Tom703
Member
- Location
- Washington DC Metro
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
I am struggling to find a good interpretation to the added verbiage of this section in 2023. "Open equipment doors shall not impede access to and egress from the working space. Access or egress is impeded if one or more simultaneously opened equipment doors restrict working space access to be less than 610mm (24 in.) wide and 2.0m (6-1/2 ft.) high.
If, for example, you have a 2,000A switchboard with multiple 42" hinged covers 4ft from a wall in the middle of a massive electrical room so that you have clear and unobstructed egress from the working space at each end of the equipment lineup. If you open a single door of one of those switchboards you would still comply with 110.26(C)(2)(a); however, if you open multiple doors you would not comply with the opening paragraph of 110.26. Right?
What is the code violation here-
1- That it is possible for multiple doors to be open to impede egress from the working space? or
2- The act of opening the second door that removes the unobstructed egress path?
My take is that #2 is the code violation and written procedure and limited access to equipment to avoid that condition, satisfies the code. Just as using your electrical room as cardboard storage is a code violation - the violation is the act of storing cardboard, not that it was possible to store cardboard. What are the thoughts of the group? Any input is greatly appreciated.
If, for example, you have a 2,000A switchboard with multiple 42" hinged covers 4ft from a wall in the middle of a massive electrical room so that you have clear and unobstructed egress from the working space at each end of the equipment lineup. If you open a single door of one of those switchboards you would still comply with 110.26(C)(2)(a); however, if you open multiple doors you would not comply with the opening paragraph of 110.26. Right?
What is the code violation here-
1- That it is possible for multiple doors to be open to impede egress from the working space? or
2- The act of opening the second door that removes the unobstructed egress path?
My take is that #2 is the code violation and written procedure and limited access to equipment to avoid that condition, satisfies the code. Just as using your electrical room as cardboard storage is a code violation - the violation is the act of storing cardboard, not that it was possible to store cardboard. What are the thoughts of the group? Any input is greatly appreciated.
