Feature

Ten Common NEC Violations in

Low-Voltage Systems
By santiago beron
It is sad how sometimes the responsibility of
compliance with the National Electrical Code (NEC)
is shifted from one person to another in projects
that include low-voltage systems. The designer clears
the responsibility with a paragraph in the specifications
that usually reads, The contractor shall comply with
all codes and regulations. The contractor executing the
job then shifts responsibility of code compliance to the
engineer of record who signed and sealed the permits
for the job. The engineer of record usually designs all
electrical systems and maybe raceways only for lowvoltage systems, but it is very unlikely that he or she
was responsible for design of the low-voltage systems.

The Registered Communications Distribution
Designer (RCDD) who designs and installs low-voltage
systems is the individual most suitable to check a design
for code compliance, regardless if that person is acting
as a designer, a contractor or possibly the engineer of
record. Unfortunately, knowledge of the code sometimes
is believed by many to be limited to plenum- or nonplenum-rated cable decisions. Most low-voltage training
that is available in the information transport systems
(ITS) industry really does not address code issues in
detail. When you sit through one of the specialized
training sessions for code issues, there can be a big
disconnect between what you see in the field or from
vendors and the explanations and terminology used in
those code seminars.

For example, a typical false belief in the ITS industry
is that if a project passed an inspection by a city official
or inspector it means that it is a code-compliant
installation. The assumption is that the designer and
contractor did the right thing. This is also false because
in many cases, it just means that code violations were
not caught by the inspector. There are new buildings
everywhere with code violations.

There are two reasons why inspections do not
frequently report code violations in low-voltage systems.
First is that in many projects, the general contractor or
construction manager calls for an electrical inspection as
soon as the electrical work is completed even though, as

16 | advancing information transport systems | www.bicsi.org

we all know, the low-voltage trades are the last to leave

the premises. When the inspections take place, the lowvoltage work is not complete or sometimes just getting
started. The second reason why inspections miss code
violations is that inspectors themselves are very focused on
the major systems such as fire alarm and electrical systems.
Inspectors are supposed to check low-voltage work. But
to them, it is not high on their priority list. With so
many details to remember in the major systems, inspectors
seldom go into great detail in the low-voltage systems.

In an effort to help bring clarity to code issues, listed
below are some of the most common NEC violations that
surface on projects.

Common NEC Violations Found in

Low-Voltage Systems
1. Audio cables run in cable trays with
other low-voltage cable. NEC 2005 introduced
a new article 725.56(F) that prohibits audio cables
(speaker, microphone or line level signals) to be run
in the same raceway with other Class 2 or Class 3
circuits (low-voltage power and network cables). This
is a common violation especially with audio systems
that work on twisted-pair cables. It is a common
misconception to say that all cables of the same type
(e.g., category 5e cables) can be run together because
they are the same cable type. In this case, the code
dictates the wiring method for this circuit depending
on the purpose of the circuit and not based upon the
cable type.

2. Power cords run above ceilings. Article 400.8(5)
prohibits running flexible power cords above the
ceiling. Sometimes when television displays or
projectors are suspended from the roof or slab
structure, power outlets are placed above the ceiling
to connect those devices. A variation of this code
violation is running power cords below the raised
floor used for air distribution in computer rooms
noncompliant with article 645. This violation is
mostly related to electrical work and not to low-

 6. Patch cords run in plenum spaces. Article

800.154(A) explains that only CMP-rated cables can
be run in plenum spaces. This is not a big surprise
for most in the ITS industry. The proliferation of
wireless access points and IP cameras has required
the termination of horizontal cables above ceilings,
creating code issues. Because of the need to test cable
for those applications, jacks are also installed above
the ceiling. The code violation comes by leaving the
jack exposed to the plenum or using a factory made
patch cord (rated as CM or CMG only) to make the
final connection to the device.
7. Low-voltage cables run from multiple output
power supplies with outputs not classified
as Class 2 installed in the same raceway or
cable tray with other low-voltage cables.
Article 725.55(A) does not allow running Class 2
and Class 3 circuits with power, lighting or Class 1
circuits in the same cable or raceway, except for very
limited cases. In the ITS industry, many multiple
output power supplies (e.g., for CCTV cameras and
access control systems) are not classified as Class 2
outputs but Class 1 because of the way they are built.
Unfortunately, the installation manual for those
devices does not explicitly mention Class 1 or Class
2 anywhere in the document. It is too easy to fall for
this code violation.
8. Ungrounded or improperly grounded
primary or secondary protectors. Article
800.170(A) and (B) stipulate that all primary
protectors need to be grounded and secondary
protection needs to be grounded when present in
the device. It is well known that primary protectors
need to be grounded. The code violation occurs most
of the time by running excessive lengths of ground
cable to reach a distant ground bar when other
grounding means are closer. Secondary protectors
are installed many times as a result of a specific
situation when equipment was damaged. Those
retrofit jobs often are done by unqualified personnel
who are not aware of the grounding requirements
for secondary devices.
9. Unlisted communications cable coming into
the building in EMT conduit and extending
beyond 15 m (50 ft). Article 800.2 defines point
of entrance as the point at which the wire or cable

18 | advancing information transport systems | www.bicsi.org

emerges from an external wall, from a concrete floor

slab or from a rigid metal conduit or an intermediate
metal conduit grounded to an electrode. The code
violation occurs when assuming that EMT conduit is
also fine to extend the point of entrance. Electricians
do not like using rigid metal conduit because of
the treading of the conduit ends and because it is
a heavier pipe; in the electrical world, the point of
entrance cannot be extended with pipe.
10. Insulated grounding backbone cables run
in air-handling spaces in the cable tray.
Insulations for large gauge (3/0 or AWG-6) electrical
cables are usually not listed for plenum use since
their main use is for electrical work, where they
are run in conduit. Article 800.154 is clear in
requiring cable listings for plenum use. The code
violation occurs when running those cables as
telecommunications grounding backbones (or other
grounding wires for telecommunications) in the
cable tray system with other low-voltage cables.
They are installed in the cable tray because they
are not current-carrying conductors. Fortunately,
BICSI and TIA have revised the concept of the
telecommunications grounding backbones,
and those long grounding backbones are being
eliminated. It is good practice to stay with
uninsulated cables or run separate conduits for
those cables.

Conclusion

Many other common violations can be cited. In
the end, RCCDs and installation professionals should
keep up to date in all of the code changes. The NEC is
confusing and dense. Many times it is difficult to find the
right answers, but if you dont make this effort, chances
are nobody else will either. n

Santiago Beron, RCDD, CTS

Santiago Beron, RCDD, CTS, is an associate and
systems project manager at TLC Engineering for
Architecture in Tampa Fl, a consulting engineering
company specialized in mechanical, electrical,
plumbing and technology systems design in Florida
and Tennessee. Santiago can be contacted at
+1 813.637.0110 or at santiago.beron@tlc-eng.com.