• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

What Voltage is This?

Not a sparky, but I would question bending space on the upper part, looks like the jacketing took quite a beating.
 
Fortunate enough that I do not have to inspect electrical (in WA, Labor and Industries is the AHJ for electrical). That said, here is my guess....

Looks like it is a 208/3-phase fuse box, but the conductors lack the required identification per NEC 517.160(A)(5).

Also, as others have said... bending radius looks tight, wire jacket looks compromised, fuses are no longer legible, etc.
 
517 refers to healthcare facilities.

I have no idea - is there a high leg involved that would have to be identified?
 
e hilton said:
No lock ring on the back hole.
Click to expand...
Thats a chase nipple. No issue.

Identification of the ungrounded feeder conductors would only be required if the premises wiring system has feeders supplied from more than one nominal system voltage (NEC 215.12(C)(1)), if the feeders are supplied from a DC system under certain circumstances (215.12(C)(2)) or as pointed out by Beniah if the system has a 4-wire Delta connected system were one ungrounded conductor has a higher phase voltage to ground shall be marked orange. (110.15)

So whats the deal Jeff? More than one system in this building? 240V system? If not, no violation.
 
So a chase nipple does not require a locking ring, I haven't seen those used in these parts.

I thought Jeff said you only used ROMEX? You know stuff!:cool:
 
chris kennedy said:
Thats a chase nipple. No issue.

Identification of the ungrounded feeder conductors would only be required if the premises wiring system has feeders supplied from more than one nominal system voltage (NEC 215.12(C)(1)), if the feeders are supplied from a DC system under certain circumstances (215.12(C)(2)) or as pointed out by Beniah if the system has a 4-wire Delta connected system were one ungrounded conductor has a higher phase voltage to ground shall be marked orange. (110.15)

So whats the deal Jeff? More than one system in this building? 240V system? If not, no violation.
Click to expand...
Do you see what happens when you get a guy who has never worked with anything other than Romex? This is why Chris is called the Romex King.
 
The bottom conduit looks to be too small for the 3-2/0 and 1-#6. How about insulated bushings? I don't know the details here but a bonding bushing might be required as well.
 
classicT said:
Fortunate enough that I do not have to inspect electrical (in WA, Labor and Industries is the AHJ for electrical). That said, here is my guess....

Looks like it is a 208/3-phase fuse box, but the conductors lack the required identification per NEC 517.160(A)(5).

Also, as others have said... bending radius looks tight, wire jacket looks compromised, fuses are no longer legible, etc.
Click to expand...
No grounded conductor so 3 hots Not a Y has to be a Delta so 240 or 440?
 
jar546 said:
I asked the question that directs you to the violation. What is the NEC violation?
Click to expand...
Jar,

What is the main violation you are referring to? I don't think any of us have figured out what exactly you are seeing.
 
When you see the lugs at an angle you realize that 1. They don't own a pair of channel locks or... 2. They don't know how to use channel locks.
 
So the code violation is "not installed in a workman like manner" or was there a modification to the connections using a nut and washer instead of lugs?
 
OK, I've let this fester long enough (on purpose to drive conversation) There are a few things to digest on this one.

1) This is 208/120V 3-phase for an RTU
2) The voltage is not marked because the entire building is 208/120, therefore they don't have to comply with NEC 215.12(C)(1)
3) The chase nipple in the back is compliant
4) The bottom connector IS missing a bushing due to the size of the wire. See NEC 300.4 - The only violation in this pic
5) No bonding bushing is required on the bottom because it is 208/120V

I don't see any other issues. Do you?

As much as we would like to see tape used to identify the ungrounded conductors, we cannot require it. That is the main point. I recently had an inspector write this up when, in fact, as much as it was a great idea and practice, it was not required.
 
300.4(G) Insulated Fittings. Where raceways contain 4 AWG or larger insulated circuit conductors, and these conductors enter a cabinet, a box, an enclosure, or a raceway, the conductors shall be protected by an identified fitting providing a smoothly rounded insulating surface, unless the conductors are separated from the fitting or raceway by identified insulating material that is securely fastened in place.
Exception: Where threaded hubs or bosses that are an integral part of a cabinet, box, enclosure, or raceway provide a smoothly rounded or flared entry for conductors.
Conduit bushings constructed wholly of insulating material shall not be used to secure a fitting or raceway. The insulating fitting or insulating material shall have a temperature rating not less than the insulation temperature rating of the installed conductors.

Does that apply to the bottom connector and the rear chase nipple?

So what exactly did the voltage have to do with the violation? Ya know, there’s a lot of cranial vibration associated with riding a motorcycle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top