Illustrated Catastrophes

As usual, never consider the following commentary associated with these photos as a formal interpretation of the National Electrical Code (NEC). Without criticizing anyone or any product, the following scenarios present us with serious electrical safety questions. Unguarded Equipment Aside from having the wrong makeshift cover on the disconnecting means, this equipment isn't protected from damage.

Joe Tedesco

Nov. 1, 2002

3 min read

Unguarded Equipment

Aside from having the wrong makeshift cover on the disconnecting means, this equipment isn't protected from damage. This violates 110.27(B) of the 2002 NEC, which states that “locations where electric equipment is likely to be exposed to physical damage, enclosures or guards shall be so arranged and of such strength as to prevent such damage.” The use of a concrete-filled RMC often serves as a guard in similar installations. The cover used on the receptacle could also be cited, because it doesn't meet the current requirement in 406.8(B).A Winding Conduit Path

This entire run of RMC, which originated at the equipment at the top of the picture, feeds a parking lot attendant booth. Although it was secured once upon a time, after continued use and a recent resurfacing of the parking lot, the support was lost. This violates 344.30, which requires RMC to be installed as a complete system as provided in Art. 300 and securely fastened in place and supported in accordance with 344.30(A) and (B). RMC must also be securely fastened within 3 ft of each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or other conduit termination.Working Space Tripping Hazard

Although this permanently welded steel guard was probably placed in front of this panelboard with good intentions, it violates the working space rules in 110.26. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to straddle the steel pole while performing work inside this panel. Not only that, a separate ground rod was used to ground the transformer instead of an effectively grounded water pipe or structural steel. This may violate the rules in Art. 250, which cover separately derived systems.Protection From Nails and Screws

This reduced wall flexible metal conduit was installed parallel to a framing member in a storage building. Unfortunately, it was installed so that its nearest outside surface was less than 1 ¼ in. from the nearest edge of the framing member. Therefore, the possibility of penetration by a nail or screw is likely. A steel plate or sleeve, at least 1/16 in. thick must be installed to protect the raceway from penetration. See 300.4(D) for rules covering cables and raceways parallel to framing members in both exposed and concealed locations. Exceptions 1 and 2 of this rule can't be applied to this situation.

You can send Code Violations Illustrated stories and photos directly to Joe Tedesco at:

Joe Tedesco
350 North Street
Boston, MA 02113
or e-mail: [email protected]

If you mail pictures, please include the story, location, and some information about yourself — and please do not write on the front or back of your photo. Please send all digital images in JPEG format. You can send photos while visiting Joe's Web site at: www.joetedesco.com

About the Author

Joe Tedesco

Tedesco served the industry in many roles during his career. He was a director, senior electrical code instructor for National Technology Transfer, Inc. and American Trainco, Inc.. He was also a codes, standards and seminar specialist for the International Association of Electrical Inspectors and an electrical field service specialist for the National Fire Protection Association in Quincy, Mass. He ran his own business as an NEC consultant and is a Massachusetts licensed master electrician and journeyman electrician and certified electrical inspector (one and two family 2A; General 2B, and Plan Review, 2C). Tedesco also wrote articles for CEE News and EC&M (Code Violations Illustrated and What's Wrong Here?) for more than 15 years and helped launched the Moving Violations video series.