Thread: Panel concealed within cabinet

Is this panel concealed within the kitchen cabinets in an approved location?

Not in a wet environment, no shelves in cabinet compartment. Not used for storage.

For as long as I have been in the trade this would have been a violation. It's a working clearance thing. Both the cabinet around it and base cabinet/counter are blatant working clearance violations.
I honestly cannot say if it would have ever been legal. Maybe someone older than 50 can say.

Not enough working clearance.

I'm over 50......and then some. Not allowed.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

FYI

NEC 110.26
(A) 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.
The intent of 110.26(A) is to provide enough space for personnel to perform any of the operations listed without jeopardizing worker safety. Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment.
Minimum working clearances are not required if the equipment is such that it is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.

Since most homes only have one panel are you saying that this is okay since the meter can be pulled to cut power or that no work will be done in the panel?

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

FYI

NEC 110.26
(A) 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.
The intent of 110.26(A) is to provide enough space for personnel to perform any of the operations listed without jeopardizing worker safety. Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment.
Minimum working clearances are not required if the equipment is such that it is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.

Jim - FYI means what?

That you are pointing out that your underlined section of the text means that panel is okay there?

What is your intent and meaning of application of that code section?

JA, I have yet to met an inspector that would agree with you. I have even seen debates on this forum about a trash can in front of a panel or that the car in the garage infringed on the workspace. I guess the HI ensures that the meter is pulled before inspecting the panel?

If this were not a forum for professionals I might think that someone were trolling.

Since residential panel do not have deadfronts the panel would still be considered energized by what was just post and woiuild be a violation of the workspace rules.

So it sounds like there are no issues with this panel and everyone was wrong.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...le-panels.html

Jim - you are missing some key reading points, see my underlined bold italics red text)

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jim Abram - OSHA's position is that the meter does not have to be pulled . The panel disconnect is adequate to de energize the panel.


OSHA's Safety-Related Work Practices standard, 29 CFR 1910.333, and OSHA's Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard, 29 CFR 1910.147, as they relate to work inside an electrical panel an don related equipment. Your paraphrased scenario, questions, and our responses follow.

Scenario: An employee is to perform work inside an electrical panel. The electrical disconnect is open and has been properly locked out. The electrical circuitry below the disconnect has been confirmed to be in a zero energy state by a qualified person using test equipment.

Question 1: Is the panel considered de-energized even though there is voltage to one side of the open disconnect? if the panel is not de-energized, would an employee be required to not only disconnect and lockout the power at the electrical panel, in this case a panel at floor level [Location B], but also to disconnect electrical service on-leg or panel upstream in the electrical system [Location A]?

Response: Section 1910.333(a)(1) establishes prerequisite criteria that live parts to which an employee may be exposed must be de-energized before an employee works on or near them, unless it is infeasible to do so.1If locking and tagging out the circuit at the point of work (i.e., the panel to be worked on) does not de-energize the live parts an employee may contact, the employer needs to assess, on a case-by-case basis, the feasibility of locking and tagging out the circuit further upstream since doing so would de-energize the live parts. If upstream de-energization is infeasible, then the employer is required to use other safety-related work practices, such as the use of electrical protective equipment (e.g., barriers, rubber insulation blankets, gloves, sleeves, covers, insulated tools or handling equipment, in accordance with §1910.137 and §1910.335). Also, if upstream de-energization creates additional or increased hazards, per §1910.333(a)(1) de-energization is not required, and the employer must use other safety-related work practices. In any event, an employee is not required to lockout more than one panel governing the same circuit, if all exposed electrical components in a panel can be de-energized by locking/tagging out a single energy isolation device (at Location A or Location B) that is upstream from where the work is being performed.

The panel in your scenario may be considered de-energized depending on the design of the equipment and the work to be performed. In your scenario, the panel, while not technically de-energized as there is still power to the supply side of the disconnect, provides adequate employee protection if the design and installation of the panelboard is of dead-front construction — i.e., it prevents, through guarding, accidental contact of the employee or conductive objects with energized parts (e.g., the contact points on the fixed side of the switch designed to receive the contact points on the movable portion of the switch, conductor attachment points, conductors with compromised insulation, etc.). if the panel is not of dead-front construction or if the employee removes the panelboard guard, thus exposing live parts, the panel would be considered energized and thus be subject to the requirements of §1910.333(a)(2) (which requires the use of other safety-related work practices) and §1910.333(c)(2) (which allows only qualified persons to work on energized parts.2

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Since residential panel do not have deadfronts the panel would still be considered energized by what was just post and woiuild be a violation of the workspace rules.

Jim Port got it right.

Jim Abram didn't get it at all.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jerry - Grow up . You act like a little girl . Here you are taunting me, and you wonder why I jump on you.

Jim - You need to grow up ... I stated the facts.

If you don't like the facts then make sure that you are on the side of the facts and not the fiction you espouse.

You can keep whining on this, but I am done with this aspect of your behavior.

Once the cover is removed on a residental panel there are live parts. There are no additional parts to prevent accidental contact with live parts like the incoming lugs or any unused breaker spaces. This is unlike a commercial panel where the cover can be removed and the live parts are still guarded. According to your post that makes this residential panel to be considered to be live and the workspace would be required

The panel in your scenario may be considered de-energized depending on the design of the equipment and the work to be performed. In your scenario, the panel, while not technically de-energized as there is still power to the supply side of the disconnect, provides adequate employee protection if the design and installation of the panelboard is of dead-front construction — i.e., it prevents, through guarding, accidental contact of the employee or conductive objects with energized parts (e.g., the contact points on the fixed side of the switch designed to receive the contact points on the movable portion of the switch, conductor attachment points, conductors with compromised insulation, etc.). if the panel is not of dead-front construction or if the employee removes the panelboard guard, thus exposing live parts, the panel would be considered energized and thus be subject to the requirements of §1910.333(a)(2) (which requires the use of other safety-related work practices) and §1910.333(c)(2) (which allows only qualified persons to work on energized parts.2

Pulling the meter involves scheduling the power company to disconnect and reconnect and is not a practical solution, nor can power measurements be taken while troubleshooting. As an HI are you going to call to have the meter pulled before looking for the deadly unmarked white on a breaker? I highly doubt it, so again the panel is energized and a person would require access afforded by the required workspace.

Some,power companies will place legal charges against someone for opening their equipment. It would also be rare for someone to have the proper training or protective equipment to pull the meter if if it was allowed.

Also the NEC makes no distinction between the panel being installed and never touched again or one that is opened on a regular basis.

But NEC 110.26 does apply when inspecting.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

FYI

NEC 110.26
(A) 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.
The intent of 110.26(A) is to provide enough space for personnel to perform any of the operations listed without jeopardizing worker safety. Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment.
Minimum working clearances are not required if the equipment is such that it is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

We disagree on that interpertation but, back to the main issue.

If the panel board is de energized is working clearance required per NEC 110.26. So if there is no working clearance , you de energize the panel box to work on it . Seams like an easier solution that ripping out closets , cabinets and relocating panel boxes. How hard is it to pull a meter? How often is a panel box worked on under normal circumstances ?

Originally Posted by Jim Port

But NEC 110.26 does apply when inspecting.

Jim Port,

Jim Abram fails to grasp what the code says.

The code does not say "if the panel can be de-energized", as you know and understand, but Jim Abrams does not, is that the code says "likely to require ... (blah, blah, blah) ... while energized".

The answer to that is a resounding "Yes." And "It is likely to require ... while energized.".

Next, Jim Abram will try to turn this into a debate about the definition of "require". However, Jim Abram is not worth expending the time and effort and disruption to this forum on.

Jim Abram is a Troll and his intent is to disrupt this forum - that is something we need to resist. The best way to do that is to not feed the monkey ... ignore the Troll ... and all the other things we need to avoid until Jim leaves for another forum or until Brian is fed up with Jim Abram and bans him.

I have had multiple PMs from people wishing Brian would pull Jim Abram's plug.

It looks like an old house. If that is where they put it 50 years ago, then that it is. It may or may not have been approved back then. Comment on lack of working space and mention that it does not meet present standards. Not easy to move. Let the buyer decide how much it bothers them.

I don't use the ignore feature lightly but on a few rare individuals who only contribute confusion and error I do employ that handy little feature. The only drawback is that I can still see the ignored persons posts when the good guys quote him.
Please don't quote or respond to the trolls(s).
Brian, add me to the list of those requesting expulsion.

Did Jim Abram ever responded as to what is on the state of MA website:
ABRAM JAMES R 283 Home Inspector Suspension BEVERLY MA Abram & Co.
PO Box 5011, Beverly, MA 01915 978-927-3899

I changed my original post as I was told in a private message that I was posting false information.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Did Jim Abram ever responded as to why his home inspector license was suspended in MA?

Not that I recall, but ... if his posts here are representative of his reports ... may have been for incomplete reports and/or misleading and incorrect information. Maybe Jim Abram will clear that up for us?

Re: Jim Abram

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

I don't use the ignore feature lightly but on a few rare individuals who only contribute confusion and error I do employ that handy little feature. The only drawback is that I can still see the ignored persons posts when the good guys quote him.
Please don't quote or respond to the trolls(s).
Brian, add me to the list of those requesting expulsion.

Jim (Luttrall ... making sure this is to the right Jim),

I only forwarded one of those PM's I received to Brian because the sender of that PM requested I do so.

All others need to let Brian know what they are thinking of Jim what should be done.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson
Originally Posted by Jim Abram
Mr Patterson - You have posted false information about me on Inspection News . Pleae remove that information. Jim Abram
Is this not you on the MA license website?
ABRAM JAMES R 283 Home Inspector Suspension BEVERLY MA Abram & Co.
PO Box 5011, Beverly, MA 01915 978-927-3899

Mr Patterson - This is the last time I will request that you remove the false posting before I take action against you.
I will not tolerate this nonsense.


Jim Abram

A couple PM's that I received tonight.... I think Jim is getting upset with me for posting public information from his states website. Maybe if Jim would play nice and stop trying to disrupt almost every thread on this discussion board folks might not really care what is posted on a public state website.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

If the panel board is de energized is working clearance required per NEC 110.26. So if there is no working clearance , you de energize the panel box to work on it . Seams like an easier solution that ripping out closets , cabinets and relocating panel boxes. How hard is it to pull a meter? How often is a panel box worked on under normal circumstances ?

Wow!!

Yet Another ( not ) Great Post.
* I don't want to exit the Residence, Break the Utility Suppliers Seal ( around here it is a Special Keyed lock ) pull the Meter especially in a Thunder storm to access the Service Panel.

What's your take on Line of Sight Disconnects? ( We Gots TOOO Many AC techs anyways.)

Scott,

I've received some in the past as well as again today, below is what Jim Abram sent me via PM today:
1)

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Mr Peck - You have posted false information about me on the Inspection News site. Please remove that information.
Jim Abram

2)

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Mr Peck - You have posted false information about me on the Inspection News site. Please remove that information.
Jim Abram

My response to Jim in 2) above:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Again, I ask, show me the incorrect information and supporting documentation showing that information is incorrect.

3)

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Mr Peck - You know enough about the system to know that what you can do. The information you have posted is false and this is the last opportunity I will give you to voluntarily remove it before I take action against you.

Jim Abram

My response to Jim in 3) above:

I've asked this at least twice before, maybe even more times, YOU. HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE EITHER.

The first thing Jim Abram needs to do is to specifically identify WHAT HE think is incorrect.

The second thing Jim Abram needs to do is to PROVIDE documentation which clearly shows that the information is, in fact, incorrect.

Only then can we compare the information Jim Abram provides us with the information and the reliable public sources the information was copied from and/or linked to.

Scott, welcome to the club.

If for no other reason, Jim Abram's actions here in these PM threats is ... SHOULD BE ... sufficient grounds for Brian to pull Jim Abram's plug and disconnect him from continuing to disrupt this forum.

Scott,

Did you receive another threat today? I did.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Scott,

Did you receive another threat today? I did.

Yep, sure did....

Mr Patterson - I have done what is required and I have given you fair warning.

Jim Abram

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Wow!!

Yet Another ( not ) Great Post.
* I don't want to exit the Residence, Break the Utility Suppliers Seal ( around here it is a Special Keyed lock ) pull the Meter especially in a Thunder storm to access the Service Panel.

What's your take on Line of Sight Disconnects? ( We Gots TOOO Many AC techs anyways.)

Clearances are not there. Remodeled a basement once where they framed out the wall about a foot. The inspector made us make an opening (door) all the way to the floor for access. But to feed the other firey debate it looks like a sub-panel, in which case you could completely kill it from the main.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Yep, sure did....

Same wording as he threatened me with:

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Mr Peck - I have done what is required and I have given you fair warning. Jim Abram

Aside from the working space thing I thought I read here once that wood enclosures weren't allowed over panels due to a lack of airflow and/or flammability. Maybe the one being discussed doesn't have the wood close enough to be a problem. I'm more thinking about cabinets directly installed over panels - see picture. Is that allowed?

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Aside from the working space thing I thought I read here once that wood enclosures weren't allowed over panels due to a lack of airflow and/or flammability. Maybe the one being discussed doesn't have the wood close enough to be a problem. I'm more thinking about cabinets directly installed over panels - see picture. Is that allowed?

Not allowed, but it is a working space issue, and, if the panel door cannot be opened at least 90 degrees, that is another issue.

Thanks JP.... the door does open a bit more than 90 degrees but you're saying it's a problem due to the flammability/airflow thing? (as well as working space, of course).

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

... but you're saying it's a problem due to the flammability/airflow thing?

No, I ignored that part and only referred to the working space aspect (and the minimum 90 degree door swing).

The code allows the panel enclosure to be in a combustible wall (wood) with the requirement that the face of the enclosure be at least flush with the surface of the combustible wall or project out past that (the wall it is mounted in, not the wall in front of it).

The wall in front of it should not be there anyway.

When you removed the panel cover, was the front edge of the cabinet/enclosure even with the wall behind it? I can't see what type of wall is behind the cover as there is a framing member next to the left side of the panel behind the wall in front of the panel - but the panel enclosure/cabinet front (where the cover meets the cabinet/enclosure) must be at least even with, or project beyond a combustible wall.

I.e., no gaps for fire to escape from between the cover and the cabinet/enclosure to the combustible material.

Originally Posted by Gerry Bennett

But to feed the other firey debate it looks like a sub-panel, in which case you could completely kill it from the main.

Makes absolutely no difference. Same clearances apply.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Aside from the working space thing I thought I read here once that wood enclosures weren't allowed over panels due to a lack of airflow and/or flammability. Maybe the one being discussed doesn't have the wood close enough to be a problem. I'm more thinking about cabinets directly installed over panels - see picture. Is that allowed?

It certainly is. There is NO "airflow" or "flammability" issue. It's all about working clearances.

For that to be fully legal the panel would have to be flush with the surface AND the door open at least 90 degrees. If the panel were set back a few inches it would be a judgement call. Most inspectors would let it go though for 2-3".

The enclosure is rated to properly contain something like an arc inside so the wood surround is a non-issue. The issue is the setback depth inside the wall.

Thanks for the clarification everyone.... I must have been remembering wrong about the wood enclosure/ventilation/combustible thing. The panel in my picture was recessed about 6 inches into a framed out wall so it had plenty of other problems aside from what my foggy memory was drumming up.

Here we go with that dead horse again. JA, give it up and quit while you are behind. Stop digging the hole deeper.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jim - Is there any specific regulation regarding setback in the wall ? I cannot seem to find one.

Here we go with beating the dead horse again ... ...

The specific regulation regarding the setback in the wall is in the NEC and is under working space.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jim -OSHA is only addressing working on the panel box in this scenerio not inspecting it.
Maybe this is a good case for an exterior disconnect when there is no working clearance.

This discussion seems to be an attempt to split the hairs of a bald man.

Let me see if I have the argument correct. Since it seems more about arguing rather than the arguments. ((((Have to love the english language where argument can have multiple inferences.)))

To perform an "inspection of the panel" relates to, NEC, "requires examination" (see below).

If the panel has power coming to it, then it is energized and fails NEC requirements.

If there is (which we are not aware of) equipment that is not owned by others (like the meter) which will de-energizer the panel, then there is not an issue with the (OP) panel in question.

To make the OP panel NEC acceptable, a new disconnect can be added so that the panel can be de-energized. Provided the new disconnect is installed per NEC.

So, did I miss something? Other than a lot of noise.


NEC 110.26
(A) 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



PS> Power company equipment is their equipment and theoretically not available to non company personnel. Pulling a meter is tampering with their equipment. Which would be beyond the scope of the HI. Might be "woulda" or "coulda" but definitely not a "shoulda".

To Garry, even it a disconnect is added ahead of the panel there is still the likelihood that troubleshooting would be required in the energized panel keeping in place the Article 110 workspace requirements. Some fail to realize that or what to take a Clintonesque parsing of the words.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

To Garry, even it a disconnect is added ahead of the panel there is still the likelihood that troubleshooting would be required in the energized panel keeping in place the Article 110 workspace requirements. Some fail to realize that ...

Agreed.

(Without the unnecessary attempt at trying to politize the topic at hand. )

Does not matter how many disconnects there are upstream of the panel, does not matter even if their is a disconnect located outside the panel enclosure and located directly adjacent to and upstream of the panel - the liklihood that the panel will require (service, inspection, etc) while the panel is energized is a reality.

Working space is required by the NEC.

You need to be able to understand the words that are written. The minimum width needs to be at least 30 inches. That panel picture most recently posted is set in a recess only slightly wider that the 14.25 inch panel. There is also wording regarding floor to ceiling clearances.

Jim Port,

Remember the "DO NOT FEED THE MONKEY" and "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL" signs?

That comment had nothing to due with politics. It was just giving credit to a well known word parser who happened to be a politician.

To JA, it does not matter how I see it. The NEC says it is wrong and I need to follow it regardless of whether I agree or not. I do not get to pick which parts I can follow or choose to ignore.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

We disagree on that interpertation but, back to the main issue.

If the panel board is de energized is working clearance required per NEC 110.26. So if there is no working clearance , you de energize the panel box to work on it . Seams like an easier solution that ripping out closets , cabinets and relocating panel boxes. How hard is it to pull a meter? How often is a panel box worked on under normal circumstances ?

Pulling a meter is not difficult, providing you are an authorized employee of the public utility who owns the meter.

Just wanted to sift through the parsing that has taken place and reduce the argument to smallest denominators.

Which does return me to what I thought was the NEC requirement and a rational for work space requirement on equipment.

My train of thought revolved around future potential in that....
All "equipment operating at 600 volts, normal, or less to ground" will potentially require working space. It can reasonably be projected that the work will require the panel to be energized as a function of testing or evaluation. It is that potentiality that creates the permanency of work space.

Got to love the Though discussion will bring either reconfirmation of a position or clarity of a topic.

I guess the workspace will somehow materialize once the panel is re energized. Seems logical, not.

troll.jpg

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

The question that remains is why did the panel write it as a riddle -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., instead of simply stating that electric equipment shall have working space? The logical explanation is that if the equipment can be de energized it does not require working space.

Because the Code Panel Knows more than you.
* modular service units could be one exception ( seen any of these inside a cupboard?)
** I'm still not sure but leaning toward Stooopid!

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

The question that remains is why did the panel write it as a riddle -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., instead of simply stating that electric equipment shall have working space? The logical explanation is that if the equipment can be de energized it does not require working space.

I would not say so much a riddle as an attempt to remove personal interpenetration. Like most things in law or code you are not allowed to interject into the writing conditions of limitation or exception. I understand the argument you are trying to make. Though it fails when you consider that the panel, by your interpenetration, would never "require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized" as stated in the Code. Making the assumption that "never" will occur is the crux of making your argument fallacious. To support your argument the panel would need to be a sealed system (non-serviceable), or that the components of the panel would never "require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized". From experience we know that the components of the panel may require evaluation or testing while energized to determine functionality, therefore requiring the working space requirement.

You state "The logical explanation is that if the equipment can be de energized it does not require working space." I believe you argument is a Propositional Fallacy. Specifically, affirming a disjunct. I do not want to get into a discussion of Logic. I found Logic to be more difficult than Advanced Calculus and Number Theory and with less than a 50% pass rate (yes I passed). Also the learning curve is steep and tedious. So take if for what it is worth.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jim Port,

Jim Abram fails to grasp what the code says.

The code does not say "if the panel can be de-energized", as you know and understand, but Jim Abrams does not, is that the code says "likely to require ... (blah, blah, blah) ... while energized".

The answer to that is a resounding "Yes." And "It is likely to require ... while energized.".

Next, Jim Abram will try to turn this into a debate about the definition of "require". However, Jim Abram is not worth expending the time and effort and disruption to this forum on.

Jim Abram is a Troll and his intent is to disrupt this forum - that is something we need to resist. The best way to do that is to not feed the monkey ... ignore the Troll ... and all the other things we need to avoid until Jim leaves for another forum or until Brian is fed up with Jim Abram and bans him.

I have had multiple PMs from people wishing Brian would pull Jim Abram's plug.

My best thoughts to Jerry and Jim A but this discussion gets down in the weeds too much. While some of the points made by both make sense the real issue is the real world we live in...

We have to inform out customers and we would be negligent if we did not point out that the panel in the cabinet in a wet room is a poor location and may pose safety concerns.
I would state - this panel is located in a wet room with poor access that will make normal service difficult and hazardous, recommend corrective actions or Further Evaluation by a licensed electrical contractor.

Now we are reaching out to countries that don't even follow the NEC as justification.

To Jerry, knowing you have an extensive collection going back many years could you look and see when workspace requirements were added. They have been there as long as I know.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

@ Gary Sorrells - "Though it fails when you consider that the panel, by your interpenetration, would never require.. ."
Gary the interpretation and argument is not " never" but, " not likely" . If the panel can be disconnected ,it is "not likely" to require servicing ..., while energized.
This position has been upheld in the past.

"Not likely" is not a definitive term. Which yields that there is a possibility. Given the propensity for Home Inspections to be the norm today the "not likely" now becomes "more likely". Then the issue by your determination would be the degree of "not likely". Is "not likely" 1:10 or 1:1000 or 1:100000000000.

"This position has been upheld in the past." Seems only to be by you. But, you can post the resources that have upheld the position. Sighting OSHA or MOSHA is not a definitive source. What is the NEC written position on the topic that you have. I say NEC because it is their definition that is the basis of anything that follows. So a written opinion/determination by NEC is the answer that I am sure would be accepted by all, well almost all.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah rainy days and Mondays.

Finally an admission that it does not meet code.

Garry - That is not how it works. It is waived by the AHJ.
National Electrical Code Section 90-4, a portion of which states: "The authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods, where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.”

This simply means that a lesser installation than was required has been accepted by one agency, not a global endorsement or abandonment by the NFPA.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jim - Example of a residential panel with guarded live parts at the line connection.

That is a Canadian panel, and only the service equipment line side is protected, the load side and buses are still exposed and still requires working space in front of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Now we are reaching out to countries that don't even follow the NEC as justification.

You expected less?

To Jerry, knowing you have an extensive collection going back many years could you look and see when workspace requirements were added. They have been there as long as I know.

I will check when I am back in my office, then post it here.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

To Jerry, knowing you have an extensive collection going back many years could you look and see when workspace requirements were added. They have been there as long as I know.

Prior to 1940 there was a section titled "Guarding of Live Parts", that section still survives in today's NEC too.

"Guarding of Live Parts" was, essentially, a working space section while not defining "working space"
- From the 2008 NEC (I have that on my computer and can copy and paste from it)
- - 110.27 Guarding of Live Parts. - - - (A) Live Parts Guarded Against Accidental Contact. Except as elsewhere required or permitted by this Code, live parts of electrical equipment operating at 50 volts or more shall be guarded against accidental contact by approved enclosures or by any of the following means:
- - - - (1) By location in a room, vault, or similar enclosure that is accessible only to qualified persons.
- - - - (2) By suitable permanent, substantial partitions or screens arranged so that only qualified persons have access to the space within reach of the live parts. Any openings in such partitions or screens shall be sized and located so that persons are not likely to come into accidental contact with the live parts or to bring conducting objects into contact with them.
- - - - (3) By location on a suitable balcony, gallery, or platform elevated and arranged so as to exclude unqualified persons.
- - - - (4) By elevation of 2.5 m (8 ft) or more above the floor or other working surface.
- - - (B) Prevent Physical Damage. In locations where electrical equipment is likely to be exposed to physical damage, enclosures or guards shall be so arranged and of such strength as to prevent such damage.
- - - (C) Warning Signs. Entrances to rooms and other guarded locations that contain exposed live parts shall be marked with conspicuous warning signs forbidding unqualified persons to enter.
- - - - FPN: For motors, see 430.232 and 430.233. For over 600 volts, see 110.34.

For comparison, this is:
- From the 1940 NEC
- - 1112 Guarding of Live Parts. Except as elsewhere required or permitted by this code, exposed live parts of electrical equipment operating at 50 volts or more shall be guarded against accidental contact by enclosure or by locating the equipment as follows:
- - - a. In a room or enclosure which is accessible only to qualified persons;
- - - b. On a suitable balcony, gallery, or platform, so elevated and arranged so as to exclude unqualified persons;
- - - c. Elevated 8 ft or more above the floor;
- - - d. So that it will be protected by a guard rail if the equipment operates at 600 volts or less.

New to the NEC in 1940 (not in the 1937 NEC) was a new section titled Working Space About Electrical Equipment.
- From the 1940 NEC (this is a lot to type, so I will do what I can)
- - 1111. Working Space About Electrical Equipment. Suitable working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment.
- - - a. Horizontal Dimensions. Except as elsewhere required or permitted in this code, the horizontal dimensions of working space in front of live parts operating at not more than 600 volts, which which must be handled while live, shall not be less than:
- - - - 1. For parts of more than 150 volts to ground on one side of the working space and no bare live or grounded parts on the other side of the working space, 2 1/2 feet.
- - - - 2. For parts of more than 150 volts to ground on one side of the working space and bare live or grounded parts on the other side of the working space, 4 feet.
- - - - 3. For parts of 150 volts or less to ground on one side of the working space and no bare live or grounded parts on the other side of the working space, 1 1/2 feet.
- - - - 4. For parts of 150 volts or less to ground on one side of the working space and bare live or grounded parts on the other side of the working space, 2 1/2 feet.
- - - - - for higher voltages , See Article 710
- - - b. Clear Spaces. Working space adjacent to exposed live parts shall not be used as passageways.
- - - c. Elevation of Equipment. The elevation of the equipment at least 8 feet above ordinarily accessible working platforms usually affords protection at least equivalent to that provided by the horizontal clearances of paragraph a and may be used in lieu thereof.

The section Working Spaces About Electrical Equipment had evolved since 1940 as all code sections do as better knowledge of hazards, new materials and methods are introduced, etc.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

It is interesting that a straight forward reference,

...working space in front of live parts operating at not more than 600 volts, which which must be handled while live, shall not be less than:...
[COLOR=#333333]has evolved ...

It is interesting that a straight forward reference has evolved into a more inclusive straight forward reference and (the interesting part) that certain individuals do not understand the plain language of the section becoming more inclusive as people now understand that one does not have to "handle" energized electrical components to receive serious injury, electrical shock, arc flash, or electrocution ... well ... most people understand that.

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. I want someone to show how the workspace can suddenly materialize if someone needed to do an inspection or troubleshoot the panel. Kind of hard to check voltage on a breaker with the panel off.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Garry - That is not how it works. It is waived by the AHJ.
National Electrical Code Section 90-4, a portion of which states: "The authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods, where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.”

Yep, NEC is created for the use of local governments/authorities and they decide how they want to use it or alter it. NEC is offered as a guide . Many adopt it straight up other amend it. AHJ have the ability to do what they want.

In the OP and most other similar situations there is no posted notification by AHJ which states that the existing construction has been accepted by the AHJ. So, would it not be reasonable/prudent to revert to the most restrictive construct of the NEC when sighting the potential problem or issue which was found? Unless you know for fact and is supported in writing that the AHJ has a existing amendment/alteration to the NEC (providing they are using the NEC).



Just out of curiosity do you have a document that supports your positions by your local jurisdiction?? We discuss in generalities with the knowledge that everyone has an unique local situation. So, let us see what your local jurisdictional position is on the subject that speaks to the OP and your position. Thanks

Jim Port and Garry,

You can are just being suckered in by the Troll and are now just feeding the Troll.

The Troll has no intention of absorbing the information for learning - the Troll's only intent is for an excuse to respond with the Troll's nonsense.

Just reduced quote to reduce space.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Justifying energized work
So when is energized work justified, .............? OSHA requires all work to be de-energized unless cutting power is infeasible or creates a greater hazard. What does “infeasible” mean? One such instance would be if a circuit must be on and at operating conditions to get a true voltage and amperage reading. However, the person taking these readings must be qualified and meet the training and experience requirements. ............
Jim - I guess it depends on the level of training , ability and experience on how the situation is addressed...........
There are probably many installations with less than the currently required clearances. What is your solution ? Rip them all out?

I am glad from your response that you point out that "may be", from other posts, exists and can not be dismissed. As you state "level of training , ability and experience on how the situation is addressed" yet training and experience does not dismiss the code requirement, which is what the discussion is about. The " level of training , ability and experience on how the situation is addressed" is what workers deal with every day. You work around the problem. Though the ability to work around a problem does not negate it, just that there is a way to accommodate a situation.

Thank you for stating "There are probably many installations with less than the currently required clearances." Which confirms that "currently required clearances" exist. Therefore they are based on something in the NEC or the AHJ mandate/requirement. Which takes us back full circle to the to-be or not to-be energized situation/requirements and working space. I believe somewhere back across one or more of your posting you basically take the position that there are no requirements for working space because........ Yes, lazy for not quoting it here,, sorry. It is refreshing that you can change your position and acknowledge the new stance. Many can not , congratulations.

Rip them all out?
I don't think most of the forum takes the position that those panels with non conforming space requirements must all be ripped out. Just that the situation be recognized and reported. Like Sarg. Friday would say, "Just the facts".

There is a disconnect in this thread, but it is not before the panel.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

There is a disconnect in this thread, but it is not before the panel.

The disconnect is by the one who's "reality" is thought by him to be real life, where the reality of it is that his is stuck in a "reality TV series" of his own making and which does not represent real life.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

my point.

We know.

Now we quote KW??

Actually no it does not. I will leave it at that in accordance with the forum rules.

The credibility of this site has been eroded not by conflicting opinions but by personality conflicts and bickering. It didn't just start recently. This has been an ongoing trend for a few years. This site used to be my first stop if I wanted to pose a question and get an answer. I now only post a question here if I exhaust all other options. It's a shame what this site has become.