Step in front of electrical equipment

[clausb]

Due to a miscalculation in floor heights, a step has to be added between an electrical room and the space outside. Rather than put the step outside which would be a tripping hazard as you walk past the door to the electrical room, the architect asked if he can place it inside the electrical room. This would be a change of elevation (7" step up) approximately 48" into the room occuring in the workspace between a 480V MCC on the north side and a 480V switchboard on the south side.

Obviously we told the architect that this is not acceptable since it would create a tripping hazard to someone troubleshooting an MCC bucket (in proper PPE, of course!). The architect has asked for us to send him a photocopy of the code reference. We reference 110.26 to "...permit ready and safe operation and maintenance..." of the equipment. We also see that the 2008 code reference 240.24(F) where OCP's cannot be located over steps of a stairway, but we are working in California where their code references NEC 2005. 70E could be used as back-up referencing having to maintain a safe and clear work area.

Can anyone think of any other references?

 

[drbond24]

Every step every where is a tripping hazard. I can walk up half a flight of stairs and trip on the 8th step after clearing the first 7 just fine. The first 7 were also tripping hazards, but the 8th one got me.

Neither the architect nor you will be able to come up with a conclusive code reference for placing it one spot versus any other spot. Unfortunately for you, the architect is making the drawing. The step is going where he wants it to go. Getting used to that idea will make it easier to accept when it happens. :wink:

Get some yellow paint ready and cover the whole thing so it is easier to see in the middle of the electrical room.

 

[KentAT]

Every step every where is a tripping hazard. I can walk up half a flight of stairs and trip on the 8th step after clearing the first 7 just fine. The first 7 were also tripping hazards, but the 8th one got me.

Neither the architect nor you will be able to come up with a conclusive code reference for placing it one spot versus any other spot. Unfortunately for you, the architect is making the drawing. The step is going where he wants it to go. Getting used to that idea will make it easier to accept when it happens. :wink:

Get some yellow paint ready and cover the whole thing so it is easier to see in the middle of the electrical room.

There might not be a reference that specifically prohibits the step within the working space, but c'mon, do you really think this is OK to do? Ask the architect who is going to "bless" his idea of putting the step in the workspace so it would be known who has accepted the liability should it cause an injury or death?

If it comes down to money, who made the original mistake?

If the architect did, tell him to suck it up and put the step outside. He just doesn't want it to be visible all the time so people don't ask "what the 'ell happened there?" - better to hide it in the electrical room instead...

Kent

 

[hillbilly1]

Have the architect put a folding RV step outside! Then both problems are solved!

 

[wishmaster68]

Wouldn't there be an issue for emergency egress if you had to leave quickly? Even painted it will still create a saftey hazard. I have never seen an electrical room with a step in it, not that they don't exist. Now with saftey being a big issue, they wouldn't allow it here.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

A step that is within the required work space is just like anything else in that space...a 110.26 violation.

 

[mweaver]

...what about a housekeeping pad ??

...what about a housekeeping pad ??

Please forgive me for resurrecting this thread after so long, but while I originally agreed with the outcome of this thread...


Wouldn't this mean that a vast majority of the housekeeping pads under many of the floor mounted electrical equipment enclosures would also be a violation of the 110.26 working space ??

mweaver

 

[iwire]

They can be, either they must not extend beyond the face of the ear or they have to extend all the way back the full depth of the working space.

But truthfully a wall plate under a recessed panel also violates the clear space rule.

 

[mweaver]

I would agree.

I have seen many housekeeping pads which do extend beyond the face of the gear but certainly do not extend out in front of the gear to a depth of 36 inches.

I do find this interesting because I just never thought of a housekeeping pad to be a 110.26 violation, but it certainly could be

... and (apparently) many actually are !!

Who Knew (...I just never thought about it before...) ??

mweaver

 

[cowboyjwc]

When a house keeping pad is installed, I try to get a pad poured in front of it. The reason is that, here, the Planning Dept is really picky about landscaping and if there's a pad with nothing in front of it, you can bet that there will be a tree or something put there.

I would not have a problem with the step if you still can maintain your required clearances once you've stepped up. If the step was within the three feet then I would have a problem.

I was having a little trouble understanding the question.

 

[iwire]

Planning Dept is really picky about landscaping and if there's a pad with nothing in front of it, you can bet that there will be a tree or something put there.

You guys plant trees indoors? :-?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Nothing says it must be level. Perhaps they could slope this up in that 3 feet. Then not much differant than being outside. It is a hazard even if somehow legal. Someone goofed in begining so let them pay whatever it cost.

 

[charlie]

You guys plant trees indoors? :-?

Its Callifornia! :grin:

 

[pfalcon]

A step that is within the required work space is just like anything else in that space...a 110.26 violation.

Full agreement. A hole in the middle of your working clearance is an obstacle. If you had to take a quick step back to avoid injury - FAILURE!

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

Out of the building code.

1008.1.4 Floor elevation. There shall be a floor or landing
on each side of a door. Such floor or landing shall be at the
same elevation on each side of the door. Landings shall be
level except for exterior landings, which are permitted to
have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal
(2-percent slope).

 

[dcspector]

Where in 110.26 does the section mention the floor or platform has to be even?

 

[dcspector]

Out of the building code.

1008.1.4 Floor elevation. There shall be a floor or landing
on each side of a door. Such floor or landing shall be at the
same elevation on each side of the door. Landings shall be
level except for exterior landings, which are permitted to
have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal
(2-percent slope).

What about where the gear room is in a parking garage and a raised curb is installed to prevent liquids from entering the room? You have egress doors from the gear room. So that section has nothing to do with this as long as floor levels on each side are the same.

 

[GrayHeadedMule]

I don't believe the original post said anything about a parking garage.

Doesn't the door on mechanical rooms have to swing outward for protection of the individual in case of an accident?

 

[charlie b]

Where in 110.26 does the section mention the floor or platform has to be even?

I would invoke the first sentence of that article. An uneven floor does not make for a safe maintenance or operational platform.

 

[cycotcskir]

But truthfully a wall plate under a recessed panel also violates the clear space rule.

What about 110.26(A)(3)?

Of course one could argue the definition of associated.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is