NEC 110.26(B) and trash cans

[drcampbell]

I'm a little disappointed that the discussion is revolving around convenience and dictionary definitions, and missing the bigger picture.

If somebody makes contact with a live wire and is in the throes of tetanic spasms, somebody needs to turn the breaker off NOW.
You don't obstruct access to panels, (or fire extinguishers, or emergency exits) EVER.

 

[LarryFine]

You don't obstruct access to panels, (or fire extinguishers, or emergency exits) EVER.

 

[jaggedben]

I'm a little disappointed that the discussion is revolving around convenience and dictionary definitions, and missing the bigger picture.

If somebody makes contact with a live wire and is in the throes of tetanic spasms, somebody needs to turn the breaker off NOW.
You don't obstruct access to panels, (or fire extinguishers, or emergency exits) EVER.

Seriously...
When has anyone, ever, dealt with that situation by looking for a breaker to turn off?

 

[jaggedben]

Seriously...
When has anyone, ever, dealt with that situation by looking for a breaker to turn off?

Also note that 'readily accessible' still does not entail the full requirements of 110.26.

 

[hillbilly1]

Seriously...
When has anyone, ever, dealt with that situation by looking for a breaker to turn off?

Much quicker to turn off the whole panel, or even the service off. Most trading videos have you knock them loose with something non-conductive like a 2x4.

 

[LarryFine]

"No! Shut them all down!"

 

[jim dungar]

I'm a little disappointed that the discussion is revolving around convenience and dictionary definitions, and missing the bigger picture.

If somebody makes contact with a live wire and is in the throes of tetanic spasms, somebody needs to turn the breaker off NOW.
You don't obstruct access to panels, (or fire extinguishers, or emergency exits) EVER.

Panelboards are allowed to have locked covers, they are also allowed to be behind locked doors hundreds of feet away from points where someone contacts a live wire. Locating a remote breaker should not be the first action taken when someone is being shocked. Among other things, this is why 'live work' is severely restricted under NFPA 70E.

 

[Fred B]

I've rolled many a trash can out of the way to inspect a panel and never considered it a 110.26 violation. Electricians and Fire marshals are usually the only ones who compllain and 5 min after they are gone the owner rolls the cans back.

Gone in for service work at convenience stores and small dollar type stores and most times have to move multiple product trucks full to even get anywhere near the panels. These stores will have signage and taped off areas indicating nothing to be store in the area, but it doesn't stop it. One time had to move carts for more than a half hour just to get back to the panels to find out why the lights weren't working. Some of these have been no working space left around a 480V 600A panels. How can having it take a half hour to gain access not be a violation or safety hazard.

 

[hillbilly1]

They line up the receiving carts in front of the panels at the Wal-Mart Markets, at least they are on wheels, so I don’t have to hunt down a pallet jack!

 

[hornetd]

Under what situation would an AHJ be applying the NEC to a 'non-installation'?
Are public/government employed inspectors generally allowed into building for unsolicited inspections?

Yes they are. Periodic routine inspections were upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Cea vs San Francisco, Camera vs Seattle. SCOTUS held that routine inspections of commercial premises to enforce health and safety codes can be refused by the occupant but also that a warrant can be issued based on the public's need to be safe from hazards in those premises. Some localities have levied fines of 10,000 dollars a day for refusing inspectors entry immediately on presentment of a warrant. Those fines are upheld and collected by the courts based on that case. Once the result of that case began to be applied realtors began adding instant eviction clauses to their leasing contracts if the lessee refuses entry to a public inspector with a warrant. The courts will write inspection warrants for entire districts of a community to avoid the use of the requirement for a warrant to obstruct public health and safety inspections. The fines are usually negotiated downward if the person of firm that refused entry on the presentment of the warrant signs a statement acknowledging that inspectors must be admitted at once when a warrant is presented and agreeing to accept probation before judgement for their refusal. That means that the person or firm which unlawfully refused the inspector entry goes right to jail and is tried for the new offense and the one they accepted probation before judgement for. The objective is to get the inspection done and the hazards eliminated rather than to collect fines. While I was serving as a seasonal & limited term firefighter I conducted inspections for things as diverse as brush clearances from rural structures to fire suppression equipment condition in fuel refineries. I have had both types of occupants come find me to say thank you after I saved their home from a wildfire by enforcing the 100 foot brush clearances or ended up helping the management qualify their facility as a Highly Protected Risk with a much lower insurance premium. The reason that I got to do such inspections was that I had the fire protection education required by some of the States I worked in when none of the permanent employees did. Their job description didn't require it. They wouldn't get extra money for doing the work. The paper work that comes with doing inspections is needlessly onerous. So why spend your own money and time to take the 2 year degree. Since I was trying to get hired full time I thought it might give me a leg up.

Tom Horne

 

[ActionDave]

Yes they are. Periodic routine inspections were upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Cea vs San Francisco, Camera vs Seattle. SCOTUS held that routine inspections of commercial premises to enforce health and safety codes can be refused by the occupant but also that a warrant can be issued based on the public's need to be safe from hazards in those premises. Some localities have levied fines of 10,000 dollars a day for refusing inspectors entry immediately on presentment of a warrant. Those fines are upheld and collected by the courts based on that case. Once the result of that case began to be applied realtors began adding instant eviction clauses to their leasing contracts if the lessee refuses entry to a public inspector with a warrant. The courts will write inspection warrants for entire districts of a community to avoid the use of the requirement for a warrant to obstruct public health and safety inspections. The fines are usually negotiated downward if the person of firm that refused entry on the presentment of the warrant signs a statement acknowledging that inspectors must be admitted at once when a warrant is presented and agreeing to accept probation before judgement for their refusal. That means that the person or firm which unlawfully refused the inspector entry goes right to jail and is tried for the new offense and the one they accepted probation before judgement for. The objective is to get the inspection done and the hazards eliminated rather than to collect fines. While I was serving as a seasonal & limited term firefighter I conducted inspections for things as diverse as brush clearances from rural structures to fire suppression equipment condition in fuel refineries. I have had both types of occupants come find me to say thank you after I saved their home from a wildfire by enforcing the 100 foot brush clearances or ended up helping the management qualify their facility as a Highly Protected Risk with a much lower insurance premium. The reason that I got to do such inspections was that I had the fire protection education required by some of the States I worked in when none of the permanent employees did. Their job description didn't require it. They wouldn't get extra money for doing the work. The paper work that comes with doing inspections is needlessly onerous. So why spend your own money and time to take the 2 year degree. Since I was trying to get hired full time I thought it might give me a leg up.

Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

View attachment 2567158

Ive done that a couple of times. When it's the only way to establish a continuous water supply while Brother and Sister firefighters have already begun an attack using water from the apparatus tank the whole car is nothing against their lives. If any of you think you can bend that hose around a car when it is under pressure you are deluding yourself. And if you stretch it around the obstruction before you open the hydrant the hose will kink and badly reduce the flow. When the hydrant is in a district with limited water supply or it is a drafting hydrant used to take water from a static source like a pond or stream then you have to use non collapsible hose. For that you open the doors after breaking the glass and lay the suction hose between the front and back seats. If that can't be done the next 2 arriving crews will help you roll the car onto it's roof to get the hose on the nipple. If you don't get water in the 3 minutes and 20 seconds that the tank water will last those people could die in there! To illustrate how important a continuous flow can be an Engine Crew of the Philadelphia Fire Department held the fire back in a hallway while their helmets melted on their heads so that the paramedics and the rescue squad could carry a woman in labor out before the fire overran her escape path.

Tom Horne

No we aren't no saintly heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to. We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you!

 

[hillbilly1]

Yes they are. Periodic routine inspections were upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Cea vs San Francisco, Camera vs Seattle. SCOTUS held that routine inspections of commercial premises to enforce health and safety codes can be refused by the occupant but also that a warrant can be issued based on the public's need to be safe from hazards in those premises. Some localities have levied fines of 10,000 dollars a day for refusing inspectors entry immediately on presentment of a warrant. Those fines are upheld and collected by the courts based on that case. Once the result of that case began to be applied realtors began adding instant eviction clauses to their leasing contracts if the lessee refuses entry to a public inspector with a warrant. The courts will write inspection warrants for entire districts of a community to avoid the use of the requirement for a warrant to obstruct public health and safety inspections. The fines are usually negotiated downward if the person of firm that refused entry on the presentment of the warrant signs a statement acknowledging that inspectors must be admitted at once when a warrant is presented and agreeing to accept probation before judgement for their refusal. That means that the person or firm which unlawfully refused the inspector entry goes right to jail and is tried for the new offense and the one they accepted probation before judgement for. The objective is to get the inspection done and the hazards eliminated rather than to collect fines. While I was serving as a seasonal & limited term firefighter I conducted inspections for things as diverse as brush clearances from rural structures to fire suppression equipment condition in fuel refineries. I have had both types of occupants come find me to say thank you after I saved their home from a wildfire by enforcing the 100 foot brush clearances or ended up helping the management qualify their facility as a Highly Protected Risk with a much lower insurance premium. The reason that I got to do such inspections was that I had the fire protection education required by some of the States I worked in when none of the permanent employees did. Their job description didn't require it. They wouldn't get extra money for doing the work. The paper work that comes with doing inspections is needlessly onerous. So why spend your own money and time to take the 2 year degree. Since I was trying to get hired full time I thought it might give me a leg up.

Tom Horne

It was the city of Conyers, or Rockdale county Georgia that tried to retro inspect ALL buildings in their jurisdiction, but the public put a stop to that plan!

 

[hornetd]

It was the city of Conyers, or Rockdale county Georgia that tried to retro inspect ALL buildings in their jurisdiction, but the public put a stop to that plan!

I am unfamiliar with the effort that you refer to but that has NOTHING to do with the underlying issue. The question that was asked was

Under what situation would an AHJ be applying the NEC to a 'non-installation'?
Are public/government employed inspectors generally allowed into building for unsolicited inspections?

The answer is still yes. As a matter of policy, rather than law, no fire department which I am aware of conducts inspections of the interior of dwelling units. That would, of course, enrage the public. What the States and localities which have the resources and public support do is to inspect all non dwelling occupancies on a periodic basis to protect the public from the owner and operators failures to maintain adequate safety standards within properties which are open to the public and as protection for their employees. At the present time there is no legal barrier to such inspections. Fire Prevention Surveys of dwelling units have never been performed against the occupants wishes to the best of my knowledge. If you ask me to prove that I will know that you are trolling because it is a logical absurdity to try to prove a generalized negative.

Locating a remote breaker should not be the first action taken when someone is being shocked. Among other things, this is why 'live work' is severely restricted under NFPA 70E.

Since when has operating a circuit breaker had anything to do with 'Live Work'? Dead Front Covers have been universally required in the United States since before World War 2.

Tom Horne

 

[hillbilly1]

I am unfamiliar with the effort that you refer to but that has NOTHING to do with the underlying issue. The question that was asked was

The answer is still yes. As a matter of policy, rather than law, no fire department which I am aware of conducts inspections of the interior of dwelling units. That would, of course, enrage the public. What the States and localities which have the resources and public support do is to inspect all non dwelling occupancies on a periodic basis to protect the public from the owner and operators failures to maintain adequate safety standards within properties which are open to the public and as protection for their employees. At the present time there is no legal barrier to such inspections. Fire Prevention Surveys of dwelling units have never been performed against the occupants wishes to the best of my knowledge. If you ask me to prove that I will know that you are trolling because it is a logical absurdity to try to prove a generalized negative.

Since when has operating a circuit breaker had anything to do with 'Live Work'? Dead Front Covers have been universally required in the United States since before World War 2.

Tom Horne

But you were the one who brought it up.

 

[electrofelon]

I


The answer is still yes. As a matter of policy, rather than law, no fire department which I am aware of conducts inspections of the interior of dwelling units. That would, of course, enrage the public. What the States and localities which have the resources and public support do is to inspect all non dwelling occupancies on a periodic basis to protect the public from the owner and operators failures to maintain adequate safety standards within properties which are open to the public and as protection for their employees. At the present time there is no legal barrier to such inspections. Fire Prevention Surveys of dwelling units have never been performed against the occupants wishes to the best of my knowledge

Of course I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Seattle the fire department performs inspections (annually?) Of commercial buildings. They are NOT electrical inspectors and are not enforcing the NEC. I don't recall exactly what code it is, if it's like the Seattle fire code or something, but it does have some electrical related items in it such as disallowing extension cords and plug strips in certain situations. But that is as far as they will delve into electrical related items.

 

[hornetd]

What people seem to be missing is that a lot of the materials that get left in front of electrical panels are combustible. A simple trash can fire can become an electrical burn down in Y connected services. That is why wye connected services larger than 1,000 amperes and higher than 150 volts to ground.

But you were the one who brought it up.

I didn't bring up anything about involuntary dwelling inspections. I also did not "bring it up." I answered a question from jim dungar

Are public/government employed inspectors generally allowed into building for unsolicited inspections?

Tom Horne

 

[ActionDave]

What people seem to be missing is that a lot of the materials that get left in front of electrical panels are combustible.

A lot of materials all over the world are combustible.

A simple trash can fire can become an electrical burn down in Y connected services.

Or not. I doubt a fire in a building spreads faster because of the electrical service.

That is why wye connected services larger than 1,000 amperes and higher than 150 volts to ground.


Tom Horne

I think you left some words out of this sentence.

 

[hornetd]

Of course I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Seattle the fire department performs inspections (annually?) Of commercial buildings. They are NOT electrical inspectors and are not enforcing the NEC. I don't recall exactly what code it is, if it's like the Seattle fire code or something, but it does have some electrical related items in it such as disallowing extension cords and plug strips in certain situations. But that is as far as they will delve into electrical related items.

Since Cea V Seattle is one of the 2 cases which were heard as a single issue before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on this matter I cant tell you what the Seattle Fire Department enforces during their annual fire inspections of non dwelling occupancies. You may want to simply look up the list on the City Of Seattle website. But one of the things that is in the National Training curriculum for fire inspectors is to require the immediate removal of any obstruction to the controls of electrical, fuel gas, and steam utilities which serve a building.

THINK People! Who DOES need instantaneous access to such utility shut offs? Why does the 2020 and 2023 edition of the National Electric Code (NEC) require an exterior emergency electrical disconnect on all one and two family dwellings? When these utilities have to be shut down who is it has to do that in such poor visibility and perhaps high heat that they must sometimes search by feel? Who's efforts to safeguard the lives of trapped occupants and their coworkers from injury or death will almost certainly be delayed and often completely thwarted by obstructions of various types. It's the firefighter assigned to utility control. As soon as the apparatus they are staffing comes to a stop at the incident they grab forcible entry tools; and they secure the utilities which can be a threat to the interior search and suppression teams. As long as the utility control firefighter is successful at preventing the flow of dangerous utilities from reaching the interior of the structure the search for entrapped occupants and for the seat of the fire can go forward at the fastest possible pace.

As a wildland fire fighter might say "That is a blood brush hook. It cuts on both strokes." If the electrical service equipment is undergoing an electric burn down because it was exposed to a trash fire and the Service Entry Conductors, which are unprotected against phase to phase and phase to ground faults, are arcing their way back toward their source the evacuation order will be given on all radio channels being used on that incident, and the fire department will back off to perform only it's State Constitutional duty in exercising the police power of the State.

By that same reasoning you are creating a threat to the remaining citizenry by obstructing utility shut offs, unlawfully storing flammable materials, and failing to maintain your premises in a reasonably safe condition. That's why placing trash, some types of cleaning chemicals, or stocks of combustible goods; even briefly; in front of an electrical panel can be treated as a crime. I have personally issued citations the disobedience of which could cost the cited person or firm 10,000 dollars a day for each day in which the violation can be shown to have continued to occur for that very offense.

Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

A lot of materials all over the world are combustible.

Or not. I doubt a fire in a building spreads faster because of the electrical service.

That is why wye connected services larger than 1,000 amperes and higher than 150 volts to ground.


Tom Horne

I think you left some words out of this sentence.

You're right! My mistake. The sentence should have read "That is why wye connected services larger than 1,000 amperes and higher than 150 volts to ground are required to have Ground Fault Protection of Equipment."


Tom Horne