Clearances in a POCO substation

[qcroanoke]

WE have a situation where a poco control rack is installed within 36 inches of an electrical panel.
The panel was there first and the POCO rack was installed in the working space that the electrical panel requires.
Since the rack is under the exclusive control of the utiity is it in violation as installed?
Can the POCO put their racks anywhere they want even if it violates clearances required by the NEC for equipment already there?
Does 90.2 (B) (5) b allow this?

 

[Hv&Lv]

36” in front of the panel or beside the panel?
You say “within 36” of a panel” which is fine if it’s 36” beside the panel

 

[qcroanoke]

36” in front of the panel or beside the panel?
You say “within 36” of a panel” which is fine if it’s 36” beside the panel

In front.
from the front of the panel to the rack. Not side clearance.

 

[Rock86]

I'm assuming you are asking because you believe this to fall under a condition 3 of NEC Table 110.26? What is the nominal voltage to ground of the equipment? if you are below 150, than there is no issue.

 

[qcroanoke]

I'm assuming you are asking because you believe this to fall under a condition 3 of NEC Table 110.26? What is the nominal voltage to ground of the equipment? if you are below 150, than there is no issue.

No

 

[qcroanoke]

No

No, Not assuming anything. Condition 3 does not apply.
All I'm asking is: a POCO control rack has been installed in the required working space of a 120/240 VAC panel board.
Since this is a control rack under the exclusive control of the POCO and it is in a POCO control building does the NEC have any say so in where it is located as far as being in violation of clearances required by 110.26 for the panel board?

 

[Rock86]

No, Not assuming anything. Condition 3 does not apply.
All I'm asking is: a POCO control rack has been installed in the required working space of a 120/240 VAC panel board.
Since this is a control rack under the exclusive control of the POCO and it is in a POCO control building does the NEC have any say so in where it is located as far as being in violation of clearances required by 110.26 for the panel board?

Ahhhhh.... I got you now. Well looking back at 90.2(B)(5), I'd ask if it meets those conditions like you were asking in your original post.

We have been doing a job designing large training rooms for a POCO, in which they will be handling mock utility services. Now even though the POCO owns the building, because of its designated use, we are following the NEC. Consider where the rack is located, what it is being used for, and if 90.2(B) applies. If the rack is in an electrical room of an office building for the POCO, I'd say it falls under NEC. If the rack is used for control of energy distribution or communications equipment... ehh then it would be more questionable.

 

[gadfly56]

Ahhhhh.... I got you now. Well looking back at 90.2(B)(5), I'd ask if it meets those conditions like you were asking in your original post.

We have been doing a job designing large training rooms for a POCO, in which they will be handling mock utility services. Now even though the POCO owns the building, because of its designated use, we are following the NEC. Consider where the rack is located, what it is being used for, and if 90.2(B) applies. If the rack is in an electrical room of an office building for the POCO, I'd say it falls under NEC. If the rack is used for control of energy distribution or communications equipment... ehh then it would be more questionable.

If the building would otherwise be subject to inspection by the AHJ for other work, it would also be subject to the NEC.

 

[qcroanoke]

If the building would otherwise be subject to inspection by the AHJ for other work, it would also be subject to the NEC.

I don't think it's subject to AHJ inspection.
It is located on property owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO. The building is also owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO.
I think the building falls under 90.2(B)(5) b

 

[gadfly56]

I don't think it's subject to AHJ inspection.
It is located on property owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO. The building is also owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO.
I think the building falls under 90.2(B)(5) b

On further consideration, based on you code cite, I think you're probably right. The only issue, then, is whether or not the POCO has internal standards regarding the clearances under discussion.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I don't think it's subject to AHJ inspection.
It is located on property owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO. The building is also owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO.
I think the building falls under 90.2(B)(5) b

On any of our substation control houses, even though these control houses control the distribution of power they are still under the NEC per the code that you cited. Common sense even dictates to leave working space in front of a panel.
Even though the power company employees put this rack in front of it I have a hard time believing the engineer in charge of the project would want it left that way.

 

[Rock86]

I don't think it's subject to AHJ inspection.
It is located on property owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO. The building is also owned by and under the exclusive control of the POCO.
I think the building falls under 90.2(B)(5) b

I would still argue it depends on the use of the building. An office building owned by the POCO would fall under NEC rules. A substation with a controls room would fall under other codes... I believe NESC. But that is all my interpretation of the 90.2(B)

 

[Rock86]

Common sense even dictates to leave working space in front of a panel.

Take a shot for saying that. .

 

[gadfly56]

On any of our substation control houses, even though these control houses control the distribution of power they are still under the NEC per the code that you cited. Common sense even dictates to leave working space in front of a panel.
Even though the power company employees put this rack in front of it I have a hard time believing the engineer in charge of the project would want it left that way.

You sure about that? The NEC seems pretty clear it does NOT apply in this case:

(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the purpose of communications, metering, generation, control, transformation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy, or
c. ...

 

[Hv&Lv]

You sure about that? The NEC seems pretty clear it does NOT apply in this case:

(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the purpose of communications, metering, generation, control, transformation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy, or
c. ...

There I would argue 90.2(A)(4).
The control house isn’t an INTEGRAL part of the substation. There are many substations that work fine without a control house.
We have our control houses built off site to current codes and they come to us on a truck.
They are then set on a concrete pad.

A lawyer could argue that a control center as in 90.2(A)(4) could not include a “control house” because it isn’t “integral” (necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental).
A control rack on the other hand would be considered a control center because it houses the protection and metering relays. Therefore it is integral.

 

[qcroanoke]

There I would argue 90.2(A)(4).
The control house isn’t an INTEGRAL part of the substation. There are many substations that work fine without a control house.
We have our control houses built off site to current codes and they come to us on a truck.
They are then set on a concrete pad.

A lawyer could argue that a control center as in 90.2(A)(4) could not include a “control house” because it isn’t “integral” (necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental).
A control rack on the other hand would be considered a control center because it houses the protection and metering relays. Therefore it is integral.

That's funny! That's what we do. off site construction delivered to site and off loaded to the pad.

 

[Hv&Lv]

That's funny! That's what we do. off site construction delivered to site and off loaded to the pad.

If yours are built by manufacturing company like ours are they’re built to many state codes. One of the funniest things that I see is the control house itself is 12 foot wide. There are 2-36 inch double doors on each side of the control house. These doors each have windows in them. Above each door is a lighted emergency exit sign. Like you can’t see the way out if something happens...

 

[qcroanoke]

If yours are built by manufacturing company like ours are they’re built to many state codes. One of the funniest things that I see is the control house itself is 12 foot wide. There are 2-36 inch double doors on each side of the control house. These doors each have windows in them. Above each door is a lighted emergency exit sign. Like you can’t see the way out if something happens...

It's a code thing.
International Building Code
Section 1008
Means of Egress Illumination

 

[Hv&Lv]

It's a code thing.
International Building Code
Section 1008
Means of Egress Illumination

Yeah, I realize that...
Still it’s funny to me. We never notice the signs. Just the big windows in the doors..
The bad thing is I have to have this maintained by our guys during sub inspections...

 

[qcroanoke]

Yeah, I realize that...
Still it’s funny to me. We never notice the signs. Just the big windows in the doors..
The bad thing is I have to have this maintained by our guys during sub inspections...

We've put fixed windows in the walls as well.