running the Panelboard Feeders through the sides would have eliminated the "Stand-Off for a Stand-Off Strap" issue which resulted from having to "Weave" the Flex runs. (notice how the Mini is screwed to the wall via 4" long toggle bolt!)

Where the Pull Box is used, the amount of labor + materials involved to use MC Cable + Flex between the Panelboard and Pull Box, has got to be 1000% higher than any EMT installation could possibly run!

There appears to be at least (16) MC terminations, and at least (2) Flex terminations per run, so there will be (32) MC terminations and (4) Flex terminations total.
Think about how much labor is involved here!:
* removing the sheathing,
* inserting and landing the MC Connectors,
* making up the EGCs (Equipment Grounding Conductors),
and
* "attempting" to strap / secure the MC + Flex;

whereas (2) or (3) 1" EMT runs would only have (4) or (6) termination points, (1) properly sized EGC, correctly matched Neutrals per Circuit, and no strapping needed (appears to be less than 24" between the Panelboard and the Pull Box).

Lastly, the "Recently Installed???" Panelboard's front cover looks great where the Panel is mounted _IN_ a wall, but looks like Bovine Fecal Matter when used for Surface Mounting!

OK, Ranting is over.

Rant Mode = Disabled.

There are a few Code Compliance issues to pick out, besides the obvious lack of interest with Article 110.12!
Outside of these items, the installations are Compliant.

1:] The "Avoid Contact of disimilar Metals" issue was attempted, but does not appear successful!
The Black Duct Tape "Appears" to me, intended for insulating the Aluminum Flex + Aluminum sheathing of the MC cable from the Steel Sprinkler lines.

The MC / Flex "bundles" may have a better chance at accomplishing this than the 1" Flex over the Sprinkler Head stub Tape job (First Image). The Tape should run past the Ells + Nipple to be effective.

2:] The MC Cables _SHOULD_ be supported _AND SECURED_ at maximum 6 Foot intervals, along with 12 Inches maximum at Termination points.
Not specifically defined per NEC, strapping methods could be anything that fits the definition of an acceptable means, however, the Cables would need to be _SECURED_ individually at the termination points (Panelboards and Pull Box).

3:] The Grouping of the MC cables may not Conform to NEC, per Article 330.

4:]The Flex runs _SHOULD_ be individually supported _AND SECURED_ at maximum 4-1/2 Foot intervals, along with 12 Inches maximum at termination points via an _APPROVED MEANS_.

5:] There is a possible listing issue with some of the Flex Connectors.
There are several which appear to be EMT Set Screw Connectors.
I am aware of Set Screw Flex Connectors, but a few of these look more like EMT Connectors.

6:] Article 300 mentions Cables shall not support other Cables. I see several places where this is done.

7:] K.O. seal needed in bottom of Pull Box.

8:] The use of a "Pipe Clamp" type Grounding Clamp is not listed (as far as I know) to connect (2) or more Conductors, as shown in the last Image.

Scott

EL-BUMP-O!!!

While Trolling this area, came across an older reply of which I was the last respondent (lack of better term...), so as to initiate the EL-BUMP-O!!! function.

Scott