110.26

[charlie b]

Situation: In a laboratory building, branch circuit panels are to be installed in a small closet with double doors that close in front of the panels. Closet is just deep enough to allow doors to close without hitting the panels. With both doors open, there is sufficient working space. I call this acceptable.

Situation Revised: Same as above, but architectural plans show that trash and recycle containers (e.g., 40 gallon rubber containers on wheels) are to be stored in front of the doors. Clearly, in order to work on the panels, you would have to move the trash and recycle containers. After doing that, and opening the doors, you have your working clearance again. Is this acceptable?

My answer is yes. Comments?

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Situation: In a laboratory building, branch circuit panels are to be installed in a small closet with double doors that close in front of the panels. Closet is just deep enough to allow doors to close without hitting the panels. With both doors open, there is sufficient working space. I call this acceptable.

Situation Revised: Same as above, but architectural plans show that trash and recycle containers (e.g., 40 gallon rubber containers on wheels) are to be stored in front of the doors. Clearly, in order to work on the panels, you would have to move the trash and recycle containers. After doing that, and opening the doors, you have your working clearance again. Is this acceptable?

My answer is yes. Comments?

Yes to #1

No to #2 because of 110.26(A)(3)(B) says no storage....
FWIW I would never red tag it myself.....

 

[ronmath]

Does not meet code, (though done all the time) 110.26(B) "Clear Spaces. Working space required by this section shall not be used for storage." I guess you are now accepting the fact that the personnell (may not be an electrician) does not move the containers to a safe distance and they have a problem. I know this may seem far fetched, but I can assure you a jury would not think so when prompted by a smart lawyer. Have the Architect remove those from the plan and you should be good to go.

 

[drbond24]

It depends on how you define the word 'store.'​

In my opinion, those rubber cans on wheels are never 'stored' because they are mobile. You would have to sit something relatively immobile like a filing cabinet full of crap before you were storing stuff in front of the door. That filing cabinet is storing files, the rubber can is just temporarily holding some stuff before it is moved elsewhere.

So says me, anyway.

Edit: I just read the post that came up while I was making mine. I would think if you just had the architect change the word 'stored' to the word 'placed' you would be OK.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

In my opinion, those rubber cans on wheels are never 'stored' because they are mobile. You would have to sit something relatively immobile like a filing cabinet full of crap before you were storing stuff in front of the door. That filing cabinet is storing files, the rubber can is just temporarily holding some stuff before it is moved elsewhere.​

​

110.26(A)(3) also says it must be clear...

So cans on wheels are ok....
what about cans on slip pads?
what about storage lockers on wheels that are heavy enough that it takes two people to move it?
What about one very very light box 12"X12"x12" that is only placed there for a couple of hours?

Silly stuff but my point is the space is supposed to be clear. And though I (at this very moment) have a wire-rack on wheels with about 300lbs of crap on it in front of my CB cabinet in my workshop I still think it is a violation.​

 

[drbond24]

[/CENTER]

110.26(A)(3) also says it must be clear...

So cans on wheels are ok....
what about cans on slip pads?
what about storage lockers on wheels that are heavy enough that it takes two people to move it?
What about one very very light box 12"X12"x12" that is only placed there for a couple of hours?

Silly stuff but my point is the space is supposed to be clear. And though I (at this very moment) have a wire-rack on wheels with about 300lbs of crap on it in front of my CB cabinet in my workshop I still think it is a violation.​

Mr. Clinton would also want you to define the word 'clear.'

I understand your point, though, and I knew someone would call me on it. I could answer each of your examples but it would all just be my opinion. If there is concern, I would err toward the "better safe than sorry" side. Don't put anything there.

Charlie b had a very specific example, and I think that the example he gave is OK. If we start expanding the circumstances there will certainly be a lot of disagreement. I think as long as the recycleable containers can be easily moved out of the way, they are fine.

Now who wants to point out that we need a definition for 'easily?' Too late! I already did.

 

[charlie b]

The architect has agreed to remove the trash/recycle area from the plans. So the question has become academic.

This is a strange situation, in my view. If you were to show me a panel with a trash container set in front of it, I would call it a violation. So what changes, when the trash container is in front of a door, such that you can?t tell there is a panel behind the door without opening the door?

One way to look at it is that with the doors closed, 110.26(A) does not apply, because the conditions of its opening sentence are not met. The panel does not require any maintenance (or other activities) while energized, while the doors are closed. You cannot perform any maintenance without first opening the doors, and that first requires moving the trash container, and that establishes the required clearances. Once the doors are closed, the need to perform live maintenance goes away, and thus the requirement to maintain the working space clear also goes away.

I don?t have strong feelings on this point. It is just a way of looking at the situation.

 

[charlie b]

I think as long as the recycleable containers can be easily moved out of the way, they are fine.

Perhaps that is not even necessary. No matter how hard it may be to move the containers, they must be moved, or the doors can't be opened.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I say violation but we all know the fix is simply white out. What they will do is same as intended on prints. Now lets skip time till year 2020 and they slow down ability to shut off a breaker fast to save life or property. Insurance company picks up on you were told of danger and ignored. Do you care to be in court ? I say fix prints and its out of my hands. Seen problem in stores too often. Everything can be moved but how fast.

 

[charlie b]

. . . they slow down ability to shut off a breaker fast to save life or property.

That is never, never a consideration. The function of a breaker is to protect the conductors. Sometimes credit can be taken for a breaker as the required disconnecting means, so that an item can be repaired safely. That is it. Nothing else. The fact that a breaker can be used to shut off a circuit in an emergency means nothing. I would stand up in court and proclaim that the breaker was not readily available to do a job for which it was not designed, and that that fact was not a contributory factor in the tragedy. By way of backing up my statement, let me mention that most breaker panels have locks on the door, and many others are located behind locked doors.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

That is never, never a consideration. The function of a breaker is to protect the conductors. Sometimes credit can be taken for a breaker as the required disconnecting means, so that an item can be repaired safely. That is it. Nothing else. The fact that a breaker can be used to shut off a circuit in an emergency means nothing. I would stand up in court and proclaim that the breaker was not readily available to do a job for which it was not designed, and that that fact was not a contributory factor in the tragedy. By way of backing up my statement, let me mention that most breaker panels have locks on the door, and many others are located behind locked doors.

Then why do we keep them grouped together, with your thinking is no need. Firemen dont need protected. Why care about height ? We can get ladder from truck .
Sorry but not buying that idea.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

That is never, never a consideration. The function of a breaker is to protect the conductors. Sometimes credit can be taken for a breaker as the required disconnecting means, so that an item can be repaired safely. That is it. Nothing else. The fact that a breaker can be used to shut off a circuit in an emergency means nothing. I would stand up in court and proclaim that the breaker was not readily available to do a job for which it was not designed, and that that fact was not a contributory factor in the tragedy. By way of backing up my statement, let me mention that most breaker panels have locks on the door, and many others are located behind locked doors.

I think you are off on the workingspace but you are dead-on about the breakers. They are not intended to be e-cutoffs.

 

[vinster888]

i disagree on the emergency portion. i think they are an emergency device. just not by listing. especially, for things like cord and plug connected appliances.

bu t i question the plans examiner on the bins in front of the panel. how come that didnt become a hazardous location. alcohol and some foreign objects can create combustible fumes and gases. :grin:

 

[charlie b]

Jim, we are talking about a branch panel in a corridor on the third floor of the building. Fire fighters are not going to go to that location, in order to turn off power, so that they can safely combat a fire. There will be a building disconnect somewhere else on the premises, to serve that function.

If, Heaven forbid, someone in my office area were being shocked by a cord, or a fan, or a coffee pot, or something, I would not know where to go, to find the branch circuit panel that feeds the circuit that is giving the person a shock. Even if I knew where the panel was, I do not know if the room in which it is located is locked. I do not know whether the panel door itself is locked. And I do not know which circuit to turn off. And during all the time I would be trying to figure this stuff out, the person would continue to receive the shock.

No, the breaker is not there as an emergency shut off.

 

[drbond24]

I agree with Charlie b on this one. The breakers are not emergency shut-offs. Sure, it would be very handy if you needed to turn something off and you knew exactly where the breaker was and could turn it off in just a few seconds, but how many people can do that?

I must say that I have no idea where the panel is that feeds the area I work in. I really doubt any of the people around me know either, but that is just a guess. Either way, if I needed to turn something off I'd have to either ask around or pull out the plans for the building. Then, like Charlie b said, the room may be locked and/or the panel may be locked. If I'm lucky enough that neither of them are locked, I could just turn the whole panel off assuming it has a main rather than try to find just the breaker I need. If there is no main, I can either look for the right breaker or start flipping them all. In any case, if someone was getting shocked, they be dead and cooked before I found the right breaker to kill the circuit that was getting them.

If breakers were meant to be emergency cutoff devices, the panel would be REQUIRED to be centrally located and painted some bright color that everyone could see. We'd have breaker drills just like we have fire drills now so that everyone knew where they were and knew how to turn them off. There would be maps posted next to the fire escape routes with the locations of all the panels clearly shown. The company would probably make breaker safety a part of the yearly safety training refreshers we have to take. They just aren't designed to be used that way. Like I said before, sure it would be nice if someone was getting shocked and you could turn the breaker off in a hurry, but that is unlikely in my view. I could do it in my house and my parents house, but anywhere else on the planet I'd be helpless.