# Spot the Violation, Wednesday Edition



## 480sparky

Tracking down why some basement lights didn't work, and opened a box.

Hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## william1978

Neutrals not hooked together?


----------



## 480sparky

william1978 said:


> Neutrals not hooked together?



Two circuits. Red/white is laundry. Blue/white is lighting. Homerun is in left pipe.


----------



## william1978

Neutral and other cir pass strait threw.


----------



## 480sparky

william1978 said:


> Neutral and other cir pass strait threw.



I hope that's not a violation cause I do that all the time.:001_huh:


----------



## william1978

480sparky said:


> I hope that's not a violation cause I do that all the time.:001_huh:


 I do it all the time also. So what is the violation?


----------



## sparks134

Gotta love it! Silly homeowners!:no::no:


----------



## 480sparky

sparks134 said:


> Gotta love it! Silly homeowners!:no::no:


This was done by at least a JW electrician, maybe with a helper.


----------



## william1978

Where is the ground wire that was in the romex?


----------



## sparks134

480sparky said:


> This was done by at least a JW electrician, maybe with a helper.


 Duuuhhhh!


----------



## 480sparky

william1978 said:


> Where is the ground wire that was in the romex?



It's there.... stuffed into the top of the box where you can't see it.


----------



## RIVETER

It appears that the egc from the romex is under the clip but what is the other green wire for? It looks to be wrapped around the screw and then poked through a hole in the box.


----------



## william1978

RIVETER said:


> It appears that the egc from the romex is under the clip but what is the other green wire for? It looks to be wrapped around the screw and then poked through a hole in the box.


 All of the G clips look like they are installed correct to me.


----------



## RIVETER

william1978 said:


> All of the G clips look like they are installed correct to me.


Yeah, but what about the one exiting the box?


----------



## TOOL_5150

box looks wired fine, from what I can see. Must be a burnt out lamp or tripped OCP or idiot HO.

~Matt


----------



## william1978

RIVETER said:


> Yeah, but what about the one exiting the box?


 Could be hard to tell from this angle.


----------



## mattsilkwood

What are all those green wires outside the box?


----------



## jwjrw

All the grounds should be tied together. Not under seperate clips.


----------



## william1978

jwjrw said:


> All the grounds should be tied together. Not under seperate clips.


 Why is that?


----------



## jwjrw

I thought all grounds in a box have to be tied together. 480 whats the code article. It was in a thread recently.


----------



## william1978

jwjrw said:


> I thought all grounds in a box have to be tied together. 480 whats the code article. It was in a thread recently.


Each ground could land on it's own ground screw or G-clip. I'm going to look up the ref.:thumbsup:


----------



## jwjrw

william1978 said:


> Each ground could land on it's own ground screw or G-clip. I'm going to look up the ref.:thumbsup:


I suppose 250.148 says you are correct.


----------



## Murphy

480 i think you have to help us out lol


----------



## william1978

Murphy said:


> 480 i think you have to help us out lol


 Yep, I agree.:thumbsup:


----------



## jwjrw

william1978 said:


> Yep, I agree.:thumbsup:


It does say connected within the box BUT then it says OR to the box.
So I say you are correct.:notworthy:


----------



## micromind

There are too many wires in that box. 

If that box is 1-1/2" deep, table 314.16 allows 6. There are more than 6.

Rob


----------



## 480sparky

micromind said:


> There are too many wires in that box.
> 
> If that box is 1-1/2" deep, table 314.16 allows 6. There are more than 6.
> 
> Rob


Six of what size?


----------



## micromind

#12s.

Rob


----------



## 480sparky

micromind said:


> #12s.
> 
> Rob


They're not all 12s.


----------



## micromind

Is the blue circuit #14s? It's kinda hard to tell, but it looks slightly smaller. 

Rob


----------



## 480sparky

micromind said:


> Is the blue circuit #14s? It's kinda hard to tell, but it looks slightly smaller.
> 
> Rob



14s they are.


----------



## WIREDOG

I see a ground clip but no ground joint. And the only other thing I see is dissimilar wiring methods (i.e. Romex and emt)


----------



## crazyboy

Why are there ground wires leaving the box going somewhere not in pipe?


----------



## 480sparky

WIREDOG said:


> I see a ground clip but no ground joint. And the only other thing I see is dissimilar wiring methods (i.e. Romex and emt)


Are either of those violations?


----------



## 480sparky

crazyboy said:


> Why are there ground wires leaving the box going somewhere not in pipe?


The inspection sticker on the panel was dated 1999, and stated "Service and update".

My guess is when the house was updated, certain circuits were grounded with the THHN.


----------



## Stub

The clamp on the box is for BX/MC only.


----------



## sparks134

480sparky said:


> The inspection sticker on the panel was dated 1999, and stated "Service and update".
> 
> My guess is when the house was updated, certain circuits were grounded with the THHN.


 Isnt that a violation ???


----------



## NolaTigaBait

sparks134 said:


> Isnt that a violation ???


Not if you bring it to the service or within 5 feet of the water line....


----------



## RIVETER

WIREDOG said:


> I see a ground clip but no ground joint. And the only other thing I see is dissimilar wiring methods (i.e. Romex and emt)


That is a good point. In the past, in our jurisdiction it was not allowed, as such. If you wanted to use romex in an previously EMT system the circuit would have to originate from the panel. I don't really know why.


----------



## NolaTigaBait

RIVETER said:


> That is a good point. In the past, in our jurisdiction it was not allowed, as such. If you wanted to use romex in an previously EMT system the circuit would have to originate from the panel. I don't really know why.


Good point?....Not really. I don;t care what your jurisdiction says, that's ridiculous.


----------



## william1978

Is there a locknut on the conduit going to the left?


----------



## RIVETER

NolaTigaBait said:


> Good point?....Not really. I don;t care what your jurisdiction says, that's ridiculous.


Don't be so touchy. I didn't say you had to do it that way. It would be hard for me to believe that a contractor of significant size would intermingle wiring methods in that way, but to each his own.


----------



## Stub

RIVETER said:


> Don't be so touchy. I didn't say you had to do it that way. *It would be hard for me to believe that a contractor of significant size would intermingle wiring methods in that way*, but to each his own.


WHY would that be hard to believe? That's crazy talk, we intermingle EMT and PVC and Romex and MC and BX and knob and tube all day long.


----------



## RIVETER

Stub said:


> WHY would that be hard to believe? That's crazy talk, we intermingle EMT and PVC and Romex and MC and BX and knob and tube all day long.


If your inspection authority approves it, go for it. If you do it all day long as you have said, you must know how to bid it that way.


----------



## 480sparky

RIVETER said:


> ..........It would be hard for me to believe that a contractor of significant size would intermingle wiring methods in that way, but to each his own.



I don't get it. You're saying NM should never terminate in a box fed by EMT?

Or only _small_ contractors should utilize this method?


----------



## Stub

So what's the violation? Wednesday is long gone.


----------



## RIVETER

480sparky said:


> I don't get it. You're saying NM should never terminate in a box fed by EMT?
> 
> Or only _small_ contractors should utilize this method?


That is not what I said. Originally, I said that our jurisdiction, or at least the inspector, would not allow extending a circuit with other than the existing wiring method. It was a strip mall and the job was the addition of a barber shop and a tanning salon. All other existing was EMT. I added the ten or so extra circuits from the panel with romex.
I actually prefer it that way, as far as not purposely intermingling wiring/piping methods .


----------



## BuzzKill

mixed N's in an mwbc?


----------



## 480sparky

RIVETER said:


> That is not what I said. Originally, I said that our jurisdiction, or at least the inspector, would not allow extending a circuit with other than the existing wiring method. It was a strip mall and the job was the addition of a barber shop and a tanning salon. All other existing was EMT. I added the ten or so extra circuits from the panel with romex.
> I actually prefer it that way, as far as not purposely intermingling wiring/piping methods .


I'd ask for a Code reference on that one.

Did you manage to ask for one, too? I'd love to hear it.


----------



## RIVETER

480sparky said:


> I'd ask for a Code reference on that one.
> 
> Did you manage to ask for one, too? I'd love to hear it.


That is usually what I do; I was going to extend some of the circuits and when he said no I figured it would be quicker to use the romex than opening boxes and joints and running EMT, anyway. He then told me that it was a commercial building and it could only be added to in the same piping method. That is when I contested and asked for a code reference on that. He called about an hour later and said it could not be found but they would be extremely tough on the final inspection if I insisted on doing it my way. I did.


----------



## 480sparky

RIVETER said:


> That is usually what I do; I was going to extend some of the circuits and when he said no I figured it would be quicker to use the romex than opening boxes and joints and running EMT, anyway. He then told me that it was a commercial building and it could only be added to in the same piping method. That is when I contested and asked for a code reference on that. He called about an hour later and said it could not be found but they would be extremely tough on the final inspection if I insisted on doing it my way. I did.



If he couldn't find it, then he can't red-tag your work. I've never heard of any local or state amendments anywhere even remotely similar to this.

Sounds like you let the *ins*pector play *ex*pector for a day.


----------



## RIVETER

480sparky said:


> If he couldn't find it, then he can't red-tag your work. I've never heard of any local or state amendments anywhere even remotely similar to this.
> 
> Sounds like you let the *ins*pector play *ex*pector for a day.


I don't wake up every day looking to prove that I know more than someone else. If an inspector has something he prefers and it is not intrinsically unsafe, and I can accomplish it without too much cost, it gets done.


----------



## 480sparky

RIVETER said:


> I don't wake up every day looking to prove that I know more than someone else. If an inspector has something he prefers and it is not intrinsically unsafe, and I can accomplish it without too much cost, it gets done.



Prefer is one thing. Legally required is something altogether different.


----------



## BuzzKill

okay 480, America wants to know: what's the violation?


----------



## RIVETER

480sparky said:


> Prefer is one thing. Legally required is something altogether different.


I can't, and won't say that you are wrong. We all know that the NEC is the bare minimum that you must do so if someone gives you a little extra to do and it it could make the job better, why not. I have heard a lot of people complaining about a second ground rod. I don't argue those points, I know it is better.


----------



## Stub

RIVETER said:


> I can't, and won't say that you are wrong. We all know that the NEC is the bare minimum that you must do so if someone gives you a little extra to do and it it could make the job better, why not. I have heard a lot of people complaining about a second ground rod. I don't argue those points, I know it is better.


A second ground rod is IN the code book.

What you proposed is in no way safer or a better, more professional job. It is just the stupid idea of an idiot inspector who should be beaten and fed to badgers.


----------



## RIVETER

Stub said:


> A second ground rod is IN the code book.
> 
> What you proposed is in no way safer or a better, more professional job. It is just the stupid idea of an idiot inspector who should be beaten and fed to badgers.


I did not propose anything. I just did the job, in a way that satisfied both him and myself. Personally, if I went to a job in a basement that had multiple add ons of romex, BX, EMT, the first thing I would not think is "Man, that guy is a good electrician". But that's just me.


----------



## Stub

RIVETER said:


> I did not propose anything. I just did the job, in a way that satisfied both him and myself. Personally, if I went to a job in a basement that had multiple add ons of romex, BX, EMT, the first thing I would not think is "Man, that guy is a good electrician". But that's just me.


Yeah, that makes no sense. If I circuit was ran to a JB in EMT for whatever reason, you think it's wrong to come out of that box with romex? What are you going to do, pipe up a wall to the receptacle you are installing?


----------



## mattsilkwood

RIVETER said:


> That is not what I said. Originally, I said that our jurisdiction, or at least the inspector, would not allow extending a circuit with other than the existing wiring method. It was a strip mall and the job was the addition of a barber shop and a tanning salon. All other existing was EMT. I added the ten or so extra circuits from the panel with romex.
> I actually prefer it that way, as far as not purposely intermingling wiring/piping methods .


 Could it have been a case where the building was over a certain occupancy?


----------



## Selectric

If it is resi 120/240 then it is the blue wire.


----------



## BuzzKill

Selectric said:


> If it is resi 120/240 then it is the blue wire.


there's nothing wrong with blue wire in single phase work (120/240)


----------



## 480sparky

Selectric said:


> If it is resi 120/240 then it is the blue wire.



Code reference?


----------



## Bob Badger

Stub said:


> It is just the stupid idea of an idiot inspector who should be beaten and fed to badgers.


I ain't eating no inspectors. :no:


----------



## sparks134

BuzzKill said:


> there's nothing wrong with blue wire in single phase work (120/240)


 I've seen guys use purple, pink and orange wires as there homeruns in residential, is that not allowed ???


----------



## 480sparky

sparks134 said:


> I've seen guys use purple, pink and orange wires as there homeruns in residential, is that not allowed ???



Where is it written it isn't?


----------



## sparks134

The code dosent say any thing about that!


----------



## RIVETER

mattsilkwood said:


> Could it have been a case where the building was over a certain occupancy?


I really don't know, maybe so.


----------



## william1978

480sparky said:


> Where is it written it isn't?


301.12.:jester: I thought you knew your code book.:jester:


----------



## BuzzKill

william1978 said:


> 301.12.:jester: I thought you knew your code book.:jester:


what NEC edition is that?


----------



## william1978

BuzzKill said:


> what NEC edition is that?


 2014.:thumbsup:


----------



## 480sparky

buzzkill said:


> what nec edition is that?


1902.........


----------



## Magnettica

so what's the violation here?


----------



## sparks134

Magnettica said:


> so what's the violation here?


 I"m not sure, myself!


----------



## jwjrw

480sparky said:


> Prefer is one thing. Legally required is something altogether different.


 
Yep and the state would hear from me about his comment about being hard on the final also. We had an inspector tell us he would let us do it this time(after we called the state and they sided with us) we told him he will let us do it everytime because the state says we are right and he was wrong.Normally if its not a big deal I will just do it how they want it but that wasn't one of them cases.


----------



## Stan B.

Good troll. I might use this one myself in the future.


----------



## user4818

WIREDOG said:


> I see a ground clip but no ground joint. And the only other thing I see is dissimilar wiring methods (i.e. Romex and emt)


I know I'm late getting in on this one, but I think Wiredog needs a code book. 

Dissimilar wiring methods? That's a new one on me. :001_huh:


----------



## Dr. Dong

*DS*

Is that Duct seal being used as a connector??


----------



## GEORGE D

Is the box fastned to the joist?And does the "lights not working" have anyhing to do with the violation?


----------



## 480sparky

GEORGE D said:


> Is the box fastned to the joist?And does the "lights not working" have anyhing to do with the violation?



Yes and no.


----------



## GEORGE D

Is that less than 6 inches of free conductors?


----------



## JohnR

Alright I looked over the other posts, being lazy, and then decided to check it for myself, and this is what I found seeing 480 wouldn't come totally clean. I reference the 2005 code not having my '08 code just at hand.

there are some assumptions that I have taken, 
1) that is a 4"X1 1/4 octagon jb. 
2) the ceiling is within reach of the ground without a ladder.

So, here goes. 
According to T314.16(A) for a 4X1.25 Oct. the Cu in. is 12.5 and is good for 6 #14 cond. 
there is 7 countable conductors, AND 1 internal clamp 
the internal clamp is counted as 1 of the largest cond. which is 14. ref 314.16 (B) (2)

this gives us a total of 8 @2.00 cu-in. = 16 CU-in. or 3.5 too much. 

ALSO , 250.120(C) states :
"AWG Equipment grounding conductors smaller than 6
AWG shall be protected from physical damage by a raceway
or cable armor except where run in hollow spaces of walls
or partitions, where not subject to physical damage, or where
protected from physical damage."

Those grounds seem to be somewhat exposed but again I don't know the ceiling height. also the equipment grounding conductor is supposed to "Be run with the supply conductors." 250.32(B)1 

Did I miss anything?:shifty:

all this aside, the thing the inspector decided to pick on, well It seems like a lot of nothing compared to what he could have said.


----------



## Leviticus

Damnit 480, I read that whole damn thread and no answer yet... there is a few minutes I will never get back :lol:


----------



## TOOL_5150

Leviticus said:


> Damnit 480, I read that whole damn thread and no answer yet... there is a few minutes I will never get back :lol:


5 months old noob!


~Matt


----------



## Leviticus

TOOL_5150 said:


> 5 months old noob!
> 
> 
> ~Matt


Still no answer kook.


----------



## erics37

How about the neutrals not being associated with their respective ungrounded conductors in any particular way? (i.e. taped together or something)

I think I may be thinking of the code reference somewhere in 200 that talks about identifying grounded conductors of *different systems* sharing a raceway, but I don't remember right now.


----------



## 480sparky

Leviticus said:


> Still no answer kook.


There has been. You musta missed it.


----------



## Leviticus

480sparky said:


> There has been. You musta missed it.


 Must have spent too much time over in the "Legalize Refer" thread and picked up some second hand smoke and missed it :lol:


----------

