Not readily accessible?

[fbhwt]

At the plant where I was last employed the day shift electrician had installed some high bay lighting around some equipment. He had mounted the receptacles which were 20a 277v NEMA L7-20 face up. Now being that they are 20' up and require using a scissor lift to reach them I would consider this not readily accessible.Once in the scissor lift and 20' up where the receptacle is at shouldn't the receptacle be readily accessible?
Also there are runs of conduit on either side of the junction box the receptacle is mounted in. Unplugging is not to much a problem, but try aligning the blades up when you can't see the receptacle.

 

[BruceH]

Re: Not readily accessible?

They're accessible, sounds like the electrician did his job correctly, maybe not to your liking, but code compliant.

Edited for spelling

[ November 15, 2005, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: BruceH ]

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

But are they "readily accessible"?

 

[BruceH]

Re: Not readily accessible?

They would be if you were 20 feet tall. Readily accessible would mean they are capable of being reached quickly for operation, replacement or inspection without using a ladder or skyjack. Accessible would mean they are capable of being reached or accessed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building. Sounds like the electrician did his job per nec to me. How many high bay fixture receptacles or boxes do you see that are readily accessible? It's not required or practical.

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Ok, if I'm standing on the floor they are neither
accessible or readily accessible. Now I'm in the lift 20' up, I have to reach between the conduit that is on both sides to get to the receptacle to unplug.
To me this is not "readily accessible". If the receptacle was facing down all I would have to do is twist and unplug.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Originally posted by fbhwt:
Ok, if I'm standing on the floor they are neither
accessible or readily accessible. Now I'm in the lift 20' up, I have to reach between the conduit that is on both sides to get to the receptacle to unplug.
To me this is not "readily accessible". If the receptacle was facing down all I would have to do is twist and unplug.

Can you site a code article requiring the receptacle to be readily accessible?

Edited to add:

(C) Electric-Discharge Luminaires (Fixtures).
(1) Cord Connected Installation. A listed luminaire (fixture) or a listed assembly shall be permitted to be cord connected if the following conditions apply:
(1) The luminaire (fixture) is located directly below the outlet or busway.
(2) The flexible cord meets all the following:
a. Is visible for its entire length outside the luminaire (fixture)
b. Is not subject to strain or physical damage
c. Is terminated in a grounding-type attachment plug cap or busway plug, or is a part of a listed assembly incorporating a manufactured wiring system connector in accordance with 604.6(C), or has a luminaire (fixture) assembly with a strain relief and canopy

I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the receptacle is required to be readily accessible.

[ November 15, 2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[paul]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Since we are wondering if it's code compliant, we must then use the NEC's definition (Article 100) of accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building.

You can argue semantics all day long, but it's a code compliant installation.

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

NEC 100 Readily accessible, once I get to where the receptacle is at I would think it would be required to be "readily accessible". What about when said receptacle needs to be changed for what ever reason?

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Originally posted by fbhwt:
NEC 100 Readily accessible, once I get to where the receptacle is at I would think it would be required to be "readily accessible". What about when said receptacle needs to be changed for what ever reason?

If you don't like it, you should submit a code chagne to require it.

BTW: We should be looking at accessible (equipment), not accessible (wiring methods) in Article 100.

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Would NEC art 110.26 apply?

 

[BruceH]

Re: Not readily accessible?

There are millions of similar installations, this is nothing wrong with the install. Are you trying to get dirt on this guy or what? :roll:

 

[paul]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Originally posted by fbhwt:
NEC 100 Readily accessible, once I get to where the receptacle is at I would think it would be required to be "readily accessible". What about when said receptacle needs to be changed for what ever reason?

While we're at it, let's lower the luminaires to a more "readily accessible" location to make them easier to change lamps. :roll:

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

This person no longer works at this plant and neither do I, but while I was there I saw things that would shock you(no pun intended).Some things he did some was done by others,exceeding the number of bends in one run of conduit,exceeding the number of conductors allowed in 3/4" emt,I could go on and on,he was not to blame because he didn't know any better,but he should have, he completed apprenticeship school.I started this thread to find out if this was a violation of the National Electrical Code, now your asking me if I'm trying to get "dirt" on this guy. It does not matter, like I said he no longer works there and neither do I.

 

[BruceH]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Lighten up. I was just joking, as I'm sure the others were as well. It was a fine question, as were the answers you received

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

I didn't come here to joke as it appears some people have, so I'll back out and let ya'll have at it. Thanks to those who were not joking.

 

[BruceH]

Re: Not readily accessible?

I was kidding you about getting dirt on the guy. The question had already been answered and explained in detail. Maybe you need some thicker skin if you can't handle a little razzin now and then. And btw, you're welcome.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Not readily accessible?

Originally posted by fbhwt:
I didn't come here to joke as it appears some people have, so I'll back out and let ya'll have at it. Thanks to those who were not joking.

Lighten up! Bruce helped you - look closer!

Ok, if I'm standing on the floor they are neither
accessible or readily accessible.

They are accessible, they're not readily accessible, and they don't have to be readily accessible.

 

[iwire]

Re: Not readily accessible?

fbhwt in between the joking around you got real answers to your question.

The problem is it is not the answers you wanted to hear.

110.26 does not apply either, if 110.26 applied the receptacles on a kitchen counter would also be in violation.

The NEC does not require receptacles to be readily accessible. I imagine you have some receptacles in your home that are not readily accessible and violate 110.26.

Oh yeah, loosen up, your not paying a consulting fee here, your asking for help.

[ November 15, 2005, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Not readily accessible?

You can argue semantics all day long, but it's a code compliant installation. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Argue semantics here NEVER LMFAO,We went 50 + Pages that argued about an afci switch,to be or not to be

 

[fbhwt]

Re: Not readily accessible?

First let me say I apologize for sounding "thin skinned", second I accept the fact that the work in question is code compliant. After reviewing the replies and statements made "maybe not to your liking", I realized that this is more of a "maintenance issue" from my standpoint. When I do electrical work I try to think of the guy that comes behind me. If I had done the work in question I would have put the receptacle face down for the simple reason it would save time. The plant that I worked at ran 24-7,3 shifts, production was the goal. The original lighting that was installed was hard wired, in order to lets say change a ballast one would have to de-energize that circuit. This would take out 6 or 8 lights, this would be unacceptable from a safety standpoint. I would usually have to do the work on the weekend if the plant was not up and running production, this was fine for me, I got paid overtime. I guess I should be glad that this person installed a receptacle in the first place. Thanks to all for your help.