You can't be serious. A very bad NEC interpretation

[jar546]

Ahh, the roof pictures. You know what? I've been there and done that as an electrician. We make a rack of disconnects within site of the RTUs and sometimes mount them on the RTU if factory approved. Always code compliant. I'd rather look for a solution than to try to find an excuse for not doing something the right way.

In the rare jurisdiction where perfection is not only achievable but expected each of the installations in post #69 would result in corrections.

Rare? There is a much bigger world out there than the little bubbles we live in. Not everything is according to your bubble or my bubble. As someone who has performed work in two different states and dozens of municipalities, I can tell you the degree of compliance based on enforcement certainly varies but the clear majority don't look for excuses as to why they don't have to expect the minimums to be performed. Contractors complain that the codes aren't uniform enough and there are too many places that have different requirements. However, when you peel that onion back you find out that the problem is that many contractors get use to working in very lax, poorly enforced towns and then struggle when they have to meet the minimums. This is why poor and lazy enforcement is a disservice to both the contractor and other municipalities that expect at least minimum standards to be achieved.

 

[ICE]

In twenty-five years the industry turned upside down. Well anyway Jeff I can't argue with you anymore. I don't even work anymore. Our worlds are far apart.

 

[steveray]

Not when you create a code violation.

It's not a violation...it is an existing dwelling unit...it's allowed per the exception....Don't forget, you can't get to the NEC until you go through the building code first....

[A] 101.4 Referenced codes. The other codes specified in
Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere
in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements
of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.

 

[jar546]

It's not a violation...it is an existing dwelling unit...it's allowed per the exception....Don't forget, you can't get to the NEC until you go through the building code first....

[A] 101.4 Referenced codes. The other codes specified in
Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere
in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements
of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.

I thought we were talking about creating a code violation by installing a deck over a condensing unit and disconnect.

 

[steveray]

I thought we were talking about creating a code violation by installing a deck over a condensing unit and disconnect.

Correct....bad code language, but it is an existing dwelling unit, therefore the reduction per the exception is allowed.....had the geniuses on the CMP written it something like "existing installations"....., that would have some legal traction.....But then the NEC really needs to stay out of that as the IEBC has it handled....

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof
shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe
than its existing condition.
Exception: Where the current level of safety or sanitation
is proposed to be reduced, the portion altered shall
conform to the requirements of the International Building
Code.

 

[ICE]

Correct....bad code language, but it is an existing dwelling unit, therefore the reduction per the exception is allowed.....had the geniuses on the CMP written it something like "existing installations"....., that would have some legal traction.....But then the NEC really needs to stay out of that as the IEBC has it handled....

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof
shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe
than its existing condition.
Exception: Where the current level of safety or sanitation
is proposed to be reduced, the portion altered shall
conform to the requirements of the International Building
Code.

The NEC stands alone and unless the property fell out of the sky with the deck over the disconnect already there....well then....I mentioned the chicken and the egg...how about the forest for the trees. A closed mind is not going to agree with anything that you put forth. Die on that hill he will.

 

[Gregg Harris]

I have faced this interpretation issue for many years teaching decks, and I hate it. If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?

In both my ICC deck books where I must work with the opinions of their technical editors, I have had to state that the AC and disconnect fall under these clearances, however, I also state that the section is very broad in referring to "electrical equipment" and then the list of potential activities. I state that a building official is meant to interpret the code for their community in a reasonable manner. I think ICE has provided examples of that.

In my own independent education, I teach deck builders they could run into an inspector that will call them on this, which could potentially end completely a back deck project, or reduce it's size or design. When I teach inspectors deck codes, I encourage them to be reasonable about this 6-6 thing.

My primary issue with applying AC and their disconnects to working clearance is the absurd 6-6 height. A finished basement can be two inches lower at 6-4 (beams, ducts "obstructions') and no one questions their ability to perform any task underneath in. We expect a firefighter to rescue someone from a window under a deck 3 feet off the ground and carry them for a limitless distance.

I got AC in my house when my daughter was born. She is 20 now. The disco has never been pulled. I need a new AC so badly. No, the condenser has never been serviced. I am a typical American.

wat do you consider to be absurd about the 6.6 clearance?

 

[wwhitney]

I will amend that statement and say that many AC disconnects are neither service equipment or panelboards.

The NEC definition of panelboard (identical in 2017, 2020, and 2023):

"Panelboard. A single panel or group of panel units designed for assembly in the form of a single panel, including buses and automatic overcurrent devices, and equipped with or without switches for the control of light, heat, or power circuits; designed to be placed in a cabinet or cutout box placed in or against a wall, partition, or other support; and accessible only from the front."

Based on that, there is a reasonable argument that a typical fused AC disconnect is a panelboard. It is installed in a cabinet (see the definition, there's a swinging door), it has automatic overcurrent devices (at least 2 fuses), and it has buses connecting the lugs provided for termination to the fingers that the pullout mates with.

Cheers, Wayne