Overcurrent Devices Over Steps

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
Pretty much the same now as it was in '90 with the addition of

(E) Bathrooms

(F) Not over steps (New for 2008)


For years, I have thought the stairwell/stairway was a bad location, yet it was not in the NEC.
Now it is. I wonder what prompted the CMP to make that decision - other than the proposal. I have not read the ROP/ROC on this topic yet. Maybe I will later today.

One more thought about this...what about a panel installed on the side of a building where the slope is fairly steep??? I have seen them and wondered how they stood there working, unless they built themselves a platform.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Pierre C Belarge said:
One more thought about this...what about a panel installed on the side of a building where the slope is fairly steep???

Legal yes but I have had that situation and I would always flatten an area where I can work. Actually I have the builders take care of it.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
I have not read the ROP/ROC on this topic yet. Maybe I will later today.

The ROP say rejected so the ROC is worth a look as well

10-40 Log #1633 NEC-P10 Final Action: Reject
(240.24(F))
______________________________________________________________
Submitter: L. Keith Lofland, International Association of Electrical Inspectors

Recommendation: Add new text as follows:
240.24(F) Not located in Stairways. Overcurrent devices shall not be located
in the interior of a stairway.

Substantiation: 110.26(A)(3) requires the work space to be clear and
extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E).
Floors, platforms, and grade are all defined in the building code, and so is
stairs. However, stairways are not mentioned in 110.26 of this section. Local
Authorities Having Jurisdictions (AHJs) have prohibited panel boards form
being installed in a stairway, but it seems that no clear Code language was
present in 110.26 to support this stance. Stairways in the standing area of the
required working space create a hazard, and are not a good practice, yet are not
currently restricted.
240.24(A) requires overcurrent devices to be readily accessible and be
installed so that the center of the grip of the operating handle of the switch
or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is not more than 2.0 m (6 ft
7 in.) above the floor or working platform unless any of the provisions in
240.24(A)(1) through (4) apply. When a panelboard is installed in a stairway,
where does one take this required measurements from to meet the requirements
of 240.24(A)? Which stairway tread do you measure from? Allowing
overcurrent devices to be installed in a stairway creates a hazard to electrical
workers and occupants alike as a level working space is not provided.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The panel requests that this proposal be referred to Code-
Making Panel 1 for Comment.
Switches are permitted over steps. This appears to be broader than
overcurrent protection.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 2

Explanation of Negative:

DOLLARD, JR., J.: We are voting negative to the panel action to reject
proposal 10-40. Our comments are as follows:
The action taken on this proposal should have been to ?Accept.? In the
statement to reject proposal 10-40, the panel states that the issue raised by the
submitter appears to be broader than overcurrent protection. We agree that the
issue may be broader than overcurrent protection. In the panel statement it is
also noted that switches are permitted over steps. These statements may give
the reader of the ROP the false impression that CMP-10 is of the opinion that
overcurrent devices, in panelboards for example, may be mounted in stairways.
We do not believe that CMP-10 would agree that the mounting of panelboards
for example in stairways would be an acceptable practice. There is no practical
reason to permit or allude to a perceived permission to allow overcurrent
protective devices to be installed in stairways.
The installation of panelboards, or overcurrent protective devices of any type
are prohibited in stairways by building codes in commercial and institutional occupancies. Electrical equipment is prohibited in stairways or egress corridors
unless that equipment directly serves the stair or corridor such as emergency
lighting, fire alarm tamper/flow switches and purge/pressurization fans. The
installation of panelboards in the stairway of dwelling units however, may not
be a violation of local building codes. The enforcement community needs this
text to prohibit the installation of overcurrent protective devices in stairways.
This is a serious safety issue. If a panelboard is mounted in a stairway, the
installer, maintainer, inspector and occupant must stand in the stairway facing
a side wall to access the panelboard. The initial installation, all additional
work and all access to the panelboard to energize or deenergize circuits would
be performed with the installer, maintainer, inspector or occupant standing in
the middle of a stairway on a single tread. This may occur in the dark as the
occupant attempts to reset a tripped lighting circuit.

KOVACIK, J.: Upon consideration, we are in agreement with the comments
in the negative ballot provided by Mr. Dollard to Proposal 10-40. We agree for
all of the reasons that Mr. Dollard presents that, ?There is no practical reason
to permit or allude to a perceived permission to allow overcurrent protective
devices to be installed in stairways.? In addition to the reasons provided by Mr.
Dollard, we believe that the panel action to reject this proposal is contrary to
the intent of NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code that requires that routes of egress
not be impeded. Consequently, we are changing our vote from Affirmative to
Negative to the Panel action.

Comment on Affirmative:

BORTHICK, M.: I support the panel action to reject this proposal. Section
110.26 requires that the working space permits safe operation and maintenance
of equipment. Requiring someone to stand on two levels (such as on two
risers of a stairway) to work on a panelboard seems to violate this requirement
for safe operation and maintenance. Additionally, 110.26(B) requires that
if panelboards are located in a passageway the working space, within the
passageway, is to be suitably guarded when live parts are exposed. Since
a stairway would be considered a passageway the working space required
by 110.26 would have to be guarded while servicing the panelboard. The
logistics of performing service on a panelboard installed in a stairway (or
any passageway) discourages such installations. However, to mandate that
absolutely no overcurrent devices be installed in a stairway would include
supplemental OCPD?s as well. It seems more appropriate that a proposal to
clarify working space as being on one level be submitted to Code-making
Panel 1
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The ROC for (F)

10-15 Log #267 NEC-P10 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(240.24(F))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter:
Stanley J. Folz, Morse Electric, Inc.
Comment on Proposal No: 10-40

Recommendation: Text to remain as presented in the ROP.

Substantiation: The Panel action on this proposal should have been to Accept.
I am in agreement with the negative comment presented by Mr. Dollard. In
addition, the panel statement ?refer to CMP 1 for comment and switches are
permitted over steps?, was unresponsive to the submitter. Switches are not
electrical equipment and do not come under the rules of 110.26. 110.26 does
a good job of outlining clearances required for electrical equipment except
it does not address a panelboard on a stairway, i.e., there is no provision in
110.26 for a level work area. This is one of those common sense things. We all
know it?s wrong. Let?s say it.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the recommended text in Proposal 10-40 to read as follows:
?240.24(F) Not located over Steps. Overcurrent devices shall not be located
over steps of a stairway.?

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.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

I think it is worth pointing out the prohibition is over stairs, not stairways. So any large enough landing is fair game. IMO large enough would mean the working space required by the equipment but I see room for fighting.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
One more thought about this...what about a panel installed on the side of a building where the slope is fairly steep???

Ryan had some great pictures of an extreme example of that.

Either he, the building official or the POCO forced some reworking to be done to make the service more accessible.
 

ultramegabob

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
I went on a residential service call a few months ago to replace a main breaker where the panel was located above steps going down to the basement. It was such an awkward spot to work, I had to cut a couple of pieces of 2x8 material and span the ledge that was along the wall to stand on to work. Im sure I was breaking some kind of OSHA regulation doing this...
 

acrwc10

Master Code Professional
Location
CA
Occupation
Building inspector
iwire said:
The ROC for (F)



I think it is worth pointing out the prohibition is over stairs, not stairways. So any large enough landing is fair game. IMO large enough would mean the working space required by the equipment but I see room for fighting.

This is a common place for a panel ( over a landing in a stairway ) I frequently will put a panel at the top landing in a stairway.
 

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
stickboy1375 said:
Actually I think I would have skipped the landing altogether...
The building code requires a landing for every so many risers. I'm not sure what the exact number is, however. Similarly, the ADA requires a flat spot in wheelchair ramps every so many lineal feet. I suppose that's to stop runaway wheelchairs?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
stickboy1375 said:
In case you get tired? I really dont know to be honest, not my gig.

I think is has to do with someone falling down the stairs. With a landing, it provides a place for them to stop instead of riding the stairs all the way to the bottom.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
stickboy1375 said:
In case you get tired? I really dont know to be honest, not my gig.

Yes building codes require landings.

It may be for 'rest' which we could do on the steps but I really think it is a place to keep someone from rolling / falling down the steps from the top to the bottom.
 

stickboy1375

Senior Member
Location
Litchfield, CT
iwire said:
Yes building codes require landings.

It may be for 'rest' which we could do on the steps but I really think it is a place to keep someone from rolling / falling down the steps from the top to the bottom.


It makes sense, but I just cant help at laugh at the idea of someone getting up after falling and going, thank god that landing was there.... ;) :grin:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
stickboy1375 said:
It makes sense, but I just cant help at laugh at the idea of someone getting up after falling and going, thank god that landing was there.... ;) :grin:

Well that depends, how long would you have fallen without the landing? :smile:

I used to inspect a roller coaster and it was about 100' high with one continuous stair way to the top, coming back down the stairs you could not help but think how bad it would suck to trip near the top of the stairs and roll like a slinky to the bottom. :D
 

stickboy1375

Senior Member
Location
Litchfield, CT
iwire said:
Well that depends, how long would you have fallen without the landing? :smile:

I used to inspect a roller coaster and it was about 100' high with one continuous stair way to the top, coming back down the stairs you could not help but think how bad it would suck to trip near the top of the stairs and roll like a slinky to the bottom. :D


Good point. so how big does the landing have to be to stop a rolling body down a flight of stairs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top