|
|
|
0 members (),
21
guests, and
28
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,677 Likes: 3
OP
Administrator Member
|
![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Violations/Submissions/sixinch.jpg) Does this installation violate any particular 2002 NEC rule?
Joe Tedesco
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
Dont know the article off hand but the trough is sticking out way to far. Looks to me like it was ok at one point. I bet it was extended when the meter to the left was added, which I might think is a better solution to getting the taps to fit than usung the old hammer and 2X4 trick!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
|
2002 NEC 110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the
height required by 110.26(E).
Here's the rule: Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below
the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 599
Member
|
That looks like a gutter screwed onto the face of another gutter. They must have cut the back out of it as I have never seen a 'gutter extention.' I can't think of a section to quote of hand but I imagine it would be a listing violation if nothing else. I could be wrong. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/biggrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
|
We could cite 90.7 because the wireway (equipment) may have been altered, and we probably could find something in the metal wireway article.
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
|
|
|
|
Posts: 524
Joined: December 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
