Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Let me start by saying that I think the clearance is required.
That said, for those of you who have an NEC, look at 110.26, then look at 110.16. Notice that you have that same phrase "likely to require adjustment.......while energized". 110.16 gives us a list of the items that it pertains to (panels, MCC's, etc), yet 110.26 does not...why? Also, since a disconnect is not in 110.16, does that mean that it is not "likely to require....while energized"? If so, does 110.26 apply?
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Here’s a reply I just received from the NFPA:
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: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob,
That's not really what they said.
They said they cannot make a determination from a photo.
That leaves two choices as I see it: 1) Pay them big money to go out and look at it, 2) Have the AHJ look at it at no charge.
The key, however, is (in my opinion) here:
"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 ... " "
And, in the case of the photo shown, one would have to "climb over" to gain proper and safe access for operation, renewal, or inspection.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
Bob,
That's not really what they said.
They said they cannot make a determination from a photo.
Quote:
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.
jpeck wrote:
That leaves two choices as I see it: 1) Pay them big money to go out and look at it, 2) Have the AHJ look at it at no charge.
Very likely the AHJ or their Representative has already been there and made the determination. 
jpeck wrote:
The key, however, is (in my opinion) here:
"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 ... " "
And, in the case of the photo shown, one would have to "climb over" to gain proper and safe access for operation, renewal, or inspection.
To be clear this is the Joe Tedesco photo I am taking about.
I do not see what you see, I see walking up on either side of the unit and reaching or leaning to the switch.
Of course everyone is free to report this as they feel right with, my point is do not assume it is always a violation of the NEC.
Bob
You have never read the story of the boy that cried wolf?
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe T.,
RE: photos of a/c condenser units.
That's about what they are doing down here now (except the concrete mounting pad must be at least 2" above adjacent final grade, which includes the gravel).
The disconnect on the left might be a little behind the left a/c condenser unit.
I see they extended the condensate line out the wrong side of the condenser unit on the right, right through the working space in front of the disconnect. 
Now, I wonder if they are anchored down? (Down here, they must be anchored down to the concrete pad so they stay put during a hurricane.)
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jtedesco wrote:
I also find many installations that combine the thermostat wire with the supply into the unit.
This is not allowed by the Code.
Jeez, we finally got those yahoos (what's Spanish for yahoos?) down there to finally stop doing that years ago. I thought they were the last ones doing it.
Well, being as it was in Orlando, if they are installed since 3/1/2002 (I wondered if it was in Florida, tell you why in a minute), they are required to meet the Florida Building Code, and that requires 3 screws and anchors per side, 12 total. If those are anchored, they are probably only anchored with one in each corner.
This is why I wondered about it being in Florida: The a/c condensate line. The one I mentioned crossing the working space for the disconnect. The condensate line AND ITS DISCHARGE (many installers forget the discharge runs toward the house) are required to be at least 12" from the foundation. And that condensate line was extended way out there.
So, those concrete pads also need to be thicker and / or higher above grade. And the final grade must be sloped away from the foundation.
Just too much I could probably write up about those if I saw them, but you get the idea, they may look good, but they are not (especially the LV in with the power conductors).
