Question
Large Equipment by definition of the NEC.
Two Exit ways required UNLESS meets Exceptions (a) & (b).
Calls for Doorways. 24 inches wide ,6ft 1/2 High.
One end door / other end Ladder industrial fixed.
Ladder up or down three steps or more.
I have my option I'd like yours.
Yoopersup

I wouldn't like to have to scurry down a ladder if there was a problem...especially if I was injured. If there were a door that led to the safety of a landing or platform before I had to climb the ladder I might feel better about it.

IF the egress to the 'door' is unobstructed, or the 'door' is located per 'b', you will be OK. The ladder is not in the picture.

Panic hardware on the door!

Ghost.
He has a door on one end.

Without any dimensions, and a floor layout, I see noissue with the one door as the prime egress.

I would request panic hardware and an exit/em unit over the door.

Note 'request'. That would be at plan review. The designprofessionals usually have that on a plan, or they honor the 'request'

The Question comes down to:
the one door is per Code & layout calls for two doors.
There:s a Door per Code at one end.
A Ladder as described at the other end.
Does the Ladder as stated comply with code requirement.
Exceptions here are not in play!
Yoopersup

When I think about "large equipment" I think >600v and that kicks you over to part III.
It still lets a permanent ladder be "access"

110.33(B)

Greg
110.33(B) is in part 3 is in the over 600 volt section.
This room has several 1200 amp large 480 volt Mcc;s as well as panels.
110.27 (A) 3 in the 600 v & under section has something similar BUT I don't think it's an Exception to the Door at each end section. If it was then you could have a Ladder at each end and defeat the Purpose & reason for a door with push to release hardware to exit the room if burned or injured.

I understand that is over 600v but I would expect that to be more strict.
I think you are going to have a hard time finding language that prevents a permanent ladder being part of the egress route from a switch room.

I'm just looking for language that allows it!
seems in 110.26 (C) there's only exceptions???
Says SHALL at each end.
This is Room & rooms with 480 volt equipment Multiple
1200 & 1600 amp Mcc's .

Yoop:
If I follow you, the one door is code compliant for this job.

You have a layout showing two (2) doors, and the second egress is via a fixed ladder.

As the one door seems to satisfy code, the second door is a moot issue.

Now, as I said above....the physical layout and dimensions of the room and the gear IMHO is required to provide a definite answer that one door is compliant.

IMHO, IF the second egress is required based on the layout, then the fixed ladder will be questionable.

The purpose and intent of the egress paths and the panic style hardware is to get out of harms way if someone is injured, and the ladder could be an insurmountable obstacle in the egress path.

I understand that the code is permissive. If it is not precluded, it is allowed.

In fact I do not see anything that says both "doors" can't be accessed by a fixed ladder.
That may be a horrible design but I am having a hard time coming up with code language that says it is not allowed.

two exits are required by code due to size Ect .
One door that is required is per Code .
Where second door is required there is a Fixed metal ladder
to another level.
As I read it two doors are Required.(push to release hardware.
Not one door one ladder. If a guys injured
pretty hard to climb Ladder.

All of my experiences with my AHJ tell me that such a significant switch room would not be acceptable without two door egresses.

Climbing a ladder would not be accepted -- at all.

The sole and only reason for door #2 is a panic withdrawal -- which is assumed to be an earthquake out here in California.

Our practice would be to cut in an extra door -- period.

%%%

The idea of emergency personnel entering the room to turn off switches -- in a smoke filled space -- coming down a ladder -- would be a complete non-starter.

The expense and delay in installing the extra access door would be considered immaterial.

For such a touchy item, you're going to have to get design approval from the AHJ.

Nothing else will matter.

The AHJ generally gets to do anything they want but I do not see the rule you are enforcing.

The AHJ has the Job of enforcement but cannot do what he wants!He must have a code section to back him up. He does have the Responsibility of making interpretations when the rules are not clear! Thus my Question.
I don't feel you can have a ladder at one or both ends by the code. I feels that;s not the intent of the code but I like to get the opinion of others .

Yoop:

OK, I'm an AHJ. As I said above, a floor plan w/dimensions will help a lot.

IF your room conforms to 110.26 (C) (a) (b) you only require a single door; again dimensions are required for a final answer.

IF the above complies, then the ladder is moot, as well as the other door.

IF the second egress is required; then I would cite Article 100 Definitions (Accessible as applied to equipment)

IMHO, the intent of 110.26 egress is to provide an accessible without obstacle path for emergency situations, and a ladder to a higher or lower elevation is non-compliant as a second egress path.

The back & forth debate about my decision would be during Plan Review. I will hang my hat on the above Article.

The CEC and Building codes have plenty of extras that don't make it to the national level.

Indeed, San Fransisco and Oakland have additional provisions that are city specific.

(Oakland mimicks San Francisco right down the line.)

I've seen many a J-man get shot down here as they cite the NEC.

The local chief inspector whips out the addendums that were part of the building permit process -- and the Poco addendums....

And thus, my experiences don't usually dovetail with the standards of the other 49 states. I usually mention that in my posts.

In my part of the world, it's a total waste of time trying to cleverly scheme around, to 'value engineer'a job. You get yourself shot down every time.

I used to do so. Then I got wise. In my market, all such endeavors just set you back.

I leave all sticky design issues to the project EE, Architects or the Project Manager. When I'm the progect manager/ EC, I stay with clean, simple solutions that are easy on the troops -- even if they use more costly materials. This philosophy is specific to my commercial niche. I can see that it would not be a winner for anyone cranking out volume -- or having really expensive materials at issue.

As for a Code citation, I'd expect my AHJ to cite wording about ladder-stairs not being an acceptable egress in emergency conditions... The only conditions that compel one to use door #2. The two-door rule is in the Code for emergencies only -- not step savings. You can see such wording in the Handbook.

Like I've said SEVERAL times BY 110.26 the Second doorway by the NEC CODE is required!!
The Question I've posed was Again.
Can the Second REQUIRED doorway be a Ladder! Or even the ist when 2 doorways are required. I feel doors or openings are required NOT ladder ways!
Thank you for the respones

2011 NEC 11.26 (C) 2 Clearly states where & when the second exit is required. (((Rated over 1200 amps and over six feet wide containing OCP))).
(a) unobstructed Egress
(B) Extra working space
neither of which apply in this case.
Where in the code does it say two door rule for emergencies ???
I have the 2011 NEC handbook also.

Yoop:

You are right, there is no mention of 'emergencies' within the NEC about two doors.

NO ladder would be allowed at either egress. I stand on what I say above re: Art 100. The term 'Emergency' is a common reach around when 'panic hardware' is mentioned; ie 'Emergency Exit'.

Common Exit signs are referred to as "Emergency Exits" which is what they are! 110.26 EGRESS issues are a topic of debate on quite a few Plan Review jobs.

BTW, I Referenced the '14 NEC as my others are in the office.

Now one more interesting Question:
Since it says OVER 1200AMP what if the OCP is 1200 Amp not over.
Then I take it Not Applicable . Right!
Since it says OVER 1200 amp & over 6ft wide .
Last one tonight I promise .
And Again Thanks for the time & input you guys have offered.

I think we would all agree that "over 600 volts" is more dangerous than less than 600 volts and they specifically say a ladder is OK as access.

110.33 over 600 volts is Very similar to under 600volts .
the 6 ft is there but there;s no limit on amperage!
I'd say its stricter!(referred to installations per 110.31)
(see 110.33(A).

Part (B) Acess does not mean same areas.Different spaces. Note

I guess I still do not see the language prohibiting a ladder as access in 110.26.

Proposals are open for the 2017.

Greg
So your opinion is that Fixed Ladders can be used per 110.26 600 volts & under for electrical Rooms ,If one or two doors are required.
Same for over 110.33 600 volts. Do i read you right???
If you find any additional info either way feel free to message me.
Thank you
Yoopersup

I don't see the language in the code preventing it but I might be wrong. I just don't see it. I agree it is a horrible design choice and I would make every effort to discourage it.
I just don't know what to do if they say "show me".

Greg:
I will hold the line on the accessability.

Did we ever determine how far away the ladder was?

To wit, is there enough room to get safely away from a flaming switchboard before you get to the ladder?
If you went through a door we wouldn't even be having this discussion I suppose.

Greg:
As I mentioned earlier, a layout of the room would help. Yoop included some comments as the thread grew, but nothing exact.

As to the 'fixed industrial ladder', based on what has transpired in this thread, IMHO that would create an egress path that is not accessible. Again this is my opinion.

The intent of an injured person having an egress path that is accessible and unobstructed is paramount.

I think you are reading something into the code that is not in the actual text.

Perhaps we should put together a proposal to tighten up this article and see what NFPA says.

Greg:
Yes, you are correct that the wording within the NEC is vague, on a situation like this thread.

I stated that my comments were 'my opinion', and based on the def within Article 100.

As I do not believe the described conditions in this thread are 'common', I think the proposal would be rejected.

Having an egress path that can be utilized to 'escape' is the concern, and in my opinion the intent of 110.26 et al.

The alternative to my decision here in NJ would be for the Design Professional or EC appealing my decision to the County Board of Appeals.

If you look at article 100 you get all the way to "readily accessible" before they prohibit a portable ladder.

Greg:
Accessible (as applied to equipment) and the key word 'elevation'

I realize that some (or all) may think I'm standing on thin ice, but this would be my stand.

Yoop should have a chat with the local AHJ in his area, and see how he feels on this.

I read elevation in that regard as responding to the reach height of the equipment as in 240.24(A)



Note that even that says "above the floor or working platform"

I would really like to see what NFPA is thinking here.

IIRC, the idea of installing false floors above conductors -- even fuses -- goes all the way back to Edison -- as in day one.

This topology is still used in data centers.

I suspect it was the quick and cheap way out when rail roads were electrified.

Such language as "working platform" would seem to have been dropped in to cover just such switching schemes.

###

I go back to my original comment: Such a matter as this is normally decided entirely outside the NEC. The AHJ is the Fire Marshall. His concerns turn on what the responding crews will have to face when it comes time to de-energize a flaming, smoking building.

Strictly speaking, there are no electrical considerations, in the most direct sense, at issue.

No matter how straight forward a given installation may appear -- there's always a bigger idiot out there to break a fool-proof system.

Such discoveries make for Code revisions about every three-years.

Guys
As you know theses are the kinda questions you want to know the answer before the AHJ arrives.
I feel if its an Electrical room enclosed the two door same level applies. If (a) (b) do not come into play.
If its an open platform area .
Well then all bets are off.
As then just clearances come into play.
The job this apply's to is quite large , we have at least 15 to 20 large mcc & HV rooms
I agree this is an unclear area in the Code .
Again Thus my Question.
Yoopersup

I guess Yoop agrees with me...

"I feel if its an Electrical room enclosed the two door same level applies. If (a) (b) do not come into play."

I have an open platform job in plan review as we speak. 2500 amp, 277/480, with a gen tap box outside on another platform. Clearances were worked out.

Platform is necessary to get the new gear above BFE. (Base Flood Elevation) This is the first of three services at this complex.

I guess it is time for a better description of the area we are talking about.
Is it enclosed on all 4 sides? Where is the ladder? How would you eliminate the ladder if there is no floor on the other side at that elevation?

Do they really have to move the equipment to another location?

I think you are going to need language that is far less ambiguous than anything I have seen so far to address this.

Greg:
Yoop didn't say if he has to install something within the 'existing' room, or what scope of work he is involved with.

Over the last few years, a lot of new gear has been retrofitted into existing e-rooms here. A lot was replacement gear from Sandy flooding. There were no issues with modifications to any of the -rooms. Change of door swing, panic hardware, relocating doors/walls, installing e-lites, etc. Most of the jobs fortunately had the ability to make the mods without major work.

One in particular required bumping into the warehouse space to enlarge the e-room. Block wall bump-in, steel decking for ceiling & 2 new egress doors.

IMHO, Yoop may be between a rock & a hard place. I still think he should talk to the local AHJ first.