Foreign systems above a recessed panel

[Grouch1980]

We're looking at recess mounting a 120/208 volt panel into a wall (flush into the wall). It has 6 feet above it of 'dedicated electrical space' according to section 110 of the NEC. Above this 6 feet, figure 7 feet higher than the panel, there will be plumbing pipes going through the wall (water, gas, etc.). I'm assuming the drywall material that makes up the wall would not be considered 'protection' against leaks or breaks in the plumbing pipes? would any fire rated material encasing the plumbing penetrations be sufficient?

Thanks!

 

[Grouch1980]

I'm reading some threads in the past related to this. seems that for a recessed panel, you no longer will install future conduits coming out of the panel, since it's now blocked by the wall... so the 6' rule above the panel may not even apply to begin with. I think this is opening a can of worms.

 

[AC\DC]

I see no we’re in 110.26 (e) that says since it’s recessed that still does not apply. In (a) says “equal to the width and depth of the equipment” so should not matter if it’s surface or recessed.

 

[Grouch1980]

I was doing another search, and lo and behold i asked a similar question back in 2017. Looks like it's a no... the 6 foot rule above the panel still applies even if recessed.

 

[AC\DC]

seem dumb That if it’s an empty cavity that happens to be 7’ instead of 6’ now everything is alright. Just make the hole area off limits.

 

[Grouch1980]

i'd love to, but as usual, there's limited space and there's piping everywhere. so, my original question looks like it still applies... if the piping is 7 feet higher than the panel, would a fire rated material encasing the pipes be considered sufficient as protection?

 

[AC\DC]

well your good if your over that 6’ height so whatever You do is just extra at-least how I read it, I have limited experience on fire rated material.

 

[infinity]

i'd love to, but as usual, there's limited space and there's piping everywhere. so, my original question looks like it still applies... if the piping is 7 feet higher than the panel, would a fire rated material encasing the pipes be considered sufficient as protection?

No, the requirement is for nothing in the 6' space and leak protection for piping above the 6'.

 

[Grouch1980]

I'm assuming fire rated protection at the plumbing pipe penetrations wouldn't suffice as leak protection?

 

[AC\DC]

they make drip panes that would suffice (. Saw in mike holt book), don’t know if they make something for sheet Rock walls

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is my opinion that when you apply the words in the section, that recessed panels are a violation. I know that is not the intent, but there is nothing in the section that actually permits the top plate of the wall to be above the recessed panel.

 

[AC\DC]

It is my opinion that when you apply the words in the section, that recessed panels are a violation. I know that is not the intent, but there is nothing in the section that actually permits the top plate of the wall to be above the recessed panel.

Would the top plate be part of the “ structural ceiling” if on an exterior wall need that wall to hold ceiling up

 

[Grouch1980]

It is my opinion that when you apply the words in the section, that recessed panels are a violation.

Yep, I came across this in prior threads. I mean, it IS true when you read the code to the letter! ah well. .... maybe it's time to tell the panel manufacturers that 'flush' mounted panels are not acceptable

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Would the top plate be part of the “ structural ceiling” if on an exterior wall need that wall to hold ceiling up

In my opinion, the top plate is not part of the structural ceiling. The ceiling joists are supported by the top plate.

 

[wwhitney]

In my opinion, the top plate is not part of the structural ceiling. The ceiling joists are supported by the top plate.

The second sentence of 110.26(E)(1)(a) clarifies the meaning of "dedicated" in the first sentence: "No piping, ducts, leak protection apparatus, or
other equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in this zone." As a top plate is not piping, a duct, a leak protection apparatus, or equipment, I don't see it as being prohibited within the dedicated space.

Note that "equipment" is defined in Article 100 to refer to components "part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation," so the phrase "equipment foreign to the electrical installation" looks like a contradiction in terms to me [Probably the writers of 110.26(E)(1)(a) chose the wrong word there.] In any event, it does not include framing.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The second sentence of 110.26(E)(1)(a) clarifies the meaning of "dedicated" in the first sentence: "No piping, ducts, leak protection apparatus, or
other equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in this zone." As a top plate is not piping, a duct, a leak protection apparatus, or equipment, I don't see it as being prohibited within the dedicated space.

Note that "equipment" is defined in Article 100 to refer to components "part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation," so the phrase "equipment foreign to the electrical installation" looks like a contradiction in terms to me [Probably the writers of 110.26(E)(1)(a) chose the wrong word there.] In any event, it does not include framing.

Cheers, Wayne

That would be just fine if they hadn't muddied the waters by adding the exception for suspended ceilings. Those are not equipment either.

 

[wwhitney]

Yes, given the definition of equipment, the exception for suspended ceiling is moot, as 110.26(E)(1)(a) doesn't have any language that would exclude suspended ceilings.

I expect the word "equipment" in 110.25(E)(1)(a) should be changed to "non-structural systems" or the like. Then the exception for suspended ceilings would make sense and be necessary.

Cheers, Wayne