110.26 question

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PSWired

Member
I am having some electrical work performed in a newly rebuilt section of building. This room will have its own 3 phase 200A sub panel fed from the service entrance panel elsewhere in the building. A 200A ATS is located adjacent to the panel for a voluntarily equipped standby power generator. My question is regarding the mounting location of the transfer switch and panelboard. The panelboard is situated on a wall which has a ledge about 5 feet high and 24" deep. I would like for the panel to be located on the section of wall above this ledge. The panel will be mounted so that the uppermost breaker is no more than 6'7" from the floor. However, my electrican believes that the wall "bump out" under the panel violates the space requirements around the equipment. This section of wall is the only place in the room where the equipment can be surface mounted and available for additional wiring connections (which are extremely likely) once the room is finished. Can anyone make reccomendations for mounting the panel and ATS in this situation? See this picture for details:

panelboard.JPG
 
The electrician is right. That box under the panel location cannot be more than 6 inches deep, or else it would violate 110.26. The entire idea is to make it safe for a person to work on that panel. If the person would have to lean over something to get to the panel, it is not considered safe.

So you can't "surface mount" the panel and the ATS against the wall over the box. But you can, perhaps, use unistrut (or another mounting method) to mount a panel some distance away from the wall. The rule is that the front face of the panel cannot be more than 6 inches deeper than the front face of whatever is mounted below it.
 
Why not just avoid the debate and take the 5' wall straight up to the ceiling? Flush mount both panels. Done. Sleep well tonight.
 
Thank you for all of the comments. The way I see this, although it is a technical violation of 110.26, that wall does not realistically hinder maintenance of the equipment in question. Note that the panel would be moved down so that it was closer to the ledge before final installation. Given that, would the following workaround be acceptable:

The equipment can be de-energized upstream at the service entrance panel and generator main breaker. Can LOTO means be provided at the feed (and generator) and the following sign be placed on the sub-panel and ATS:

?DANGER ? Removal of cover for examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance - REQUIRES LOCK/TAGOUT OF SUPPLY - Due to working space limitations?.

Thanks again for the input.
 
PSWired said:
Thank you for all of the comments. The way I see this, although it is a technical violation of 110.26, that wall does not realistically hinder maintenance of the equipment in question. Note that the panel would be moved down so that it was closer to the ledge before final installation. Given that, would the following workaround be acceptable:

The equipment can be de-energized upstream at the service entrance panel and generator main breaker. Can LOTO means be provided at the feed (and generator) and the following sign be placed on the sub-panel and ATS:

?DANGER ? Removal of cover for examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance - REQUIRES LOCK/TAGOUT OF SUPPLY - Due to working space limitations?.

Thanks again for the input.
Click to expand...

Nope, not an option.

All electrical equipment can be de-energized upstream some where, but that does not negate the requirements of 110.26

Roger
 
Won't Work

Won't Work

That still won't work. 110.26 is very clear in it's scope [before 110.26(A) starts] that "sufficient access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment". The phrase "while energized" isn't used until defining minimum requirements in 110.26(A).

If you insist on skirting the intent on a technicality please do your electrician a favor and don't move the equipment down. Working on equipment that close to the ground (which it is with a 2' ledge) is straining.

I agree with 480sparky. Build out the wall from the the right side to just left of the ATS. This will meet the requirements with no questions asked and provide 2' behind for ease of "future improvements".

I disagree with celtic. Basements are used as an example of a damp location. W/P enclosures per 312.2(A) are only required for wet locations.
 
Thanks again for the comments, the electrician and I will decide on a course of action tomorrow.

FYI this is not a basement but portions of the exterior walls are below grade. It will most certainly not be a damp location when finished.
 
celtic said:
Anyone see a *possible* 312.2(A) violation here?
M. D. said:
I doubt this would be defined as a damp location,.. doesn't look wet, or hazardous to me.

bugzapper said:
I disagree with celtic. Basements are used as an example of a damp location. W/P enclosures per 312.2(A) are only required for wet locations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked if it were "possible".

100 Location, Damp ; lists "some basements" (but certainly not all) as meeting the definition.
408.16 directs the user back to 312.2(A)
312.2 Damp, Wet, or Hazardous (Classified) Locations.
(A) Damp and Wet Locations.
In damp or wet locations, surface-type enclosures within the scope of this article shall be placed or equipped so as to prevent moisture or water from entering and accumulating within the cabinet or cutout box, and shall be mounted so there is at least 6 mm (1/4 in.) airspace between the enclosure and the wall or other supporting surface. ....

The reason I asked is because I quite often see panels mounted on a plywood backer.
 
celtic said:
Anyone see a *possible* 312.2(A) violation here?
Click to expand...

Sure looks like a possible 240.24(A) violation though... Count up those concrete blocks on the right side (10+ @ 8" per, including mortar) and it appears that the panel will violate the 6'7" rule.

PSWired -- Welcome to the forum. Every innocently posted pic must be dissected for violations unrelated to the original question. It's a rule :grin:
Click to expand...

Ooops! Nevermind... didn't notice that 6'7" rule was mentioned in OP. That's what I get for looking at the pic without reading the post!

How do I delete this foolish post outright??
 
Last edited:
Inspectorcliff said:
Larry, why would they censor such an intelligent M.E.?
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're asking seriously, or stabbing at me for stating the obvious?

In other words, "Is this that new thing called 'sarcasm'?" ~ Shallow Hal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top