Cite The NEC Violation

[jar546]

What section (specific) of the NEC covers this violation?
This is an exercise in looking up code section.

 

[Joe.B]

408.7 Unused Openings
Unused openings for circuit breakers and switches shall be closed using identified closures, or other approved means that provide protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the enclosure.

I'm sure there are others too, but I assume this is what you're fishing for.

 

[Joe.B]

408.7 Unused Openings
Unused openings for circuit breakers and switches shall be closed using identified closures, or other approved means that provide protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the enclosure.

I'm sure there are others too, but I assume this is what you're fishing for.

Oops, that's not what I meant, hang on

 

[Joe.B]

I guess I'm thinking of:

110.12 (A) Unused Openings
Unused openings, other than those intended for the operation of equipment, those intended for mounting purposes, or those permitted as part of the design for listed equipment, shall be closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment. Where metallic plugs or plates are used with nonmetallic enclosures, they shall be recessed at least 6 mm (1/4 in.) from the outer surface of the enclosure.

230.62 Service Equipment — Enclosed or Guarded
Energized parts of service equipment shall be enclosed as specified in 230.62(A) or guarded as specified in 230.62(B).

230.62(A) Enclosed
Energized parts shall be enclosed so that they will not be exposed to accidental contact or shall be guarded as in 230.62(B).

Or:

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, Use, and Listing (Product Certification) of Equipment
110.3(A)(2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided

110.3(B) Installation and Use
Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

 

[jar546]

408.7 Unused Openings
Unused openings for circuit breakers and switches shall be closed using identified closures, or other approved means that provide protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the enclosure.

I'm sure there are others too, but I assume this is what you're fishing for.

Not quite

 

[jar546]

110.12 (A) Unused Openings
Unused openings, other than those intended for the operation of equipment, those intended for mounting purposes, or those permitted as part of the design for listed equipment, shall be closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment. Where metallic plugs or plates are used with nonmetallic enclosures, they shall be recessed at least 6 mm (1/4 in.) from the outer surface of the enclosure.

Correct

 

[Joe.B]

Correct

I want a gold star

 

[steveray]

The 230 sections would not apply in this instance as I am guessing it is not a service but a subpanel......

 

[jar546]

The 230 sections would not apply in this instance as I am guessing it is not a service but a subpanel......

Correct, but the intent of 230 is for covers and such. 110.12(A) is very specific to this exact situation. Even if this were a service, I would still use 110.12(A). I know this will create another technical argument with you but that has been the standard go to for this specific situation for decades. Can you use 230.62 if this were a service? Sure, but that was never the intent of 230.62 because 110.12(A) was intentionally created for this specific situation..

 

[steveray]

Correct, but the intent of 230 is for covers and such. 110.12(A) is very specific to this exact situation. Even if this were a service, I would still use 110.12(A). I know this will create another technical argument with you but that has been the standard go to for this specific situation for decades. Can you use 230.62 if this were a service? Sure, but that was never the intent of 230.62 because 110.12(A) was intentionally created for this specific situation..

I don't argue all the time .....And absolutely agree on how the 230 is written....My comment about 230 is one of general code enforcement where "if it doesn't apply, don't waste your time looking there for answers"....