Question about what year panel clearances came into the code

[macmikeman]

Tommorow afternoon I will be doing a follow up inpection behind a home inspector's report in a house that dates back to before World War 2. The home inspector in this case is pretty good as far as home inspectors go when it comes to electrical, but anyway he is pointing out that the panel is in a location that "is not to code" because it is over the laundry tray. Is anybody aware of when it was put into the code to have the 36" by 30" front clearance in front of panels? For all I would know this may have been an acceptable practice when the house was wired. If the house has been rewired and the panel was placed there, well then that will be different, but I won't be able to tell that until tommorow. Thanks in advance if you are able to help out.

 

[480sparky]

At least from 1940:

These requirements may go further back, but a major renumbering in 1937 makes it hard to trace it.

 

[macmikeman]

Thanks 480.

 

[steve66]

1.5' for 120 volts.

Electricians must have been a lot thinner back then. :smile:

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'd add to Ken's remark, that the working space requirement, as he shows in the image of the '40 Code in his post, is the first instance that the text appears as shown. That is, the '37 doesn't have it. Period. There are a few, vaguer requirements scattered about, in the '37, in Services, and Overcurrent Protection. . . and I do mean vague, nothing specifying dimensions of a volume in space.

One thought that I'd add. While I was apprenticing in the Late 60's, the service of a new house, would, upon occasion, be deliberately placed where the washer and dryer were known to be going. Care was taken to not set the panel too low, so the cover could be openned. . .

My point is: Working Space requirements were in the Code ('65 & '68) but the local practice and enforcement by the AHJ were different, in dwellings.

 

[al hildenbrand]

For all I would know this may have been an acceptable practice when the house was wired. If the house has been rewired and the panel was placed there, well then that will be different, but I won't be able to tell that until tommorow.

Out of curiosity, what did you observe, at the house in question, that is, if you can share it?

 

[macmikeman]

Out of curiosity, what did you observe, at the house in question, that is, if you can share it?

Morning all, here is the follow up. Turns out the "panel" with the sink in front was actually the meter/main can on the exterior. And below that in front was a 10 foot long brick barbeque counter with a sink right in the dedicated space for the equipment. It looked to me that the counter was newer than the service, (service looked like it got upgrade -pvc riser) but hard to really tell for sure which came first- upgraded service or counter. Neither is brand new. Sink and counter need to relocate that is for sure. There was some remodel work done within the last 10 years to the kitchen using an existing sub panel with a number of problems. Several romex connectors with 3 or 4 new cables, the old neutral bus had minimum 2 conductors per terminal, and some cable entry's had no connector just a cable thru the ko's. But the best part is the panel was full of twin and quad breakers, every space doubled up, except that panel had no provision for duplex or quad breakers at all. The expert who did the work broke out the ctl prevention metal from each breaker and so each breaker has a nice big broken plastic housing where the breaker connects to the busbar. There were other wonders also.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Woof!

The fount of work requiring repair never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Morning all, here is the follow up. Turns out the "panel" with the sink in front was actually the meter/main can on the exterior. And below that in front was a 10 foot long brick barbeque counter with a sink right in the dedicated space for the equipment. It looked to me that the counter was newer than the service, (service looked like it got upgrade -pvc riser) but hard to really tell for sure which came first- upgraded service or counter. Neither is brand new. Sink and counter need to relocate that is for sure. There was some remodel work done within the last 10 years to the kitchen using an existing sub panel with a number of problems. Several romex connectors with 3 or 4 new cables, the old neutral bus had minimum 2 conductors per terminal, and some cable entry's had no connector just a cable thru the ko's. But the best part is the panel was full of twin and quad breakers, every space doubled up, except that panel had no provision for duplex or quad breakers at all. The expert who did the work broke out the ctl prevention metal from each breaker and so each breaker has a nice big broken plastic housing where the breaker connects to the busbar. There were other wonders also.

It is somewhat difficult to see this in the pictures you posted. :grin:

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I'd add to Ken's remark, that the working space requirement, as he shows in the image of the '40 Code in his post, is the first instance that the text appears as shown. That is, the '37 doesn't have it. Period. There are a few, vaguer requirements scattered about, in the '37, in Services, and Overcurrent Protection. . . and I do mean vague, nothing specifying dimensions of a volume in space.

One thought that I'd add. While I was apprenticing in the Late 60's, the service of a new house, would, upon occasion, be deliberately placed where the washer and dryer were known to be going. Care was taken to not set the panel too low, so the cover could be openned. . .

My point is: Working Space requirements were in the Code ('65 & '68) but the local practice and enforcement by the AHJ were different, in dwellings.

I would think that most services before the '40s were most likely installed where clearances were not an issue.

As time moved on, service locations got tighter and tighter.

 

[weressl]

At least from 1940:

These requirements may go further back, but a major renumbering in 1937 makes it hard to trace it.

That does not necessarily mean that the Code was adopted by the specific locale.