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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwelectric said:
...
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.
Click to expand...
Based on the wording in this code section, 110.26(A)(1)(c), it is very clear that the NEC considers parts behind a door or cover to be exposed live parts.
 
jwelectric said:
...
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. ...
Click to expand...
Based on the rules in 210.4(B) and 430.130(G) it is very clear that the NEC intends to attempt to protect unqualified persons who may be working on electrical systems. If everyone who worked on electrical systems was a qualified person there would be no need for these two code sections as well as a number of other sections
 
jwelectric said:
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).
Click to expand...

FWIW, I understand what you say but the CMP members in Raleigh these past 2 years have addressed this issue and both times they have said it is required. I believe Jeff Sargent handled that question.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Based on the rules in 210.4(B) and 430.130(G) it is very clear that the NEC intends to attempt to protect unqualified persons who may be working on electrical systems. If everyone who worked on electrical systems was a qualified person there would be no need for these two code sections as well as a number of other sections
Click to expand...

Where in the world did that come from? At least one of these sections there is no need for simply because it doesn?t exist.

Back to my question, if someone is checking the voltage in a junction box would it need the clearances outlined in 110.26?
What is the difference in checking voltages in the junction box and a disconnect?
Why would one need clearances and the other not?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
FWIW, I understand what you say but the CMP members in Raleigh these past 2 years have addressed this issue and both times they have said it is required. I believe Jeff Sargent handled that question.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a disagreement with you and one of those panel members a couple of weeks ago?
It is okay for both of us to disagree with them as well as for us to disagree with each other.
Even if we do disagree doesn't mean that I love you any less :) or have any less respect for you. You are still my friend or at least I hope so.

I agree with Code Making Panel #1 on this issue and they are the ones that keeps rejecting the laundry list for 110.26.
 
jwelectric said:
Where in the world did that come from? At least one of these sections there is no need for simply because it doesn?t exist.
Click to expand...
Read between the lines ...you know what section I was talking about.

Back to my question, if someone is checking the voltage in a junction box would it need the clearances outlined in 110.26?
Click to expand...
What is the difference in checking voltages in the junction box and a disconnect?
Why would one need clearances and the other not?
Click to expand...
Read my previous response to that issue.
 
jwelectric said:
Wasn't there a disagreement with you and one of those panel members a couple of weeks ago?
It is okay for both of us to disagree with them as well as for us to disagree with each other.
Even if we do disagree doesn't mean that I love you any less :) or have any less respect for you. You are still my friend or at least I hope so.

I agree with Code Making Panel #1 on this issue and they are the ones that keeps rejecting the laundry list for 110.26.
Click to expand...


I did argue last year with them and stated it would be impossible to get the clearance when a disconnect was in a hung ceiling and you had no platform. They seemed perplexed because they hadn't thought about that but they stuck to their guns.
FWIW, I have no problems with disagreeing-- heck I am quite the contrarian. :grin:
 
jwelectric said:
...What is the difference in checking voltages in the junction box and a disconnect?
Why would one need clearances and the other not?
Click to expand...

What is the difference between checking voltage in the junction box, disconnect, panelboard, motor controller. I have even climbed poles and checked voltage at equipment at top of pole. It is still checking voltage - similar potential of shock or arc flash exists in all of these places.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
jwelectric said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Throw the hook and wait,
Then please explain 314.28(E) of the 2011 code cycle. There is no mention of any type of working space nor a reference made to 110.26 although there is an allowance for power distribution blocks to be installed in junction boxes.
Was this an oversight of Code Making Panel 9?
Then we have what this fellow had to say.
kwired said:
What is the difference between checking voltage in the junction box, disconnect, panelboard, motor controller. I have even climbed poles and checked voltage at equipment at top of pole. It is still checking voltage - similar potential of shock or arc flash exists in all of these places.
Click to expand...
Based on this I would say that checking voltages at one place is just as likely as at the other.

don_resqcapt19 said:
Based on the wording in this code section, 110.26(A)(1)(c), it is very clear that the NEC considers parts behind a door or cover to be exposed live parts.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed it does for switchboards, panelboards, or motor control centers which will have exposed live parts just as you mentioned in your post. There are no exposed live parts in the no-fused pull out installed at the outside unit.
 
jwelectric said:
...

Yes indeed it does for switchboards, panelboards, or motor control centers which will have exposed live parts just as you mentioned in your post. There are no exposed live parts in the no-fused pull out installed at the outside unit.
Click to expand...
Really? How do you hook, the wires up?
 
jwelectric said:
Throw the hook and wait,
Then please explain 314.28(E) of the 2011 code cycle. There is no mention of any type of working space nor a reference made to 110.26 although there is an allowance for power distribution blocks to be installed in junction boxes.
...
Click to expand...
You know as well as I do that the code is inconstant and has many issues like this. This just reinforces my point that 110.26 needs to have some changes.
 
Mike,
We have never ever changed each others minds on anything and I know that is not going to happen here. We will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Since a few dollars in opinion have been spent here, I'll pitch in a couple pennies.

I agree with Don that 110.26 is poorly worded or this thread would not exist.

I believe that examination, adjustment, service, maintenance pretty much applies to anything an electrician would do to equipment so the wording is unnecessary.

I believe that likely ... while energized is the overwhelming issue of applying 110.26

I believe the working space for disconnects has been applied wrongfully in the past based on usage and not this section requirement.

I believe that there is a perception that anything with a fuse or circuit breaker is likely to require examination and service and that line side power means energized. That a disconnect without fuses or breakers may but is not likely to require examination or service while energized.

Therefore I do not believe that unfused disconnects would require space. I do not believe receptacles require space. I feel this is true because working on them while energized would be a violation. And though checking power of a receptacle with a meter is a common practice, there are plenty of dongles (small devices) that you can plug in to test that do not expose the live parts.

And Don? I disagree that you and Mike should agree to disagree. You should both be forced to have my opinion instead. :)
 
pfalcon said:
...I believe that there is a perception that anything with a fuse or circuit breaker is likely to require examination and service and that line side power means energized. That a disconnect without fuses or breakers may but is not likely to require examination or service while energized...
Click to expand...

This is what I dislike the most about opinions on this topic. Why is is more likely to require examination if there is a circuit breaker? You likely try to reset the breaker first and if it still does not work then you may check for voltage. If there is fuses you shut the switch off when replacing fuses and there is usually a line shield so exposure to live parts when the switch is off is not as likely. Most disconnects will not let you open them either unless the switch is in the off position.

Long time ago we used an individual breaker as a disconnect for HVAC unit and inspector did not allow it because of 110.26. We replaced the breaker in the same enclosure with a molded case switch - identical item except did not have overcurrent protection and that was allowed. There was already proper overcurrent protection upstream so a switch was really all that was needed but breaker actually cost less because the supply house stocked breakers but had to order the molded case switch. Tell me how the first installation was more dangerous than the other, or was more or less likely to be worked on while energized? IMO it was nothing more than interpretation of intent of 110.26.
 
I think that it is more a lack of interpretation of 110.26 than anything else.

The NEC in several places makes reference to other NFPA standards that will mandate how an electrical installation is to be done.
The code making panels also know and understand that these other Standards are in place and are to be adhered to during installations. They are also aware of OSHA and NFPA 70E and the rules outlined in them. Both of these quote the NEC in several places. It is through these Standards that the wording found in 110.26 stands unchanged not because what we do in the field.

Reading some of the post here as well as on other sites I can?t help but wonder just how many unqualified people that are out there doing electrical work on live circuits.
In order to be a qualified person to work on a live circuit one must have safety training. I carry my 70E card and have it renewed every three years.
 
George Stolz said:
Bless your heart, Mike. I've never even seen a "70E card". :)
Click to expand...


There are several industrial plants in my area that will not let an electrical contractor on their premises unless they have their safety card on them.

Energizer here in Asheboro requires every one of their electrical personal to take a 70E class ever three years in order to keep their job.

In Article 100 of the NEC is the definition of a 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.

If someone does not have this safety training then they are not qualified to do voltage testing on a live circuit. I am truly surprised that many electricians out there has never heard of calories per square centimeter either.
Seeing that everyone in your employment gets this training saves a bundle on workman?s comp insurance premiums. Those contractors that only do new installations see no need for this training until someone gets hurt.
 
jwelectric said:
..In Article 100 of the NEC is the definition of a 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.

Click to expand...

Notice there is no mention of what the standards of the training are.

The standards required at one workplace may be different than another. What would be the point of spending a lot of time training on things involving meduim voltage if you are never going to work on it? It also does little good training how to work something hot if you are not allowed to work things hot. Working things hot is not covered by the NEC anyway. Last I knew this was an NEC forum.

There are several industrial plants in my area that will not let an electrical contractor on their premises unless they have their safety card on them.
Click to expand...

Who issues these cards? Likely the plant or a third party that the plant recognizes. Not very likely to be the AHJ that does general electrical inspections and licensing. The card may not be valid at anyplace you choose but rather those that recognize it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top