Submitted by Joe Tedesco:

3 pieces of greenfield unsupported, and blocking access to disco.

Mismatched phase colors between line and load sides of disco.

Conductor run on handle side of disco--could be damaged by operating mechanism.

I don't see a handle on the EXO at all!
Are those some listed type of 90° fitting on the ends of the flex? (Honestly, a Q, I've never seen them like that).
Now, the big question for me is...Does an EXO require the working clearances of 110.26, (or 110-16, if you live in a third world country like California)?? I think so, but I've had a lot of folks deny the point.

There may be a handle, but almost hidden on the switch right side. The cable on the right inside may be a grounded-circuit conductor. {Agreed it is tacky and ‘nonworkmanlike’ to route it there.}

[Here's The Blurry, Overenlarged, Exclusive Front Page National Nquirer-Cam UFO-From-The-Inside Shot.]

There are clearly 250V fuses in the switch, FWIW. It looks the front couple of flexes may have been used as a “ladder” or “platform” for operating the switch.

The 90° flexible-metal-conduit connectors have been around for a long time, but they are almost impossible to install while meeting the NEC300-18(a) ‘Complete Runs’ mandate.

My question is—as a retrofit, would it be acceptable to build a “box” of framing channel and mount the disconnect spaced away from the wall {maybe 30 inches deep} such that there was now NEC110-16 working clearances about the open door? [One of the flexes and associated conductors might more esily be rerouted to the switch enclosure not using the gutter.]




[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 07-25-2003).]

Bjarney,

I made a closeup from the original for some more clarity:
(My Picture replaced with this (better) one: 7/25/03)



Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-25-2003).]

Heck, that's an easy fix. Just put some red tape over the blue tape, etc.

What about ID for the neutral too? Or is a white marking not required if the cable just runs through the disco like this without being landed on a terminal?

The grounded conductor may have been terminated and identified in the left side of the cabinet where we cannot see it. I am curious how this could have passed inspection? This work passing inspection will indirectly tell the installer that the installation is fine and perpetuate this kind of work. Maybe this equipment was added later and no inspection was involved.

Pierre

Some articles that could be used to red tag this would be.

348.30(A) Supports for FMC

110.26(A)(3) Height of working space.

I do not see how the work space rules would not apply to a fusible disconnect.


Certainly a fusible disconnect may need servicing while energized.

One more thing I see, is that the transformer grounding electrode conductor run up the wall to the right of the disconnect?

If it is I do not see any supports as required by 250.64(B)

I am not trying to defend a lousy installation but some of the things mentioned are not NEC violations.

I think it is easy to forget that just because an installation is not up to our own standards does not necessarily mean it is a code violation.

The Grounded conductor if not terminated does not require identification.

200.6(B) "at the time of installation by a distinctive white marking at its terminations"

Mismatched phase tape colors, what code article could be cited to show this is a violation?

Bob

Update:

Joe sent in a better picture today to replace the closeup I made a few posts above,

Thanks Joe!
Bill

I have a question:

What's holding this on the wall? We can see most of the mounting holes and they aren't used.

Was it shot into the block? (upper rt. side hole), is that a legit way of mounting this?

Bill

Bill — If the green, floor-standing box on the right is a dry-type, any idea of kVA and winding voltages?

Bjarney,

These are Joe T's pictures, I don't have any more information on them.

He just sent in another closeup that seems to show that this was 'shot' onto the wall. It looks like 2 shots showing in this picture: (sloppy red arrows are mine )



Is this a valid method for mounting a switch like this??

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 07-25-2003).]

THe mounting method is debatable. Is an air space required behind the disco? Should a back board have been installed? Hard to say without knowing the installation. "Shot" mounting is not a normal method for discos, etc., around here. If the disco is securely mounted, then it should be acceptable.

BTW, the neutral is landed on a neutral block at the lower left corner, behind the "insulator" fiber thing. You can see the lugs in the third pic.

John

Picture 3 was not posted when I made my comments.

John,

This situation is a bit different with nipples on the left and bottom (supposedly secure to adjacent equipment) But, in general, I don't think I'd trust shots to hold a big disconnect on a block wall. (unless it's never going to be used )

Bill