Working space / access - pullboxes & fittings?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cppoly

Senior Member
Location
New York
Do pullboxes or fittings require 3'-0" clearance?

Minimum working clearance is not required if equipment is not likely to require examination, adjustment, or servicing while energized per 110.26 but can't a case be made for either scenario energized or not energized?
 
I would say if you're just using it as a pull box, with no terminations inside, you would not be required to maintain 3' working depth. If you have a termination or splice inside, yes, you need to maintain 3' working depth.
 
IMO pull boxes do not require 3' of working space. You only need enough space to do the task at hand, that could be pulling in conductors, splicing, etc.
 
Couldn't you make the same case for receptacles and common light switches?

I rely on the explanatory information that follows 110.26(A) in the handbook where panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on HVAC equipment are mentioned.
 
Early on in my career, I didn't think of working space requirements as applying to anything but the main panel.
As I've advanced, I've come to think of them as applying to literally everything.

First paragraph in 110.26 says, "...working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment..."

However, Handbook notes say "Minimum working clearances are not required if the equipment is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized."

Where my "the Handbook notes aren't code" people at? lol.

I think @infinity makes a valid point that there are some instances where you could challenge the real world applicability of the code, but at the same time, it says what it says.

I think you should strive to meet working space requirements for any and every piece of electrical equipment, especially after you've experienced the frustration in the field of having to work with a less than perfectly accessible piece of equipment. However, I feel like, if we're going to be honest, there are going to be a few instances in which it may be slightly less than perfect and that's a judgement call for you to make.
 
Last edited:
Jim_SWFL said:
They aren't code, but they are instructive.
Click to expand...
Hey I'm on your side. I value the Handbook for its' additional information. The notes and commentary are useful, IMO.
But it's been brutally beaten into me on this forum that they are not equivalent to actual code.

If an inspector wants to flag you for a pull box that doesn't meet working space requirements, he/she could do it based on that first sentence of 110.26. Again, strive for it 99.99% of the time, but for that .01% of the time, just make sure it's a reasonable decision that you can explain.
 
Last edited:
infinity said:
If working space applied to everything then you could never have a countertop receptacle or a bathroom receptacle over a vanity.
Click to expand...
Are you relying on 110.26(A)(3) to make this argument? If so, fair point. I was thinking more along the lines of depth.
 
Either way, 110.26 first sentence explicitly says all equipment. Just sayin, that's what the explicit text reads.
And the argument has been made against me before that you can't just stick in your own interpretation, that it "says what it says."

If we were to read it that literally though, devoid of a common unspoken understanding that it doesn't apply in this way, the only thing I can of, is that the countertop becomes a "platform" and now requires 6-1/2 ft. clearance which puts minimum ceiling height above 10ft for any area with a countertop.

Perhaps a rewording of 110.26, which I understand really just serves as a catchall opening to the section,
or an additional exception to 110.26(A)(3) is merited??

Either way, I was just talking about depth in my comments.

The point is, you can't (well, you can, haha, but if you care about not being a hypocrite, shouldn't) take both positions of:
(1) The code explicitly says what it says and you can't just stick your own meaning into it.
(2) We all know what the code is TRYING to say because we're special.
 
Jerramundi said:
Either way, 110.26 first sentence explicitly says all equipment. Just sayin, that's what the explicit text reads.
And the argument has been made against me before that you can't just stick in your own interpretation, that it "says what it says."
Click to expand...
It does say what it says, but you must use all of the words it uses. You can not stop at the first sentence. 110.26(A) is just as, if not more, important as the first sentence of 110.26 because it contains distances.

If the equipment is not energized the NEC provides no minimum distances.
 
jim dungar said:
It does say what it says, but you must use all of the words it uses.
Click to expand...
Easier said than done (see previous debate about 310.15(B). To pretend that the code is perfectly clear and never presents any ambiguous language is not only disingenuous, but would effectively negate the entire purpose of this forum.

That being said, in this one instance, I will concede to this point that part A does clearly say "...while energized."

But, to be clear, aside from this one instance, "stopping at the first sentence is NOT something I normally do. The amount of time and energy I've expended towards learning the code far surpasses what it has repaid me in kind.
 
jim dungar said:
If the equipment is not energized the NEC provides no minimum distances.
Click to expand...
I agree it does say that but that means that in the two aforementioned examples all countertop and over vanity receptacles are violations because they will at some point require testing while energized. This is another horribly written code section because it uses the word equipment which has an extremely broad meaning according to the Article 100 definition. This entire section should be rewritten.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top