Does 110.26(A)(1) apply to a motor disconnect w/locable controller upstream?

[jwelectric]

That is exactly what the wording of this section requires. It makes the installation of the required counter top receptacles a violation and is why CMP 1 needs to accept change. We need to read the words as they are actually written as opposed to how they are normally applied. I agree that it would be unreasonable to apply the work space rules of 110.16 to switches and receptacles, but there in no provision in the code that permits those items to be installed with out 110.26(A) work space.

Don

How would this apply when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized. There is no need to expose live parts to do any kind of testing on the device.
To replace one just turn the breaker off.

 

[hurk27]

Don

How would this apply when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized. There is no need to expose live parts to do any kind of testing on the device.
To replace one just turn the breaker off.

So where in the NEC is such an allowance?

So any disconnect that has a breaker ahead of it, the same applies?

What about a subpanel? it has a breaker ahead of it.

That is the essences of the problem, you can't apply this code to one item and not to others.

To state "when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized" is stereo typing that all will conform to this, I know many who have taken a GFCI out to check if there was power on the line side, the same with a wall switch.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don

How would this apply when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized. There is no need to expose live parts to do any kind of testing on the device.
To replace one just turn the breaker off.

I just don't agree that it is very unlikely that the switch or receptacle will be worked on while energized. In fact I think it is very very likely that it will.
Yes I know what 70E says, but there are few residential electricians that have even heard of that document. It is very common that these devices will be replaced without the power being turned off, let alone locked out.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

.


There is the key to this section. Can it be turned off before doing any examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance?
Yes
Then there would be no need for the working space.

The key is not "if" the power source can be turned off on the line side of the equipment. The key is if the power source "will" be turned off.

 

[George Stolz]

So now the moderators have become management of Mike Holt????

When's the last time you spoke with a moderator at a tire shop? Or a restaurant? They tend to have managers and crew, last I checked.

So if it is being done at the unit then would the access to the unit fall under 110.26(A)? If a voltage test was done in a junction box above a lay-in ceiling would that junction box require the clearances of 110.26(A)?

It's a problem, isn't it?

I just can?t wrap my mind around the fact that taking voltage or amperage readings is what is meant as outlined in 110.26(A).

As I hear it, any exposure to voltage is a hazard according to 70E. So wouldn't it follow that it would?

Would you be dumbfounded to hear that someone got shocked when not wearing PPE and taking a voltage reading at a panel? No, it would be no surprise to hear that

(no PPE) + (exposure to live parts) = (potential shock hazard)

Why would you believe that taking a voltage or amperage reading is not examining the equipment?

How would this apply when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized. There is no need to expose live parts to do any kind of testing on the device.
To replace one just turn the breaker off.

Are you really that out of touch? Seems like every day in the field, there is an occasion where someone has to be convinced to kill power to something in order to perform the task safely, while at the same time inconveniencing someone else. If it is any inconvenience to anyone else, there is always an impulse to try not to impose on the third party.

There have been countless discussions on this board and others that illustrate this sad fact in our trade.

If you're going to draw a line in the sand and say that work shall be done "only by 70E's standard of hot work", you're still in the same boat. I can troubleshoot the lowly receptacle hot, and in many cases will. How about that backstabbed receptacle that I need the voltage readings from the backside of, irrespective of what the face of the receptacle tells me?

 

[kwired]

I believe 110.26 was written long before 70E so I don't think it (originally) has anything to do with 70E. 110.26 has had little or no change for a very long time.

How old is 70E? I can only recall hearing about it during the last 10 years or so. When I was in trade school about 25 years ago it was never mentioned, although some practices it requires were taught, but never any mention of 70E.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

What about a subpanel? it has a breaker ahead of it.

Wayne, I asked that question in post #19 and Mike answer was in post #20.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So now the moderators have become management of Mike Holt????

You are great at twisting words. The moderators do not manage Mike Holt, but they do manage this forum. That is in fact the function of a forum moderator...to manage the forum.

 

[jwelectric]

So where in the NEC is such an allowance?

In the very section being discussed

When's the last time you spoke with a moderator at a tire shop? Or a restaurant? They tend to have managers and crew, last I checked.

I am not too sure about this but I think we were discussing the moderators of this site not the moderators at McDonalds although when I stopped there this morning as ask if I could talk to their moderator they had no clue what I was talking about.

Why would you believe that taking a voltage or amperage reading is not examining the equipment?

I suppose that should I open a switch gear to look at the bus bars for damage I would have to take out all sorts of meters and start testing before I did any examination. I would call taking readings testing although I do understand you concerns. But if we are going to start saying that taking voltage reading constitutes working space then the whole section would have to be rewritten and if we were to include some sort of laundry list of items requiring this working space then the code book would come in volumes instead of one book.

Are you really that out of touch? Seems like every day in the field, there is an occasion where someone has to be convinced to kill power to something in order to perform the task safely, while at the same time inconveniencing someone else. If it is any inconvenience to anyone else, there is always an impulse to try not to impose on the third party.

No sir but I do understand the liability of sending someone who has not received the proper training out to do something that he is not allowed to do without the proper training and documentation. This is the reason that the definition of Qualified Person is found in Article 100.
Are you implying that the NEC should address such kind of behavior?

The Code Making Panels write the codes around code compliant installations not around what is being done in the field in a non-compliant manner. There is no way that the NEC can cover those items you mention in your statement above. In the Scope of the NEC it clearly states that this is not an instruction manual for untrained persons. If someone is going to work something hot just to not inconvenience someone else then it is obvious that this person is an untrained person.

If you're going to draw a line in the sand and say that work shall be done "only by 70E's standard of hot work", you're still in the same boat. I can troubleshoot the lowly receptacle hot, and in many cases will. How about that backstabbed receptacle that I need the voltage readings from the backside of, irrespective of what the face of the receptacle tells me?

Now you are grasping at thin air. Why would the voltage on the back of a receptacle be any different than on the faceplate? Why would anyone be opening a receptacle while it is energized? Why did the NEC include this definition in its text?
Qualified Person. One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved.
I suppose that what the CMP needs to do is remove this and insert text to protect someone that just wants to do things their way.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I know this was a typo but allow me this just one time. There is no 110.16(E)

Yes, a typo. The only person who never makes a mistake is the one who never does anything.

For many years there has been proposals sent in to have a laundry list included in 110.26 such as the one you reference to but this would leave out several pieces of equipment such as circuit breakers, fusible switches, control panels, control assemblies and industrial control assemblies, to name a few.

The list can contain any number of items or it could be based on operating voltage and or current.

The concept that all electrical equipment will require examination while energized is just plain funny. As I sit here and type I see a one hole strap that I can walk over to and remove while the conductors in the EMT are energized the one hole strap is not.

How would the provisions of 110.26(A) apply to the strap or the conduit itself?

...Dennis makes the best argument of doing an amperage reading at a non-fused pull out but it is also argued that this reading would be done at the unit not the disconnect. So if it is being done at the unit then would the access to the unit fall under 110.26(A)? If a voltage test was done in a junction box above a lay-in ceiling would that junction box require the clearances of 110.26(A)?

The code does not address where we may access the equipment, so the rule applies anywhere it is likely that some one will access the energized equipment.

I just can’t wrap my mind around the fact that taking voltage or amperage readings is what is meant as outlined in 110.26(A).

I think it even goes beyond that...just opening the cover of equipment with exposed interior energized part triggers the work space rule. Now that may be pushing it a bit, but usings the concepts in 70E, the opening of the cover would trigger the PPE rules. I don't think that there can be any question that using a tester of any kind is "examining" the energized equiupment.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In response to the a/c disconnect, I will say that I have , on numerous occasions, tested the voltage at the disconnect load side and line side as well as used an amp meter. To be this justifies that the disco not be hidden down on the ground behind the a/c unit.

As a serviceman I would like to know my guys are not having to lay on top of the unit to test the voltage or amperage at the disco.

Now I can except the thinking that a recep. can be turn off at the breaker to work on it and does not need to be serviced while energized. I beg to differ that an a/c units does not need to be energized to serviced.

So the question goes, how does one maintain those distances. IMO, it would be impossible in a dropped ceiling where access is from a ladder and the tiles are 2x2 or 2x4. There would be no way to comply with 110.26(A)(3).

Personally I think if A(3) had an exception this article would make sense. I would like to see discos for furnaces and a/c units comply with exception.

 

[jwelectric]

Don,

How would this apply when it is very unlikely that someone would be working on one of those receptacles while they are energized. There is no need to expose live parts to do any kind of testing on the device.To replace one just turn the breaker off.

I just don't agree that it is very unlikely that the switch or receptacle will be worked on while energized. In fact I think it is very very likely that it will. Yes I know what 70E says, but there are few residential electricians that have even heard of that document. It is very common that these devices will be replaced without the power being turned off, let alone locked out.

I agree that this happens all the time and without incident but the one time someone is hurt or killed then comes all those insurance inspectors and OSHA inspectors where fines are being levied against the company due to the proper procedures not being followed. Fines being levied because the person doing the work had not received the proper training in the hazards of the work being done.
This is not to mention the pain and suffering that the victim and their families will suffer due to someone doing something stupid.

I ask many times if those doing work in a residential setting have any clue that the calories per square centimeter would be different for a switch or receptacle located 100 feet from the service equipment than one within just a few feet of the service. If they say they didn?t know the difference or have no clue what calories per square centimeter is then I simply tell them to never do any type of work on an energized circuit including testing because they aren?t qualified to do so.
Do you think that the NEC should include text to protect people that are not following the proper procedures or those untrained in what they are doing or do you think that they should receive the proper training before being allowed to own a meter of any kind?
Do a Google search of ?The Case of the Deadly Arc Flash? by Benjamin Miller. Here is a case where using the improper equipment for testing voltages was the result of a very bad accident.

You are great at twisting words. The moderators do not manage Mike Holt, but they do manage this forum. That is in fact the function of a forum moderator...to manage the forum.

In your honest opinion do you think that the comment in question is becoming a manager or moderator representing Mike Holt or his web site per your definition? No need to post a comment just answer the question honestly in your own heart.
I am not trying to twist anything but in my opinion I think the comment was totally uncalled for and out of context of the behavior for someone charged with the position of moderator, but then again it is just my opinion as well as others. Enough said about this and I will not reply to any more comments about the matter.

 

[jwelectric]

In response to the a/c disconnect, I will say that I have , on numerous occasions, tested the voltage at the disconnect load side and line side as well as used an amp meter. To be this justifies that the disco not be hidden down on the ground behind the a/c unit.

As a serviceman I would like to know my guys are not having to lay on top of the unit to test the voltage or amperage at the disco.

Now I can except the thinking that a recep. can be turn off at the breaker to work on it and does not need to be serviced while energized. I beg to differ that an a/c units does not need to be energized to serviced.

So the question goes, how does one maintain those distances. IMO, it would be impossible in a dropped ceiling where access is from a ladder and the tiles are 2x2 or 2x4. There would be no way to comply with 110.26(A)(3).

Personally I think if A(3) had an exception this article would make sense. I would like to see discos for furnaces and a/c units comply with exception.

I am not in total disagreement with this but at the same time I ask the same question you address in the last paragraph of your post. If the work space must be adhered to at one place then it would be required at all spaces. This is why I make the comment that testing is not part of 110.26. The one place that testing comes to mind without doing a lot of research is in 504.80 where the word ?testing? is used instead of examination. It is mentioned several times in the NEC but they just don?t come to mind.

Testing on an AC unit can also be done at the unit. To say anywhere testing can be done would require the working space outline in 110.26 would require anywhere these test were preformed have working space. I have never seen an electrical installation made where every place I could do a voltage test that had the working space outlined in 110.26.

It does say in the main body of 110.26 that sufficient access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. The working space applies to equipment that is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.
Although I agree that sufficient space should be allowed I just can?t see having a 30 by 36 inch working space around a disconnect for an AC unit any more than I can see having a 30 by 36 working space around a disconnect installed in a crawl space under the house for the air handler.

A disconnect behind the unit in my opinion would not have the sufficient access and working space outlined in the main body text of 110.26 thereby a violation but I can?t see turning down one that didn?t have 30 by 36.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree that this happens all the time and without incident but the one time someone is hurt or killed then comes all those insurance inspectors and OSHA inspectors where fines are being levied against the company due to the proper procedures not being followed. Fines being levied because the person doing the work had not received the proper training in the hazards of the work being done.
This is not to mention the pain and suffering that the victim and their families will suffer due to someone doing something stupid.

And the lawsuit will involve the contractor that installed the equipent in question in violation of the wording of 110.26.

...

Do you think that the NEC should include text to protect people that are not following the proper procedures or those untrained in what they are doing or do you think that they should receive the proper training before being allowed to own a meter of any kind? ...

The NEC should not contain anything that covers electrical safe work practices. That is outside the scope of an installation code. The rules in 110.26 do not directly cover electrical safe work practices, but they are intended to make it safer to work on energized electrical equipment in the rare case where such work is permitted.

I don't know what the wording should be in this code section, but I do know it needs to be changed because it is debated in all of the forums and seminars.

Given that the section implies that energized work is safe if the required work space is provided, it needs at the very least, an Infromational Note saying that "in general OSHA rules prohibit energized work".
However in addition, it is my opinion that word all has to go and has to be replaced with a list of equipment or a voltage and fault current level.

 

[jwelectric]

I disagree that a laundry list needs to be in section 110.26 for working space around electrical equipment.
I believe that the section is very clear on what is required to have a dedicated working space.

In 110.26 (A) the statement that a working space around equipment that is likely to ?require,? meaning that it would be mandatory or couldn?t be done any other way, shall have working space as outlined in 110.26(A)(1) through (3).

In 110.26(A)(1) the requirement is from ?exposed live parts? live parts. The three conditions found under Table 110.26 contain these same words, ?exposed live parts.?

Junction boxes installed to conform with the requirements of the NEC will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that junction box while it is energized therefore no working space is required.

A disconnect for an air conditioner or heat pump will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that disconnect while it is energized therefore no working space as outlined in 110.26 is required. This disconnect is just like the disconnect required in 410.130(G).
Just because someone chooses to do testing in this disconnect or any other place while it is energized will not constitute a requirement by the NEC.

How old is 70E? I can only recall hearing about it during the last 10 years or so. When I was in trade school about 25 years ago it was never mentioned, although some practices it requires were taught, but never any mention of 70E.

OSHA was formed in 1970 (federally enforceable) and in 1976 at the request of OSHA a committee was formed to which the first publication of 70E was published in 1979.
OSHA 1910 and 1926 or NFPA 70E and training of these that one becomes a Qualified Person.

 

[infinity]

I disagree that a laundry list needs to be in section 110.26 for working space around electrical equipment.
I believe that the section is very clear on what is required to have a dedicated working space.

In 110.26 (A) the statement that a working space around equipment that is likely to ?require,? meaning that it would be mandatory or couldn?t be done any other way, shall have working space as outlined in 110.26(A)(1) through (3).

In 110.26(A)(1) the requirement is from ?exposed live parts? live parts. The three conditions found under Table 110.26 contain these same words, ?exposed live parts.?

Junction boxes installed to conform with the requirements of the NEC will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that junction box while it is energized therefore no working space is required.

A disconnect for an air conditioner or heat pump will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that disconnect while it is energized therefore no working space as outlined in 110.26 is required. This disconnect is just like the disconnect required in 410.130(G).
Just because someone chooses to do testing in this disconnect or any other place while it is energized will not constitute a requirement by the NEC.


OSHA was formed in 1970 (federally enforceable) and in 1976 at the request of OSHA a committee was formed to which the first publication of 70E was published in 1979.
OSHA 1910 and 1926 or NFPA 70E and training of these that one becomes a Qualified Person.

Hmmm, I have power at the CB in the panel but no power at the AC unit. How does one test this? They go to the switch in the middle of the circuit. What if the switch were bad and required testing while energized to determine if it had failed?

 

[jwelectric]

One would follow the rules outlined in OSHA 1910 or NFPA 70E but to test at the disconnect or any other place is not required by the NEC.

The NEC is not a "what if" code

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I disagree that a laundry list needs to be in section 110.26 for working space around electrical equipment.
I believe that the section is very clear on what is required to have a dedicated working space.

If that was a true statement we would not have this thread and the others like it on this and other forums.

In 110.26 (A) the statement that a working space around equipment that is likely to “require,” meaning that it would be mandatory or couldn’t be done any other way, shall have working space as outlined in 110.26(A)(1) through (3).

I don't read it that way, and if that is what is means, then we never have to have the work space required by 110.26(A) as there is nothing that ever makes it "mandatory" to work on it live. Even trouble shooting can be accomplished with the power off.

Junction boxes installed to conform with the requirements of the NEC will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that junction box while it is energized therefore no working space is required.

I don't think anyone has said that a junction box requires 110.26(A) work space.

A disconnect for an air conditioner or heat pump will have no exposed live parts and there is no requirement to exam, adjust, service, or ,maintain anything in that disconnect while it is energized therefore no working space as outlined in 110.26 is required. This disconnect is just like the disconnect required in 410.130(G).

Just because someone chooses to do testing in this disconnect or any other place while it is energized will not constitute a requirement by the NEC.

I think that this is a very common place to check for power when servicing equipment. I think the very fact that people do check for voltage at this equipment makes the 110.26(A) work space mandatory.

 

[jwelectric]

I don't think anyone has said that a junction box requires 110.26(A) work space.

I think that this is a very common place to check for power when servicing equipment. I think the very fact that people do check for voltage at this equipment makes the 110.26(A) work space mandatory.

I have a hard time understanding this, are you saying that to check the voltage in a junction box would not require the working space but to check the voltage in a disconnect would?

Please explain what the difference would be between the two when the same action is being done at each place.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I have a hard time understanding this, are you saying that to check the voltage in a junction box would not require the working space but to check the voltage in a disconnect would?

Please explain what the difference would be between the two when the same action is being done at each place.

Mike,
You are correct, of course, if you are doing the same thing you need the same work space, however I choose to look at the term likely in the code rule. It is much more likely that checking voltage will be done at a disconnect than at a junction box without terminal blocks. If the box has terminal blocks, then there is no question that 110.26(A) applies.