Main panel height

[MOB]

Here is a first for me, Main Electrical panel is approximately 10' up from landing below. Easily accessible from side entry. I read in past posts some conflicting info. on minimum heights. From what I read 6' 7" is max. height to top of panel. Is this correct?

Click to Enlarge

20.62 KB

[Jim Katen]

Here is a first for me, Main Electrical panel is approximately 10' up from landing below. Easily accessible from side entry. I read in past posts some conflicting info. on minimum heights. From what I read 6' 7" is max. height to top of panel. Is this correct?

Not quite. It's 6'-7" to the center of the grip of the operating handle of the highest breaker (OCPD) when in its highest position. (240.24(A))

The location in your picture is wrong.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[randynavarro]

That house is in Bothell, isn't it?

[MOB]

That house is in Bothell, isn't it?

Sure is, I take it you've seen it. Lots of interesting things!

[randynavarro]

Cool.

The folks wanted to do a 203k renovation project.

It was too much, too expensive. . .

[Jim Port]

While you say the panel is accessible from the side there is no way it will meet the workspace requirements in Article 110.

[Richard Moore]

I've got $100 that says it will never get changed or moved. No argument at all that it's wrong and should be reported as such but, "off the record", how much of an issue is this really? It can safely be reached, even in an emergency, by the homeowner. If it ever actually needs to be worked on, presumably a temporary safe workspace platform could be fashioned.

If this was my own home, my only real-life concern would be what the next home inspector would say when I sold it.

But...to repeat myself, it is wrong!

[Jim Katen]

While you say the panel is accessible from the side there is no way it will meet the workspace requirements in Article 110.

Which part? I can't find anything in 110 that would prohibit this.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[plummen]

does anybody else think the floor was removed by previous lame brain remodeler?

[Tim Maxwell]

That was the first thing I thought, remodel. Surely it was not installed that high originally.

[Jim Port]

While you say the panel is accessible from the side there is no way it will meet the workspace requirements in Article 110.

Which part? I can't find anything in 110 that would prohibit this.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

I doubt that many would think that 110.26 "to permit ready and safe operation and maintnance" would be meet. I would also challenge the depth of the workspace meeting the 36" depth if a ladder were used to gain access to work in the panel. I would also note that this could be argued that this is not dedicated space as required.

[Jim Katen]

I doubt that many would think that 110.26 "to permit ready and safe operation and maintnance" would be meet. I would also challenge the depth of the workspace meeting the 36" depth if a ladder were used to gain access to work in the panel. I would also note that this could be argued that this is not dedicated space as required.

I agree about the first part of 110.26 where it says that "sufficient access . . . shall be provided . . ."

But I'd reject the rest of your arguments. 110.26 is mostly about having plenty of space around the equipment. The panel in the picture has space in spades. I agree that you could construct all sorts of hypothetical scenarios that would bring 110.26 into play but there's really no reason to because you have a clear, unequivocal violation in 240.24. The problem here isn't that there isn't enough work space, it's that the equipment is too high off the floor.

Personally, I'd rather cite the section that's clear and unequivocal than try to bend another section into play with rationalizations.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Jim Port]

I agree that 240.24(A) regarding the maximum height being exceeded would be the best site.

I was aware of 240.24(F), not over steps, but the OP said this was over a landing. In the Mike Holt "Changes to the NEC 2008" his analysis states that panel can be over landings. I would tend to agree. While the landing is part of the stairway it is not steps.

[Jerry Lozier]

I've got $100 that says it will never get changed or moved. No argument at all that it's wrong and should be reported as such but, "off the record", how much of an issue is this really? It can safely be reached, even in an emergency, by the homeowner. If it ever actually needs to be worked on, presumably a temporary safe workspace platform could be fashioned.

If this was my own home, my only real-life concern would be what the next home inspector would say when I sold it.

But...to repeat myself, it is wrong!

I agree with Richard, yes its wrong.... I would certainly note it in the report.... my biggest concern would be as Richard said: 'how much of an issue is this really? It can safely be reached, even in an emergency, by the homeowner.' ??

Jerry

[Jim Katen]

I've got $100 that says it will never get changed or moved. No argument at all that it's wrong and should be reported as such but, "off the record", how much of an issue is this really? It can safely be reached, even in an emergency, by the homeowner. If it ever actually needs to be worked on, presumably a temporary safe workspace platform could be fashioned.

If this was my own home, my only real-life concern would be what the next home inspector would say when I sold it.

But...to repeat myself, it is wrong!

I agree with Richard, yes its wrong.... I would certainly note it in the report.... my biggest concern would be as Richard said: 'how much of an issue is this really? It can safely be reached, even in an emergency, by the homeowner.' ??

Jerry

It's not an issue till something goes wrong. Then it's a big issue.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Tim Maxwell]

It reminds me of the old houses with uneven stairs. You write it up because it's a safety concern, and to CYA. It is unlikely that anyone is going to rip out the stairs and rebuild.

Same here. Write it up, CYA, and likely no one will move the panel.