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????
#86074 - 09/05/0305:14 PMRe: Do you see any additional violations?
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??
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
#86080 - 09/06/0302:24 PMRe: Do you see any additional violations?
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
#86081 - 09/06/0302:27 PMRe: Do you see any additional violations?