Is this a code violation? Conduit blocking a transformer

[lakee911]

So, I found this in the field the other day ...


(Click for bigger pic)

The Contractor ran his new conduit directly in front of this existing wall mount transformer. The transformer is completely unrelated to the conduit and is for the lighting panel directly below. If the transformer needed to be replaced later getting it out would be tough. I think the connections are made from the bottom of the transformer, but I'm not sure. Any idea what part of the code I can cite?

Thanks,
Jason

 

[jusme123]

....is it still accessible? TF should have been mounted to the side of the panel.

 

[augie47]

While you have your violation pencil out you might note 110.26(A)(3) in reference to the transformer/panel

 

[donselectric]

that's just stupidity imo. why would anyone with half a brain do that...:huh:

 

[lakee911]

There isn't anything I can do about the transformer/panel violation as it was existing and isn't within the scope of the electrical contractor. So, I'm back to what violation is the conduit? I don't know if it accessible ... I'd say not, but I don't know? :?

(Half a brain would be good for this guy...)

 

[Strathead]

While you have your violation pencil out you might note 110.26(A)(3) in reference to the transformer/panel

From the pictures, I doubt the installation is a violation of 110.26 It looks like it is higher than 6 and 1/2 feet to the bottom. That said for the OP. Just because you can't make the current contractor responsible for a past violation, you could still require it be fixed to sign off your final couldn't you? It was a violation of the current codes, when the work was performed obviously.

Regarding the access. In my opinion, there is nothing you can do that may not be overturned. As the AHJ, you could cite this as electrical equipment requiring working space, and other posters here have expressed the opinion that it applies. Others of us disagree. The building owner or maintenance may, however, require it to be fixed. I would!

 

[lakee911]

I'll still cite the conduit in front of the xfrmr as needing relocated and they'll likey argue. Since they failed to use myers hubs outside (same conduit) they'll have to pull the wire back anyways. Might as well do it all and right.

Funny thing is, chances are the same contractor installed that xfrmr and lp back in the day (before my time).

Thanks!
Jason

 

[RUWired]

The transformer looks to be bottom access.

Rick

 

[Strathead]

I'll still cite the conduit in front of the xfrmr as needing relocated and they'll likey argue. Since they failed to use myers hubs outside (same conduit) they'll have to pull the wire back anyways. Might as well do it all and right.

Funny thing is, chances are the same contractor installed that xfrmr and lp back in the day (before my time).

Thanks!
Jason

I was just thinking, cite them for clearance around a transformer. If it is like most transformers, they have a minimum clearance clearly stated on the label. If it says maintain 5" of clearance, then the conduits are in that zone and not legal. Regardless of whether common sense dictates that they are not interfering with ventilation

 

[lakee911]

I was just thinking, cite them for clearance around a transformer. If it is like most transformers, they have a minimum clearance clearly stated on the label. If it says maintain 5" of clearance, then the conduits are in that zone and not legal. Regardless of whether common sense dictates that they are not interfering with ventilation

Good thinking. I've asked them to relocate it already. If it's not completed when I make my next visit, I'll find the make/model and arm myself with this information.

Thanks,
Jason

 

[LEO2854]

From the pictures, I doubt the installation is a violation of 110.26 It looks like it is higher than 6 and 1/2 feet to the bottom. That said for the OP. Just because you can't make the current contractor responsible for a past violation, you could still require it be fixed to sign off your final couldn't you? It was a violation of the current codes, when the work was performed obviously.

Regarding the access. In my opinion, there is nothing you can do that may not be overturned. As the AHJ, you could cite this as electrical equipment requiring working space, and other posters here have expressed the opinion that it applies. Others of us disagree. The building owner or maintenance may, however, require it to be fixed. I would!

I disagree..

How would you be able to open the cover to the transformer if there was an issue that required it.?

 

[scook56]

Slide the xfmr under ...

Slide the xfmr under ...

A new technique for mounting xfmr's. Slide 'em under obstructions.
:dunce:

 

[Strathead]

I disagree..

How would you be able to open the cover to the transformer if there was an issue that required it.?

Realize, I would never do shoddy work like this. That said, you remove the cover screws and pull the cover down. From the picture, the cover can be removed without moving the conduit out of the way.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

From the pictures, I doubt the installation is a violation of 110.26 It looks like it is higher than 6 and 1/2 feet to the bottom. That said for the OP. Just because you can't make the current contractor responsible for a past violation, you could still require it be fixed to sign off your final couldn't you? It was a violation of the current codes, when the work was performed obviously.

Look at the window to the left. Typically, the top of the window is at 6'-8". I would say that transformer is below 6'-6".

 

[LEO2854]

Realize, I would never do shoddy work like this. That said, you remove the cover screws and pull the cover down. From the picture, the cover can be removed without moving the conduit out of the way.

It is good that you can remove the cover but there is no way you can work on that safely with that pipe that is grouned inside the work space.

 

[iwire]

It is good that you can remove the cover but there is no way you can work on that safely with that pipe that is grouned inside the work space.

Are you suggesting you would work on those transformer connections live?

If not it is no different than a j-box that is a pain to work on.

 

[LEO2854]

Are you suggesting you would work on those transformer connections live?

If not it is no different than a j-box that is a pain to work on.

No way!, Even i would not remove a cover on a transformer live...:lol:

My point is if you are working on that transformer even with Lock Out Tag Out there is a small chance that someone could cut the lock off and turn it on(It has Happened to me one time.) there is no way you can work in that transformer without leaning against that pipe if someone comes along and turns it on you will be grounded to that pipe and really get it good.

 

[iwire]

My point is if you are working on that transformer even with Lock Out Tag Out there is a small chance that someone could cut the lock off and turn it on(It has Happened to me one time.) there is no way you can work in that transformer without leaning against that pipe if someone comes along and turns it on you will be grounded to that pipe and really get it good.

And how is that any different than what can happen at a junction box?

My point is, j-boxes only have to be accessible, they are not subject to the work space requirements.

I personally do not see a code violation with the conduits in front of this bottom access transformer.

I do agree with Gus that it is directly over the panel which is in itself a violation.

 

[LEO2854]

And how is that any different than what can happen at a junction box?

My point is, j-boxes only have to be accessible, they are not subject to the work space requirements.

I personally do not see a code violation with the conduits in front of this bottom access transformer.

I do agree with Gus that it is directly over the panel which is in itself a violation.

I agree about the j-boxes although they are not subject to the work space requirements they should be in my opinion.


I just re-read the OP's post and now i realize that it is bottom access so there is no real violation in that case.