Panel placement in a residential basement

[GeorgeW]

I am currently preparing to do a service upgrade in an old home in the Boston/ West Roxbury area. The existing panels (2 of them, one for each floor,,,two family) are located across the basement from where an underground service feed enters the building. The area is very congested and my intention is to relocate the panels, to the same side of the building as the feed , and add one more for common areas.
The ONLY place to install the 3 new 150 amp panels is between two basement windows. There are NO obstacles in the dedicated space (depth and width) of the combined area of the three panels. There are water pipes to the right and left of the space BUT NOT in the space. Directly straight out from the panels there are steam pipes but they are 2 1/2 feet out and 6' 3" in height, so there is more than 3' of clearance in front of the panels up to the 6'3" point and then it is 2'5" from the front of the top of the panel to the steam pipe that is enveloped in insulation. Would this be considered a legal installation? I can not find anything stating that it would not be, but I am open to a second opinion.

Geo

 

[buzzbar]

Working space

Working space

I would look at 110.26 in the NEC. I believe that your installation would not comply, but you might get the okay from your AHJ.

Good luck!

Andrew

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I THINK that this install is ok if the height of the panel is below the 6'3" height of the pipes.

I think 110.26(E)ex. Allows this.

That is the way I would rule if I were inspector.

 

[iMuse97]

The headroom thing is a problem for a very tall electrician, home owner, etc.

While I'm not sure the exception in 110.26(E) specifically allows this, I would agree with Oneman that most inspectors would allow the installation you are describing. Those that I've worked with are interested in seeing the best & most compliant and reasonable installation based on what the conditions allow.

 

[radiopet]

(E) Headroom. The minimum headroom of working spaces
about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor
control centers shall be 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft). Where the electrical
equipment exceeds 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) in height, the minimum
headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.

Exception: In existing dwelling units, service equipment
or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be
permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m
(61⁄2 ft).

I can tell you that in the area where I work, we would allow the exception if the service was being upgraded to an existing dwelling and we would also take into account the fact you are also ( from what I can gather ) making an attempt to also be more complaint with 230.70(A)(1)...we would not argue either way over 3 inches since in the overall picture you are making a safer installation possible by your move. Again thats my opinion and only my opinion.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

The headroom thing is a problem for a very tall electrician, home owner, etc.

While I'm not sure the exception in 110.26(E) specifically allows this, I would agree with Oneman that most inspectors would allow the installation you are describing. Those that I've worked with are interested in seeing the best & most compliant and reasonable installation based on what the conditions allow.

Well I keep seeing that this isn't legal but probably going to be allowed.

If this is the case please expain exactly what 110.26(E)ex is talking about if not this very situation.

 

[iwire]

If this is the case please expain exactly what 110.26(E)ex is talking about if not this very situation.

I think that exception directly allows it.

Besides the poster is in Rule 3 and 4 territory.

GeorgeW look at "Rule 3" in the MA amendments, you are good to go.

 

[radiopet]

Well I keep seeing that this isn't legal but probably going to be allowed.

If this is the case please expain exactly what 110.26(E)ex is talking about if not this very situation.

I believe it does allow it.....if you have an existing dwellilng this applies to then why would it not apply. Since the NEC is not retroactive I believe this is exactly where it applies. Otherwise, why have the exception in the first place.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

(E) I can tell you that in the area where I work, we would allow the exception if the service was being upgraded to an existing dwelling

I believe it does allow it.....if you have an existing dwellilng this applies to then why would it not apply. Since the NEC is not retroactive I believe this is exactly where it applies. Otherwise, why have the exception in the first place.

Yeah...my response was really directed at buzzbar and imuse97 but I lumped you in because when I first saw the "we would allow it" comment above it looked like you were saying "I would let it slide" but now I see you were saying you would allow it because it is code

 

[buzzbar]

I wasn't referring to the headroom. I was referring to the fact that the steam pipes are only 2' 5" away from the top of the panel (directly in front of the panel). Unless I'm not understanding the original description, it seems to me that this violates the 3' working clearance in FRONT of the panel. But like I said, the AHJ may allow it.

 

[eljefetaco]

Don't waste your time and money call the AHJ/inspector and tell him your issues. More than likely open communication will let you slide if a code is violated by a few inches.

 

[radiopet]

Buzz,

The headroom works in tandom with the frontal clearance of 110.26. If the headroom is allowed to be reduced by the exception then the 3' frontal clearance is not affected in the example. It is easier to think of the 110.26 working space as a BOX in that typically you would have a 6'6" x 30" x 36" working space box ( if you will ) and with the exception of 110.26(E) Ex. you just have the OP with a 6'3" x 30" x 36" box which is still giving you the frontal clearance while allowing for the reduction of the height allowance for headroom.

Atlease thats my view of it......I am sure (as always ) others will disagree.

I just also figured that it might be moot because generally the headroom would mean the ceiling and probably not the pipe....very loosly viewed. I agree in that the local AHJ would render the best view of this...give them a call.

 

[radiopet]

Ahhh.....call your local inspector and I am sure they will come out and let you know if they are ok with it.

 

[radiopet]

I'm not so sure the intent of the exception is to allow obstructions within the workspace. I also believe the intent was intended for cases with lower ceiling heights and not as a way around obstructions. The way it is written leaves many different views obviously.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

IMO 110.26(E)ex does not allow the pipes to be in the direct workspace of the panel. I believe that the code is saying that if your panel is at 5ft the head room should extend to the 6'6" mark, and that is the exception allows the pipes to be in that head room area (above the 5ft mark of the panel) It doesn't allow the pipe to be right in front of the panel.

IMO the workspace described in 110.26(A)(3) still must remain clear.

So If I misunderstood ,as buzzbar indicated, and the pipes are located directly in front of the panel within the 3ft then yeah I don't believe it is allowed.

 

[infinity]

Bottom line is that at 6' 3" the pipe is within the working space required by Article 110. It's up to the inspector/AHJ to decide whether or not he will allow this in an existing building.

 

[dcspector]

I will remain silent on the Forum in regards to existing conditions......

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Bottom line is that at 6' 3" the pipe is within the working space required by Article 110. It's up to the inspector/AHJ to decide whether or not he will allow this in an existing building.

I tend to disagree. There doesn't seem to be any language that makes me believe that this is some kind of judgment call (like subject to physical damage). The pipe is allowed in the area classified as "head room" by the ex mentioned several times. The pipe is not allowed in the work space directly in front of the panel.

 

[infinity]

I tend to disagree. There doesn't seem to be any language that makes me believe that this is some kind of judgment call (like subject to physical damage). The pipe is allowed in the area classified as "head room" by the ex mentioned several times. The pipe is not allowed in the work space directly in front of the panel.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it certainly sounds as if the pipe is in the working space. According to table 110.26(A)(1) even in condition 1, 3' is required.

Directly straight out from the panels there are steam pipes but they are 2 1/2 feet out and 6' 3" in height, so there is more than 3' of clearance in front of the panels up to the 6'3" point and then it is 2'5" from the front of the top of the panel

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it certainly sounds as if the pipe is in the working space. According to table 110.26(A)(1) even in condition 1, 3' is required.

I do think you are right. I just not sure why you were saying it was a judgement call of the AHJ.

Out of curiousity do you agree that when applying the execption of 110.26(E) the work space height is to the top of the equipment?