You make the call: NEC 110.26

[rbalex]

Ah the wonders of English ambiguity.

I happened to attend CMP1’s session one time this Section was seriously debated; it has always had problems. At one time, some jurisdictions interpreted it that entire rooms had to be dedicated. It has been pared down a lot but there is still sufficient ambiguity.

Supposedly, the “original” key was “… equipment [not] foreign to the electrical installation …” was to include anything that otherwise had to be there – such as sprinklers or necessary structural members. Then suspended ceilings were added in a later cycle since they really didn’t have to be there.

Since I don’t do residential and very little commercial, it doesn’t bother me too often; so I’ve never tried to attempt to tackle a truly unambiguous reading. The simplest would probably be to suggest that the last sentence in 110.26(F)(1)(a) be revised to say something like “…No piping, ducts, leak protection apparatus, or other systems foreign to the electrical installation shall be located in this zone except as permitted by 110.26(F)(1)(b) through 110.26(F)(1)(d).” However, the fact that CMP1 tends to be one of the toughest NIH Panels around and I ‘m not sure it’s worth trying unless IAEI proposes it. (I can still see some ambiguity - but it was just a "quick fix" anyway )

 

[don_resqcapt19]

OK, Bob, now I understand your point. Thank you for the clarification.

I don't agree that the framing member violates the NEC. But I will concede that my reasoning will be not as strong as I could wish, and is readily open to debate. Here it is: That framing member is neither piping, nor a duct, nor leak detection apparatus, nor equipment. So it is not on the list of things that cannot be in the dedicated equipment space.

As to "equipment," my reading of the definition of that word restricts its meaning to things electrical in nature. A 2x4 might be considered ?material,? but it is not ?material used as part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.?

Charlie, if your idea is correct, then why do we have the exception to permit suspended ceilings in that space?

 

[charlie b]

Charlie, if your idea is correct, then why do we have the exception to permit suspended ceilings in that space?

To prevent people from having to ask the question? I am thinking that that "exception" should be removed, and its message conveyed instead in the form of an FPN. I'll put that in my 2014 proposal list.

 

[renosteinke]

So just where do i get this silly idea that the space to the sides, above, and under the panel are not within the protected space? Well, let me explain ....

(Citations from 2005)

Working space or dedicated space? A distinction witout a difference, as 110.26 opens by stating that spaces above and below equipment will have 'sufficient' space for the wires to enter.

110.26(A)(1) addresses the matter of depth. Yet, it only speaks of space 'in front of' or 'behind' live parts, and is silent as to space around live parts. Where do you measure from? Well, that's one of the basic differences between CSA and UL panel listings. UL measures from the face of the cabinet, while the CSA requires a 'larger' clearance, that's measured from the actual live parts of components.

Think about it: setting a panle into a wall would otherwise mean that the entire wall was a violation.

Fortunately, 110.26(A)(1)(a) clearly states that we need not worry about the areas around the panel when there's a 'dead front.' Lest we be confused, the section goes on to explain that if nothing needs to be approached, connected, etc., from the backs and sides, we need not worry. I submit that an ordinary panel cover is a 'dead front' ... though I will admit that there are panels with two-part covers, where one piece is commonly called the 'dead front.' Looking at control panel specifications, I'd say that any panel cover that does not have live components - lights, switches, etc.- directly attached to it is a 'dead front.'

Finally, 110.26(A)(2) addresses the width of the space, and makes specific reference to the space in front of the panel.

Thus, I stand by my assessment that the pipe is not within the protected space.

 

[iwire]

Working space or dedicated space? A distinction witout a difference,

There is clearly a difference to the NEC.

As far as working space I agree with you, it starts at the face of the panel.

But the dedicated space starts at the rear of the panel.

 

[pfalcon]

Just have them install a permanent raised floor in that section of the room.

Seriously, the working space is ... well ... working space.

The dedicated space was given to do two things:
1) Provide room to work in the sides, top, and bottom of the panel.
2) Prohibit systems that might interact badly with the panel.

It's not written in the NEC, and probably that FPN note would do it. Consider the flush mount panel. The wall footer might be construed as "raised floor" but the wall-board is a violation. The drop ceiling was an obvious violation and they went back and added it as an exception. Their intent is there but mucky.

In 110.26(F)(1)(b) remove "The area above". Then to the end tag on "These systems shall not violate the working space." or some such phrase. Then as long as that pipe is sufficiently protected, in this case hardened, and the face of the panel is forward of the pipe, then we are happy.

 

[charlie b]

The dedicated space was given to do two things:

Actually, I would say that it is there for only one reason, and it is not one of the two you listed. I think dedicated space is there to allow us to run conduits. The pipe under discussion here is in the way of any conduit I would want to run downwards from the panel. That is why it is a violation.

As to the difference between "room to run conduits" (i.e., dedicated space) and working space, I think the later exists for two reasons. One is to reduce the probability that a worker would accidentally contact a live part, by reducing the tripping hazards and assuring there is physical room to maneuver. The other is to give the worker room to fall, in the event that a hand or arm does contact a live part. My reasoning is that, when current flowing through the body causes a complete loss of muscle control, the weight of the falling body might, I say might, be enough to pull the hand or arm off the energized part. At least, when I defend the working space rule against architects and others who think I want too much space in my electric room, that is the reason that I stand firm on the requirements.

 

[pfalcon]

... I think dedicated space is there to allow us to run conduits. ...

My #1 110.26(F)(1)(a). Better said by you, better to the point. grumble grumble ... run conduit ... grumble grumble
And we are well enough in agreement on working space.

But I think you're looking past the condensation, leaks, or breaks in part (b). And yes I am relying a little on my intuitive abilities here. But (b), (c), (d) all read like grudging give-backs. "Okay, if it absolutely has to be installed in my dedicated space but you're gonna have to protect my panel!" Especially when you read (b) and (c) together it's obvious that (c) was added cause someone pointed out a sprinkler is an intentional leak. So we go "Okay, but the rest of the pipe better not leak!". And the drop ceiling? "Whaddya mean that corner looks like @@@! It's for the electrical panel! Okay, so if your wife's not happy, I don't get paid. You can do it."

Why else give part (d)? I mean we all know when the toilet overflows on the floor above, it leaks to the drop ceiling, runs to the corner with the electrical panel, and creates a waterfall on the breakers. Hence I feel the dedicated space is also present to remove as many potential problems from the area as possible, as well as, giving space for conduit.

 

[renosteinke]

Well, I must conceed that Iwire has a point, and I should have paid closer attention to 110.26(F).

I'm not sure that's what was intended, but that sure is what they wrote. I find it interesting that 110.26(F) allows stuff over the panel (under certain conditions), but has no discussion about under the panel. The requirements of 110.26(F) also do not address panels installed within walls- unless you're going to assume a 'depth' of zero.

Looking back at 110.26, the section opens with "Sufficient access ..... to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment." Only after that preamble does the section discuss, separately, "working space (110.26(A))" and "dedicated space (110.26(F))." It's interesting to note that (B), (C), and (D) all are clarifications of 'working space.' This puts the code into conflict with itself.

The conflict lies in that (F) cannot be a clarification of (A), because 110.26(A)(1)(a) specifically removes the back and sides from consideration as part of the 'working space.' The alternative is to consider (F) as a stand-alone provision- in which case it should not be part of 110.26 at all.

The only way to look at 110.26(F) is to think of it in terms of free-standing equipment. In that case, it makes perfect sense to not pay any attention to what's 'under' the panel; there's nothing but floor under it. Yet, the language of (F) does not make this clear. If that's what they meant, they shoulf have made some referencteto free-standing equipment somewhere. If the intent was to prevent pipes like the one in the picture, then they should have changed 110.26(A)(1)(a).

If it was the intent of the OP to highlight a problem with 110.26, he succeeded.

BTW ... does anyone have the ROP/ROC that led to the inclusion of 110.26(F)? That might shed some light on the intent.

 

[charlie b]

I find it interesting that 110.26(F) allows stuff over the panel (under certain conditions), but has no discussion about under the panel.

No need. Under the panel is simply forbidden. Perhaps they should add something about ?down to the structural floor.? But they do allow stuff over the panel, so long as it is more than six feet above the panel.

The requirements of 110.26(F) also do not address panels installed within walls- unless you're going to assume a 'depth' of zero.

Yes they do, and you don?t need a zero depth. The plumber is not allowed to run a pipe within a wall, and have it pass over or under the panel. The words, as written, already forbid it.

It's interesting to note that (B), (C), and (D) all are clarifications of 'working space.'

They don?t clarify what constitutes ?working space.? They merely add some additional requirements regarding what can, and what cannot, be done within that space.

The conflict lies in that (F) cannot be a clarification of (A), because 110.26(A)(1)(a) specifically removes the back and sides from consideration as part of the 'working space.'

That only applies to dead front panelboards. A switchboard that has front and rear access will require working space on both the front and back.

The alternative is to consider (F) as a stand-alone provision- in which case it should not be part of 110.26 at all.

Look again at the title of 110.26. It does not say ?working space,? but rather ?spaces about electrical equipment.? That will include the space in front ? 110.26(A) ? and the spaces above and below ? 110.26(F).

The only way to look at 110.26(F) is to think of it in terms of free-standing equipment. If the intent was to prevent pipes like the one in the picture, then they should have changed 110.26(A)(1)(a)

Here again, you are confusing the place a person must stand, while working on the equipment ? 110.26(A) ? and the areas above and below that will someday be used to add more conduits ? 110.26(F).

 

[charlie b]

"Okay, if it absolutely has to be installed in my dedicated space but you're gonna have to protect my panel!"

Just to be clear, you can't put it "IN" my dedicated space, but you can put it "ABOVE" my dedicated space (if you protect my panel).

 

[shepelec]

I surprised nobody else said anything but that sure looks like USE feeding that panel.

 

[dieselram752]

What's wrong with the USE cable?

 

[shepelec]

Unless it has a dual rating, USE is not suitable for interior use.

 

[ivsenroute]

It was not USE btw, just looks similar from far away

 

[davet]

Gas Pipe Below Panel

Gas Pipe Below Panel

Ran across similar situation ( Drain Pipe ). Inspector said Violation! Re-route pipe to achieve electrical clearence or
encase it in concrete or cinderblock,( if you have no couplings or unions ) ( or dig trench in floor ) which would effectivly put the pipe outside of the resistricted electrical clearences.
( but then,how do you address the encasement directly under the panel ? ) Sees No objection?
Not my job! Left to owner to decide who would do this.

 

[infinity]

Here's a few graphics from the NECH regarding working space and dedicated space, the pipe in the OP is in the dedicated space as Bob and others have stated:

 

[Buck Parrish]

Nice graphics, thanks...

 

[jusme123]

Here is a picture of the house my sister is having built.

If you look at the bottom of each wall you see a horizontal framing member that is part of the wall and sits on the floor.

When you place a panel flush in the wall you technically have a dedicated space violation. One that no one enforces and I suggest that the gas line in the OPs picture also be 'overlooked'

An argument for that would be that the horizontal 2x4 is part of the support framing for the panel itself.