Outdoor service equipment clearance, 110.26(E)(2)(b), 2014 Code

[donselec]

Maybe this has already been posted, but I'm trying to figure out on outdoor service equipment on a residence (single-family), the requirement for dedicated space extending from the grade to a height of 6' above the equipment shall be dedicated. Does that mean if there's an eave or an overhang of the roof less than 6' above the top of the equipment (panel) it would be a violation? On indoor clearances 110.26(E)(1)(a) it says 6' or to the structural ceiling, whichever is lower; but there's no provision for that with outdoor installations. Any opinions would help, thanks.

 

[Smart $]

I haven't looked at the 2014 edition yet, but I assume the dedicated space requirement does not pertain to structural protrusions.

 

[tom baker]

2014 NEC will require outdoor equipment to meet same requirements as indoor.

 

[donselec]

2014 NEC will require outdoor equipment to meet same requirements as indoor.

Well I would hope that's correct, but when I read (a) and (b) very carefully I'm left with some concern. A lot of times on houses we install the service equipment outside and the eave is less than 6' above it, usually requiring a rigid mast to go through it. The words "no architectural appurtenance" from (a) worry me a little. Don't want to make more of this than it is, just want to be certain. Thanks.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think the new rule is poorly written and can be read as prohibiting most exterior service equipment from being installed on the wall of a single story structure that has eves above the equipment.
You can say the the eves are not "equipment" and do not prohibit the installation.

Note that the rule in (a) is the working space and the rule in (b) is the equipment space. The working space stops at 6 1/2' of the top of the equipment, what ever is higher.

 

[GoldDigger]

I think the new rule is poorly written and will prohibit most exterior service equipment from being installed on the wall of a single story structure that has eves above the equipment.

I certainly wish it were more clear, but for the reasonable inspectors and AHJs, the definition of "appurtenance" as something added or accessory rather than as any component will probably prevail.
One marginally relevant citation where "appurtenance" is used in an architectural/structural context is here. That reference clearly does not consider any structural part of the building as an appurtenance. Whether built in as part of the construction or added later, such things as awnings, storage cabinets, etc. would seem to be prohibited in the working space, which is just fine by me.

 

[donselec]

I certainly wish it were more clear, but for the reasonable inspectors and AHJs, the definition of "appurtenance" as something added or accessory rather than as any component will probably prevail.
One marginally relevant citation where "appurtenance" is used in an architectural/structural context is here. That reference clearly does not consider any structural part of the building as an appurtenance. Whether built in as part of the construction or added later, such things as awnings, storage cabinets, etc. would seem to be prohibited in the working space, which is just fine by me.

I think that makes the most sense to me, understanding what an "appurtenance" is, and the eave I don't think would qualify as such. I think that answers the question. One final note though, I live in Colorado and a lot of mountain areas do prohibit service equipment below an eave, because of the icicles that can be a hazard there. They don't have that rule in the Denver metro area though. Thanks a lot for your help with that.

 

[tom baker]

It often takes 3 code cycles to get a change correct.
This may be one of those changes...

 

[iwire]

One marginally relevant citation where "appurtenance" is used in an architectural/structural context is here. That reference clearly does not consider any structural part of the building as an appurtenance. Whether built in as part of the construction or added later, such things as awnings, storage cabinets, etc. would seem to be prohibited in the working space, which is just fine by me.

My understanding is the NFPA directs us to use a specific dictionary for definitions of NEC undefined terms.

 

[Smart $]

My understanding is the NFPA directs us to use a specific dictionary for definitions of NEC undefined terms.

Typical statement in NFPA documentation...

Where terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning.

Merriam-Webster Collegiate? Dictionary

ap?pur?te?nance

Pronunciation:	?-'p?rt-n?n(t)s, -'p?r-t?-n?n(t)s
Function:	noun
Date:	14th century

1 : an incidental right (as a right-of-way) attached to a principal property right and passing in possession with it
2 : a subordinate part or adjunct <the appurtenance of welcome is fashion and ceremony ? Shakespeare>
3 plural : accessory objects : APPARATUS <the appurtenances of wealth>



? 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The definition of "appurtenance" does not matter for the original question. That word only shows up in (a) and unless the eaves are less than 6'6 above grade, then it is not an issue. (note, it would be my opinion that based on the scope of Article 100, the first place to look for the definition of "appurtenance" would be in the building codes, then if not found, to the dictionary cited by Smart)

That word does not show up in the equipment space rule found in (b). The question is if the eaves are "piping or other equipment".
Based on the exception to 110.26(E)(1)(a) it appears that the CMP considers parts of the building to be "piping or other equipment". If they didn't there would be no need for the exception.

 

[JDBrown]

I tried to look this section up to read it for myself, but I can't seem to get NFPA's online code access to work. I click through to the code I want, but instead of the code showing up, all I get is a "Just a moment please" in the RealRead viewer. Anybody else have this issue.

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack the thread, I just can't comment on NEC 2014 if I can't access it.