Working Space - "flat & level"

Status
Not open for further replies.
GISdude

GISdude

Member
Location
Sacramento, CA
We've come across a newly installed 3phase MAIN SWITCHGEAR(120/240, 3PH, 400A). This contractor installed the switchgear on a surface that is about 12". If you're going to work on the termination/meter side of the panel, then by rule you need 3' of "flat & level" working space in front of the panel. In this case, I looked in 110.26 and CAN'T FIND THE EXACT term, but am I off base on this?Level_Surface.jpg
Thanks for any help.
 
I did a search for the word flat in the 2017 code. did not find it anywhere having to do with working space.

In any case, it looks flat and level to me
 
The only issue would be if that 12" puts the operating handles of any breakers or switches too high.
A change in the 2020 code specifically addressed the house keeping pad sticking out in front of the equipment.
110.26(3)Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to a height of 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) or the height of the equipment, whichever is greater. Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment or support structures, such as concrete pads, associated with the electrical installation and located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
Click to expand...
The CMP originally rejected the proposed change with the comment that the concrete pad is "other equipment" and no change in language was required, but they accepted the change after public comments said the change was needed.
 
I don't believe flat and level appears in the current codes. They are adding a new 110.26(A)(6) to address that in the 2023 code.
110.26(A)(6) Grade, Floor, or Working Platform.
The grade, floor, or platform in the required working space shall be kept clear, and the floor, grade, or platform in the working space shall be as level and flat as practical for the entire required depth and width of the working space.
Click to expand...
 
Is this really necessary especially with that horrible wording? Flat as practical? Could they say any worse? Do we need to call the AHJ for a ruling every time something gets installed?
 
Industrial sites often have "house-keeping" pads like this -- about 4 to 6 inches up.

Lets them wash the floor and not flood the gear.

Generally the Article 110 workspace clearances are interpreted to [NOT] have "crap" (for lack of a better term) in front of electrical equipment -- not so much not have elevation issues. If this becomes an issue on the site in the pix, a fiberglass work grating in front might be nice. Make top of the grate flush with top of the concrete/bottom of the gear.
 
In the picture in the OP, would the working space requirement start at the face of the (closed) doors, or at the equipment face now visible, with the open meter socket? I think the OP is written on the latter basis.

Cheers, Wayne
 
infinity said:
Is this really necessary especially with that horrible wording? Flat as practical? Could they say any worse? Do we need to call the AHJ for a ruling every time something gets installed?
Click to expand...
Not sure why this is even needed. I see a lot of installation where even setting a ladder without blocking under one leg ladder wouldn't stand. But as long as grading is not so severe that balance is pushing you into the panel generally a slight grade offset shouldn't be an issue and as mentioned might be beneficial in drainage away from a foundation or equipment. See nothing in OP picture to indicate an issue with grade IMO.

I guess more evidence the deteriorating level of common sense developing out there if you got to make a rule.
 
wwhitney said:
In the picture in the OP, would the working space requirement start at the face of the (closed) doors, or at the equipment face now visible, with the open meter socket? I think the OP is written on the latter basis.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
With that equipment, it should really start at the interior doors, creating a violation, with or without a housekeeping pad.
 
infinity said:
Is this really necessary especially with that horrible wording? Flat as practical? Could they say any worse? Do we need to call the AHJ for a ruling every time something gets installed?
Click to expand...
That's like "workmanlike manner"; unquantifiable = unenforceable, at least that's what NFPA is always claiming.
 
gadfly56 said:
That's like "workmanlike manner"; unquantifiable = unenforceable, at least that's what NFPA is always claiming.
Click to expand...
and yet they keep putting language like that in the code in more and more places.

someone on staff there needs to go through the code and highlight this kind of thing and make the relevant panels fix it.
 
petersonra said:
and yet they keep putting language like that in the code in more and more places.

someone on staff there needs to go through the code and highlight this kind of thing and make the relevant panels fix it.
Click to expand...
Raise your hand everyone who thinks this might happen.

Yeah, I don't think so either.

Why couldn't they have said "with a slope of not more than 1/2" per foot" or some such? Because they don't want the headache of having to defend that consensus standard in court somewhere down the line. Shove it all off onto the AHJ; let them deal with it.
 
gadfly56 said:
Raise your hand everyone who thinks this might happen.

Yeah, I don't think so either.

Why couldn't they have said "with a slope of not more than 1/2" per foot" or some such? Because they don't want the headache of having to defend that consensus standard in court somewhere down the line. Shove it all off onto the AHJ; let them deal with it.
Click to expand...
they have plenty of other arbitrary requirements. 1/2 inch per foot of slope would just be another one.

I think someone wanted to put in the unneeded requirement for the work space to be level and the wording was just never thought through like a lot of the requirements that change about 6 times before they get it right.
 
gadfly56 said:
That's like "workmanlike manner"; unquantifiable = unenforceable, at least that's what NFPA is always claiming.
Click to expand...
that is being replaced in the 2023 code, but I don't see the new language as being any more enforceable or less subjective.
Electrical equipment shall be installed in a professional and skillful manner.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
that is being replaced in the 2023 code, but I don't see the new language as being any more enforceable or less subjective.
Click to expand...
What they should do is say work should be a performed in accordance with recognized workmanship standards and add a fine print note referencing the NECA standard on these things.
 
petersonra said:
they have plenty of other arbitrary requirements. 1/2 inch per foot of slope would just be another one.

I think someone wanted to put in the unneeded requirement for the work space to be level and the wording was just never thought through like a lot of the requirements that change about 6 times before they get it right.
Click to expand...
The panel agreed some rule was needed as the current code does not prevent the installation of a platform that does not have the depth required for the work space. Maybe other language would be better, and looking forward to seeing your PI with better language for the 2026 code. That process will likely begin sometime next month.
The panel statement on the making this change said:
The grade, floor or platform being flat and level in the working space is not addressed in the NEC. The Panel concludes that having a flat level working space is vital to the safety of personnel working on the equipment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top