Is this a clearance violation?

[qcroanoke]

The enclosed main breaker on the left.
It does not have 30 inches of working space.
But is it required?
I think it is because it is the main and is likely to need to be energized for troubleshooting.



http://forums.mikeholt.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

 

[retire09]

I think technically it is a clearance violation if you have less than 30" between the wall and the transfer switch.
As an inspector, I would not make that call.
If someone does, you can move the disconnect out from the wall to be even with the transfer switch on the right..

 

[Hendrix]

I think technically it is a clearance violation if you have less than 30" between the wall and the transfer switch.
As an inspector, I would not make that call.
If someone does, you can move the disconnect out from the wall to be even with the transfer switch on the right..

30 " or the size of the equipment, which ever is larger. 110.26(A)2

 

[augie47]

What is the depth of the cabinet of the main and the depth of the transfer switch.
The 30" requirement for the switch can overlap the TS if the depth difference is not greater than 6"

 

[retire09]

Where is the 6" difference in depth allowance in the code?
Is this another code change that I am not aware of?

 

[augie47]

Where is the 6" difference in depth allowance in the code?
Is this another code change that I am not aware of?

"hidden" in 110.26(A)(3)

 

[mwm1752]

"hidden" in 110.26(A)(3)

I think its a stretch as the section refers to height not width -- As code I would say its a violation - With a little planning the situation would not be a problem -- there may be room for reasonable access here though.

 

[david]

I think its a stretch as the section refers to height not width -- As code I would say its a violation - With a little planning the situation would not be a problem -- there may be room for reasonable access here though.

If there is 30 inches of width in front of the equipment how is it a violation. 30 in widths for the equipment are allowed to overlap each other

 

[retire09]

The depth of the transfer switch is encroaching into the working clearance and 110.26(a)(3) only allows for the 6" overlap above or below the equipment. I still think that technically it is a violation but I would hope no inspector would call that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think its a stretch as the section refers to height not width -- As code I would say its a violation - With a little planning the situation would not be a problem -- there may be room for reasonable access here though.

I agree that the 6" rule only applies to vertically stacked equipment. There is no 6" rule for the width.

 

[mwm1752]

If there is 30 inches of width in front of the equipment how is it a violation. 30 in widths for the equipment are allowed to overlap each other

Overlap is not the issue here, if both are on the same plane no encroachment within the overlap occurs. this is a depth of equipment in the width - not depth above or below in height. Would you be ok if the main was tight to the adjacent wall and the transfer switch was tight to the Main leaving the width of the main as the actual open space to work in?

 

[GoldDigger]

If the panel on the left does not have sufficient working space, then neither does the panel on the far right.

If I were inspecting I would not consider the forward extension of the center equipment to be a great enough infringement on the working space(s) to justify a violation notice.
It would have been nice if the panels had been brought forward to be flush with the center equipment, but who knows what was there first.

 

[infinity]

I agree that the 6" rule only applies to vertically stacked equipment. There is no 6" rule for the width.

I agree also, the permissible encroachment would need to above or below the equipment not to the side. The equipment on the far right needs to be built out off of the rear wall so that it's front is even with the piece of equipment adjacent to it on the left.

 

[kwired]

Where is the 6" difference in depth allowance in the code?
Is this another code change that I am not aware of?

"hidden" in 110.26(A)(3)

That change was made several years ago - Maybe around 1996, 1999, 2002? Though as mentioned it is for items above or below the equipment requiring clearance and does not mention adjacent (left - right) clearances. Some inspectors may still let you have this as long as the transfer switch is not more then 6 inches beyond the other equipment depth though.

Picture is not clear enough or zoomed out enough to tell if we still have at least 30 inches on either side of the transfer switch before we encounter a wall or other equipment otherwise making the panel board(s) in a narrower then 30 inch space.

 

[mwm1752]

If the panel on the left does not have sufficient working space, then neither does the panel on the far right.

If I were inspecting I would not consider the forward extension of the center equipment to be a great enough infringement on the working space(s) to justify a violation notice.
It would have been nice if the panels had been brought forward to be flush with the center equipment, but who knows what was there first.

It is a real inconvienence that the code uses measurement as a standard -- I guess the real question is how far you bend the specific minimum standard code as not to increase a life safety factor. Of course we know that all people walk the same speed, have the same balance & problem solve identically -- I have not said I would fail the situation I have opined it was a code violation -- this is not a rubber stamp type inspection --

 

[kwired]

...Of course we know that all people walk the same speed, have the same balance & problem solve identically -- I have not said I would fail the situation I have opined it was a code violation -- this is not a rubber stamp type inspection --

So you are saying we should design such equipment for service by specific individuals - maybe put a label right on equipment stating who is allowed to work on it, or at least put height, weight or other physical requirements that must be met before you can work on it on the label.

 

[qcroanoke]

If the panel on the left does not have sufficient working space, then neither does the panel on the far right.

If I were inspecting I would not consider the forward extension of the center equipment to be a great enough infringement on the working space(s) to justify a violation notice.
It would have been nice if the panels had been brought forward to be flush with the center equipment, but who knows what was there first.

No, the panel on the right has a good 4 feet or more before it gets to a wall or any other equipment.
Normally we would have built the Main breaker enclosure out flush with the ATS, or moved the ATS and panel far enough to the right to make clearances.but you can't catch everything and some people will do what the print shows and never question what it shows even if they know it's wrong.........

 

[kwired]

No, the panel on the right has a good 4 feet or more before it gets to a wall or any other equipment.
Normally we would have built the Main breaker enclosure out flush with the ATS, or moved the ATS and panel far enough to the right to make clearances.but you can't catch everything and some people will do what the print shows and never question what it shows even if they know it's wrong.........

Must be a wall just to left of the enclosed single breaker (probably the service disconnect)? It is a little hard to tell in the image, but the disappearing raceway coming out the left side kind of makes it look like there is a wall there.

 

[qcroanoke]

Must be a wall just to left of the enclosed single breaker (probably the service disconnect)? It is a little hard to tell in the image, but the disappearing raceway coming out the left side kind of makes it look like there is a wall there.

Correct.

 

[mwm1752]

So you are saying we should design such equipment for service by specific individuals - maybe put a label right on equipment stating who is allowed to work on it, or at least put height, weight or other physical requirements that must be met before you can work on it on the label.

I guess I should italicize sarcasm as I thought that was your point -- Not seeing a problem with the clear space since you can work on it____ WE don't need no stinkin books:happyno: