How well do you know the Code? Think you can spot violations the original installer either ignored or couldn’t identify? Here's your chance to moonlight as an electrical inspector and second-guess someone else's work from the safety of your living room or office. Can you identify the specific Code violation(s) in this photo? Note: Submitted comments must include specific references from the 2023 NEC.
Hint: Poor placement of disconnect or water line?
Tell Them What They've Won…
Using the 2023 NEC, correctly identify the Code violation(s) in this month's photo — in 200 words or less — and you could win an Arlington Industries 18-in. Slider Bar and plastic box for mounting between studs with non-standard spacing. E-mail your response, including your name and mailing address, to [email protected], and Russ will select three winners (excluding manufacturers and prior winners) at random from the correct submissions. Note that submissions without an address will not be eligible to win.
October Winners
Our winners this month were Caleb Sester, an EC&M reader from Aloha, Ore., and Steven Mason, an EC&M reader from Kissimmee, Fla. They were able to correctly cite some of the Code violations in this photo.
I think Sec. 348.24(A) is pretty clear when it states “bends in conduit shall be made so that the conduit is not damaged, and the internal diameter of the conduit is not effectively reduced.” The person who installed this flexible metal conduit (FMC) wasn’t aware of or did not care about this rule because the FMC is snapped and broken apart from being bent too sharply. The broken FMC now has sharp edges that could damage the conductor insulation and cause a short circuit or a ground fault. The continuity of the FMC is also questionable now. Section 300.10 requires metal raceways, cable armor, and other metal enclosures for conductors to be metallically joined together into a continuous electrical conductor and be connected to all boxes, fittings, and cabinets to provide effective electrical continuity. Securing the FMC to the EMT violates Sec. 358.12(2). Another problem I see is the box does not appear to be supported properly per Sec. 314.23.
