Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Electrical Room 1200 Amps and Over

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Egress from Working Space 110.26(C)

    Seems like everything comes down to $$ so; pose the question to the arch. -do they want to spend the money to prevent a law suit -or do they want to spend the money bringing the room up to code? It probably will be cheaper to cut a door in the wall.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by gadfly56 View Post
      The only other apparent location available on one end would require installing a door about 3 feet off the floor, with stairs and a platform. In addition, the space that this door leads to is another electrical room that is connected, circuit-wise, to the first room. The architect is insisting that this arrangement meets the requirements of the NEC, and I can't find anything in the appropriate article (110.26.C) that says directly otherwise.
      I agree with the architect. The objective of either exit is to allow the worker to move to a distance away from the equipment that is undergoing a fault. Once you are clear of the working space, the code does not care where you will be situated. Once you are clear, you are safe. If you find yourself unable to move any further, and if you therefore have to wait for hours and hours for someone to come to your rescue, then during those hours and hours you will be safe. That is all that matters.
      Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
      Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

      Comment


        #18
        WAIT FOR HOURS??

        Originally posted by charlie b View Post

        I agree with the architect. The objective of either exit is to allow the worker to move to a distance away from the equipment that is undergoing a fault. Once you are clear of the working space, the code does not care where you will be situated. Once you are clear, you are safe. If you find yourself unable to move any further, and if you therefore have to wait for hours and hours for someone to come to your rescue, then during those hours and hours you will be safe. That is all that matters.
        Charlie, you know how there are no Atheists in a foxhole? I feel the same about an exploding, burning electrical room.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
          Charlie, you know how there are no Atheists in a foxhole?
          I am not familiar with that expression. But I suspect it is not literally true.
          Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
          I feel the same about an exploding, burning electrical room.
          I don't think I would want to stick around and watch that happening. That said, once I am no longer in the room that has all that happening, the responsibility of the NEC, the electrical engineer who designed the room, and the electrician who built the room will have ended. I am drawing the line between "emergency conditions" and "stable conditions." The intent of code requirements is to give the worker a reasonable opportunity to exit the danger area. That is what I mean by "emergency conditions." The code is not concerned with allowing the worker to make it to the truck in time for lunch. That is what I mean by "stable conditions."
          Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
          Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by charlie b View Post
            I am not familiar with that expression. But I suspect it is not literally true.
            I don't think I would want to stick around and watch that happening. That said, once I am no longer in the room that has all that happening, the responsibility of the NEC, the electrical engineer who designed the room, and the electrician who built the room will have ended. I am drawing the line between "emergency conditions" and "stable conditions." The intent of code requirements is to give the worker a reasonable opportunity to exit the danger area. That is what I mean by "emergency conditions." The code is not concerned with allowing the worker to make it to the truck in time for lunch. That is what I mean by "stable conditions."
            So, if the worker has to negotiate a flight of stairs and a landing before he hits the door, that's OK?

            As for the door, which way would it swing? It could be considered an exit for each space, and exit doors must open in the direction of exit travel during an emergency.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by gadfly56 View Post
              So, if the worker has to negotiate a flight of stairs and a landing before he hits the door, that's OK?
              Yes. Would you hesitate to leave just because it would require you to climb a few steps?
              Originally posted by gadfly56 View Post
              As for the door, which way would it swing? It could be considered an exit for each space, and exit doors must open in the direction of exit travel during an emergency.
              If the second room does not have any "large equipment," the door can swing into that room.


              Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
              Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

              Comment


                #22
                Ethics and the Code

                Originally posted by charlie b View Post
                I am not familiar with that expression. But I suspect it is not literally true.
                I don't think I would want to stick around and watch that happening. That said, once I am no longer in the room that has all that happening, the responsibility of the NEC, the electrical engineer who designed the room, and the electrician who built the room will have ended. I am drawing the line between "emergency conditions" and "stable conditions." The intent of code requirements is to give the worker a reasonable opportunity to exit the danger area. That is what I mean by "emergency conditions." The code is not concerned with allowing the worker to make it to the truck in time for lunch. That is what I mean by "stable conditions."
                NEC 90.1: (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.
                It doesn't say that the responsibility ends when the worker cannot see the fire anymore. Regardless of personal morals, I think that the designer's responsibility includes getting the worker to a safe means of egress.
                Having said all that, I partially agree that stairs are a way to get out of harm's way. Personally I look at the room and the escape route, every time I'm in an electrical room. I have seen many with stairs access so; in that regard, I have no problem.
                Last edited by egurdian3; 03-21-19, 05:04 PM.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                  NEC 90.1: (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.It doesn't say that the responsibility ends when the worker cannot see the fire anymore. Regardless of personal morals, I think that the designer's responsibility includes getting the worker to a safe means of egress.
                  If the worker can exit from the immediate danger area, the "practical safeguarding" will have been achieved. I absolutely agree that the designers (including the engineers and the architects) should create a route that allows the worker to exit not only the immediate danger area, but also the building. I would call that "good design practice." I would not say it is a requirement of the code.

                  Let's make an effort to distinguish code from design. The original statement of the issue implied that the proposed new doorway would not resolve the existing code violation. I do not agree with that. I do agree that a better solution would be to find a wall on the other side of which is a corridor, and put a door in that wall. But the physical limitations of the existing building might not accommodate that solution. So in my view the proposed solution is code compliant and would improve a worker's chances of surviving an incident.

                  Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
                  Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by charlie b View Post
                    If the worker can exit from the immediate danger area, the "practical safeguarding" will have been achieved. I absolutely agree that the designers (including the engineers and the architects) should create a route that allows the worker to exit not only the immediate danger area, but also the building. I would call that "good design practice." I would not say it is a requirement of the code.

                    Let's make an effort to distinguish code from design. The original statement of the issue implied that the proposed new doorway would not resolve the existing code violation. I do not agree with that. I do agree that a better solution would be to find a wall on the other side of which is a corridor, and put a door in that wall. But the physical limitations of the existing building might not accommodate that solution. So in my view the proposed solution is code compliant and would improve a worker's chances of surviving an incident.

                    We disagree on the design point of view; simply because Building Codes come into the Design Process; eg: IBC, NFPA-72 to name a couple. The point being, that NEC is a minimum requirement and by no means the last word in Safety.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                      We disagree on the design point of view. . . .
                      I am always willing to accept, even embrace, disagreements with my point of view.
                      Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                      . . . because Building Codes come into the Design Process; eg: IBC, NFPA-72 to name a couple.
                      Are you saying that one or both of these codes has a requirement that would prohibit the installation described in post #1 (i.e., stairs leading up to door that leads to another electrical room)? Can you offer a specific citation? Nobody contributing to this thread has yet cited a reference that would disallow the installation. The strongest objection I have read is essentially, "I don't like it." Well, I don't like it either. But I don't (yet anyway) discern any code violation.
                      Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                      The point being, that NEC is a minimum requirement and by no means the last word in Safety.
                      Agreed. Now, can anyone offer another more authoritative word on the subject?
                      Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
                      Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by charlie b View Post

                        I am always willing to accept, even embrace, disagreements with my point of view.

                        Are you saying that one or both of these codes has a requirement that would prohibit the installation described in post #1 (i.e., stairs leading up to door that leads to another electrical room)? Can you offer a specific citation? Nobody contributing to this thread has yet cited a reference that would disallow the installation. The strongest objection I have read is essentially, "I don't like it." Well, I don't like it either. But I don't (yet anyway) discern any code violation.

                        Agreed. Now, can anyone offer another more authoritative word on the subject?
                        Here is a reference you can check when you have some time: IBC Chapter 11 - Means of Egress. Also, once you determine the Type of Building, you can go to your Local Jurisdiction and check their specific requirements. I'm in the DC area so; you go to ther DC Fire Code and Check Chapter 10 - Means of Egress.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                          Here is a reference you can check when you have some time: IBC Chapter 11 - Means of Egress. Also, once you determine the Type of Building, you can go to your Local Jurisdiction and check their specific requirements. I'm in the DC area so; you go to ther DC Fire Code and Check Chapter 10 - Means of Egress.
                          I am not likely to have time to check that out. But I will say that when the IBC and Fire Code speak of "means of egress," they are talking about leaving the building. The present discussion is about working in a room that has electrical equipment, and suddenly needing to leave that room because the equipment is doing something scary. The NEC requirements related to the layout of the room are there to ensure you can safety distance yourself from the equipment. Also, if the effort to distance yourself involves going through a door, the NEC requires that walking through that door shall be easy (i.e., door opens in direction of egress and has listed panic hardware). Once you make it through that door, the NEC is happy for you: you are safe; the scary stuff is now on the other side of a door. How you might travel from your present location to one of the egress doors that the IBC required to be installed: well that is not the NEC's concern.

                          Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
                          Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by charlie b View Post
                            I am not likely to have time to check that out. But I will say that when the IBC and Fire Code speak of "means of egress," they are talking about leaving the building. The present discussion is about working in a room that has electrical equipment, and suddenly needing to leave that room because the equipment is doing something scary. The NEC requirements related to the layout of the room are there to ensure you can safety distance yourself from the equipment. Also, if the effort to distance yourself involves going through a door, the NEC requires that walking through that door shall be easy (i.e., door opens in direction of egress and has listed panic hardware). Once you make it through that door, the NEC is happy for you: you are safe; the scary stuff is now on the other side of a door. How you might travel from your present location to one of the egress doors that the IBC required to be installed: well that is not the NEC's concern.

                            It's a free country; however, there are Codes for very good reasons: preserve life and protect property.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                              . . . however, there are Codes for very good reasons: preserve life and protect property.
                              I am on board with that. Now, please show me the code that explicitly forbids an egress path from the working space of a large electrical switchboard to include stairs and to lead to another electrical room.

                              I said it before, and I will risk repeating it: I DON'T LIKE IT!!!

                              But I believe that the NEC does not forbid it.

                              Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
                              Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by egurdian3 View Post
                                ... there are Codes for very good reasons: preserve life and protect property.
                                That's as succinct as the Code lobbyists would like it to be!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X