Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
My picture in the Inspection Photo gallery here had the correct explanation for this picture and you can quote me anywhere!
The working space required here must include a space where a person can stand in front of the disconnect without anything in their way. The width must be at least 30 inches, and depth not less that 3 feet.
Think of it like this, can you stand a refrigerator box in front of the disconnect?
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Looks like about 6 inches or so away from the exterior wall. Just a little tight. Extremely difficult to perform any kind of service. Again, there’s that code thing, about distance from wall.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
OK we keep talking about so lets look at it.
Quote:
110.26(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), (2), and (3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.
Now the NEC definition of equipment.
Quote:
Equipment. A general term including material, fittings, devices, appliances, luminaires (fixtures), apparatus, and the like used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.
Equipment covers everything romex connectors, boxes etc.
Well 110.26 can not be applied to all equipment so it is limited to equipment "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized".
There is not a list published by the NEC telling us which equipment is likely...etc..
That being the case IMO the AHJ or inspector gets to determine what equipment is and is not covered by 110.26(A).
Sure I think working space is good, I am not small.
That aside IMO it can not be said this is black and white code.
All the testing that can be done in a disconnect often needs to be done in a junction box, does a junction box need the 30" x 36" space?
If a simple 2 pole switch in a weather proof box was used in place of this disconnect would it need the work space?
There are certainly folks there that agree with Jerry and Joe and even some that agree with me. 
My whole point is the rule was either left with room for judgment by the inspector or it is just poorly written.
IMO It was left for evaluation on a case by case basis.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob: I sent the picture to NFPA today and here is their reply:
Quote:
1. If the switch is ?capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth?, it is readily accessible. We cannot evaluate photographs for the purposes of determining NEC compliance. In this case, determination of NEC compliance requires on-site assessment which is the responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction.
2. All electrical equipment is required to have sufficient access and working space and if this enclosed switch/disconnecting means is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized the working space shall be as described in 110.26(A)(1) through (A)(3). Determination of whether this specific equipment requires the 110.26(A) working space is the responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction based on the likelihood that it will require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized. We cannot evaluate photographs for the purposes of determining NEC compliance. In this case, determination of NEC compliance requires on-site assessment of the equipment which is the responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction.
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe I think this really shows one of the problems.
jtedesco wrote:
On that style (shape) of condenser unit, the service access and electrical equipment access area is at the corner, with the removable access cover wrapping around the corner.
The best way to provide that space (service access space and working space) for those units is to install the units so the service access corner is not facing the wall.
If you were to take the one in your photo, rotate 90 degrees counterclockwise, you would now have all clearances required.
It would be a huge help if the spot on the unit where the conduit entry and the plumbing connections are was not located on the same corner as the electrical compartment.
For reasons of looks and ease of installation it goes without saying these are going to be located with these connections facing the wall.
If you turn the unit a whole new problem develops trying to support, hide and physically protect the raceway and refrigerant lines.
You know how careful landscapers will be with the ride around mower. 
Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
From the mechanical section of the IRC (2000 edition, M1305.1):
Quote:
Appliances shall be accessible for inspection, service, repair, and replacement without removing permanant construction. Thirty inches of working space shall be provided in front of the control side to service an appliance.
-- Eric Van De Ven
Owner/Inspector
Magnum Inspections Inc.
I get paid to be suspicious when there is nothing to be suspicious about!
www.magnuminspections.com
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree with Bob and Mike on this one, and don’t see a big issue with the situation shown in the original post. The switch is “readily accessible”, and I don’t think it likely that anyone would need to work on that while energized … it is very easy to get to the breaker to shut-down and lock out power.
Now if that was a rooftop unit on say a 20 story building with the breaker in the basement I would look at that differently. You could say that power can be locked out, but is that "likely" to be done ... hmmmmm.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
I agree with Bob and Mike on this one, and don't see a big issue with the situation shown in the original post. The switch is "readily accessible", and I don't think it likely that anyone would need to work on that while energized ... it is very easy to get to the breaker to shut-down and lock out power.
Now if that was a rooftop unit on say a 20 story building with the breaker in the basement I would look at that differently. You could say that power can be locked out, but is that "likely" to be done ... hmmmmm.
I sent Redwood Kardon, Author of Code Check an email:
"They wouldn't believe me and had to use your explanation."
Of course, I was using 110-26(A) as the reasoning for my interpretation. As you know, having been an electrician, voltages are commonly checked inside of switches e.g. they are worked live.
I'll try to take a look at it next week. I'm heading up to Oregon tomorrow
to do an ASHI seminar.
If NACHI takes the stand that this is not a problem, they should send a notice to all inspectors (which would be a real joke) saying that they do not agree with the illustration that was posted here by Gerry!
Your opinion is just that, and that's good but the book is being sold through NACHI to members.
I will during my seminars state that I feel it is a violation and would recommend that a Proposal be sent to NFPA to make it clearer, Redwood makes a good point in his reply to me!
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations.
Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees.
In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.
Bob: Taken from above, where I posted the entire message sent to me is the last paragraph: "personal opinion of the author"
You can take what he said and use it in the specific instance when the issue comes to an interpretation.
PS: His email to me was sent to the NEC Technical Committee Chairman, Jim Carpenter and to the Chairman of CMP 1, John Minick.
They will be aware of this issue and I suggest that a proposal be sent to NFPA for the 2008 NEC and ask for a better rule, one that we can all understand, remember "likely" is a vague and "undefined term" that is not supposed to be used by the committees.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob:
Not boring at all, the members love it   when we as electricians and inspectors have a difference of opinion, so we can continue, besides the link you posted to the same message on Mike's site is here, and with twice as many replies!
