110.26E
- Thread starter dao257
- Start date
- Status
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 110.26E
Good question Sam. As far as I know not very many have adopted article 80 of the code but for those that have this might be of importance.
(G) Appeals. (2) (a) The true intent of the codes or ordinances described in this Code has been incorrectly interpreted
note the appeal can be based on intent
Good question Sam. As far as I know not very many have adopted article 80 of the code but for those that have this might be of importance.
(G) Appeals. (2) (a) The true intent of the codes or ordinances described in this Code has been incorrectly interpreted
note the appeal can be based on intent
physis
Senior Member
Re: 110.26E
You are right, 80.15(G)(2)(a) does address a parties interpretation of intent.
However, it only addresses appealing the application of code. You're attempting to infer from that that you normally enforce code intent. But I'm afraid the reason you can't find anything better than that is because intent is not what is enforced.
Edit:
[ February 21, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
You are right, 80.15(G)(2)(a) does address a parties interpretation of intent.
However, it only addresses appealing the application of code. You're attempting to infer from that that you normally enforce code intent. But I'm afraid the reason you can't find anything better than that is because intent is not what is enforced.
Edit:
And the fact that the NFPA had an intent when writing the NEC doesn't say a thing about how to use the NEC.
[ February 21, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
Re: 110.26E
Hello Dillon, I think the only reason the D.O.I. includes this is for the simple reason they want, and are testing for full (as in front page to back page) familiarity of the NEC, not that it has any bearing on your installations.
Roger
Hello Dillon, I think the only reason the D.O.I. includes this is for the simple reason they want, and are testing for full (as in front page to back page) familiarity of the NEC, not that it has any bearing on your installations.
Roger
Re: 110.26E
it is, as far as I can tell, still not clear where the exception for height in existing dwellings implies replacement at all. As the language is written, it merely exemps panels in existing dwellings. It never implies the permission in that exemption to do anything at all.
The language is clear to me and obviously clear to you in a different interpretation.
I clearly see no implication for any new work to be done by this exemption for existing dwellings. I take it as it has been interpreted by my teachers and fellow electricians and inspectors that "existing" as used in the NEC and all the other model codes is defined by existing prior to the adoption of the codes that would have applied.
That is the strict linguistic and utilized definition as used by most jurisdictions that work with pre-existing buildings. This gives the jurisdiction the latitude to refuse to permit a replacement panel where one existed before. This is not a rare or lone opinion. It is the common utilized one used by both poco's and jurisdictions, and this gives the jurisdiction the right to also allow panel replacement in less than current prescribed conditions.
If you want to believe otherwise, that the exception removes any restrictions on new electrical work, go ahead and believe that. There might even be some jurisdictions that will let you do that. However, if you want to use that as operating rules, do not come complaining here when your installation is refused.
You can argue all you want but the wording of the exception is so undefined that trying to use it is really at the discretion of the jurisdiction.
paul
it is, as far as I can tell, still not clear where the exception for height in existing dwellings implies replacement at all. As the language is written, it merely exemps panels in existing dwellings. It never implies the permission in that exemption to do anything at all.
The language is clear to me and obviously clear to you in a different interpretation.
I clearly see no implication for any new work to be done by this exemption for existing dwellings. I take it as it has been interpreted by my teachers and fellow electricians and inspectors that "existing" as used in the NEC and all the other model codes is defined by existing prior to the adoption of the codes that would have applied.
That is the strict linguistic and utilized definition as used by most jurisdictions that work with pre-existing buildings. This gives the jurisdiction the latitude to refuse to permit a replacement panel where one existed before. This is not a rare or lone opinion. It is the common utilized one used by both poco's and jurisdictions, and this gives the jurisdiction the right to also allow panel replacement in less than current prescribed conditions.
If you want to believe otherwise, that the exception removes any restrictions on new electrical work, go ahead and believe that. There might even be some jurisdictions that will let you do that. However, if you want to use that as operating rules, do not come complaining here when your installation is refused.
You can argue all you want but the wording of the exception is so undefined that trying to use it is really at the discretion of the jurisdiction.
paul
Re: 110.26E
jewlectric posted:
Mr. dao257 has admitted in his second post that the location is subject to flooding as he had to pump the water away
Water did not have to be pumped away but a trench had to be dug to allow the water to drain to the sump pump. If standing on wet soil is unsafe then putting the panel on the outside of the house would also be unsafe.
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.
There was about 4 1/2 feet of clearance at the perimeter wall and tapered down to the center of the house to about 6 1/2 feet. There was a 3'x3' door at the corner of the house that allowed me into this area.
I may add that I confronted the inspector who made the assertion that it was not to code and he made the assertion that it was not the intent of the code to allow it. Having been an inspector myself, the rule I followed was to not make a call unless I could support it with code leaving my personal bias out of it.
jewlectric posted:
Mr. dao257 has admitted in his second post that the location is subject to flooding as he had to pump the water away
Water did not have to be pumped away but a trench had to be dug to allow the water to drain to the sump pump. If standing on wet soil is unsafe then putting the panel on the outside of the house would also be unsafe.
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.
There was about 4 1/2 feet of clearance at the perimeter wall and tapered down to the center of the house to about 6 1/2 feet. There was a 3'x3' door at the corner of the house that allowed me into this area.
I may add that I confronted the inspector who made the assertion that it was not to code and he made the assertion that it was not the intent of the code to allow it. Having been an inspector myself, the rule I followed was to not make a call unless I could support it with code leaving my personal bias out of it.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 110.26E
Paul
This is basically what I said in my original post on February 20, 2005 08:16 PM. Why this is so hard to see I can?t understand.
I also stand by that the intent of any article in the code is what is enforced. What does the word interpretation mean? Understanding, explanation, analysis, version, or clarification when I ask for an interpretation I am asking what is the intent.
Dillon I will summit this to the panel in April, hope to see you there.
Paul
This is basically what I said in my original post on February 20, 2005 08:16 PM. Why this is so hard to see I can?t understand.
I also stand by that the intent of any article in the code is what is enforced. What does the word interpretation mean? Understanding, explanation, analysis, version, or clarification when I ask for an interpretation I am asking what is the intent.
Dillon I will summit this to the panel in April, hope to see you there.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 110.26E
Sam
This is how the exception read in the 1999 code.
Service equipment or panelboards, in existing dwelling units, that do not exceed 200 amperes.
I don?t think the intent has changed.
Sam
This is how the exception read in the 1999 code.
Service equipment or panelboards, in existing dwelling units, that do not exceed 200 amperes.
I don?t think the intent has changed.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 110.26E
Sam
2002 NEC 110.26 (E) The minimum headroom of working spaces about service equipment, shall be 6? ft. Where the electrical equipment is larger than 6? ft the minimum headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.
1993 NEC110.16 (F). The minimum headroom of working spaces about service equipment shall be 6? ft.
The comment on this change in the Illustrated Changes in the NEC 1996 was, ?This is just an example of a common- sense adjustment.?
The exception to 110.26 is nothing more, common sense. Should I do a service change upgrading from buss type fuses to a breaker panel and the panel is in a kitchen under an overhead cabinet this is to allow me to just replace the panel and not force me to do a major job for someone who can?t afford it. It is that simple. For the most part the whole book is that simple, we make it hard trying to figure what we can get by with or boast about our knowledge.
[ February 21, 2005, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Sam
2002 NEC 110.26 (E) The minimum headroom of working spaces about service equipment, shall be 6? ft. Where the electrical equipment is larger than 6? ft the minimum headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.
1993 NEC110.16 (F). The minimum headroom of working spaces about service equipment shall be 6? ft.
The comment on this change in the Illustrated Changes in the NEC 1996 was, ?This is just an example of a common- sense adjustment.?
The exception to 110.26 is nothing more, common sense. Should I do a service change upgrading from buss type fuses to a breaker panel and the panel is in a kitchen under an overhead cabinet this is to allow me to just replace the panel and not force me to do a major job for someone who can?t afford it. It is that simple. For the most part the whole book is that simple, we make it hard trying to figure what we can get by with or boast about our knowledge.
[ February 21, 2005, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Re: 110.26E
physis: since the language is still unclear on its own as to intent, even with the 2002 additional words, on it's own there is no justification for demanding that it be interpreted as you choose. If you choose not to accept other input (like "intent"), how arrogant to assume others must accept your unrelated code input. But being a reasonable sort, I would allow replacement in the same location, unless some other condition disallows.
If I were confronted with an electrician that assumed since the house was pre-existing, they could put the panel in currently unacceptable locations, merely because the house was preexisting by their definition, I would fall back on the accepted adage, often quoted on this site, "if you touch it, change it, alter it, it has to be to current code. If you pulll it out, up to current code.
However, as a reasonable person, and having been through this numerous times as an electrician, I have bent some on specifics. I do not think that I must bend, as you suggest.
It is in the interest of all parties that there are solutions to these problems. I suggest that in the future, some initial queries be conducted.
I had one personal case that proved that you can't always win. The panel in question was rusting to nothing, being near the ocean; the breakers were rusted. The local inspectors were okay with replacing the panel as existing, but PG&E would not okay the new panel location. No matter how much I tried, they would not bend.
Remember, this was the main disconnect for this house, the meter not being the required disconnect Putting it in the crawl space is far from safe, reasonable, and actually some what comic. If you still insist that that exception is to be interpreted in the manner that would allow a main disconnect to be moved to the crawl space, I cannot agree with you in any way.
paul
physis: since the language is still unclear on its own as to intent, even with the 2002 additional words, on it's own there is no justification for demanding that it be interpreted as you choose. If you choose not to accept other input (like "intent"), how arrogant to assume others must accept your unrelated code input. But being a reasonable sort, I would allow replacement in the same location, unless some other condition disallows.
If I were confronted with an electrician that assumed since the house was pre-existing, they could put the panel in currently unacceptable locations, merely because the house was preexisting by their definition, I would fall back on the accepted adage, often quoted on this site, "if you touch it, change it, alter it, it has to be to current code. If you pulll it out, up to current code.
However, as a reasonable person, and having been through this numerous times as an electrician, I have bent some on specifics. I do not think that I must bend, as you suggest.
It is in the interest of all parties that there are solutions to these problems. I suggest that in the future, some initial queries be conducted.
I had one personal case that proved that you can't always win. The panel in question was rusting to nothing, being near the ocean; the breakers were rusted. The local inspectors were okay with replacing the panel as existing, but PG&E would not okay the new panel location. No matter how much I tried, they would not bend.
Remember, this was the main disconnect for this house, the meter not being the required disconnect Putting it in the crawl space is far from safe, reasonable, and actually some what comic. If you still insist that that exception is to be interpreted in the manner that would allow a main disconnect to be moved to the crawl space, I cannot agree with you in any way.
paul
physis
Senior Member
Re: 110.26E
I may have missed where it is posted but I haven't seen where JW and yourself have done the same. It might help to show how you see the language as disallowing the installation.
Do you think we will end up with more agreeing interpretations or more disagreeing interpretaions if we start applying intent?
I'm gonna use the words.
I interprept the exception as allowing the installation and have used the language contained in the exeption to illustrate my interpretation.
I may have missed where it is posted but I haven't seen where JW and yourself have done the same. It might help to show how you see the language as disallowing the installation.
You're right, I shouldn't demand anything be seen my way. But this just seems so clear to me that I can't imagine being wrong. But I'll give you that.
If you beleive it's arrogant to object to the enforcement of the intent of code when that intent may or may not even be known then so be it.
Do you think we will end up with more agreeing interpretations or more disagreeing interpretaions if we start applying intent?
I'm gonna use the words.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: 110.26E
Alright, let?s restate this: The exception deals with headroom, not panel location. It doesn?t speak to replacement or new installations either. It only speaks to headroom in an existing dwelling, were the service or panelboard is 200A or less.
The location may violate 110.2(C) (1) and that Section does give great latitude for AHJ judgment. If the location makes it an unsafe installation because of restricted access, it is reasonable to require it to be moved.
However the current exception to 110.26(E) is a simple text test:
Is it an existing dwelling?
Is the panel 200A or less?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the headroom shall be permitted to be less than 6 ? feet.
You could ask the same questions and get the same answers since 1993 at least.
Alright, let?s restate this: The exception deals with headroom, not panel location. It doesn?t speak to replacement or new installations either. It only speaks to headroom in an existing dwelling, were the service or panelboard is 200A or less.
The location may violate 110.2(C) (1) and that Section does give great latitude for AHJ judgment. If the location makes it an unsafe installation because of restricted access, it is reasonable to require it to be moved.
However the current exception to 110.26(E) is a simple text test:
Is it an existing dwelling?
Is the panel 200A or less?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the headroom shall be permitted to be less than 6 ? feet.
You could ask the same questions and get the same answers since 1993 at least.
- Status