What’s Wrong Here? October 2010

What’s Wrong Here? October 2010

Can you identify the Code violation(s) in this photo?


Can you identify the Code violation(s) in this photo?

Hint: Bonding continuity questioned

Find the Answer

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 Code violation(s) in this photo?


‘Tell Them What They’ve Won...’

Using the 2008 NEC, correctly identify the Code violation(s) in this month’s photo — in 200 words or less — and you could win something to put in your tool­box. E-mail your response to [email protected], and we’ll select three winners (excluding manufacturers and prior winners) at random from the correct submissions. Winners will receive a set of insulated hand tools from Ideal Industries, Inc., valued at more than $125.* The set includes 9.25-in. insulated side-cutting pliers, 10-in. insulated tongue-and-groove pliers, and a 0.25-in. 3 6-in. insulated screwdriver. (* Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery of tools.)

August Winners

Our three winners this month include: Steve Vidal, P.E., president, Joseph VJ. Vidal & Sons, Inc., Throop, Pa.; Adam Porter, president, Tricore, Cadiz, Ohio; and John Klouda, foreman, Difazio Electric LLC, Deer Park, N.Y. In addition to pointing out the obvious lack of circuit identification in this photo, all three raised questions with the armored cable entering the panel.

As noted in 408.4, “Every circuit and circuit modification shall be legibly identified as to its clear, evident, and specific purpose or use.” In addition, the rule goes on to say, “The identification shall be included in a circuit directory that is located on the face or inside of the panel door in the case of a panelboard, and located at each switch on a switchboard.”

Two other sections of the Code that could be cited by the AHJ are 320.24(B) and 320.30(B). The bend radius looks pretty tight on one of the AC cables entering the right side of the panel and may violate the minimum bend radius of “five times the external diameter of the metallic sheath.” Furthermore, the requirement of securing the AC cable within 12 in. of the cabinet may also be a violation here, although the photo is cropped just a little too close to offer 100% verification.

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.