OCPD over stairs

[rcarroll]

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.

Hi Jon,
I voted that this is a comliant installation. I can't find anything in the code that states a level platform shall be required.
To me, this is no different than an all-in-one panel installed on the exterior of a house with a fairly sloped grade for drainage. :thumbsup:

 

[mwm1752]

The rest of the story:
10-15 clearly states if a stairway has a landing with appropriate working space then OC devices can be installed in that section of a continuous stair way path.
10-16 makes claim that the ?opinion of CMP-1 that overcurrent devices may be installed in a stairway and that persons maintaining overcurrent devices can ?create a flat and level workspace?. He then disagreed with The CMP-1 opinion and stated ?There is no practical reason to permit, or allude to a perceived permission to allow overcurrent protective devices to be installed in stairways.? Eluding to creating a flat surface is not acceptable.
Both documents seem to agree that no OC devices are allowed over stairways. 10-15 however includes sections of a stairway path that is not considered a step due to depth of the landing, it also states? where appropriate working space exists? which gives the landing dimensions in which are compliant to working space. Note that the 10-16 CMP-1 comments include the wording ?flat and level workspace?

10-15 Log #267 NEC-P10 Final Action: Accept in Principle (240.24(F))
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
10-16 Log #1099 NEC-P10 Final Action: Accept in Principle (240.24(F))
Comment on Proposal No: 10-40
Recommendation: This proposal should be Accepted.
Substantiation: The submitter has identified a serious problem. The negative comments as written to this proposal should be further considered by CMP-10. It is important to note that CMP-1 has rejected proposal 1-115 to 110.26(A)(3). This proposal suggested adding the following text: ?Stairs or stair treads shall not be permitted as the grade, floor, or platform as referred to in this section.? This proposal was rejected 11 to 1. The panel statement read as follows:
?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. See the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, sections 4.3.3(b) and (d). ?
It is the opinion of CMP-1 that overcurrent devices may be installed in a stairway and that persons maintaining overcurrent devices can ?create a flat and level workspace.? I disagree.There is no practical reason to permit, or allude to a perceived permission to allow overcurrent protective devices to be installed in stairways.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 10-15.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

 

[eprice]

I voted no. Under the IBC, the UBC, and probably most building codes, a landing needs to be at least 36" long. With that in mind, I think the thing under the meter pack that everybody thinks is a landing, is actually just a 25" long step. Therefore, I think the example is a violation of 240.24(F).

 

[George Stolz]

I voted no. Under the IBC, the UBC, and probably most building codes, a landing needs to be at least 36" long. With that in mind, I think the thing under the meter pack that everybody thinks is a landing, is actually just a 25" long step. Therefore, I think the example is a violation of 240.24(F).

The NEC forbids the OCPD over the "steps of a stairway."

IBC 2006 defines a stairway in 1002.1:

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.

When I finish traversing the two steps shown, I am still on Level 1. It is not a stairway.

Edit to add: If my GC's word for it is good (too lazy to research) then he can't have a 25" step - it could only be 11" long for some code reason I believe.

 

[jim dungar]

The NEC forbids the OCPD over the "steps of a stairway."

We need to watch the exact wording of the NEC.

I believe 240.24(F) deals with a panel which are located perpendicular to the stair riser, and therefore its width crosses over two different heights.
The OP was about equipment mounted parallel to the stair riser, effectively turning the stair into a single platform similar to a housekeeping pad.

 

[GoldDigger]

Similar to a housekeeping pad, but too small.....

Tapatalk!

 

[jim dungar]

Similar to a housekeeping pad, but too small.....

Depth is not part of 240.24(F) therefore find a different code citation for the OP.

 

[Gregg Harris]

The NEC forbids the OCPD over the "steps of a stairway."

IBC 2006 defines a stairway in 1002.1:



When I finish traversing the two steps shown, I am still on Level 1. It is not a stairway.

Edit to add: If my GC's word for it is good (too lazy to research) then he can't have a 25" step - it could only be 11" long for some code reason I believe.

009.4.2 Riser height and tread depth. Stair riser heights shall be 7 inches (178 mm) maximum and 4 inches (102 mm) minimum. The riser height shall be measured vertically between the leading edges of adjacent treads. Rectangular tread depths shall be 11 inches (279 mm) minimum measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. Winder treads shall have a minimum tread depth of 11 inches (279 mm) measured between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads at the intersections with the walkline and a minimum tread depth of 10 inches (254 mm) within the clear width of the stair.
1009.4.4 Dimensional uniformity. Stair treads and risers shall be of uniform size and shape. The tolerance between the largest and smallest riser height or between the largest and smallest tread depth shall not exceed ³/₈ inch (9.5 mm) in any flight of stairs. The greatest winder tread depth at the walkline within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than ³/₈ inch (9.5 mm).

1009.5 Stairway landings. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings shall not be less than the width of stairways they serve. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension measured in the direction of travel equal to the width of the stairway. Such dimension need not exceed 48 inches (1219 mm) where the stairway has a straight run. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into a landing. When wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1007.6.1, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces.

 

[George Stolz]

This...whatever you want to call it is roughly 16' long, so I sure hope it's not a landing by that definition.

 

[texie]

Hi Jon,
I voted that this is a comliant installation. I can't find anything in the code that states a level platform shall be required.
To me, this is no different than an all-in-one panel installed on the exterior of a house with a fairly sloped grade for drainage. :thumbsup:

Take a look at 110.26, the first paragraph. I don't think this is a safe work area as required by 110.26. To me this sums it up....

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.
Access and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.

 

[Smart $]

Take a look at 110.26, the first paragraph. I don't think this is a safe work area as required by 110.26. To me this sums it up....

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.
Access and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.

Working SPACE... not working surface.

 

[GoldDigger]

Working SPACE... not working surface.

OK, say the working space is 40 feet up in the air and I have not provided a platform at that height. But the space is all there and unobstructed. Is that OK?
IMHO that is a case where the working space is there but without a floor it does not in fact provide safe access.
The difference between 40 feet and 12 inches is only quantitative, not qualitative if I do not have a safe place to stand.

Now that still leaves the question of whether the OP's situation is in fact safe.

We may have to look for a different code section to determine that, or even an ROP.
At least the height above the surface (either surface) seems to be within the Code limits.

If the top of the tallest meter panel is more than the allowed height above the bottom step, I would call that a problem.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Working SPACE... not working surface.

Since most electricians do not have wings to hover about the working space I would say that the floor surface that you are standing on would be part of the working space.

 

[texie]

letter vs spirit

letter vs spirit

I think we have a case here of the letter of the code VS the spirit. To me, while the letter of 110.26 may not state a flat and level work surface, I think the spirit of the 110.26 makes it clear the this is a violation.
As was mentioned, what if this was 40 feet up? You still have the required work space, but I don't think any reasonable person would except this. Of course then we would get into the accessible VS readily accessible argument.

 

[jim dungar]

As was mentioned, what if this was 40 feet up? You still have the required work space, but I don't think any reasonable person would except this.

Really?

What about transformer hung in the air how about busway switches? Work space is required, but now it appears we have to get rid of our man-lifts and build platforms instead.

 

[texie]

Interestingly, the 2014 NEC has new section, 110.26(E)((2) to make it clear that outdoor equipment such as this is covered by 110.26.
But sadly, it does not make this argument any more clear. Do I hear "code change proposal" to clarify this?

 

[Smart $]

...
At least the height above the surface (either surface) seems to be within the Code limits.

If the top of the tallest meter panel is more than the allowed height above the bottom step, I would call that a problem.

The Code extends the height of the working space to the height of the equipment if greater than 6-1/2 ft. There is no limit.

Since most electricians do not have wings to hover about the working space I would say that the floor surface that you are standing on would be part of the working space.

As noted earlier, the bottom of the working space is grade, floor, or platform from which the height is measured... but as noted above, there is no actual limit to the height requirement. The Code only suggests it to be 6-1/2 ft.

... Of course then we would get into the accessible VS readily accessible argument.

And exactly what section specifies that in relation to the OP?

 

[hurk27]

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?

I was just going to state something similar, we have been allowed for years to hang transformers and maintenance disconnects with fuses up on walls or from the bar joist in big box stores with the only access being a ladder or man lift, none of which has a platform to work from, but that has always seems to be ok, but we find a problem with this installation??? I'm so corn-fused:jawdrop:

What about roof vent motors, or other electrical systems that require maintenance that are many times only accessible by ladders? even a light fixture on top of a pole will require maintenance at some point in it's life time.

 

[texie]

I was just going to state something similar, we have been allowed for years to hang transformers and maintenance disconnects with fuses up on walls or from the bar joist in big box stores with the only access being a ladder or man lift, none of which has a platform to work from, but that has always seems to be ok, but we find a problem with this installation??? I'm so corn-fused:jawdrop:

What about roof vent motors, or other electrical systems that require maintenance that are many times only accessible by ladders? even a light fixture on top of a pole will require maintenance at some point in it's life time.

404.8 allows this. The equipment in the OP does not fit this.
They way some are seeing this, it would seem that you could put a panelboard 20 feet up as long as it has work space. I don't think so.

 

[GoldDigger]

The Code extends the height of the working space to the height of the equipment if greater than 6-1/2 ft. There is no limit.

I was not talking about the height of the dedicated workspace but rather looking for other sections such as the ones limiting the maximum height of as disconnect. Just in case it applies to the breakers seen next to each meter in the cluster.