OCPD over stairs

[texie]

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.

Really. 404.8 allows this.
Think you put a panelboard up there too? I don't think so.

 

[George Stolz]

If bullfrogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their hind ends as they hopped along - and it has about as much to do with this topic as the price of tea in China.

If you drop a tape measure down directly in front of the highest breaker in these meter stacks, it will read less than the required 6' 7". In fact, it will read less than 6', I believe. Why someone would walk 3' away, turn and expect to reach a breaker 6' above the exact elevation he is standing at is unclear to me. I stand 6' tall, which means I have a 6' wingspan, which means that my arms are roughly a touch over two feet long, putting the equipment out of reach when standing square with it.

Point being, if I want to turn a breaker off, I stand in front of the equipment, not at the outer boundaries of working space. Therefore when determining my breaker height I do not whip out my handy surveying equipment, but simply drop a tape measure from the handle to check it's height.

The introductory paragraph to 110.26 finds floor receptacles installed under furniture acceptable, and the receptacle under the kitchen sink, and the receptacle over the microwave, and the receptacle in the eave for the Christmas lights; the equipment in the elevator pit as well as the top of the shaft.

To point to it as forbidding this equipment a toddler could access is questionable, IMO.

 

[George Stolz]

Before I head off to bed: I want to thank you fellas for debating this with me. It's been a while since I've had a can of worms to offer, and it is truly a pleasure debating this with all of you, and I hope it continues. I hope my responses don't come off too harsh, I'm being direct because I am squeezing in forum time as I can, and I just saw such potential in this pickle I was presented.

Thanks again.

 

[GoldDigger]

Good night George, sleep tight and in the morning consider how you would feel if instead of trying to reach the panel from three feet away you had to stand with your nose up against it to reach the top switch.
Somewhere between 4" and 36" of projection past the front of the panel there is a point where the top step/ landing is just too narrow..
All we now need to do is "negotiate the price".

Tapatalk!

 

[hurk27]

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.

The problem is the wording of 240.24(F) (over the steps of a stairway), and no where does 110.26 state anything about the level of the floor or whether a floor or platform may or may not have a step within the work space area, 110.26(A)(3) clearly states platform on the wording on the hight of the working space, but no where in 110.26(A)(1) does it mention that the depth of the platform must be also sized for the working space.

As you pointed out in the allowance of 404.8 and is also in 240.24(A) 1-4 allowances or exceptions that the code doesn't consider a smaller platform dangerous because if they did why would they allow the above exceptions to accessibility to overcurrent devices to be done by portable means, 110.24(A) is the rule that requires the OCPD to be readily Accessible and allows 1-4 as an exception to this rule by permitting portable means such as a ladder, you would have just as much danger if not more using one of these exceptions as you have in the OP.

The addition of 240.24(F) in 2008 added a little concern to your footing while working on a panel but still didn't address how big the area needs to be for a safe platform to work from, the above proposals and ROP's seem to contradict themselves as we saw, I'm not sure how or if the wording was changed any for the 2014 maybe someone could post what the 2014 says, but it seems that the NEC is more concerned about the working space in front of the panel but not how big an area you have to stand on.

The CMP statements made that George posted in post 6 only seem to be concerned about ample working space but still did not address how big the landing or a platform needed to be, as long as the required working space was there, the concern was about having to standing parallel to the wall (where the panel would most likely be installed over the steps/risers which would me you would have to have your feet on two different hight steps and you would not be stable standing like this, a platform even only 20"deep would still give you a level place to stand, if you stepped back off the platform you would be stepping away from the panel and most likely not be in a position to make contact with the live parts even if you fell back (the most likely direction) it would have railings on the two sides,
so you really couldn't fall off the sides which would be the closest place you could fall and still maybe try to grab the panel to catch yourself, if you made the mistake of stepping back too far you would most likely fall back down the steps which you would not be in a position to grab the panel which would be the only shock hazard 110.26 would be concerned about.

So as written I do not see anything in the NEC that an inspector could use to site a code violation to turn down such an installation, as a mater of fact we have a few basements around here that have a step down by all the outside walls around the basement, I think because of the way the footer was done, so if the common thought was true then we could not install a panel in such basement and as Rcarroll pointed out in post 41, most houses will have the grade slope away from the house to keep water from getting in the basement, here it is actually a code to do so for this reason, if a space the size of the working space was required to be level this would be a problem for any house that has an outside disconnect.

 

[hurk27]

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.

Again there is no such language in the NEC that supports such assumption, when enforcing a law a law officer must follow the letter of the law, not his or her opinion, an inspector is an officer of the law.

 

[ActionDave]

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:

There is a big difference between a slope and a step. For one thing it feels different standing on it and further more you don't have seven to eight inches of air between your toe and the ground when you step back.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Again there is no such language in the NEC that supports such assumption, when enforcing a law a law officer must follow the letter of the law, not his or her opinion, an inspector is an officer of the law.

So your assessment of (work space)/(dedicated equipment space) does not have any specific dimensions or parameters that determines what a work space or dedicated equipment space is?

In the OP scenario I believe that the two steps directly in front of the meter bank directly impedes a clear and safe work space when accessing the equipment in a service scenario.

 

[Lectricbota]

So your assessment of (work space)/(dedicated equipment space) does not have any specific dimensions or parameters that determines what a work space or dedicated equipment space is?

In the OP scenario I believe that the two steps directly in front of the meter bank directly impedes a clear and safe work space when accessing the equipment in a service scenario.

It seems to me we are starting to pick at straws here.

For a profession that does a lot of our work from on top of a stepladder to really think that we could not safely service equipment located above one or two steps is sort of a stretch.

 

[Gregg Harris]

It seems to me we are starting to pick at straws here.

For a profession that does a lot of our work from on top of a stepladder to really think that we could not safely service equipment located above one or two steps is sort of a stretch.

When you are standing on a ladder your brain knows you are on the ladder and no forward or backwards steps are taken in your general movement. The ladder does not become a trip factor.

There is a very specific reason why a staircase riser is within a specific dimension as to rise and length.

 

[Smart $]

When you are standing on a ladder your brain knows you are on the ladder and no forward or backwards steps are taken in your general movement. The ladder does not become a trip factor.

There is a very specific reason why a staircase riser is within a specific dimension as to rise and length.

Standing on a stair landing or tread versus a ladder rung is no different in reality. Ascending and descending a stairway is much more commonplace, and thus people have a tendency to be less fearful of falling... so it's just a matter of conditioning and/or preparation.

 

[mwm1752]

So as written I do not see anything in the NEC that an inspector could use to site a code violation to turn down such an installation, as a mater of fact we have a few basements around here that have a step down by all the outside walls around the basement, I think because of the way the footer was done, so if the common thought was true then we could not install a panel in such basement and as Rcarroll pointed out in post 41, most houses will have the grade slope away from the house to keep water from getting in the basement, here it is actually a code to do so for this reason, if a space the size of the working space was required to be level this would be a problem for any house that has an outside disconnect.

Do you really believe code is defined to one single article it pertains to? lets talk motors,pv,generators, conduit fill, branch circuits, grounding, pools, transformers -- I've taken a few test in my time & there are always questions that cannot be answered with the statement of one section(if I had I would have failed the exam). The CMP agreed that it was not applicable to build a flat/level workspace over any stairs for access the equipment. A stairway is defined by having 2 or more steps. Even if art 240 did not pertain to this install standing on a ledge 25"- 6" equpment depth - 8" meter depth = 11" is not safe 90.1.
Answer the question why the CMP included flat/level workspace in there comments. and why this does not lead you surface type area.
"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."
Reread post 42# & comment since none have done so ======