OCPD over stairs

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

OCPD over stairs


  • Total voters
    22
Status
Not open for further replies.

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
This is outside an apartment. The steps are outside, in front of a 6-pack meter stack. Compliant with 240.24(F)?
 

Attachments

  • meters.jpg
    meters.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Max Meter Step.jpg
    Max Meter Step.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
This is outside an apartment. The steps are outside, in front of a 6-pack meter stack. Compliant with 240.24(F)?


How would you interprete if this installation had only one curb 12"wide x 8"tall with 4" deep panels in an was in a mech room? Still a violation of 110.26?
 
Last edited:

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
CMP-10 Statement entering 240.24(F) into the 2008 code:

Panel Statement: The panel accepts the concept that overcurrent devices should not be installed over the riser sections of stairways. However, many stairways have horizontal landings that could prove suitable for installations where appropriate working space exists. The prohibition of installations over steps of a stairway satisfies the intent of Proposal 10-40 and Comment 10-15.

10-67 2011 ROP said:
Panel Statement: The panel discussed this application during the addition of
the present language in the 2008 NEC and concluded that a landing was not a
step. The panel also concluded that if a landing had the working space as
required in 110.26(A)(2), it is would be acceptable to have overcurrent
protection located in such a space based on the present language of the NEC.

CMP-1 response to 1-115 of 2008 ROP:

Panel Statement: The proposed requirement is restrictive and unnecessary.
Qualified persons routinely work from various surface areas and conditions that may be within the workspace. If necessary, the qualified person working on the equipment can create a flat and level workspace. Generally, the height measurement would be from the lowest grade, floor, or platform surface. CMP-1 concludes that the proposal does not contain a clear statement of the problem or substantiation for the change.

Food for thought. Stairs don't constitute a 110.26 violation, hence the arrival of 240.24(F). 240.24(F) is not concerned with landings, but a person having to stand on two step to work.

You buy it?
 
Last edited:

Gregg Harris

Senior Member
Location
Virginia
Occupation
Electrical,HVAC, Technical Trainer
Food for thought. Stairs don't constitute a 110.26 violation, hence the arrival of 240.24(F). 240.24(F) is not concerned with landings, but a person having to stand on two step to work.

You buy it?

If necessary, the qualified person working on the equipment can create a flat and level workspace.


Statement from CMP 1 appears to state that working on a staircase riser should not be an issue since you can level the working space, contradicts 240.24 (F)
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
No one's mentions readily accessible per 240.24 -- not to climb over objects -- & depth should be measured from the face of the equipment
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I did not expect a mention of 110.26. Can you explain?

IIRC, 240.24(F) was added because panels in stairwells were not considered a 110.26 violation.
You don't have the required work space in front of the equipment. The platform interferes with with the required workspace depth.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
You don't have the required work space in front of the equipment. The platform interferes with with the required workspace depth.
But who is to say the work space has to be measured from grade in the OP depiction. Code says, "The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to a height of 2.0 m (61?2 ft) or the height of the equipment, whichever is greater." Work space can be measured up from the landing.

Code also does NOT say the platform depth must equal or exceed the working depth.
 

ActionDave

Chief Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min from the winged horses.
Occupation
Licensed Electrician
But who is to say the work space has to be measured from grade in the OP depiction. Code says, "The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to a height of 2.0 m (61?2 ft) or the height of the equipment, whichever is greater." Work space can be measured up from the landing.

Code also does NOT say the platform depth must equal or exceed the working depth.
That comes from the section that refers to the height of the work space, depth of work space is the issue.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
George, you are a bright, inquisitive, but meddlesome young man. Stop dipping the girls pigtails in your inkwell and do your times tables. Do you want to miss recess again?

I'm just a little surprised - I thought this would be a slam dunk given with the reveal that 240.24(F) was introduced to the code because 110.26 does not find standing perpendicular in a stairwell to be a violation. Therefore being past the step (both of the worker's feet at the same elevation) would be that much more compliant. The IBC defines a stairway as leading from one level to another, and this entire mess is on the same level.

Meanwhile back at the ranch the guy tasked with drawing this is redrawing this a bit different, which should add some more fuel to the debate here. Stay tuned. :)
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
Uneven surfaces are unsafe places to examine equipment -- Readily accessible does not mean get a ladder/bucket/plywood so that you may have a working space area -- I try to explain, imagine you could place a refrigerator box(with proper H_W_D) in front of the equipment. I would have thought this would have been a no brainer as it is for the safety of the professional working on live circuitry without the hazard of tripping needing to maintain balance. IMHO
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I agree that the top landing would have to give you the 3' of level work surface in front of the gear and then you could have all the steps you want. I see it as a trip hazard or maybe a good way to loose your balance when you're working in hot gear. 110.26(E)(2) "......No architectural appurtenance or other equipment shall be located in this zone."
 
Last edited:

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
I don't think I read any reply such as what I'm about to write.

Unless the meter packs have OCP in them, I don't think 240.24 would apply.

110.26 might.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top