OCPD over stairs

[iwire]

George I see it your way.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So you can't have landscaping per 110.26? A sloped grade? A housekeeping pad?

Landscaping and the house keeping pad are violations, not sure about the sloped grade.

 

[texie]

George,
I note your graphic mentions flood plain and as you know, I'm originally from S. Florida. This was very common to have steps up to a platform in order to get the service equipment to a level that would comply with FEMA flood requirements. Sometimes just a couple of steps as in your graphic, others might be an entire stair case, depending on the flood elevation. But always at the top there had to be a platform that complied with 110.26. Of course this then required a compliant hand rail and platform railing when you got above a certain number of risers (a building code issue). Up until about the early 90's the meter and main disco were ignored for flood purposes, so this was not an issue.
So to answer your question, no it is not compliant.

 

[Little Bill]

They have a breaker beside every meter.

The picture was kinda small, but I thought I could see a handle or something similar.
I didn't know if it was just a disconnect/safety switch or a OCPD.

 

[George Stolz]

Jon: so the guys who declined to add verbiage to make it code and wrote specifically on the topic specifically stating it is acceptable are misinterpreting something here? What exact language forbids the installation?

I'm not saying it's the classiest setup, but I am still not seeing the other side here. Quote me the text that forbids the install.

 

[Little Bill]

Jon: so the guys who declined to add verbiage to make it code and wrote specifically on the topic specifically stating it is acceptable are misinterpreting something here? What exact language forbids the installation?

I'm not saying it's the classiest setup, but I am still not seeing the other side here. Quote me the text that forbids the install.

Who's Jon?

Or did you mean Don?

 

[texie]

Jon: so the guys who declined to add verbiage to make it code and wrote specifically on the topic specifically stating it is acceptable are misinterpreting something here? What exact language forbids the installation?

I'm not saying it's the classiest setup, but I am still not seeing the other side here. Quote me the text that forbids the install.

Geez, are we going to have to call a special, in person, meeting of the Forum Northern Chapter over this? (its been a while, we should get together with the crew).

I'm just basing my comments on standard practice and enforcement of situations like this from my experience with this. That said, I'll have to study your argument a little more closely.

Keep in mind Action Dave's comments. I might have to bring him to the meeting. What was it? ...your bullying the girls?

 

[Smart $]

George,
I note your graphic mentions flood plain and as you know, I'm originally from S. Florida. This was very common to have steps up to a platform in order to get the service equipment to a level that would comply with FEMA flood requirements. Sometimes just a couple of steps as in your graphic, others might be an entire stair case, depending on the flood elevation. But always at the top there had to be a platform that complied with 110.26. Of course this then required a compliant hand rail and platform railing when you got above a certain number of risers (a building code issue). Up until about the early 90's the meter and main disco were ignored for flood purposes, so this was not an issue.
So to answer your question, no it is not compliant.

I take the OP depiction and poll to be asking solely about NEC compliance... and you guys keep coloring it with safety issues outside the scope of the NEC.

 

[George Stolz]

Thanks for saving me the next step, Smart. There are no obstructions in the purple zone.

Bill, I was addressing Texie.

Jon, that would be a little complicated, as the ranking member of the Forum NOCO Chapter is the inspector of the installation, and he's about 95% on board as I am, I believe.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You have to remember that the rules in 110 and 240 are not under the same code making panel. I am not sure that the correlating committee should have even let CMP 10 accept the rule that is found in 240.

It is my opinion that the intent of 110.26 is to require the work space to on one elevation. I would have red tagged panels on stairs based on 110.26. There was no need for a new rule.

 

[George Stolz]

Don, I understand your position. Does Smart's amendment to my graphic clarify what I believe to be CMP-1's perspective on the space?

I don't know if it was proper or not, but there was an easily visible trail from a proposal to 110.26 to its final destination in 240.24, at CMP-1's request, IIRC. Everything looks above boards to me (contrasted with the addition of the four-points equipotential bonding which was rejected and then suddenly appeared in the NEC. )

 

[LEO2854]

You don't have the required work space in front of the equipment. The platform interferes with with the required workspace depth.

I agree with that.

 

[ActionDave]

.....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.

Thanks for saving me the next step, Smart. There are no obstructions in the purple zone.

Wait a minute here, hold on......You promise some exciting new details, and this is what you come up with?

I'm going back to watching reality TV shows.

 

[George Stolz]

No, that's not it, but I don't want to confuse the issue yet.

 

[George Stolz]

I agree with that.

The platform cannot interfere with the working space. The platform is Earth. The only code compliant installation would be in orbit, but I would not want to see the hook stick this would require.

 

[mwm1752]

I take the OP depiction and poll to be asking solely about NEC compliance... and you guys keep coloring it with safety issues outside the scope of the NEC.

This is the icing on the cake -- you really think it is safe to examine this equipment -- Go ahead & fight about the wording -- I think I would lose in court if there was a mishap and someone lost there balance fell back and cracked their head. Being realistic has its advantages there is no reason a contractor couldn't extend the portion of step out far enough to have a decent working surface and still comply wtih steps to get above flood plain --- Non Compliant -- Look at 90.1(A) and (C) that is solely about code compliance which does factor safety in the installation( most important value IMO) and not intended as a design specification(which takes us back to the wording). BTW I now will cast my vote

 

[Smart $]

This is the icing on the cake -- you really think it is safe to examine this equipment -- Go ahead & fight about the wording -- I think I would lose in court if there was a mishap and someone lost there balance fell back and cracked their head. Being realistic has its advantages there is no reason a contractor couldn't extend the portion of step out far enough to have a decent working surface and still comply wtih steps to get above flood plain --- Non Compliant -- Look at 90.1(A) and (C) that is solely about code compliance which does factor safety in the installation( most important value IMO) and not intended as a design specification(which takes us back to the wording).

You can stretch the boundaries of compliance to all the indirect requirements you want... but you can't make the actual requirement say something it does not.

And I'm not saying it is completely safe in all respects. I'm just pointing out that it is literally compliant with the direct requirements.

BTW, if we wanted to be completely safe, none of us would have any work. Use of electricity centers around an acceptable level of risk. Major risks have been mitigated through understanding. But the only person that can truly decide for you is you... no matter what anyone tries to make you believe.

 

[texie]

Thanks for saving me the next step, Smart. There are no obstructions in the purple zone.

Bill, I was addressing Texie.

Jon, that would be a little complicated, as the ranking member of the Forum NOCO Chapter is the inspector of the installation, and he's about 95% on board as I am, I believe.

Oh, this is areal job? I thought maybe this was a hypothetical deal. I note that said inspector has not weighed in here. We'll want a full report.

 

[mwm1752]

Stretching the boundries of the code?

 

[jim dungar]

...you really think it is safe to examine this equipment ...

The NEC is an installation code, it requires that the working space be available as a course of the installation. In the case of the OP there is code compliant working depth.

NFPA70E and OSHA are about safe work practices, such as creating appropriate safe work platforms.

So, if no work is being done on the equipment, the OP installation is compliant.
If work is being done, it is up to the employee to make sure a proper work platform has been created and is utilized.

Several codes require working clearance for bus plugs and pole mounted fixtures. Which codes require a permanent working platform?