Violation

[1964element]

Feeder wire looks small in the picture, but I'm sure it's OK,wonder if its a sub protected by ??

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[Carultch]

I cracked the book. He is right. But something rang a bell in my mind. I cracked the book some more, and confirmed what I remembered:

• The authors of Article 110.26(A)(3) apparently believed that 2 meters was equivalent to 6 feet, 6 inches.
• The authors of Article 240.24A apparently believed that 2 meters was equivalent to 6 feet, 7 inches.

Go figure! :roll: For the record, 2 meters is actually closer to 6 feet, 6 and 3/4 inches.

When both metric and inch units are provided in an article of the NEC, you are permitted to build from either dimension that is prescribed. For work space, whichever is smaller matters. 1200 mm is close to 4 ft, but 1200mm is about an inch smaller. The 1200 mm number is the limiting figure, although in a practical sense, you'd probably be using the nice round number of 4 ft when building in the USA.

 

[michalspike]

This is apartment building.
Disconnect is at hallway.

 

[GoldDigger]

As long as working space is maintained with the door open, flush mounting the panel dead front cover and then covering that with a raised surface door instead of a flush door should be code compliant. Or just hang a picture over it!

 

[gadfly56]

As long as working space is maintained with the door open, flush mounting the panel dead front cover and then covering that with a raised surface door instead of a flush door should be code compliant. Or just hand a picture over it!

Have someone carve a pretty picture on the front surface and it's now part of the finish package. Put a dummy one elsewhere in the hallway for symmetry and you're double-plus good!

 

[augie47]

A similar situation occurs often here where you have an exterior wall of 8" block 1-2 ft or so high with a 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 plate and wall on top causing the front of the panel to be 2-4" back from the front of the block. It is routinely overlooked by the inspectors.

 

[infinity]

All flush mounted panels are technical violations since you have sheetrock and studs in the dedicated equipment space.

 

[Carultch]

All flush mounted panels are technical violations since you have sheetrock and studs in the dedicated equipment space.

I thought the foreign equipment that is not permitted in dedicated space requirements, is supposed to refer to equipment such as plumbing/HVAC, as opposed to structural materials. Equipment that can leak, or that may require its own operation maintenance, rather than material that forms the general building.

Otherwise, this makes suspended ceilings and housekeeping pads a violation. Or knee bracing for a free standing structure that supports the electrical equipment.

 

[JFletcher]

Flush mount panels can be accessed from the front, or, more aptly, do not have to be accessed from the backs or sides. Not buying that every single flush mount panel is a code violation, no matter how pathetically technical it may be.

What the OP pictured is a technical violation, tho there ought to be some leeway to recess one up to say 2" for asthetics reasons - I wonder if that proposal ever comes up to the CMP.

In reality, the amount of crap that winds up in front of panels (shelves, closet hanger rods, washing machines, safes, etc) is far more a pitb than the panel being recessed an inch or two would ever be.

 

[GerryB]

I try to explain a contractor that this is violation. What is your opinion about it?

What's the blue coil, looks like cat5?

 

[Smart $]

I thought the foreign equipment that is not permitted in dedicated space requirements, is supposed to refer to equipment such as plumbing/HVAC, as opposed to structural materials. Equipment that can leak, or that may require its own operation maintenance, rather than material that forms the general building.

Otherwise, this makes suspended ceilings and housekeeping pads a violation. Or knee bracing for a free standing structure that supports the electrical equipment.

While I agree that the intent of 110.26(E)(1)(a) is not to prohibit essential structural elements such as framing and wall materials in the dedicated space, the exception thereto for permitting suspended removable-panel ceilings in the "zone" implies otherwise.

 

[ActionDave]

A similar situation occurs often here where you have an exterior wall of 8" block 1-2 ft or so high with a 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 plate and wall on top causing the front of the panel to be 2-4" back from the front of the block. It is routinely overlooked by the inspectors.

All flush mounted panels are technical violations since you have sheetrock and studs in the dedicated equipment space.

What the OP pictured is a technical violation, tho there ought to be some leeway to recess one up to say 2" for asthetics reasons - I wonder if that proposal ever comes up to the CMP.

In reality, the amount of crap that winds up in front of panels (shelves, closet hanger rods, washing machines, safes, etc) is far more a pitb than the panel being recessed an inch or two would ever be.

Sure it's a violation. A ticky tack one at best. I would have no complaints if I had to work on that panel.

 

[Strathead]

This one gave me pause. First off, from a perspective of the intent of the NEC, I wouldn't have a problem with this. That said, sort of agree with Infinity. Technically any flush mounted panel that didn't protrude or be EXACTLY even with the surrounding sheetrock and mud would be a violation. Then I started to wonder if there is a code (not a UL requirement) that dictates how for back the breakers and such can be from the front of a piece of equipment. I am not aware of one. There is just no logical argument against this installation other than it being a violation of the wording of the NEC. BTW, by intent of the NEC, I meant creating a safe installation that protects personnel and buildings.

 

[iwire]

This one gave me pause. First off, from a perspective of the intent of the NEC, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

I would say the pictured installation violates the exact intent of the rule.

I would not say a standard recessed panel on a flat wall violates the intent.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

This is a violation that should have been caught before any wires were attached or any wall finishes were installed. This is going to be a tough one to fix (presuming the local AHJ throws a flag on this play).

Puish come to shove they can open up the wall inside the recess and move the panel flush with the wall and then sheetrock it so it flush with the rest of the wall. Since the wiring is nm cable it should be a fairly simple fix

 

[Strathead]

I would say the pictured installation violates the exact intent of the rule.

I would not say a standard recessed panel on a flat wall violates the intent.

I said the intent of the NEC not the rule. But that said, don't you feel the intent of the rule is to prevent creating unsafe conditions where a person has to lean over or otherwise contort to work on said equipment? Many motor control centers and switchboards have live working components far more recessed that this. And again, didn't say that a standard recessed panel violates the intent. Implied that it violates the letter. I respect the NEC and the people who have contributed to it over the years, but if it was perfect we wouldn't have it revised every three years. There are some things that are inviolate and others that can be overlooked. This is the second. Just like the code says parallel conductors shall be the same length. So technically 1" longer is a violation, and that would technically violate the intent of the rule, but not the intent of the code.

 

[edlee]

I try to explain a contractor that this is violation. What is your opinion about it?

Violation, yes. Safety or problematic to work on? No. When working with GC's I try to pick my battles wisely, and this one probably wouldn't qualify as important. Though since I am not the EC on the job I can't say that for certain!

I suggest leaving it to the inspector: if he doesn't like it then he can take the heat from the GC instead of it falling on you.

 

[iwire]

I said the intent of the NEC not the rule. But that said, don't you feel the intent of the rule is to prevent creating unsafe conditions where a person has to lean over or otherwise contort to work on said equipment?

Yes and also to prevent a simple panel from being recessed like this or more.

 

[iwire]

I suggest leaving it to the inspector: if he doesn't like it then he can take the heat from the GC instead of it falling on you.

I would think a better way to handle this is to let the GC know about it long before the sheetrock went up.

 

[kwired]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I would think a better way to handle this is to let the GC know about it long before the sheetrock went up.

If inspector is willing to let it be then I guess no problem, but the time to address it probably isn't at final inspection just in case he won't let it be.