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