A/C disconnects working space

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaylectricity

jaylectricity

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Occupation
licensed journeyman electrician
I passed the inspection per the wire inspector, but the building inspector took a look and said he was going to have to give it a "dummy fail" and tell the wire inspector to "revoke" the passing.

Now part of it was that one of the condensers was in front of one of the disconnects. I tried to tell them this when they installed it, but whatever. But he also said the two disconnects were too close together. But on another job we have two disconnects side by side with condensers on either side and that configuration is repeated 10 more times for the other condos in the building.

If the condensers are moved out of the working space area is there any reason why the disconnects can't be right next to each other?

The other thing I noticed is the definitions involved in 110.26. Working space regards equipment, and the definition of equipment seems to include anything with a wire-nut.
 
Working spaces can overlap, no doubt. The only rule is that if there is a door it has to be able to open ninety degrees.

And yes, if you follow the letter of the law about work space every code required kitchen counter top recpt is a code violation.
 
I'm hearing the explanation second hand, so they might be leaving out something.

I told them to get a code article that is being violated and we'll go from there. If the inspector gets offended you just tell him that you just want to study the code article for the best way to correct the problem.

Right now I want them to move the condensers over to the right of the disconnects by 30". I'll replace the whip from the current locations and be done. Without the condensers in the way I know my working space is correct.
 
We have had to install a wp jb where the wire exited the building and pipe over to where the disconnect was readily available. Easier then moving the a/c

I have no idea why they cited that the discos were too close. There is no violation on that issue
 
I believe the intent of the code was to have the disconnects "readily accessible" and not have to lean over the condenser unit to shut down. As far as the two disconnects being close together, as long as you can get to them without climbing over anything I don't think you're in violation.
 
goldstar said:
I believe the intent of the code was to have the disconnects "readily accessible" and not have to lean over the condenser unit to shut down. As far as the two disconnects being close together, as long as you can get to them without climbing over anything I don't think you're in violation.
Click to expand...


There is alot of controversy over this issue. Does it need to be readily accessible able does it really fit into 110.26(A). The key here is it likely to require examination, adjustment... while energize. If there is a breaker ahead of this then there is no reason this needs to be worked on live. Some feel if it is a fused disconnect then it would fall under this section, non fused would not

(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.
Click to expand...
 
Is the branch circuit OCPD readily accessible? IMO a non fused disconnect that has the OCPD readily accessible (generally outside the building -- no locked doors to pass thru) with a breaker lock would eliminate the likely to be energized clause. I tend to agree with Dennis
 
Yeah, I don't see what the issue is with having to reach behind the condenser to pull out the disconnecting bar. Maybe if I put permanently installed lockouts on the breaker it would pass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top