I've had this discussion with a few inspectors. Some of them require the working space requirement on A/C disconnects if they happen to be behind the A/C. I asked them if this was a requirement for a switch and they said no. I replaced the non-fusible disconnect with a 2-pole 40A switch and left it in the same place. Then it passed inspection. I think my point was made although it cost me a little more money. LOL
Yes working space is different. The OP asked about dedicated equipment space.
I see. In reference to my post, would you require a non-fusible disconnect to have working space? Would you require a 2 pole switch have working space?
I would not, but I wouldn't require it in front of a fused switch either. There is no reason to examine, test etc. a fused switch while energized that can't be performed deenergized.
I recommend always planning to have working space, on any equipment exceeding the voltage and/or ampacity of simple light switches and receptacles. I.e. those are devices where we know are acceptable to put them on the back of a counter, or inside a cabinet.
I agree 100%. But when A/C contractors brig their own concrete pads and set them right in front of your disconnect, you don't really have that choice. I've trimmed out a lot of houses where the A/C contractor is behind schedule and we just mounted the disconnect and provided a whip. This is where most of the issues that I'm referring to are coming from.
This seems to be one of the most blatantly violated requirements I see. AFA it needing servicing or testing while energized, EVEN IF the breaker is turned off, the line side is to be presumed live until confirmed to be deenergized by testing (live work). Working space is required.
The hazard can be deadly as most existing installations will not have GFCI and if you have to reach over and potentially "lean on" the AC unit to de-energize a shorted out unit. And the TIA is still there for some new installations, exempting GFCI.
The very first place I would start if I am troubleshooting AC equipment. If there is voltage on the load side, then I start taking off the equipment cover.
But you shouldn't. You should turn the disconnect off and measure the fuses for continuity. Otherwise, as discussed here before we should be suited up to check for voltage. I must admit I don't. We can go down a rabbit hole of making things safe, or use common sense. Given the wording of 110.26, all receptacle and switches also require working clearance. I am not arguing with you or disputing what you are saying, I am just of the opinion that the requirements are a little over the top.
Whether that should or should not be done does not matter. It is likely that it will be done and that triggers the application of 110.26(A).
So, what about clearance in front of a receptacle?
Yes it meets the definition of equipment but I'm not sure how you can have working space for a countertop receptacle with two feet of countertop in front of it. This just reflects on the fact that this is one of the most poorly written sections in the NEC.
Yes, every kitchen countertop receptacle is a violation
, but CMP 1 refuses to correct unreasonable code language. The application of 110.26(A) should be limited in scope like 110.26(E) is. Maybe not the same list, but a limiting list. There have been multiple proposals over time to make changes to 110.26(A) but they have all be rejected.
Yeah just another example of how clueless the CMP is.Yes, ever kitchen countertop receptacle is a violation
