• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Changing panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw this on another site, and wondered what the answers might be


The question finally::::

This is an issue we have in our home. We have a condo in a 6 unit building. Condo was built in 1910 and it looks like the units were rebuilt in late 1970s, possibly early 80s. The electrical panel was placed in the same space as the laundry closet, so the panel is above one side of the dryer...close enough to the front to have access to it. The closet is only big enough for the washer and dryer...they can't be moved.

I'm sure the 3ft rule in front of panels was in the NEC code in the late 70s and early 80s...and all of these condo units are the same.

We are having an electrical replace the panel...the existing one is a Federal Pacific Stabloc (the kind that have failed). One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule.

My questions are:
How would this have been approved to begin with?
Is there a grandfather clause for this somewhere (I can't believe there is)?
Is it allowable because the washer/dryer can be moved to allow for 'working space'?
What other options are there? The wall behind this panel is in the dining room...so really don't want a panel there.
 
Our State would grant a modification for that as an existing condition....Not sure exactly, but movable items might be allowed in 3' space,(although washer/dryer would really be pushing it) have to really read 110.26 and the definitions. Would be enforced a little more strictly commercially than residentially...
 
Installations built before the 1978 NEC only require a minimum clearance of 2 ft in front of electrical equipment.
The 30-in.-wide rule has been used since the 1971 NEC.
Headroom clearance has been required since the 1965 NEC.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.

(B) Clear Spaces. Working space required by this section shall not be used for storage. When normally enclosed live parts are exposed for inspection or servicing, the working space, if in a passageway or general open space, shall be suitably guarded.

Could hang a picture over the panel in the dining room
 
first thing I ask is: What is on the other side of that wall?
Stacked Washers and dryers are becoming more common.
And in these types of cases we would consider the incorrect installation to continue. But in this case seeing that the other face of the wall could be used I would work to get it reversed.
 
cda said:
I saw this on another site, and wondered what the answers might be

My questions are:
How would this have been approved to begin with?
Is there a grandfather clause for this somewhere (I can't believe there is)?
Is it allowable because the washer/dryer can be moved to allow for 'working space'?
What other options are there? The wall behind this panel is in the dining room...so really don't want a panel there.
Click to expand...

1.Maybe it was clear when the inspector showed up (nothing in front).
2.No.
3.Possibly. A building official can make that determination but may not allow that same option for brand new construction.
4.Pay for a licensed contractor to completely reconfigure the wiring and electrical service.
 
@ ~ @

cda,

My Code Forum friend, here is where the "rubber meets the
Code Road" sir !

If your electrician has already stated that there is a problem
[ i.e. - make sure the washer & dryer are moved when the
Inspector comes by ], then IMO, you have three choices: (1)
call your BO and ask about any type of grandfathering, or
(2) install the "new" panel on the Dining Room wall and
hang a picture of an electrical panel over it.......That
way you can show your many friends & family members
just how serious you are about the Codes, or (3) install the
"new" panel somewhere else in a compliant location.

Please let us know what the outcome is sir.........Thanks !


@ ~ @
 
My first house was built under the 1970 CABO code and passed inspection with the electric panel above and to the side of the dryer. The electrical inspector probably figured you can reach all the breakers to operate them, and if somebody had to pull the cover to work on the panel they could easily move the dryer out of the way first.
 
cda:

How was it approved to begin with?

"One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule."

I think you answered your own question.

Or maybe there was a stacked unit originally?

I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.

Aside from what an inspector decides to do, if that were my house (and being someone who adds breakers to my electrical panel) I would not have a big grounded metal box between me and the panel. If it was a wooden base cabinet and counter, that's one thing. If someone leans on that dryer while working in that panel, and gets shocked, he dead.
 
mfichter80 said:
I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.
Click to expand...

When dealing with existing buildings, the court is usually pretty understanding when it comes to making an either or decision. It usually asks that if code compliance is infeasible (note that the courts will consider something infeasible from a financial standpoint based on the potential hazard to public safety) what the inspector did to mitigate any foreseeable problems. I'd recommend relocation, but on the assumption that if anyone needs to service the electrical panel, the w/d units will be moved and the workspace will be provided. Write a memo and throw it in the file, just in case anything happens and move on to something more important. Does the violation make the building "less safe"?

As long as the property owners know what all the options are and the ramifications of each choice, they can make the best decision for them.
 
tmurray said:
When dealing with existing buildings, the court is usually pretty understanding when it comes to making an either or decision. It usually asks that if code compliance is infeasible (note that the courts will consider something infeasible from a financial standpoint based on the potential hazard to public safety) what the inspector did to mitigate any foreseeable problems. I'd recommend relocation, but on the assumption that if anyone needs to service the electrical panel, the w/d units will be moved and the workspace will be provided. Write a memo and throw it in the file, just in case anything happens and move on to something more important. Does the violation make the building "less safe"?

As long as the property owners know what all the options are and the ramifications of each choice, they can make the best decision for them.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to recognize that someone needs to move a dryer in order to work in a panel. I'm an electrician, and I don't think there's one electrician I have worked with that would move a dryer to add a breaker to a panel.

Also for what it's worth, these are not union electricians I'm talking about. Union electricians supposedly aren't allowed to work in a live panel.
 
mfichter80 said:
cda:

How was it approved to begin with?

"One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule."

I think you answered your own question.

Or maybe there was a stacked unit originally?

I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.

Aside from what an inspector decides to do, if that were my house (and being someone who adds breakers to my electrical panel) I would not have a big grounded metal box between me and the panel. If it was a wooden base cabinet and counter, that's one thing. If someone leans on that dryer while working in that panel, and gets shocked, he dead.
Click to expand...


"Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code."

A non-fused/breaker disconnect does not require working space. If it did there would be violations aplenty with cord and plug disconnects.

The panel in question has been there for 40 years in multiple units. That's a track record that you can rely on.
 
mfichter80 said:
It's one thing to recognize that someone needs to move a dryer in order to work in a panel. I'm an electrician, and I don't think there's one electrician I have worked with that would move a dryer to add a breaker to a panel.

Also for what it's worth, these are not union electricians I'm talking about. Union electricians supposedly aren't allowed to work in a live panel.
Click to expand...

Sure, and if it were my house, it would be moved when the electrician arrived to work on the panel. Again, since the condition is existing, this seems like a decision the owner can make since it does not create a public safety hazard (no one is going to be squeezing into the space).
 
That is a fused disconnect. Would you consider the working space to be sufficient or would you ask that it be moved?

 
Looks like a judgement call but I think it looks alright. Plus if there is at least 30 inches from the edge of the unit to that bump out in the wall, it was installed correctly and everything else is what needs to be moved. What is that tank thing anyway?
 
ICE said:
"Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code."

A non-fused/breaker disconnect does not require working space. If it did there would be violations aplenty with cord and plug disconnects.

The panel in question has been there for 40 years in multiple units. That's a track record that you can rely on.
Click to expand...

I think that's a stretch. That working space has been required on anything I've worked on . Outlets don't have exposed live parts, and non-fused disconnects are installed for the purpose of servicing the units they are connected to.
 
My AHJ has determined that the working space is not required with disconnects that do not contain anything that could require service/maintenance such as fuses and circuit breakers.



How's this for working space?

 
Last edited:
ICE said:
My AHJ has determined that the working space is not required with disconnects that do not contain anything that could require service/maintenance such as fuses...
Click to expand...

I see your point. With an outside unit though, I could see an hvac guy at some point installing a more efficient system, and replacing the disconnect with a fused one, so he wouldn't have to stock every type of breaker on his truck.

In the case of the apartments I was talking about, that was with air handlers in a closet. I guess for a disconnect like that you would just determine if it is readily accessible?
 
Ha ha. The disconnect may not have 30-inches. I'm sure that the water softner came after the fact, the usually do...
 
If #15 is a pullout and the fuses are in the pullout, it's not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized
 
That would be incorrect. The NEC code panelists have all stated that this type of equipment needs the required clearances and that the intent of the code is to have the clearances. What if a journeyman electrician or an HVAC guy wanted to put a tester on one of the terminals (examination, servicing)?

This "wordsmithing" of the section that you quote needs to stop, because you are giving readers an incorrect interpretation. That is not the intent of the NEC and that is incorrect application of the code language. Trust me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top