Receptacle above/behind transformer???

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I have a ground mounted transformer that sits 12 inches off the wall. On the wall sits a piece of strut approximately a foot above the top of the transformers height. On the strut sits a 30 receptacle for an in wall hvac unit further down the wall. When I seen this it caught me off guard as unusual. Is this legal? Looking through 110.26 I can't find a clear relation to this. Thank you for your time and interest in the topic.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
I know of no Code Section that would prevent the installation as far as the receptacle is concerned.
. Unless it's a factory cord as part of the HVAC, you might have a violation of 400.8.
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
Correct, but given the wording the CMP 1 chooses to keep in 110.26(A) they are both violations.

I agree, A strict reading of 110.26(A) could suggest that the OPers installation would be a violation of 110.26(A).

The problem with that section is how to word 110.26(A) so it is clearer. If CMP 1 was to create a laundry list I'm sure many things that should require working space clearance would be left off.

Chris
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I agree, A strict reading of 110.26(A) could suggest that the OPers installation would be a violation of 110.26(A).

The problem with that section is how to word 110.26(A) so it is clearer. If CMP 1 was to create a laundry list I'm sure many things that should require working space clearance would be left off.

Chris
I would be happy with limiting it to the equipment listed in 110.26(E) or basing it on the amount of incident energy available at the equipment.
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
I would be happy with limiting it to the equipment listed in 110.26(E) or basing it on the amount of incident energy available at the equipment.

IMHO limiting the working space requirement to equipment listed in 110.26(E) leaves out equipment that can create a serious shock or arc flash hazard such as industrial control panels and disconnects.

Limiting the working space to a specified incident energy leaves out the issue of shock hazards.

Again, the existing wording is problematic but I am struggling to find a better solution.

Chris
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
IMHO limiting the working space requirement to equipment listed in 110.26(E) leaves out equipment that can create a serious shock or arc flash hazard such as industrial control panels and disconnects.

Limiting the working space to a specified incident energy leaves out the issue of shock hazards.

Again, the existing wording is problematic but I am struggling to find a better solution.

Chris
The biggest hazard, in my mind is the arc flash, not the shock. It is much easier to protect from the shock hazard.

Of course, if you read it the way Bob does, we don't need work space for any equipment as no equipment REQUIRES you to work on it while it is energized.

No matter which way you read it, the section as it currently exists, is not functional and it needs work.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
It is, but the for many commercial and industrial installations, the application of 70E is putting the incident energy information on the equipment.

I think your view of how common that marking has become may be skewed by the environment you work in. :)

I work in commercial and am not seeing those ratings and even if I did see it at the panel I would not know how to calculate it for a specific branch circuit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top