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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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...