A smattering of questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
1st photo - waste pipe (which probably pre-existed service equipment) is directly over service equipment. Other that potentila damage from leaks, are there any other concerns?

2nd photo - 4 story building + basement - looking for confirmation that non-metallic sheathed is OK up to 4 stories. There are also some wire support issues present.

3rd photo - Does anyone know why someone would provide a shroud, made out of ceiling tiles, over the tops of light fixtures?

4th photo - Is it correct to conclude that the National Electrical Code, Section 110.12(C), Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections does not apply here?


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/TonyPE/IMGP2344_edited-1.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/TonyPE/IMGP2345_edited-1.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/TonyPE/IMGP2405_edited-1.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/TonyPE/IMGP2406_edited-1.jpg
 
tonype said:
1st photo - waste pipe (which probably pre-existed service equipment) is directly over service equipment. Other that potentila damage from leaks, are there any other concerns?
Click to expand...

It would stink as well? :roll:

tonype said:
2nd photo - 4 story building + basement - looking for confirmation that non-metallic sheathed is OK up to 4 stories. There are also some wire support issues present.
Click to expand...

Depends on when it was wired, and what code cycle the permit was issued under.

tonype said:
3rd photo - Does anyone know why someone would provide a shroud, made out of ceiling tiles, over the tops of light fixtures?
Click to expand...

A maintainence guy thought he'd start making the building green?

tonype said:
4th photo - Is it correct to conclude that the National Electrical Code, Section 110.12(C), Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections does not apply here?
Click to expand...

I can't see much, other than the entire photo looks like a highlighted portion of the '08. :grin:
 
1.The first photo is an installation that is not permitted by code.
Leaks should be enough of a concern, percentage of chance of leaks is just that, a percentage of chance.



2. The restriction of the use of NM in buildings greater than 3 stories was made 3 code cycles ago. Some jurisdictions never had restrictions.
It is now a building type that restricts the use of NM.
This install looks to predate the change in the NEC, so one would have to know the local codes.

3. ignorance

4. Not too sure what the photo is showing???
 
As far as picture #3 I have gotten many reasons from different people. Had a state school inspector tell me that it had to be done to maintain the ceilings fire rating, of course the ends had to be closed too. Had a HVAC inspector say it was to keep conditioned air below the ceiling. And last but not least had an architect tell me it was to keep the insulators from putting insulation on top of the troffers. Of course I asked him why not just tell them not to insulate above the troffers?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Qe can not alter any ul fixture .110.26 spells out other pipes. Painting anything changes the listing. Now we simply count on an inspector that applies some thinking
Click to expand...



What information do you reference to back up this statement?


Altering electrical equipment does not automatically go against the labeling/listing of a product. One needs to be aware of the field changes that can be made to equipment. If one is not familar with the changes made, contact the manufacturer/NRTL for more info. I do that every week for different issues.

We in the field; contractors, journeymen, apprentices, and so forth, are not necessarily properly trained to be able to make some of these decisions. That is why I posted the above suggestion for future situations/issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top