Switchgear Room Egress

[charlie b]

In terms of other fire codes, safe egress has not been completed until you are away from the building either to a public right of way or a safe assembly area.

And I submit that if a section of "large equipment" requires two ways of egress from the working space, and if the design of the building includes, as one of those ways, a door that leads to a room that has no other entrance or exit, then that design satisfies the requirement. Once a person leaves the working space by going into the other room, you might say that the person is trapped there. I reply that that person should wait patiently until someone comes to assist them in leaving the building. They sucessfully egressed from the working space, so the NEC requirement did its job.

 

[north star]

( . . . . )

"And I submit that if a section of "large equipment" requires two ways of egress from the working space,
and if the design of the building includes, as one of those ways, a door that leads to a room that has no other
entrance or exit, then that design satisfies the requirement. ........Once a person leaves the working space by
going into the other room, you might say that the person is trapped there.......... I reply that that person should
wait patiently until someone comes to assist them in leaving the building.........They successfully egressed from
the working space, so the NEC requirement did its job."

From the `12 IBC, Section 1001.1 - General: "Buildings or portions thereof shall be provided
with a means of egress system as required by this chapter.......The provisions of this chapter
shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components
required to provide an approved means of egress from structures and portions thereof. "


I would submit that those plans should not / would not be approved........From the Building
Code' standpoint, every portion of a bldg. should be considered and have a MOE path, hence,
...while the electrical code may have satisfied its requirements for exiting [ read Egress ]
from high amperage equipment rooms & spaces, ...that the electrical is but one code to
satisfy in the overall scope of the project.

While this Forum is primarily about "All Things Electrical", ...other codes regularly come
in to play, in discussing the various aspects & nuances of each application.


Regarding the 3" curb, ...this design element should have been removed from the original
design, as it may be considered an interruption of the MOE [ RE: Section 1003.6 -
MOE continuity. ].

Also, in considering exiting the various spaces of any bldg., there are travel distance
limitations [ RE: Section 1016 - Exit Access Travel Distance ].

( . . . . )

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The second door is irrelevant. It is not a method of egress from the working space, but rather a method of egress from the adjacent mechanical room.

Yes, that is what to code wording says. However that is not how the code rule is enforced in some areas. These areas require compliance for all doors that are in the path of egress and within 25' or less of the working space.

I think you meant 2014, but I haven't bought my copy yet and can't verify it.

Yes, sorry about that, the code change to reduce the rule from 1,200 amps to 800 amps in in the 2014 code.

(3) Personnel Doors. Where equipment rated 800 A or more that contains overcurrent devices, switching devices, or control devices is installed and there is a personnel door(s) intended for entrance to and egress from the working space less than 7.6 m (25 ft) from the nearest edge of t he working space, the door(s) shall open in the direction of egress and be equipped with listed panic hardware.

 

[jim dungar]

I don't think it is logically possible for an egress from the working space to be a door that is 25 feet away from the working space. If the CMP intends the section to be speaking of leaving the room in which the equipment is located, then the present wording does not convey that intent.

The 2014 wording is about doors within 25' of the working space, not of the equipment.

 

[charlie b]

From the `12 IBC, Section 1001.1 - General: "Buildings or portions thereof shall be provided with a means of egress system as required by this chapter.......The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components required to provide an approved means of egress from structures and portions thereof. "

I would submit that those plans should not / would not be approved........From the Building Code' standpoint, every portion of a bldg. should be considered and have a MOE path, hence, ...while the electrical code may have satisfied its requirements for exiting [ read Egress ] from high amperage equipment rooms & spaces, ...that the electrical is but one code to satisfy in the overall scope of the project.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that the adjacent room has no means of egress. You leave that room, enter the electrical room via the adjoining door, then leave the electric room via its other door. I said that this hypothetical electrical room has two means of egress, only one of which leads to a room that has no door on its other side. What I am saying is that once you are out of the working space, and especially if you have made it into an adjoining room, the NEC ceases to care what happens to you. For all the NEC has to say, you can sit in the adjacent room for a couple hours, counting your fingers to keep your mind occupied. You are no longer within the working space, and whatever has happened, or is still happening, to the electrical equipment no longer presents a danger to your person. So what if you are in danger of starving to death in the next room! That is not an NEC concern.

 

[charlie b]

The 2014 wording is about doors within 25' of the working space, not of the equipment.

Says the same in the 2011. Says the same in the 2008, where the requirement was first introduced. I never said otherwise.:happyno:

 

[jim dungar]

Says the same in the 2011. Says the same in the 2008, where the requirement was first introduced. I never said otherwise.

Doesn't this apply to all doors within 25' of the working space, if you must go through that door to get into the working space?

 

[GoldDigger]

Doesn't this apply to all doors within 25' of the working space, if you must go through that door to get into the working space?

IMHO, for that specific provision, it does not matter what you have to do to get to the working spacr, just what you have to do to get away from it.

Tapatalk!

 

[charlie b]

Doesn't this apply to all doors within 25' of the working space, if you must go through that door to get into the working space?

I think not, Jim. By the time you get to the first door, you will have already long since egressed from the working space, and that is all the NEC talks about. After you go through the first door, you will have not only egressed from the working space, you will have also egressed from the room. That is better, and safer, if there is still something bad happening to the equipment. But it is not addressed in the NEC. How you egress from that adjacent room to the outside world is of interest to the building and fire codes, but not to the NEC.

I am thinking that a code change is in order. Perhaps 110.26(C)(3) should be revised to read,

(3) Personnel Doors. Where equipment rated 800 A or more that contains overcurrent devices, switching devices, or control devices is installed and there is a personnel door(s) intended for entrance to and egress from the room in which the working space is located, with the door(s) less than 7.6 m (25 ft) from the nearest edge of the working space, the door(s) shall open in the direction of egress and be equipped with listed panic hardware.

 

[jim dungar]

IMHO, for that specific provision, it does not matter what you have to do to get to the working spacr, just what you have to do to get away from it.

However that provision does talk about both 'to' and 'from' the working space.:huh: