inspector

Status
Not open for further replies.

ktollar

Member
The electrical contractor claims that article 670 should apply to the installation of the control panel for a pump. This installation is in a sewage plant and the voltage is 480.
He feels that he does not have to comply with nec 1999, 110-26. The control panel is a seperate piece of equipment which has the starter, control xfmr, disconnect and relays inside of. The pump is a slugde grinder that is seperate from the panel. He feels that the clearance requirement does not apply because it is in an industrial plant.
My view of the code is that article 670 applies to package units, and that article 110-26 should apply for the disconnect.
 
ktollar said:
The electrical contractor claims that article 670 should apply to the installation of the control panel for a pump. This installation is in a sewage plant and the voltage is 480.
He feels that he does not have to comply with nec 1999, 110-26. The control panel is a seperate piece of equipment which has the starter, control xfmr, disconnect and relays inside of. The pump is a slugde grinder that is seperate from the panel. He feels that the clearance requirement does not apply because it is in an industrial plant.
My view of the code is that article 670 applies to package units, and that article 110-26 should apply for the disconnect.

Where does article 670 state that you can ignore 110-26?:confused:
 
If he wants to hang his hat on 670, what does he say about 670-5? Is he asking for reduced working space or essentially no working space? You might also want to look at the 2005 Handbook:

670.1 Scope
This article covers the definition of, the nameplate data for, and the size and overcurrent protection of supply conductors to industrial machinery.

FPN: For information on the workspace requirements for equipment containing supply conductor terminals, see 110.26. For information on the workspace requirements for machine power and control equipment, see NFPA 79–2002, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery.

Commentary: An important point concerning the revised fine print note is to recognize that 670.5, which covered working clearances unique to industrial machinery in previous editions of the Code, does not appear in the 2005 Code. The requirements of 670.5 amended those of 110.26 and under specific conditions permitted a reduction in the minimum amount of working clearance needed about energized parts of industrial machinery. This rule is no longer necessary in the NEC because 12.5.1.1 in the 2002 edition of NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery, contains working clearance requirements for the equipment covered in the scope of that standard, and working space about equipment covered in the scope of the NEC is specified in 110.26.




The 2005 may not be directly applicable, but it make it pretty clear that 670-5 only allows a reduction from 110-26 in certain circumstances -- it does not remove the 11-26 requirement.

If I was the inspector for this I'd simply say, "110-26 applies. Follow it."

Martin
 
bphgravity said:
If you feel the equipment is likely to be worked on while energized, I would enforce the proper working space.
:confused:

Do you consider troubleshooting as working? I feel you need the clearances for troubleshooting as well as doing the work. In reality the vast majority of the actual work is not done while energized.
 
Yes I do. And I also consider inspection of the equipment as "work" so therefore it better have the proper working clearance for me. ;)
 
That is what I thought. I only brought it up because some of the documentation relating to this stuff have two distinct definitions for troubleshooting and working.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top