• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Changing panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
A "switch" was never the issue. Don't change the entire subject. A pullout disconnect needs the clearances. I'm shocked (no pun intended) at the lack of knowledge here.
 
A "switch" was never the issue. Don't change the entire subject. A pullout disconnect needs the clearances. I'm shocked (no pun intended) at the lack of knowledge here.

Don't mislead the public, and people that want to learn the meaning of the codes.

Not changing or misleading anything. Without knowing what type of disco is there, We have no idea what is required. Do you argue that a switch or receptacle requires working clearance? What if someone wants to test the terminals? If it works like a switch and acts like a switch and serves on other purpose but that of a switch, what is it?
 
The arguments being attempted in this forum (reasoning how a disconnect does NOT have to have the required clearances) have been tried unsuccessfully for decades. A disconnect, BY CODE, must have the required clearances in Article 110.26. Period. Will an inspector let it go sometimes, like in the instance of where someone added a water softner after the fact and it encroached on the clear space? Sure. But that doesn't make it correct, and it doesn't blanket-cover the same issue down the road in the future.

I am just a poor boy. I am just filthy and nasty. I work out of the back of my 2002 Toyota pickup truck. Nobody likes me. I have no friends. I am not here to gain web friends, or to be anybody's bud. I'm just here to point out the codes AS THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THEM.

Please do not waste my time, and others, with questions such as "does a receptacle require clearances?" Or, "does a switch require clearances?" I'm not playing that game of twisting code language, and twisting code logic to support incorrect determinations, nor do I have to defend against such.

I will continue to post the correct code interpretations, regardless of the people who "ban together" with incorrect consensus in order to make themselves feel better. Sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings. But code is not a game. Clear spaces are not a game. "Concensus" doesn't validate codes being applied incorrectly.

I just post the truth and tell it like it is. That's all. I will keep on doing it. Stating that a disconnect must be "interpreted" as to whether or not it is being used as a switch and then applying code IS INDEED misleading the public, and any person that wishes to gain code knowledge, by reading the form here.

Hopefully, the "good ole' boys" club that exists here will learn something. Like ICE says, it's up to you.
 
Filthy,
I am glad you are passionate about your work and the code. Really I am, and we need people that are. I fail plenty of stuff for 110.26 every day, but I couldn't approve anything if the "unfused" disconnects needed working clearance. Do you have airhandlers in attics where you are? Or crawlspaces? Now, not only do I need to make them put in a catwalk (24") to the equipment and a 30" deep platform on the service side of equipment, but now a 30x36 platform to work on a disconnect? And BTW, cut that truss as you don't have 30" between them...

We don't all agree here which is at least part of the reason places like this exist and why we come here. But it should always remain discussion and not bashing. If you can get a formal interpretation out of NFPA, post it up, we would all love to see it. 2014 Handbook does specifically reference "switches" so maybe that is what they meant. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Each AHJ is free to make their own call on this, kinda like "nearest the point of entrance" in 230.70(A)1
 
% ~ %


Everybody play nice !......Remember, we all do not have
the same viewpoints, but that does not mean that we should
not be civil and courteous to one another. :cool:


If the dialogue cannot be civil & courteous, we can close this
thread........Just sayin' !



% ~ %
 
That would be incorrect. The NEC code panelists have all stated that this type of equipment needs the required clearances and that the intent of the code is to have the clearances. What if a journeyman electrician or an HVAC guy wanted to put a tester on one of the terminals (examination, servicing)?

This "wordsmithing" of the section that you quote needs to stop, because you are giving readers an incorrect interpretation. That is not the intent of the NEC and that is incorrect application of the code language. Trust me.

I agree with Filthy on this. I'm a journeyman electrician, and this is what I was taught.

Once Ice challenged me on it the first time, I did start thinking about air handlers, and I'm pretty sure I have mounted disconnected on a 2x4 nailed to a rafter directly behind the the unit, and that would not meet working clearances. And like I said with my apartment closet example, I have seen inspectors compromise to some extent about meeting this code.

Honestly the way this is being picked apart, it looks like no one arguing the other side of this is an electrician.

To me this is just a matter of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are always tight spaces and certain circumstances that inspectors will let slide. That doesn't mean that the code doesn't apply to those things.

This kind of arguing just means that in 5 years the wording will be changed. But the intent of the code would still be the same.
 
& = & = &


mfichter80 ( and others ),

Speaking from experience, if as an Inspector I were to
[ attempt ] to enforce every single aspect of the various
adopted Codes, then I would not be employed very long.

IMO, is the matter of "Working Clearances" an actual
& Legal code, ...Yes !.......It is the "Letter" of the Code.
Sometimes, I have had to decide which Code I would
try to enforce [ i.e. - which hill to die on so-to-speak ].
I did so out of self preservation........Maybe some of the
other Code Officials & Inspectors on here have done,
and are doing the same.........Not saying it was the right
thing to do [ i.e. - the Letter of the Code ], but I, and
others, DO have to pick and choose sometimes.


For me, it has been a judgment call numerous times...

Thanks !




& = & = &
 
Filthy,
I am glad you are passionate about your work and the code. Really I am, and we need people that are. I fail plenty of stuff for 110.26 every day, but I couldn't approve anything if the "unfused" disconnects needed working clearance. Do you have airhandlers in attics where you are? Or crawlspaces? Now, not only do I need to make them put in a catwalk (24") to the equipment and a 30" deep platform on the service side of equipment, but now a 30x36 platform to work on a disconnect? And BTW, cut that truss as you don't have 30" between them...

We don't all agree here which is at least part of the reason places like this exist and why we come here. But it should always remain discussion and not bashing. If you can get a formal interpretation out of NFPA, post it up, we would all love to see it. 2014 Handbook does specifically reference "switches" so maybe that is what they meant. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Each AHJ is free to make their own call on this, kinda like "nearest the point of entrance" in 230.70(A)1

Steve,
Don't mind me like I said, I'm just "nasty." I will show no quarter. I hope somebody out there appreciates that.

NFPA will give no formal interpretation when the code language is clear. The code language is clear. But what I can give you is a blurb from the handbook:

"The intent of 110.26(A) is to provide enough space for personnel to perform any of the operations listed without jeopardizing worker safety. These operations include examination, adjustment, servicing, and maintenance of equipment. Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment. It is important to understand that the word examination, as used in 110.26(A),
includes such tasks as checking for the presence of voltage using a portable voltmeter."
 
& = & = &


mfichter80 ( and others ),

Speaking from experience, if as an Inspector I were to
[ attempt ] to enforce every single aspect of the various
adopted Codes, then I would not be employed very long.

IMO, is the matter of "Working Clearances" an actual
& Legal code, ...Yes !.......It is the "Letter" of the Code.
Sometimes, I have had to decide which Code I would
try to enforce [ i.e. - which hill to die on so-to-speak ].
I did so out of self preservation........Maybe some of the
other Code Officials & Inspectors on here have done,
and are doing the same.........Not saying it was the right
thing to do [ i.e. - the Letter of the Code ], but I, and
others, DO have to pick and choose sometimes.


For me, it has been a judgment call numerous times...

Thanks !




& = & = &

Sounds like very weak enforcement has become the norm in your neck of the woods.
 
I agree with Filthy on this. I'm a journeyman electrician, and this is what I was taught.

Once Ice challenged me on it the first time, I did start thinking about air handlers, and I'm pretty sure I have mounted disconnected on a 2x4 nailed to a rafter directly behind the the unit, and that would not meet working clearances. And like I said with my apartment closet example, I have seen inspectors compromise to some extent about meeting this code.

Honestly the way this is being picked apart, it looks like no one arguing the other side of this is an electrician.

To me this is just a matter of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are always tight spaces and certain circumstances that inspectors will let slide. That doesn't mean that the code doesn't apply to those things.

This kind of arguing just means that in 5 years the wording will be changed. But the intent of the code would still be the same.

They are only fooling themselves. They will give an example of when the inspector may have cut some slack. But then they like to apply that same example to every installation. This is joke enforcement. Don't buy into it. The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the NEC code panelists will tell you. Period. Keep up the good work.

PS - It is always up to the building official whether or not he/she chooses to be wrong. I give the correct interpretation of the code. What a building official or an inspector did [incorrectly] is not my concern here. I come to educate.
 
If I cut slack, I am personally and professionally liable. If I interpret the code differently than you do, that is my job. If you are going to hang your hat on "checking for voltage" would an electrician need to do that at every switch and receptacle and light fixture at some point? What about transformers and HVAC equipment mounted in ceilings or attics or crawlspaces? Where do you draw your line on what requires working clearance? A smart electrician works safely no matter what the conditions are and doesn't service things live that he doesn't need to.
 
Sounds like very weak enforcement has become the norm in your neck of the woods.

Filthy, good call on checking the Handbook.

I agree that this debate is silly, other people picked this fight, and we have the correct position on what the intent of the code is.

That being said I'm an inspector, and inspectors do have to pick their battles. Different localities have different budgets, no one can see and know everything, and we don't have the time to reinspect every job 5 times. So we do have to pick our battles.
 
110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.


(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.


Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices,
appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like
used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical
installation.

There it is...black and white...no mistaking what is meant. Any and all equipment requires working space. Equipment per the NEC is everything right down to fittings. So your literal, black and white Code is screwed up. A thinking man looks at that and says, "Hm that has problems...perhaps a line is required between what equipment deserves such space and the rest of it". My jurisdiction, which Trumps electricians, has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection didn't make the cut.

Electrical work is inherently dangerous. Protection is built into the code. It has to be so in order to protect the lame idiots that produce the sloppy work that I have shown here for years. But guess what....if you can't probe a disconnect in tight quarters you should have been a plumber.

You bloviaters ranting about educating the public or calling me silly are arrogant. Shirley you are done learning.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect.

Some like to rely on "the code isn't clear" (your opinion). But in this case, it is clear. The obvious fact that a PULLOUT disconnect requires one to PULL IT OUT means that one needs to get near it is reason enough to require the clearances. The obvious fact that an HVAC guy may want to test the voltage is reason enough to require the clearances. It is totally commonplace for HVAC technicians to pull out the disconnect when working on equipment. That is what they do.

I understand that some people here may have been violating this code for 20 years or more, so they will fight to the end to say "the code isn't clear" to justify themselves. They are only fooling themselves.

The true professional seeks out information and input. The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the NEC code panelists will tell you. Period. I've spoken with them personally at continuing education classes.

The true professional seeks out information and input. The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the handbook will tell you.

The true professional seeks out information and input. The interpretation that I'm giving you is what is taught to journeyman and master electricians in test preparation classes.

The true professional seeks out information and input. Case law supports the interpretation that I'm giving you.

Any jurisdiction that has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection doesn't need clearances is completely incorrect. Yet - as I've stated previously, It is always up to the building official whether or not he/she chooses to be wrong. I give the correct interpretation of the code. What a building official or an inspector did [incorrectly] is not my concern here. I come to educate. They are merely shirking their professional responsibility and making it "easy" for themselves. I hope they get a good retirement with all that taxpayer money for doing such a terrible job.
 
110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.


(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.


Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices,
appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like
used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical
installation.

There it is...black and white...no mistaking what is meant. Any and all equipment requires working space. Equipment per the NEC is everything right down to fittings. So your literal, black and white Code is screwed up. A thinking man looks at that and says, "Hm that has problems...perhaps a line is required between what equipment deserves such space and the rest of it". My jurisdiction, which Trumps electricians, has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection didn't make the cut.

Electrical work is inherently dangerous. Protection is built into the code. It has to be so in order to protect the lame idiots that produce the sloppy work that I have shown here for years. But guess what....if you can't probe a disconnect in tight quarters you should have been a plumber.

You bloviaters ranting about educating the public or calling me silly are arrogant. Shirley you are done learning.

Filthy quoted the NEC Handbook, and it's pretty clear. You didn't have to pick this fight but you did. You're choosing to be difficult, and you're wrong. I'm an adult man, I can admit when I'm wrong, and I can acknowledge other people's opinions. That's how an adult man is supposed to act.
 
We have no way of knowing who the people are (on this or any other forum) that have installed disconnects without clearances for their entire careers.

I'm sure they were very happy with their building official's erroneous interpretations. It makes for a quicker, easier, installation.
 
So filthy your saying that We could never allow any any equipment or switches in attics or crawl spaces without the required 6.5' head room.

That's a good point, but Filthy didn't write the NEC Handbook. Maybe you should ask the people who did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top