The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#112896 - 10/23/01 07:42 AM Name the Violations
Webmaster Offline

Administrator
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3142
Loc: NY, USA

 Quote:
This was taken at a local home center that is less than two years old. Name the NEC violations!

- Nick

Top
Tools for Electricians:
#112897 - 10/25/01 07:47 PM Re: Name the Violations
Jim M Offline
Member

Registered: 08/10/01
Posts: 453
Loc: Chestertown, MD, USA
Are those xfmrs with the disconnect between them?

Maybe this was wired by the industry 'professionals' that work there?

Top
#112898 - 10/26/01 05:04 AM Re: Name the Violations
electure Offline

Member

Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 4226
Loc: Fullerton, CA USA
Although it's kind of hard to tell, it appears that there's no seismic bracing to keep these xfrmrs from rockin' & rollin' in an earthquake. I'd sure hate to be under these when those rods start bending! (Are they hard piped?)

Top
#112899 - 10/26/01 09:19 PM Re: Name the Violations
Nick Offline
Member

Registered: 08/13/01
Posts: 603
Loc: Riverside, CA
Sorry about the poor picture quality. Yes they are transformers, and no they are not braced. They are also about 18ft in the air. The secondary over current protection, enclosed circuit breakers are also mounted about 18ft in the air. Not very “readily acceptable. (240-24). I think this also violates 380-8. Some of the disconnects in the store are directly behind the transformers. While it appears from the ground some might meet the clearance requirements in 110-26(a)(1) they have the secondary feeding them from underneath with seal tight 90’s. You couldn’t stand in front of them if there was a platform. Most of them don’t have a chance of meeting 110-26(a)(2). What I really find odd is they went out of their way to provide secondary over current protection for these transformers and just made a mess of it. All the while the panels are directly below them and if equipped with a main could have eliminated the enclosed breakers all together. It looks like they could have meet the 25ft maximum length allowed for transformer taps. I realize that that rule was left out of the ’99 code. But it’s back in for “02! Any inspector that was sharp enough to catch that rule surly would have caught the rest of this stuff.
Who knows what lurks inside!
Nick

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals