Disconnect Switch Working Clearance

[dvcraven0522]

Does the equipment disconnect switch require the same working clearances (30"wide) as a panelboard. See attached photo.
Thx

 

[Strathead]

Those look like non-fused, so no. There is a school of thought that a fused disconnect does require the clearance.

 

[petersonra]

Does the equipment disconnect switch require the same working clearances (30"wide) as a panelboard. See attached photo.
Thx

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.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and working
space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical
equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance
of such equipment.
(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating
at 1000 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), (A)(3), and (A)(4) or as required or permitted elsewhere
in this Code.

Dedicated equipment space is only required for certain types of equipment including panelboards.

110.26
(E) Dedicated Equipment Space. All switchboards, switchgear,
panelboards, and motor control centers shall be located in
dedicated spaces and protected from damage

 

[petersonra]

Those look like non-fused, so no. There is a school of thought that a fused disconnect does require the clearance.

GMTA.

 

[infinity]

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]

Thank you all for your responses.

 

[Strathead]

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.

So, what is your position on working clearance around a duplex in the living room?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This has been an ongoing issue with air conditioner disconnects, so CMP 11 made a change in Article 440 for the 2023 code.

440.14 Location.
Disconnecting means shall be located within sight from, and readily accessible from, the air-conditioning or refrigerating equipment. The disconnecting means shall be permitted to be installed on or within the air-conditioning or refrigerating equipment. Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A). ...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So, what is your position on working clearance around a duplex in the living room?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

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]

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.

I think the language allows for the receptacles. Since the code requires the receptacles above the counter, it is permitted.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access and working
space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical
equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance
of such equipment.
(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating
at 1000 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), (A)(3), and (A)(4) or as required or permitted elsewhere
in this Code.

 

[infinity]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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 to require 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

 

[Strathead]

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 to require 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

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.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

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.