ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 228 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#112896 10/23/01 10:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 3
Admin Offline OP
Administrator
Member
[Linked Image]
Quote
This was taken at a local home center that is less than two years old. Name the NEC violations!

- Nick

#112897 10/25/01 10:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 466
Likes: 1
J
Member
Are those xfmrs with the disconnect between them?

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

#112898 10/26/01 08:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
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?)

#112899 10/27/01 12:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 599
N
Member
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! [Linked Image]
Nick


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5