Do you see any additional violation(s)?

[joe tedesco]

The missing screw, and open knockout have been identified by the inspector, and the receptacle is secured with a single 6/32 screw.

The drill bit just happens to be sitting on top of the box.

Do you see any additional violations? If so, please cite the rule in the NEC.

Joe Tedesco

[ September 06, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: joe tedesco ]

 

[earlydean]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Joe,

What code section does the drill bit violate?

 

[jerryb]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Based on this picture how can you say that the mounting of the receptacle using a single screw is a code violation, unless this was just recently installed? Beside, for all we know there might be a bonding jumper from the receptacle to the metal box which appears to be secured to the metal EMT conduit. We shouldn't make assumptions unless we have more information.

 

[bennie]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

There is no code violation, unless this receptacle was installed in this condition.

There may be a maintenance and safety issue, but not imminent danger.

The decomposition of an electrical system, through time and use, is not a code violation.

Only people violate the code, not old father time and the laws of physics.

 

[Guest]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

I'm noticing the connector appears to be a rain-tight connector. If this box is in a damp, moist, or wet place it should be in a Bell box; on a GFCI circuit; with a raintight cover that remains raintight when a device is plugged into it; and properly grounded. These assumptions are based on the minimal data that was provided. Your mileage may vary depending on local codes and circumstances.

210.8A3, 314.4, 314.15A, 406.8B1,2

I'm totally guessing. Do I win? Additionally, I don't know the code section but the device should be attached to the cover with more than just the middle screw. There should be two through-bolts to attach the device to the cover.

[Putting on my X-ray glasses: The EMT should be supported withing 3' of the box, but the picture is too small. The wire nuts might be the wrong size. The conductors are all undersized. It's dirty ]

../Wayne

PS: It's probably an 8/32" screw also.

[ September 05, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Wayne,
You may be correct, but just because a compression type EMT connector was used does not mean that it was used because of a wet location. Many times the job specs require the use of compression type connectors and fittings. In this area it is very rare that the specs permit the use of set screw connectors and couplings.
Don

[ September 05, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[jxofaltrds]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

110.12

The screw is not in a 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock position.

Mike P.

 

[george t. everett]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

This picture is code compliant.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Gentlemen and Ladies:

Please understand that I am posting the images here on this site to generate some meaningfull discussion that will, or may be of benefit to all those read and reply, or just lurk.

If this existing receptacle, that is secured to this flat cover was replaced ..... could the

AHJ make you bring it up to the current code?

Then the Green EBJ, the screws to be more than one securing the receptacle to the cover, would be the violations cited.

The KO and missing screw were identified in the first post here.

I my opinion, there is a safety issue here related to a missing 6/32 screw where some would still try to plug in their cord cap, and that may lead to an arc and accident.

Anyway, who owns the drill bit??

Question: Who does the electrical inspections in Virgina?

 

[bennie]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Where in the USA, can a public official electrical inspector, red tag an installation like this?

 

[hurk27]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

George:

This picture is code compliant.

LOL Why yes it is and taken by a code compliant camra. LOL

 

[hurk27]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Bennie:

Where in the USA, can a public official electrical inspector, red tag an installation like this?

In many states there is a law that gives a inspector the right to red tag anything that might be considered a danger to life and property. and if this was caught while doing an inspection he can red tag it, or if it is in open view on public property. also grandfathering only protects installations that were code compliant at the time of the installation. inwhich I dont think the open KO would of passed but the requirment for two screws to retain the receptacle might of passed. as that was just introduced in "96" or was it "93"

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Isn't a octagon box taped for 8/32 screws?

If so how could a 6/32 hold it?

I know with a raised receptacle cover on a 4" square box you are required to mount the receptacle with the three screws now.Why would there be a difference here?

I don't no which nec art. covers this but my local inspector told me the art. that covered it but I don't remember.

Ronald

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Originally posted by ronaldrc:
Isn't a octagon box taped for 8/32 screws?

If so how could a 6/32 hold it?

I know with a raised receptacle cover on a 4" square box you are required to mount the receptacle with the three screws now. Why would there be a difference here?

I don't no which nec art. covers this but my local inspector told me the art. that covered it but I don't remember.

Ronald

The screw that is used to secure the receptacle to the cover is a 6/32. The 8/32 screws are used on the box threads.

This is the rule in the 2002 NEC

406.4(C) Receptacles Mounted on Covers.

Receptacles mounted to and supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover by more than one screw or shall be a device assembly or box cover listed and identified for securing by a single screw.

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Joe ,since there was just one screw holding the cover I thought you were talking about it.

Thanks for the code reference.

Ronald

 

[bennie]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

An inspector only has the legal right to inspect the scope of the permit.

This installation is not an imminent threat.

This situation is like the grounds for a search warrant. Only the items in the warrant can be inspected.

This is in the Constitution, under illegal search and seizure.

An inspector who forces an owner to repair this, had better be prepared to pay for it.

 

[Guest]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Originally posted by joe tedesco:

Originally posted by ronaldrc:
Isn't a octagon box taped for 8/32 screws?

If so how could a 6/32 hold it?

I know with a raised receptacle cover on a 4" square box you are required to mount the receptacle with the three screws now. Why would there be a difference here?

I don't no which nec art. covers this but my local inspector told me the art. that covered it but I don't remember.

Ronald

The screw that is used to secure the receptacle to the cover is a 6/32. The 8/32 screws are used on the box threads.

This is the rule in the 2002 NEC

406.4(C) Receptacles Mounted on Covers.

Receptacles mounted to and supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover by more than one screw or shall be a device assembly or box cover listed and identified for securing by a single screw.

awwt said:
I'm totally guessing. Do I win? Additionally, I don't know the code section but the device should be attached to the cover with more than just the middle screw. There should be two through-bolts to attach the device to the cover.

Is this what you were looking for?

../Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Joe,
Prior to the '99 code installing a receptacle with a single screw in flat cover was not a code violation. In the '93 and '96 codes the rule prohibiting a single screw from supporting a receptacle only applied to raised covers.
Don

 

[hurk27]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Bennie:

This is in the Constitution, under illegal search and seizure.

If you invite a officer into your house to discuss a problem with a neighbor and you have some illegal drugs laying in plain view where he can see them you better bet he can get you for it. or in the case of it being within public view the same applies just like a officer can bust you if he drives by your house and you have drugs out in full view on your porch. when you have a inspector come to your house he is not there to serve out a warrant he is there because you invited him to inspect that your contractor is doing his job for your protection.
Now if it was in the way of a warrant it would have been because your neighbor had called him to say you are doing some remodeling without a permit then he would only be-able to discover within the scope of probable cause and not look for any violations that were not within the area of remodel.

 

[joe tedesco]

Re: Do you see any additional violation(s)?

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Joe,
Prior to the '99 code installing a receptacle with a single screw in flat cover was not a code violation. In the '93 and '96 codes the rule prohibiting a single screw from supporting a receptacle only applied to raised covers.
Don

Don: Thanks for the reminder, I was aware of those rules too, and if the receptacle here was replaced I believe it should be brought up to the present code rules.