Is this panel to code?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Is this panel to code?

110.26 (A)(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.

Now we need to decide if the wall is associated with the equipment.

Maybe Jim can see it a little better with the picture that he blue up. :)
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

"other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment."
That's really pushing things a bit far. :D
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

"The wind gone and blowed my trailer over."

Or, how about, "I was tryin to get up thet big hill yonder when my motor blowed up"
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

Ocay thin enuff!!! Weuns no thim Tamper lektricians caint speel and dont no nuthun bout punksyouhayshun.

Roger
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

Access is very good though and the front covers of both panels are easily removed. From a safety and accessability standpoint, this installation is very good. Does this count for anything?

I guess its an interesting point about letter of the law and intent of the law....

[ December 12, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: sleuth255 ]
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

Now...back to the panel. What is the violation of this panel other than the door that covers it? If you're going for the 30" rule you're splitting hairs, because that's in there for a person to be able to stand in front of the panel to work on it. In this situation you're able to do. There is no hazard to property by the installation, nor is there any safety issue to persons who work on it. The job of an inspector is to also use some common sense and not be anal about his/her job. 90.2(C) and 90.4 allow them to use some common sense judgements.
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

the 30 inch width requirement is about an average mans shoulder width and the 36 inch depth is the average mans measurement of arms extended.This is a common sense rule and I see no violation. The intent is that the panel be easily and safely worked on. It seems that this instal can be easily ansd safely worked on. I agree dont be so anl use some common sense and quit splitting hairs just to wite a violation. Just m 2 c worht anyhow.
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

I agree this panel is easy and safe to work on.

Regardless it is an NEC violation installed recessed in that wall.

Would I 'notice it' if I was an inspector?

I doubt it. :)
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

For those of you who have not experienced being an inspector, it is not all common sense and about writing violations. First off, writing violations even simple ones is a pain - lots of paperwork and followup.
Second, electrical inspectors are not the only people looking at the installations these days.
We are followed by the building inspector, and if something goes wrong, the forensic electrical inspectors...they don't miss much of anything.


90.4 does not give the inspector the right to change code, or to waive code rules unless there is an alternate method just as safe.

I have been in the position when I was first an inspector of "waiving" small code violations such as this, only to have the Building Department make comment about it during their inspection.... that does not happen often afterwards.

I have also learned, code is code and if Contractor A wants to get away with A, then Cont B wants B, Cont C wants C...so on and so forth - where does one stop? It is easier for everyone else to inspect each job to the way the code is written, then they know what to expect.

Now you guys have made me go and "blowed up" this picture. It is back behind the sheetrock and the framing. But.... because you made me look further, the NM cables are not properly secured ... the panel is not identified, and if I was there, maybe a few more ;)

Like I said before, I do not get crazy and split hair unless the Building Department steps in, but label the panel ..... please.

And... a good inspector could be saving you from a Forensic inspection in the future...
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

Originally posted by pierre:
I have also learned, code is code and if Contractor A wants to get away with A, then Cont B wants B, Cont C wants C...so on and so forth - where does one stop? It is easier for everyone else to inspect each job to the way the code is written, then they know what to expect.

.....

And... a good inspector could be saving you from a Forensic inspection in the future...
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!

Thank you, I wish I worked in your jurisdiction.
 
Re: Is this panel to code?

Originally posted by pierre:
... the NM cables are not properly secured ... the panel is not identified, and if I was there, maybe a few more ;)

Like I said before, I do not get crazy and split hair unless the Building Department steps in, but label the panel ..... please.
Click to expand...
Thanks for blowing the picture up and looking harder Pierre ;)

Interestingly: when we bought this house, the inspector noted 3 double taps in the main panel but not the recessed panel issue itself or the NM cable secure issue.

After I had the panel fixed for the double tap problem, I did a complete circuit inventory of the house and labeled all circuits... I'm no electrician but I couldn't understand how anyone could (not) do that.

However, I don't understand the NM cable secure issue you uncovered. Again, I'm no electrician but the cables appear to be to be secured to framing within between 4 and 6" of the subpanel itself and I believe that approved panel connectors are in place too. Is this what's wrong? I'm assuming there's additional NEC guidlines for panels here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top