confusion on dedicated electrical space

[inspector23]

I am in need of clarification insight of 2008 NEC section 110.26 [F] [1] [a] and -

[a] states no other equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in the dedicated zone.

states foreign systems shall be permitted if installed to avoid damage to the electrical equipment from condensation, leaks, or breaks in such foreign systems.


IMO, seems to be a direct contradiction to [a].



There is heavy political pressure to enforce [a], as this condition is in a massage parlor that the officials want to shut down.

seems to allow it, which makes [a] hard to defend in court, IMO.


Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Sandman1110]

I am in need of clarification insight of 2008 NEC section 110.26 [F] [1] [a] and View attachment 8090 - View attachment 8089

[a] states no other equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in the dedicated zone.

states foreign systems shall be permitted if installed to avoid damage to the electrical equipment from condensation, leaks, or breaks in such foreign systems.


IMO, seems to be a direct contradiction to [a].



There is heavy political pressure to enforce [a], as this condition is in a massage parlor that the officials want to shut down.

seems to allow it, which makes [a] hard to defend in court, IMO.


Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

It is confusing but here's my take....

110.26(F)(1)(a), exception, and 110.26(F)(1)(c) say the dedicated space may not have any foreign systems, other than sprinklers, or suspended ceilings. 110.26(F)(1)(b), says the area Above the dedicated space may include foreign systems, however one would need to install drip pans or similar protection to guard against leaks, breaks, or condensation. So the upshot is that no, you may not have any foreign systems in the dedicated space other than fire sprinklers or a suspended ceiling.

 

[david luchini]

From your picture, you wouldn't seem to have an issue with 110.26(F) at all.

Your issues would seem to be with 110.26(A)(3) and 110.26(E).

 

[Sandman1110]

sigh :blink:....one of these days I'll learn to open the attachments.....110.26(F) deals with switchboards, panel boards, distribution boards and MCC's and not so much with the stuff in the photo.....so 110.26(F) isn't what applies here.

 

[david luchini]

sigh :blink:....one of these days I'll learn to open the attachments.....110.26(F) deals with switchboards, panel boards, distribution boards and MCC's and not so much with the stuff in the photo.....so 110.26(F) isn't what applies here.

Well, there does appear to be a panelboard, but it looks recessed to me. The dedicated equipment space would be IN the wall. The equipment ON the wall above the panel isn't in the dedicated equipment space, but in the working space.

I think that equipment may be permitted, provided it doesn't extend more than 6" beyond the front of the panel.

 

[inspector23]

clarification

clarification

Sorry, perhaps I need to clairfy. The picture is not too clear, but the gray area below the phone equipment [foreign system] is the panel for the TI and the phone equipment [foreign system] is dirrectly above the panel.

 

[inspector23]

Well, there does appear to be a panelboard, but it looks recessed to me. The dedicated equipment space would be IN the wall. The equipment ON the wall above the panel isn't in the dedicated equipment space, but in the working space.

I think that equipment may be permitted, provided it doesn't extend more than 6" beyond the front of the panel.

The panelboard is recessed [flush mount] and the phone equipment [ foreign system] does enchroach the 6 " in front of the panel.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The panelboard is recessed [flush mount] and the phone equipment [ foreign system] does enchroach the 6 " in front of the panel.

The phone is not associated with the panel and therefore is not allowed in the space at all, IMO

 

[Sandman1110]

I can't tell very well from the photo.....but it does appear you are dealing with clearances....are those phone blocks over part of the panel cover?

 

[david luchini]

The panelboard is recessed [flush mount] and the phone equipment [ foreign system] does enchroach the 6 " in front of the panel.

Does the phone equipment extend beyond 6" from the wall?

The phone is not associated with the panel and therefore is not allowed in the space at all, IMO

I would consider any equipment that the Code covers to be part of the "electrical installation" (fire alarm systems, communications circuits, radio and television equipment, etc.) IMO, the allowance for other equipment to be installed in the working space (above or below electrical equipment and not more than 6" beyond the front of the electrical equipment) applies to other equipment associated with the electrical installation, not specifically to other equipment associated with the electrical equipment whose workspace is being encroached.

 

[Sandman1110]

boy, these posts move too fast lol......that phone system needs to go somewhere else. I don't think its a dedicated space violation, but a working clearance violation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Does the phone equipment extend beyond 6" from the wall?



I would consider any equipment that the Code covers to be part of the "electrical installation" (fire alarm systems, communications circuits, radio and television equipment, etc.) IMO, the allowance for other equipment to be installed in the working space (above or below electrical equipment and not more than 6" beyond the front of the electrical equipment) applies to other equipment associated with the electrical installation, not specifically to other equipment associated with the electrical equipment whose workspace is being encroached.

You may be correct but that's not how I read it. It states associated with the electrical installation. I don't see how the telephone is associated with the panel installation.

 

[david luchini]

I don't see how the telephone is associated with the panel installation.

Its not. Nor does it need to be. It only needs to be part of the "electrical installation," which includes the conductors and equipment that are governed by the Code.

See, for instance, 90.4:

This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signalling and communications systems...

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Its not. Nor does it need to be. It only needs to be part of the "electrical installation," which includes the conductors and equipment that are governed by the Code.

See, for instance, 90.4:

That is what I disagree with. I think it means the equipment must be associated with the panel install not covered in the NEC. If that is what they wanted then they should have said any equipment covered in the NEC is allowed.

 

[david luchini]

That is what I disagree with. I think it means the equipment must be associated with the panel install not covered in the NEC.

They could have easily said..."Other equipment that is associated with the electrical equipment installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment..." and it would have the meaning that you are assigning to it. But they did not.

If that is what they wanted then they should have said any equipment covered in the NEC is allowed.

That IS what they said. That is the plain meaning of "electrical installation"...equipment that is installed per the provisions of the Code.

 

[Sandman1110]

so the way I'm following this, where you guys disagree is whether the phone equipment is considered associated electrical equipment for clearance applicaton? IMO it is part of the "electrical installation" because in this instance I believe the intent is a global reference to the installation. It is a different system, however, still falls within the "general installation" and guidelines of NEC. What is in the picture looks like a hairdo, but since the panel is flush mount, it isn't a dedicated space issue. I think it's a clearance issue because it appears to physically impede the panel cover.

 

[inspector23]

it does impede panel cover.

it does impede panel cover.

so the way I'm following this, where you guys disagree is whether the phone equipment is considered associated electrical equipment for clearance applicaton? IMO it is part of the "electrical installation" because in this instance I believe the intent is a global reference to the installation. It is a different system, however, still falls within the "general installation" and guidelines of NEC. What is in the picture looks like a hairdo, but since the panel is flush mount, it isn't a dedicated space issue. I think it's a clearance issue because it appears to physically impede the panel cover.

Sorry for the delayed response, was out on field inspection. We can and will ask the phone equipment plywood to be be moved in order to remove the panel cover, but the issue here is bigger. Remember, this is a hot button issue, with a lot of political pressure to close this massage parlor. I am being asked to force them to remove the phone equipment, with the feeling they cannot have it completed in the short time they will be given for full compliance, therfore allowing for the legal closure of the business for not correcting the code violation.


I am being really careful with this one because it is definitely headed to court - either way it gets called. Officials want it closed, then taken to court. Whole case for closure, as least as far as I am being led to believe, is contingent upon this issue.

 

[Speshulk]

Sorry for the delayed response, was out on field inspection. We can and will ask the phone equipment plywood to be be moved in order to remove the panel cover, but the issue here is bigger. Remember, this is a hot button issue, with a lot of political pressure to close this massage parlor. I am being asked to force them to remove the phone equipment, with the feeling they cannot have it completed in the short time they will be given for full compliance, therfore allowing for the legal closure of the business for not correcting the code violation.


I am being really careful with this one because it is definitely headed to court - either way it gets called. Officials want it closed, then taken to court. Whole case for closure, as least as far as I am being led to believe, is contingent upon this issue.

How exactly is this a big enough code issue to shut down a business? And I really have to wonder about a jurisdiction that's asking an inspector to violate something with the idea that they're not going to give them time to correct the issue.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This is, as David said, a 110.26(A) issue and not a 110.26(F). Compliance with 110.26(A) would not be difficult or take a lot of time. They only have to get the bottom of the phone equipment to 6'6".

 

[pfalcon]

..., but the issue here is bigger. Remember, this is a hot button issue, with a lot of political pressure to close this massage parlor. ..., with the feeling they cannot have it completed in the short time they will be given for full compliance, therefore allowing for the legal closure of the business for not correcting the code violation. ...

Gotta love lawyers, politicians, and especially lawyer-politicians called judges.

Code violations by common law are not a "Criminal Act". Such an installation would be hard to prove a "Criminal Mind". Nor can it be construed as an "Imminent Threat to Public Safety". Therefore by common law in the US at least - the judicial decision is mandated to be that "Reasonable Time" must be given to act regardless of regulatory findings or local/state/federal statutes. To prevent compliance by not permitting a "Reasonable Time" is by common law an act of "Eminent Domain" - a "Forced Taking of Property". The full judicial decision should be "A reasonable time to correct the finding after which the business shall remain closed until the finding is corrected." Permanent closing of the business would require the full eminent domain process and eminent domain justification.

And then we remember that most judges are lawyer-politicians. :rant:

And there are those darn British periods again.