Substation Fence Clearance - Application of 110.31 & 110.34(A)

[DFrame]

I am designing a fenced-in 13.2kV substation. The equipment is enclosed giving no access to live parts. The design of the fence is giving me two issues:

1. Because there is no access to energized parts, I believe 110.31(D) applies. Thus, according to the 2nd paragraph of 110.31, I am not required to have a fence. Since a fence is not required by 110.31, am I still bound by Table 110.31 "Minimum Distance from Fence to Live Parts" if i DO put in a fence? I believe the fence is only protecting you from the hazard presented by EXPOSED live parts, not live parts within the enclosure. Therefore, Table 110.31 shouldn't apply.
2. Can a gate in the fence (see below) be used to satisfy the requirements of Table 110.34(A) "Minimum Depth of Clear Working Space at Electrical Equipment"? The fence must be opened to access the equipment, so I believe the space this provides meets the requirements of Table 110.34(A).

Thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
-DMF

 

[Gregg Harris]

I am designing a fenced-in 13.2kV substation. The equipment is enclosed giving no access to live parts. The design of the fence is giving me two issues:

1. Because there is no access to energized parts, I believe 110.31(D) applies. Thus, according to the 2nd paragraph of 110.31, I am not required to have a fence. Since a fence is not required by 110.31, am I still bound by Table 110.31 "Minimum Distance from Fence to Live Parts" if i DO put in a fence? I believe the fence is only protecting you from the hazard presented by EXPOSED live parts, not live parts within the enclosure. Therefore, Table 110.31 shouldn't apply.
2. Can a gate in the fence (see below) be used to satisfy the requirements of Table 110.34(A) "Minimum Depth of Clear Working Space at Electrical Equipment"? The fence must be opened to access the equipment, so I believe the space this provides meets the requirements of Table 110.34(A).

Thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
-DMF
View attachment 9608

I do not believe that a substation follows NFPA70 it would be on the POCO utility side

 

[mgookin]

I am designing a fenced-in 13.2kV substation. The equipment is enclosed giving no access to live parts. The design of the fence is giving me two issues:

1. Because there is no access to energized parts, I believe 110.31(D) applies. Thus, according to the 2nd paragraph of 110.31, I am not required to have a fence. Since a fence is not required by 110.31, am I still bound by Table 110.31 "Minimum Distance from Fence to Live Parts" if i DO put in a fence? I believe the fence is only protecting you from the hazard presented by EXPOSED live parts, not live parts within the enclosure. Therefore, Table 110.31 shouldn't apply.
2. Can a gate in the fence (see below) be used to satisfy the requirements of Table 110.34(A) "Minimum Depth of Clear Working Space at Electrical Equipment"? The fence must be opened to access the equipment, so I believe the space this provides meets the requirements of Table 110.34(A).

Thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
-DMF
View attachment 9608

How would those arguments stand up when someone gets hurt?
I'd make the fenced area a little larger.

 

[cadpoint]

I'd get out in front of it and get Georgia Power involved.

A & E from Georgia Power.

 

[jim dungar]

Is this a utility or a customer owned facility?

Terminology gets in the way again, all things called 'substations' are not equal.

If a security fence is placed around a padmount transformer, would all of you still treat it the same as a substation with exposed conductors?

At least one of our local POCO's has in their manual that security fence openings are allowed to be used to provide 'working clearance'.