dvcraven0522
Member
- Location
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Occupation
- Engineer
Does the equipment disconnect switch require the same working clearances (30"wide) as a panelboard. See attached photo.
Thx
Thx
Disconnect Switch Working Clearance
- Thread starter dvcraven0522
- Start date
- Status
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
Those look like non-fused, so no. There is a school of thought that a fused disconnect does require the clearance.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
First, you need to remember that there are two requirements regarding space around equipment.
Working space is required for all equipment where someone is likely to have to work on it energized. The key would seem to be whether you are likely to be required to work on it energized. In this case, I think a good argument can be made that it is not likely. people probably do it, but it is not likely to be required, IMO. More likely if it is a fused disconnect though.
Dedicated equipment space is only required for certain types of equipment including panelboards.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
GMTA.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
IMO the working clearances are required. If you're troubleshooting those AC units and need to check for power would you be more inclined to unscrew all of the screws and remove the cover on the unit or open the door on the disco and check for voltage? For me the latter applies 100% of the time.
dvcraven0522
Member
- Location
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Occupation
- Engineer
Thank you all for your responses.
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
So, what is your position on working clearance around a duplex in the living room?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
This has been an ongoing issue with air conditioner disconnects, so CMP 11 made a change in Article 440 for the 2023 code.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There is an issue with the language in that code section as it acts to prohibit the required kitchen counter receptacles. The type of equipment that 110.26(A) applies to needs to be limited, but many proposals to do that have been rejected.
That being said, I require 110.26(A) space for equipment disconnects for the reason stated in post #5.
qcroanoke
Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
- Location
- Roanoke, VA.
- Occupation
- Sorta retired........
From the drawing I'd say 2 out of the 3 units do not have the working clearances unless the access is in the front.
BUT, that wasn't the question.....
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
The difference is whether you would be required to do so. If you make a choice to do so, that is different than a requirement. There is an option available to you that does not require you to work on the disconnect live.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I am required to verify the lack of voltage to the equipment I am working on and that verification triggers a requirement for the workspace.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
I think the language allows for the receptacles. Since the code requires the receptacles above the counter, it is permitted.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I think that you're playing devils advocate but no one is going to remove a bunch of screws and the unit cover when the switch has a hinged door. The working space is for the safety of the person working on the equipment and just because the unit cover can be removed first doesn't mean that it in a real world testing situation that it actually will be. I'm glad that they finally put the words in the NEC so we can end these silly you can do it this other way scenarios.
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
What wording did they put in the code that resolves it? My reason for playing devil's advocate is that I think it is too much to require that kind of clearance because someone may need to check voltage once in ten years. As I implied, a wall receptacle doesn't require clearance. Perhaps the code should require an explosion proof style twist lock receptacle that doesn't energize until the receptacle is fully seated so that someone can't inadvertently get shocked plugging in the receptacle or dropping a paper clip on the partially plugged in receptacle. Basically we are taking safety a little too far. Not to trivialize safety because it is important, but ridiculous safety actually causes many workers to take the important safety less seriously.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Proposal and comment for the 2011 code on this subject.
1-196 Log #3642 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
110.26(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600
volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely torequire examination, adjustment,
servicing, or maintenance be examined, adjusted, serviced or maintained 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.
Substantiation: The use of the word “required” in the existing code language
makes this section very hard to enforce as there is no code rule or other rule
that “requires” equipment to be worked on while energized. If the work is not
required the current code rule does not require workspace. The proposed
change will require the work space if the equipment is likely to be worked on
while energized.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The recommendation does not enhance clarity or usability.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
_______________________________________________________________
1-128 Log #1981 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 1-196
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.
Substantiation: The issue is the use of the word “require” in the existing text.
This word limits the enforcement of the working space rules as there is nothing
that “requires” someone to “examine, adjust, service, or maintain” electrical
equipment while it is energized. In fact there are standards and safety rules
that prohibit doing most types of work on energized electrical equipment. The
elimination of the word “require” will improve the enforceability of this very
important code rule.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter misunderstands use of the word “require”
as it is used in 110.26(A). In this context, “require” means “need”. If it is
probable that examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance will need to
be performed on energized equipment, then 110.26 applies.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
1-196 Log #3642 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
110.26(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600
volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to
servicing, or maintenance
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.
Substantiation: The use of the word “required” in the existing code language
makes this section very hard to enforce as there is no code rule or other rule
that “requires” equipment to be worked on while energized. If the work is not
required the current code rule does not require workspace. The proposed
change will require the work space if the equipment is likely to be worked on
while energized.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The recommendation does not enhance clarity or usability.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
_______________________________________________________________
1-128 Log #1981 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 1-196
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.
Substantiation: The issue is the use of the word “require” in the existing text.
This word limits the enforcement of the working space rules as there is nothing
that “requires” someone to “examine, adjust, service, or maintain” electrical
equipment while it is energized. In fact there are standards and safety rules
that prohibit doing most types of work on energized electrical equipment. The
elimination of the word “require” will improve the enforceability of this very
important code rule.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter misunderstands use of the word “require”
as it is used in 110.26(A). In this context, “require” means “need”. If it is
probable that examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance will need to
be performed on energized equipment, then 110.26 applies.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
OK, so as devil's advocate and also because I don't believe 110.26 working clearance should be required around a disconnect...
Today's construction is such that when it is turned off there are shields in place making it as safe as the face of a receptacle. "Checking for voltage" as suggested by other posters should be performed by turning it off, and then checking in the little ports for voltage. Checking the fuses for continuity afterward. Thereby the incoming wires are energized but there are not exposed, or even semi-exposed live parts.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That is still working on energized equipment and requires the 110.26(A) work space.
If you think it should not, now is a good time to address that as the system will be open until Sept 7th to submit PIs to make changes for the 2026 code.
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
Then technically why doesn’t a gap duplex receptacle require working clearance? Honestly, I’m not participating in the NEC process because I feel too many things that are a result of big money are being added and too few overkills are being removed. I recall the size of the old code books vs. the newer ones.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
It does based on the wording. There have been a number of proposals made pointing that out, and suggesting a equipment list for the things that 110.26(A) really needs to apply to, but CMP-1 has rejected those proposals.
As far as not participating....I see it like voting...if you don't vote, don't bitch about who won the election.
- Status