Do you see any additional violation(s)?

[joe tedesco]

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

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

Yes, thank you

 

[iwire]

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

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
and if the receptacle here was replaced I believe it should be brought up to the present code rules.

Yes definitely if replaced, I would think the box too, do they make a code compliant cover for a duplex on an octagon box, I have never seen one.

 

[joe tedesco]

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

Ronald:

What do you think about this underground splice?

 

[joe tedesco]

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

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by joe tedesco:
and if the receptacle here was replaced I believe it should be brought up to the present code rules.

Yes definitely if replaced, I would think the box too, do they make a code compliant cover for a duplex on an octagon box, I have never seen one.

Bob: No, I haven't seen one either, that's the point. The rule applies to this cover too.

 

[roger]

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

Joe, I would have taken the locknut off of the RX connector. (what a waste)

Roger

 

[torint]

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

are any of these suited for direct burial:
cable
connectors
tape
are those two connectors listed for this type of installation?
From the way that this looks, you might as well use wire nuts.

[ September 06, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: torint ]

 

[hforney500]

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

How about it is a round cover on an octagon box!