- 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)?
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?
You don't have the required work space in front of the equipment. The platform interferes with with the required workspace depth.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.
I'm stayin' hitched to Don's wagon. Whatever CMP guys chatted with each other about you need three feet.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?
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.You don't have the required work space in front of the equipment. The platform interferes with with the required workspace depth.
That comes from the section that refers to the height of the work space, depth of work space is the issue.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.
Width, height, depth (WxHxD) is all one 3-dimensional work space. They are not disparate measurements.That comes from the section that refers to the height of the work space, depth of work space is the issue.
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?