The Official Electrical Violation Photo Thread

[ICE]

110.3(B)
Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

I am not familiar with the listing or installation instructions for a cable clamp. I usually assume that two flat, stacked Romex per clamp is allowed. They fit in the space that is provided for the cable. I often find more than two. Do I always write a correction? No I do not. With some crews, the less work that they do, the better the outcome. Sometimes the clamp has plenty of space and a correction would seem picayunish.

This example crossed a line with seven cables in one clamp. The refrain given is usually, "The clamp is large enough." And it is....large enough for a large cable. Just one....large round cable....can't stack round cable.



The real danger with this practice is not so much that cables may be loose. In the grand scheme of mistakes a loose cable at the top of a recessed service enclosure is not such a big deal. But look at the clamp screw against the cable. Now that's a correction.

 

[ADAguy]

This was found in a medical facility when the wall was opened up to extend a nurses station.
NEC Violations are:

110.12 because the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner
300.12 because some of the cables are not continuous between boxes and some are still live inside the closed wall.
300.13(B) because they removed devices, buried it in a wall and lost continuity of the grounded conductor (once the box was opened)
300.15 because the MC cable does not terminate in a box
300.15(A) because the cover was buried in a wall and not accessible

I am sure you can see even more.... What else is there?

View attachment 3291

Thought copper and aluminium don't mix?

 

[ICE]

This made it through rough inspection and all the way to a final inspection. Well as O.B. said, "It's never too late to start over."

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The same thing happened to me. I did the final but a different inspector did the rough. My 3rd party inspection company that I was working for at the time admitted the mistake and paid to have the panel moved.

 

[JPohling]

This made it through rough inspection and all the way to a final inspection. Well as O.B. said, "It's never too late to start over."

Ice, was it on the permitted plans in this location?

 

[ICE]

Ice, was it on the permitted plans in this location?

The sub-panel is not on the plans and it was not listed on the electrical permit. A sub-panel was installed on the exterior. It was semi-flush with no mounting flange. An inspector wrote a correction to install a flange kit. There is no flange kit for that particular panel. The panel was brought inside the closet. Then the framing, insulation and drywall were approved and I went for the final inspection. Based on the contractor's reaction I think that he knew that this is wrong.

Panels are not always shown on a set of plans. Sub-panels are an afterthought because of the AFCI requirement. Late in the game they discover that they need arc fault breakers and there is no room in the main panel so a sub-panel is the answer.

 

[JPohling]

Well that is a perfect storm situation that leaves unfortunate issues like this.

 

[ADAguy]

Thought copper and aluminium don't mix?

Possibly an in house install without a permit?

 

[Norcal]

I suspect you are right, but some inspectors demand the ground prong be up.

There is no "ground prong" on those devices, on those 3-wire dryer devices the "L" is a neutral, and is a non grounding 125/250V device, and in my opinion is only OK assuming it's a 30A, is on existing clothes dryers installed prior to the adoption of the 1996 NEC. I have disliked the thought of grounding a appliance to the neutral for a long time & was pleased when it was prohibited in new installations with the adoption of the '96 NEC. A 50A 125/250V is quite popular for welders, which IMO is also wrong. A reply to a old post.

 

[jar546]

Here is another violation (three violations actually). What is the NEC code section that governs this?

 

[e hilton]

Disconnects blocked by the equipment?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Disconnects can be blocked, but not if they are likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing,, or maintenance while energized shall have working space. I think they are likely. Ask any HVAC repair guy and they would probably agree.

 

[jar546]

Disconnects can be blocked

Cannot 110.26 applies

 

[ICE]

The line set chase should be vermin proofed with hardware cloth. The condensate drain should not terminate over the equipment pads on the two units to the right.

The raceway should be secured and the fitting is not tight to the disconnect enclosure.

Conductors have been brought through the back of the disconnect enclosure. There is an obvious question as to how that was accomplished. In addition to that is whether it is water tight or not? There is no evidence of caulk at the top and sides of the enclosure. The same questions apply to the receptacle and why is it mounted sideways? Is that how the cover keeps out water?...and that cover, is it an in-use extra duty cover?

It doesn't appear that the condensers are secured to the concrete pads.

The arrangement of the condensers has made it difficult to service the units.

Do you have pictures of the inside of the disconnects?

 

[jar546]

Do you have pictures of the inside of the disconnects?

No sir. Great assessment btw.

 

[Norcal]

Some of those low cost pull out disconnects would require the caulking to be removed to access them for service, because of the way they are designed and since they are equipped with standoffs to give a 1/4" airspace, I would say it is a bad idea to caulk them.

 

[ICE]

Some of those low cost pull out disconnects would require the caulking to be removed to access them for service, because of the way they are designed and since they are equipped with standoffs to give a 1/4" airspace, I would say it is a bad idea to caulk them.

These disconnects are not them. If caulk at the top and sides is missing, water can get in the wall cavity and the disconnect enclosure. It can be done with a close nipple and a tight fit at the siding with caulk but the usual is out of sight, out of mind,

Here is an example of the typical method. Notice the zip tie stuck in a screw hole and the evidence of the hole at the other screw hole.








It's always HVAC guys doing the work. The truth is that a competent HVAC mechanic is right up there with the best electricians when it comes to smarts.... but just not smart enough to leave the electrical work to the plumber.





These guys get an A- for effort.




In the long run, caulk dries out and becomes a ribbon. Water gets in and we don't live in a perfect world. It probably happens fifty times a day in California and nobody really cares.

 

[ICE]

These mistakes make one wonder if anything is correct and what will be the cause of the fire.

 

[Norcal]

You have tripled hot/ungrounded conductors, doubled neutrals/grounded conductors, doubled neutral/ grounding conductors, Murray & SQ D Homeline breakers mixed in the panel, SQ D is not UL classified to be used in any panel, & Murray & Siemens are listed to be used in Murray & Siemens panels but I don't think they are UL classified to be used in competitive makes either, what make of panel & how loose is the the shiner conductor on the AFCI?

 

[ICE]

All of that

You have tripled hot/ungrounded conductors, doubled neutrals/grounded conductors, doubled neutral/ grounding conductors, Murray & SQ D Homeline breakers mixed in the panel, SQ D is not UL classified to be used in any panel, & Murray & Siemens are listed to be used in Murray & Siemens panels but I don't think they are UL classified to be used in competitive makes either, what make of panel & how loose is the the shiner conductor on the AFCI?

All of that and more.

 

[steveray]

This is for Jeff as I know how he likes these....how many violations do you see in this service disconnect? Does it matter if it is a dwelling unit or not? Lets say 2020 NEC......Go!

 

[wwhitney]

how many violations do you see in this service disconnect?

All I see is a violation of NEC 250.24(A)(1). What else am I missing?

Does it matter if it is a dwelling unit or not? Lets say 2020 NEC......Go!

It would have a bearing on conductor sizing, but I see no way to determine conductor size from the picture, so no way to check the conductor sizing.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[steveray]

It would have a bearing on conductor sizing, but I see no way to determine conductor size from the picture, so no way to check the conductor sizing.

Cheers, Wayne

There is at least one requirement that is for dwelling units and not others and one that is for non-dwelling units that does not apply to DU...But maybe CT amends that.....We will wait and see if anyone else chimes in...

 

[ICE]

230.62(C) Barriers.
Barriers shall be placed in service equipment such that no uninsulated, ungrounded service busbar or service terminal is exposed to inadvertent contact by persons or maintenance equipment while servicing load terminations.


Maybe:
230.67 Surge Protection.
(A) Surge-Protective Device. All services supplying dwelling units shall be provided with a surge-protective device (SPD).
(B) Location. The SPD shall be an integral part of the service equipment or shall be located immediately adjacent thereto.

Exception: The SPD shall not be required to be located in the service equipment as required in (B) if located at each next level distribution equipment downstream toward the load.


Is this a cable clamp or a raceway? Either way, that black wire is against a sharp edge.



314.17(B)(2) Conductors Entering Through Cable Clamps.
Where cable assemblies with nonmetallic sheathes are used, the sheath shall extend not less than 6 mm (1/4 in.) inside the box and beyond any cable clamp. Except as provided in 300.15(C), the wiring method shall be secured to the box or conduit body.

300.4(G) Fittings.
Where raceways contain 4 AWG or larger insulated circuit conductors, and these conductors enter a cabinet, a box, an enclosure, or a raceway, the conductors shall be protected in accordance with any of the following:
(1) An identified fitting providing a smoothly rounded insulating surface.
(2) A listed metal fitting that has smoothly rounded edges.
(3) Separation from the fitting or raceway using an identified insulating material that is securely fastened in place.
(4) Threaded hubs or bosses that are an integral part of a cabinet, box, enclosure, or raceway providing a smoothly rounded or flared entry for conductors.