Do I Have Main Panel Working Space?

[3oFElectric]

Got a prospective client wanting to upgrade his main panel.

The panel is located in the garage but is recessed into the wall in a sort of cubby. I've attached photos of the panel's current location.

If I replaced the panel and left it in the same location, would I be in violation of workin space given its recessed 4 inches in this cubby?

Also, just as an FYI the work bench beneath the panel is going to be removed so there will be a 36 inch working space in front of the panel.

 

[jaggedben]

I've seen AHJs let that sort of thing slide but technically it's a violation, so unless you know your inspector well I wouldn't chance it. When replacing the panel you have an opportunity to fix that situation. Certainly also tell the client that the workbench can't be there, especially during inspection.

 

[infinity]

I would not put a new panel back without moving it forward so that it is flush with the front of the wall.

 

[garbo]

Kinda of remembering reading that protrosions under panels can not extend more then 12" from front of panels. Countless times I had to stop a customer that wanted to mount a panel over say a 75 KVA transformer sitting on a floor. Use the term " Readily accessible " but some think if you can open a door everything in the room is readily accessible. At a large newspaper that I worked at years ago they had two large pop corn machines that they popped pop corn from Friday lunch hour to late Saturday night so they purchase a skid of pop corn. They stored it under a panel in the switchgear room. I complained about it but was ignored. When the fire Marshall did his yearly walk thru he told them they had 15 minutes to remove pop corn from this room. Only person available was our maintenance supervisor to move it.

 

[infinity]

Kinda of remembering reading that protrosions under panels can not extend more then 12" from front of panels. Countless times I had to stop a customer that wanted to mount a panel over say a 75 KVA transformer sitting on a floor.

Actually the code allows up to 6" of encroachment into the working space for other electrical equipment. For transformers you would need to build out off of the wall until you met the 6" measurement. We've done that for disconnects where there was no room to mount them elsewhere.

 

[MyCleveland]

Got a prospective client wanting to upgrade his main panel.

Is it replacement or a size increase?

If a simple replacement, here you would replace in the same location...if changing with like rating.
Appears you are under....2018 International Existing Building Code.
Look over Chapter 4, 406.1.1.
Your job to verify this is the applicable code for your area.

Talk it over with your AHJ.

 

[3oFElectric]

Actually the code allows up to 6" of encroachment into the working space for other electrical equipment. For transformers you would need to build out off of the wall until you met the 6" measurement. We've done that for disconnects where there was no room to mount them elsewhere.

I had considered this code. Only didn't know if it would be allowed in this case since its a cubby instead of other electrical equipment.

 

[infinity]

Only didn't know if it would be allowed in this case since its a cubby instead of other electrical equipment.

Short answer, no.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Is it replacement or a size increase?

If a simple replacement, here you would replace in the same location...if changing with like rating.
Appears you are under....2018 International Existing Building Code.
Look over Chapter 4, 406.1.1.
Your job to verify this is the applicable code for your area.

Talk it over with your AHJ.

That code permits you to replace an original installation that was a violation at the time it was installed? Most replacement codes only permit you make an installation that is in compliance with the code that was in effect at the time of the original installation. As far as I know, recessing the panel in the cubby was never a code compliant installation.

 

[MyCleveland]

That code permits you to replace an original installation that was a violation at the time it was installed? Most replacement codes only permit you make an installation that is in compliance with the code that was in effect at the time of the original installation. As far as I know, recessing the panel in the cubby was never a code compliant installation.

Unless it can be shown this was created after the property received the final electrical inspection...then Yes.

AHJ's and EI's have a job responsibility. If they failed to flag this and a final was issued the only recourse is to flag it as an imminent hazard or submit in writing a request to the property owner stating the issue that this was passed in error and request it to be repaired. The owner does NOT have to comply.

I do not believe this would fall under an imminent hazard.

 

[charlie b]

Here's how I look at this: Our responsibility as designers and installers includes making things safe for the future electrician (or I-can-handle-this homeowner).

The potential unsafe aspect of insufficient working clearance comes from the effect electricity has on human muscles. Touch a live 120V component and your arm and hand muscles will contract so strongly that they will be unable to obey your brain's urgent command to let go. It is possible (indeed a key member of this forum once described his experience in this very situation) that the only thing that will keep you alive is that, when your entire body starts going limp, the sheer weight of your body falling towards the floor pulls your hand away from the live component.

Put simply, if you don't give a future worker room to fall, they will die. And you will never learn of the event; you will never realize that you could have prevented a family's tragedy.

That is why I have always rigorously ensured compliance with working clearance requirements.

 

[MyCleveland]

Here's how I look at this: Our responsibility as designers and installers includes making things safe for the future electrician (or I-can-handle-this homeowner).

You will need to expand on that for me to understand better.

There was a similar type thread a week or so back where I stated I am not in favor of placing anyone in a danger position.

It is our responsibility to inform clients of ALL options available. We can explain the dangers involved, but the final decision is NOT ours to make.

 

[charlie b]

You will need to expand on that for me to understand better.

Explain what? My inclusion of a DIY homeowner? They're out there. But so long as our installation is safe for a future electrician, our job is done.

 

[MyCleveland]

Explain what? My inclusion of a DIY homeowner? They're out there. But so long as our installation is safe for a future electrician, our job is done.

Understood....on the DIYer.

So in the scenario as I laid out, where an option exists for the owner to do nothing, how would you address this with the owner?

 

[charlie b]

So in the scenario as I laid out, where an option exists for the owner to do nothing, how would you address this with the owner?

In the present instance, the owner wants a new panel. So the option of "do nothing" is not on the table.

But if you were asked to perform a panel upgrade, and if the homeowner balked at the cost of making it code-compliant and informed you that they choose to do nothing at this time, then I believe you should inform the homeowner, in writing, of the nature of the hazard. In an ideal world, they would give you a signed acknowledgement of having received your letter.

 

[petersonra]

tell the client that the workbench can't be there, especially during inspection.

I corrected it for you.