ATS on top of an ATS

[rowelelectrical]

hi guys,

can anyone advise if there's a a code violation in the attached photo?

:?

 

[dkidd]

Switch handle height?

 

[rowelelectrical]

this ATS's doesnt have switch handles. instead, they have push bottons.. if the height of the push button will be less than 6'7" ,will it be acceptable?

 

[dkidd]

They usually have a manual handle.

Seriously, I would never allow that. I always have believed that dedicated equipment space should not contain anything not directly associated with the equipment, rather than that anything that is electrical can go there.

 

[rowelelectrical]

so do you think the ATS on top of the ATS as shown in photo violates NEC?

 

[steve66]

The problem with using the dedicated space and working space requirments are that its not a switchboard, panelboard, or MCC. However, I think the 1st sentence of 110.26 would make this a violation (although that sentence is wide open to interpertation.)

I would also call it a violation based on 404.8 - switches have to be readily accessible.

I also doubt the enclosure was meant for wall mounting - it was probably intended to have a floor under it. I would expect the frame to eventually bend, and cause all kinds of havoc.

Finally, I would also have no problem calling it a violation under 110.3.

Did I mention I would call it a violation? IMO, ATS's need to be readily accessible, both for the on site maintenance people, and the ATS service people.

 

[texie]

Setting aside the possible code violation(s), what about common sense, pride in work/design and just good practice? I'd be embarrassed to do that install.

 

[tallgirl]

Setting aside the possible code violation(s), what about common sense, pride in work/design and just good practice? I'd be embarrassed to do that install.

It's already in a corner of a room that appears to be full of something that might be more interesting.

 

[David A Engelhart]

ATS's should be installed to NEC 404 per 404.1