Working Clearance

[frank_n]

I went on a service call last night, and noticed a Federal Pacific panel. I informed the customer, and she wants the panel replaced. The panel is in a basement and the previous owner build a wall and installed a shelf under the panel. The shelf can be easily removed. The wall is 24" from the front of the panel, not the 36" required in 110.26.

I don't know if the HO can afford to replace the panel if she also has to move a wall. In my opinion, it is safer to replace that FP panel with 24" workspace than to keep the FP panel with the 24" workspace. Has anyone known of inspectors that would let this slide?

Frank

 

[infinity]

If this is in New Jersey than you can probably replace the panel under the re-hab code and leave the wall. Ask the inspector if it qualifies.

 

[celtic]

Frank,
have you seen/read about the rehab code?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rules That Make Sense?New Jersey?s Rehabilitation Subcode[/FONT]

 

[George Stolz]

Has anyone known of inspectors that would let this slide?

It would literally be "letting it slide", as there are no exceptions for this in the NEC.

I'd be interested to see what the NJ Rehab code says, but don't have time to look.

The only answer to your question (if not in NJ) is to get in touch with the AHJ and see if they will grant special permission for this case, which they probably will, IMO, unless it's apparent that the panel could be easily moved to a location with adequate working space.

 

[jeff43222]

I ran into a similar situation on a job I did this week. Homeowner wanted to upgrade his 60A fuse box to breakers, and he wanted the new panelboard in the same location as the fuse box. Before he called me in, though, he installed a new washing maching and plumbing for it 26" from the front of the fuse box. I called the chief inspector and ran this by him, and he said the 36" clearance must be observed.

When I had the area inspector out to look at the rough of a bathroom I did in the same basement, I asked him for suggestions, and he told me where he thought the new panelboard would be best located. He picked a spot that I thought would be a problem due to existing venting, plumbing, and gas lines interfering with side clearance, but since it was his idea, I was pretty sure the location would be approved after I did the work.

Regardless of what the inspector says, though, I don't think I'd want to install a panelboard with only 24" of front clearance. I work in a lot of tight spots as it is, and I'd prefer not to do a whole panelboard in one.

 

[celtic]

It would literally be "letting it slide", as there are no exceptions for this in the NEC.

I'd be interested to see what the NJ Rehab code says, but don't have time to look.

The only answer to your question (if not in NJ) is to get in touch with the AHJ and see if they will grant special permission for this case, which they probably will, IMO, unless it's apparent that the panel could be easily moved to a location with adequate working space.

The Rehab code is allowed to supercede the NEC - within reason.

Here is an example, although not electrically related:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not New, But Safe[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition to being specific, the requirements do not contain many of the arbitrary dimensions that are included in the code for new structures. For example the BOCA National Building Code, which New Jersey uses for new building construction, requires that doors within dwelling units have a 29 3/4-inch clear opening. This essentially means that all doors within a dwelling unit must be 32-inch doors. Safety is not compromised with a 30-inch or even 28-inch door in a dwelling unit. Therefore, the Rehabilitation Subcode does not contain such a requirement nor does it contain other requirements for changes to existing building features without any corresponding improvement in building safety. The thrust of the Rehabilitation Subcode is to ensure a building that meets an acceptable threshold of safety and that it is no less safe after the project than it was before. It results in a safe building, though not necessarily a new building.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
It would certainly be a prudent decision to contact the AHJ prior to starting this job and getting his opinions.
[/FONT]

 

[frank_n]

I should add a little more detail. The panel can be accessed from the doorway. Only part of the panel is blocked. After I remove the shelves, I can easily access the panel. The only problem I will have is that I would have to turn in the screws on the breakers lefty.

Thanks for the info on the NJ Rehab code.

Frank

 

[celtic]

I should add a little more detail. The panel can be accessed from the doorway. Only part of the panel is blocked. After I remove the shelves, I can easily access the panel. The only problem I will have is that I would have to turn in the screws on the breakers lefty.

I'll switch my EC hat to an AHJ hat and allow the installation under the Rehab Code PROVIDED ALL these conditions are meet:
1 - Opening to panel MUST be at least as wide as the panel.
2 - Panel door must open a full 90?, panel cover must be easily removable.
3 - No shelves, bars, boxes or obstructions of any sort shall block free access to the panel within the cavity.
4 - No shelves, bars, boxes, couches, TVs or obstructions of any sort shall block free access to the panel to maintain a walkway up to the opening.


Switching back to my EC hat....

I think in the long run it *might* be easier to open the wall the 30" (or more if possible), freeing up 24" inside that area for the panel...leaving me 24" x 2 (walls) to repair.



Let me/us know what the real AHJ's opinion is.

 

[infinity]

You would be amazed at some of the things that would qualify under the rehab code. My friend's house has a new 200 service ( a Federal Pacific upgrade) with the panel in the crawlspace. And I do mean crawl. It's about 3.5' high!

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Your risking a lot of liability in breaking the code.Unlikely but some day an electrician could get hurt or killed over this install.Is it worth being sued over ?

 

[celtic]

Your risking a lot of liability in breaking the code.Unlikely but some day an electrician could get hurt or killed over this install.Is it worth being sued over ?

It is possibly not against "code".
NJ's rehab code will more than likely ALLOW it. (Read the above article)

No point in getting all excited about lawsuits and liability until the AHJ weighs in.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I have yet to see in the NEC where hardship allows any code rule to be bypassed.

It has been mentioned before, but I will mention it again. There are thousands of contractors out there who have there own "Pet Peave" as to which code rule stinks and should not have to be followed. Because of this, an inspector will find it easier and fair to all to just enforce the code as it is written.

If you feel strongly enough about the FPE panel being replaced, but the customer may not be able to foot the bill, then why do you not reduce your price to her so she can afford to do this???? You see what I mean? It is not an easy thing being an inspector sometimes, but rules are rules.


If an AHJ bypasses a safety rule such as 110.26(A), I would be surprised... that means he/they are willing to take on some liability, of which most AHJs are trying to mitigate liability.

 

[dlhoule]

It is not an easy thing being an inspector sometimes

Sounds like a politician. With all the special interest money available and all that power to exercise; it sounds like a job a politician would love.

At one time I did a little inspecting and thought I would never do it again. Now that I am a little older, I am thinking about trying it again in another 2 or 3 years. This forum is a great place to learn.

All you inspector type fellas (well most): keep up the good work and thank you for your input here.

 

[infinity]

If an AHJ bypasses a safety rule such as 110.26(A), I would be surprised... that means he/they are willing to take on some liability, of which most AHJs are trying to mitigate liability.

The thing is here in New Jersey the inspector wouldn't be bypassing the law. The re-hab code would mostly likely permit this installation without complying with the requirements of 110.26(A). There would no liability issue because the law says that in certain circumstances the re-hab code can supersede the more restrictive provisions of the NEC. The application of the re-hab code is highly subjective, therefore the AHJ would need to decide if the installation qualifies. This is really no different than jurisdictions that have adopted the NEC with amendments.

 

[celtic]

If an AHJ bypasses a safety rule such as 110.26(A), I would be surprised... that means he/they are willing to take on some liability, of which most AHJs are trying to mitigate liability.

The Rehab Code would supercede the NEC and many other current building codes:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rules That Make Sense?New Jersey?s Rehabilitation Subcode[/FONT]

I understand that many will not read the article, but that does not change the validity of the Rehab Code.

 

[infinity]

I understand that many will not read the article, but that does not change the validity of the Rehab Code.

I agree. For those of us who work here we can see the value of the rehab code. Certainly when you go to rip out an old fuse panel with pennies behind the fuses and the conductor insulation falling off, having 36" of clearance is the least of your problems. And although the purists who want to follow the NEC to the letter won't be satiated, for some installations the rehab code makes perfect sense.

 

[iwire]

In MA we do not have a rehab code, we have 'Rule 3' which allows modifications to non conforming installations.​

​

​

Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. The installation shall not create a violation of this Code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation

Just yesterday I helped with two commercial service changes and while they do not conform with what we would do today from scratch they are much better than what they had.​

 

[celtic]

[Why We Have A Rehabilitation Subcode]

The links I have posted are NOT the Rehab Code...they are more like explanations as to why we even have them.
They are are not very long and are not a difficult technical read like the NEC.

The Rehab Code is NOT unique to NJ...and it may be coming to YOUR town

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Jersey’s Rehabilitation Subcode has been hailed as a national model for facilitating urban redevelopment efforts.

[/FONT]

 

[celtic]

I was just reading this:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Replication in Massachusetts[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As in New Jersey, much of the housing stock in Massachusetts was built prior to the adoption of stringent building codes. Nearly 60 percent of the 2.5 million housing units in the state in 1990 were reportedly built before 1959; 40 percent were built before 1939. The median age of housing units in the state in 1990 was almost 50, as the median year structures were built was given by the Census Bureau as 1953. In Suffolk County, which includes the City of Boston, 73 percent of 290,000 housing units (again 1990) were built before 1959, more than half (56 percent) before 1939. The median age of housing in Suffolk County was 60 years; the 1990 Census gives 1939 as the median year structures were built. Hampden County, which includes the urban areas of Springfield, Holyoke, and Chicopee, had a median year of 1954 for housing structures, as did Worcester County.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While data on the value of rehabilitation work undertaken in Massachusetts are not available, and deferred renovation is impossible to estimate, it is generally accepted that building codes designed for new construction are a deterrent to the rehabilitation of older buildings. Adopting a rehabilitation subcode in Massachusetts modeled on New Jersey?s would likely stimulate rehabilitation, particularly in the Commonwealth?s urban areas. The benefits would fall on community residents, taxpayers, and society as a whole. Resources would be conserved as the life of existing buildings is extended. Buildings that might otherwise be abandoned to disrepair and eventually destroyed would be brought back to a usable condition. Public funds for affordable housing would be more efficiently expended, creating more units for the same outlay of funds. The increase in housing stock would benefit comminutes as well as potential tenants. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Jersey?s Rehabilitation Subcode has been hailed as a national model for facilitating urban redevelopment efforts. If formed the basis for the Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) distributed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and received a 1998 New Jersey Historic Preservation Award. An appropriate version of the subcode should be adopted in Massachusetts.[/FONT]​

[[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rules That Make Sense?New Jersey?s Rehabilitation Subcode][/FONT]

In MA we do not have a rehab code,....​

....not today, but maybe tom'row

 

[iwire]

....not today, but maybe tomorrow

Not that I am against it I just don't know enough about it to say we need it.

Rule 3 pretty much covers it from an electrical standpoint.

In a nutshell 'We can make it better without having to do a total rewire'.

In the case of the two services I just did the power company and local inspector both wanted the services updated of course the building owner felt it was working.

That being the case having the option to fix just the worst parts this time was much more attractive to the owner.

I doubt the owner would have done anything if we had to bring the two buildings into 100% 2005 compliance.