110.26E

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dao257

Member
Would like to get the opinion of the forum on an issue that came up the other day concerning the following article:

(E) Headroom. The minimum headroom of working spaces about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor control centers shall be 2.0 m (6? ft). Where the electrical equipment exceeds 2.0 m (6? ft) in height, the minimum headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.

I installed a panel under a house with a dirt floor basement using the exception to this article. The ceiling height varied from 6 1/2 feet to 4 feet at different areas. The hot water heater, well pump, furnace, were all installed in this area. The original location of the panel was behind a kitchen cabinet and no longer could be installed in the same location. My options were to install it out doors or in the basement. I choose the basement. The height was about 4 1/2 feet at the edge of the basement wall. I was told by the electrical inspector that it was not the intent of the code to install a panel in this location unless there was already a panel in that spot. I resolved the issue by digging a 2 foot hole in front of the panel to gain enough headroom. I would like to know what was the intent of the code making panel.
 
Re: 110.26E

I see two problems with your inspector.

[1] The exception to 110.26(E) doesn't mention anything about "existing panel locations", it says " existing dwelling units".

[2] He or she has no business concerning him or herself with the intent of the code unless perhaps he or she is on a CMP.

Your inspector should do more reading and less inferring.

Edit: I didn't notice that you hadn't mentioned the exception. Take a look at it. It applies to services 200 Amps or less.

Edit: Spelling

[ February 20, 2005, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: 110.26E

The exception to 110.26 E seems very clear to me,if your panel was 200 amps or less then it could be installed in an existing dwelling with less than 6 and one half feet of headroom.I think the inspector was wrong in his interpretation as long as the panel was under 200 amps.
 
Re: 110.26E

I don't interpert it that way. Once you move a panel from it's original position, it's a new electrical install and shall be up to current code, just like any other aspect of a rewire. The exception to allow replacement is replacement, not newplacement. If you want to parse the meanings, the inspector can parse it just as well on that side.

There are other questions regarding the sevice that also make the location questionable. If this is the main disconnect for the residence, not counting the meter as the disconnect, it needs to be readily accessible, not just accessible. the panel will need lighting if in that space, a gfci outlet for servicing it, and a continuous floor without hazards.

personally I have never seen any inspector let that exception for residences allow for any other than replacement in the same exact spot.

If you want to follow the logic behind your assumption, there is no place that the new panel could not be, as it is a replacement and the original was passed.

I don't understand the "not outside" issue. I live in California and have moved around from south to north. I have been in many ghetto-like areas and have never heard of people tampering with external panel boxes on the level implied here. In fact the only ones I have seen are in the movies. Is this a regional genetic defect, or are we talking stacked houses with shallow sidewalks, no room for external panels.

The poster said that the only other choice was outside, so outside was an option.

paul
 
Re: 110.26E

Exception: In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panel boards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0m (6? ft.)
Click to expand...
Paul, how are you getting around "shall be permitted".

Isn't this explicite permission?
 
Re: 110.26E

After reading the original post a couple of times and giving the situation a lot of though I don?t believe this will comply with the intent of the NEC.

The exception to 110.26 (E) is for panel boards that were installed before the height requirement was added to the NEC. To think other wise would be to say that I could build a house and later move the panel to the crawl space, it is now an existing dwelling.

Rereading the original post I do believe that this house has a crawl space instead of a basement, ?The ceiling height varied from 6 1/2 feet to 4 feet at different areas? also, ?I resolved the issue by digging a 2 foot hole in front of the panel to gain enough headroom.?

With this being a dirt floor what is the chances that during a hard rain there might be a 30 by 36 inch hole 2 feet deep and full of water in front of this panel. With the amount of effort of digging this hole and hauling the dirt out would have been a lot easier to install the panel on the outside.
 
Re: 110.26E

I don?t believe this will comply with the intent of the NEC.
Click to expand...
What the NEC says is that it's specificly permitted.

So I guess being as how that doesn't work for a particular individual, someone is going to have decide what the intention of the NEC is and enforce that instead, because the NEC obviously doesn't mean what it says, it in actuality means whatever anybody wants to decide it means.

I'm not that big on putting a panel in a spot like that. But it's not up to me.

Edit: Since when is the "intent" of the NEC enforced? :confused:

[ February 20, 2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: 110.26E

Sam reread the exception,
In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft).
It doesn?t say:
In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted to be installed in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft).
Think about it for a few minutes and let me know what you think. What you are saying is I can build me a house tomorrow and the next day move the panel to under the six and a half foot rule as the house would now fall under the existing rule.
 
Re: 110.26E

To clarify a couple of things:
The hole did have water in it and I ended up digging a trench to the sump pump. I also put down some wood to stand on in front of the panel.
This is a 100A Panel.
As far as what this called ( crawl space) or (basement) is difficult to determine since no where in the basement am I ever having to crawl. There is an access door into the basement with a light switch and overhead keyless through out.
I see no wording in the exception for existing panels only existing dwellings. Something so obvious I feel would of had better wording if it meant something other than what it said.
 
Re: 110.26E

Originally posted by jwelectric:It doesn?t say:

In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted to be installed in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft).
Click to expand...
It also doesn?t say,

In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted to remain in spaces . . . .

The wording of the exception does not distinguish between a panel that is already there and a panel that you want to put there. I infer that in both cases, it ?shall be permitted.?
 
Re: 110.26E

The exception clearly says the panel shall be permitted in this location in existing dwellings. Nowhere does it specify that the exception refers to "Existing panels" only. Crystal clear to me.

[ February 21, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]
 
Re: 110.26E

I've never done residential work so I don't normally comment on threads like this because my ox isn't being gored; however this is a case of "how" the NEC is to be interpreted.
Originally posted by jwelectric:
...
It doesn?t say:
In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted to be installed in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft).
Click to expand...
Actually, that's exactly what it's says among other things. It could be a replacement or it could be an entirely new service for a "bi-centennial" dwelling that never had a service before. The only limitations are that the dwelling pre-existed before the installation and it is 200 Amps or less.

You can argue intent, but that is what it says.

For example, Section 110.26(A)(1)(c) is clear that it applies only for replacements; 110.26(E)Exception, does not.
 
Re: 110.26E

With the utmost of respect to those of you who know far more than me about matters concerning the intent of the code I must disagree with your thoughts.

Mr. dao257 has admitted in his second post that the location is subject to flooding as he had to pump the water away
?The hole did have water in it and I ended up digging a trench to the sump pump. I also put down some wood to stand on in front of the panel.?

If the panel was there in the beginning with standing room I would agree that a change would be alright but to dig a hole and move the panel to a crawl space I don?t believe was the intent of code panel one.

With out being able to see this installation my mind envisions entering a crawl space and duck walking over to a pit two feet deep, jumping in to work on this panel.
?The height was about 4 1/2 feet at the edge of the basement wall. I was told by the electrical inspector that it was not the intent of the code to install a panel in this location unless there was already a panel in that spot. I resolved the issue by digging a 2 foot hole in front of the panel to gain enough headroom.?

Sorry fellows, I don?t see this as being a safe installation

edited to add, A prime candidate for 110.2 and a rejection

[ February 21, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
 
Re: 110.26E

JW, tell us what the NFPA considers "Existing".

Roger
 
Re: 110.26E

You will note I have never said the installation as ?originally? described (without the hole) was safe; rather I have simply said that it was compliant with a clear reading of the 110.26(E) Exception. Apparently water wasn?t an issue until the hole was dug.

I've also said many times in the forums, that if you believe something is unsafe, you cannot leave it ?as is;? You must get it corrected. Conversely, you cannot impose ?intent? on unambiguous text. That means you must find another specific and valid violation, rather than ?Well, I just don?t think it is safe;? which is exactly what applying 110.2 as a ?catch-all? would be doing. We would not need a Code at all otherwise.

If you don?t believe the text means what it clearly says, or that it should mean something different, make a Proposal to change it. Something like:

In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft), but not less than 1.3 m (4ft).

Or possibly

In existing dwelling units, replaced or upgraded service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft).

Or both.

In existing dwelling units, replaced or upgraded service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m (61/2 ft), but not less than 1.3 m (4ft).
 
Re: 110.26E

What I here being said by this forum is that I can move my service disconnect and relocate it under my deck tomorrow just because my house already exists. All I have to do is convince the inspector that doing this does not have to comply with the current adopted edition of the code.
As to enforcing the intent of the code what you say about this
90.1 Purpose. (Purpose defined as intent) (C) Intention.
90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended
90.7 Examination of Equipment for Safety.. It is the intent of this Code
The code it?s self states that it has intent. It is this intent that most inspectors try to enforce.
As to the exception and its intent, give me a couple of days to think about it and I will be back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top