Assignment:
Picture taken in the parking lot in front of a hotel in Charleston, WV.
I am posting this picture for discussion, information and educational purposes only, and respectfully ask that the references supplied by anyone who comments be directed to a specific rule and edition of any document that they are aware of.
Hint: Start off with 110.3(B), and 300.5(J) if applicable.
PS: There are other issues here as well that will follow as we proceed. 
So you think they need an expansion fitting? Not sure I have ever seen one in an installation like this. There was an interesting discussion over at ECN about bringing the GEC out of one of those 3/8" holes. One manufacturer has gone on record saying that is what the hole is for.
Greg:
My reference gives the conditions when the expansion fitting is required.
That was the purpose for the hint.
If the conduit was run in a continuous length from one enclosure to another underground, then the rule would apply.
The FPN gives other recommendations as well.
The mounting hole on the back of the enclosure here is not for the use as shown, nevertheless the installation was approved by someone who may not have any knowledge of what the 110.3(B) reference includes.
I am sure you are aware of what the UL White Book is and its purpose, if not see www.ul.com under regulatory authorities for the download.
I had expected this discussion to include some reference: “sunlight resistance, Schedule 80” and other items even related to the improper working space.
I guess its better to be in front of the students in a classroom and discuss this with the code in mind.
If this was on an examination, and the questions were asked as to what do you see here and how would you address the conditions, the answers would have something to do with pass or fail on that test, no matter how silly the rule or picture.
Here’s another close up picture of the “dimples” where there are “mounting holes” ---- :shock: :shock: not to be used for the GEC as shown, I sure hope we can agree DP from Prodigy days long ago?
Also, see the Schedule 40, does this violate 300.5(D)? :mrgreen:
Sorry joe…I had to reply ( see I can’t keep my word on never replying again )
I agree 100% that that GEC coming through that hole is not correct…makes me wonder IF their was a hole on the bottom why they did not use it.
Another issue is this is a parking lot…and I dont see any guards against physical damage ala : 110.27.B
As for the Schedule 40…would say 300.5 D.4 would apply here as well.
but I would say in a parking lot…I would like to see some guard barriers on it if i were inspecting it also.
I am not sure what you mean about Dp…but I do remember back when I started online using Prodigy…was very long ago…
OK, nice to see you back so soon! :mrgreen:
Here’s another front view picture, and the rocks and the tree (which impinges upon the working space) may have been put there for that protection?
As fas as “DP” that was Greg’s nickname in the Secret Society of Electricians, and he can add the rest of the story as to where I fit into the scheme in the 90’s.
I guess I don’t get as much out of pictures as you guys. I didn’t see any indication about the grade of the RNC, nor could I see whether the working space was OK from the back of the installation. I am still not sure where the expansion fitting would go. I have never seen one used here. I don’t think that few feet from the dirt to the can requires it. Maybe it is just too many years living on the beach.