Does a simple disconnect require 110.26(A) spacing?

N

NoahsArc

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Residential EC
Say a 30A disconnect with the big red lever, fed from a breaker, controlling a water heater nearby.

Does part (A) apply?
Does part (E) apply?
Or can it be treated like a common switch and not have the 3ft x 30" x 6.5ft requirement?

I would argue that a disconnect is not intended to be worked on live but is merely a means of deenergizing equipment in its vicinity, and as such (A) does not apply.
I would argue that, despite having "switch" in both "disconnect switch" and "switchgear", a simple disconnect switch is not switchgear, and the art100 definition clearly indicates a larger enclosure, so (E) also does not apply.
 
Keep in mind 110.26 and 110.26(A) have different requirements.
110.26(A) hinges on the word 'likely'.
So if there is a high probability of a disconnect to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized you need to consider (A)
Some insist that you'd be 'likely' open a disconnect to check for voltage no matter what, others say you'd never likely need to open a disconnect 'while energized' you'd shut off the disconnect then check for voltage at the equipment terminations.
 
tortuga said:
Keep in mind 110.26 and 110.26(A) have different requirements.
110.26(A) hinges on the word 'likely'.
So if there is a high probability of a disconnect to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized you need to consider (A)
Some insist that you'd be 'likely' open a disconnect to check for voltage no matter what, others say you'd never likely need to open a disconnect 'while energized' you'd shut off the disconnect then check for voltage at the equipment terminations.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is sort of the crux of the issue.
My take is: "what isn't possibly going to be opened live to check voltages?" Doing service, I can often open up any random device to check voltage. I would never expect 110.26(A) spacing for every light switch or receptacle.

I also don't think most residential AC DCs have 110.26(A) spacing, not in my experience. Just cram it somewhere next to the AC, which sits 18" off the house...
 
Apparently the 2023 code has amended the IN#2 in 440.14 to directly reference 110.26(A), not just 110.26 in general.
That said, usually for those disconnects you are pulling out a live part rather than throwing a switch.
 
NoahsArc said:
Apparently the 2023 code has amended the IN#2 in 440.14 to directly reference 110.26(A), not just 110.26 in general.
That said, usually for those disconnects you are pulling out a live part rather than throwing a switch.
Click to expand...
Yeah we discussed this in another recent thread, 440.14 did not amend 110.26 and 110.26 always applied so effectively there is no change in the code. It still hinges on the term likely.
I would think at a residence I would it to be unlikely that people are going around adjusting, servicing, or maintaining disconnects while energized all day long.
While at industrial production line it might be pretty normal for me to be adjusting, servicing, or maintaining disconnects while energized.
 
tortuga said:
Yeah we discussed this in another recent thread, 440.14 did not amend 110.26 and 110.26 always applied so effectively there is no change in the code. It still hinges on the term likely.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. The NFPA's documented intention in making the change to 440.14 is that the dimensions specified in 110.26(A) are required under the 20203 NEC to be clear working space for all Article 440 Part II disconnects.

The phrase "the working space requirements of 110.26(A)" in 440.14 does not refer to all of 110.26(A), but just those portions of 110.26(A) that describe the working space requirements. The text of 440.14 is triggering those requirements, independent of whether the first sentence of 110.26(A) does or does not independently trigger those requirements.

In short, you are misreading "Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A)" as being equivalent to "Disconnecting means shall comply with 110.26(A)." They are not equivalent; the latter would be a vacuous requirement, as 110.26(A) already applies everywhere.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
That is not correct. The NFPA's documented intention in making the change to 440.14 is that the dimensions specified in 110.26(A) are required under the 20203 NEC to be clear working space for all Article 440 Part II disconnects.
Click to expand...
Does 440.14 in the 2023 actually say
“Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A) regardless if equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized or not" modifying 110.26 in legally enforceable language? Or does it just say
Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A)?
 
In my opinion, all disconnects are likely to be checked for voltage at some point and the 110.26(A) workspace is required for all disconnect and that is the opinion of all inspectors that I know.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In my opinion, all disconnects are likely to be checked for voltage at some point and the 110.26(A) workspace is required for all disconnect and that is the opinion of all inspectors that I know.
Click to expand...
Don surely some inspectors are interpreting that differently for residential AC disconnects, and for those AHJ that do see it differently as Wayne points out there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that the CMP intended 440.14 to modify or expand the scope of 110.26(A) for those that hold an alternate interpretation, however I dont think its worded as they intended.
 
tortuga said:
Don surely some inspectors are interpreting that differently for residential AC disconnects, and for those AHJ that do see it differently as Wayne points out there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that the CMP intended 440.14 to modify or expand the scope of 110.26(A) for those that hold an alternate interpretation, however I dont think its worded as they intended.
Click to expand...
I am sure some are, but none that I know. For the ones I know, that is a red tag every time. Even in my small town, you have to move them from behind the AC equipment, if you want to pass inspection.

I think the panel statement for FR-8078 for the 2023 code is very clear as to the panel intent.
A reference to 110.26(A) is being added to the normative text of 440.14 to emphasize the importance of complying with 110.26(A) when locating HVAC disconnecting means. This subsequently will eliminate the need for informative note 2.
Click to expand...
That being said, the language in the 2023 code should have not been added because it violates the style manual. It is simply referencing a rule that all ready applied because it does not modify 110.26(A) in any way.
 
tortuga said:
Does 440.14 in the 2023 actually say
“Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A) regardless if equipment is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized or not" modifying 110.26 in legally enforceable language? Or does it just say
Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A)?
Click to expand...
Neither, but the meaning is clearly the former rather than the latter.

Cheers, Wayne
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That being said, the language in the 2023 code should have not been added because it violates the style manual. It is simply referencing a rule that all ready applied because it does not modify 110.26(A) in any way.
Click to expand...
Well, it would have been clearer if the added sentence was simply "For the purposes of 110.26(A), the disconnecting means shall be considered likely to require examination while energized."

But that is the intention, and so we should just take the wording we have as meaning that. And I don't see how the above would violate the style manual. It is modifying 110.26(A) by removing the necessity for the AHJ to make a judgement about whether an Article 440 disconnect is "likely to require . . ."

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Well, it would have been clearer if the added sentence was simply "For the purposes of 110.26(A), the disconnecting means shall be considered likely to require examination while energized."

But that is the intention, and so we should just take the wording we have as meaning that. And I don't see how the above would violate the style manual. It is modifying 110.26(A) by removing the necessity for the AHJ to make a judgement about whether an Article 440 disconnect is "likely to require . . ."

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
If they would have added the statement in bold, it would have been a modification, but as written, it is simply referencing a rule that already applies, and not permitted by the style manual. While you can assume an intent to modify, I do not see any such intent. [because, I see all such equipment as always being covered by 110.3(B)] It is a direct reference to the code rule.
 
wwhitney said:
Well, it would have been clearer if the added sentence was simply "For the purposes of 110.26(A), the disconnecting means shall be considered likely to require examination while energized."

But that is the intention, and so we should just take the wording we have as meaning that. And I don't see how the above would violate the style manual. It is modifying 110.26(A) by removing the necessity for the AHJ to make a judgement about whether an Article 440 disconnect is "likely to require . . ."

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
If I have to rely on anecdotal evidence that suggests 440.14 intended to modify or expand the scope of 110.26(A) that is presumption.
a legal interpretation by an AHJ cannot rely on mere presumption. Doing so would violate due process.

The Supreme Court has stated, it is a violation of due process to use a "statutory presumption" that forces the reader to guess at the definition of a term or to assume that certain meanings are included without being clearly stated in the law.
This legal principle is often cited when a AHJ overreaches as 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius', meaning the express mention of one thing excludes others.
Oregon had to adopt a law a few decades ago because so many inspections were going to court, its called 'Cite It Write It' an AHJ has to write out the exact code section that they cite or the inspection can get reversed by the code official. It has probably saved the state millions in legal expenses as most AHJ are very knowledgeable about code but weak on the statutes and rules of law enforcement.
However in this case all an inspector need do is cite 110.26(A) 'likely to require ' ... then 110.26(A) applies.
 
tortuga said:
If I have to rely on anecdotal evidence that suggests 440.14 intended to modify or expand the scope of 110.26(A) that is presumption.
Click to expand...
You don't. You just have to understand the phrase "the working space requirements of 110.26(A)." This phrase means something different than just "110.26(A)." It refers to the subset of 110.26(A) that tells you how large the working space has to be. 440.14 is telling you that Article 440 disconnects "shall meet" those requirements.

Cheers, Wayne
 
If you like, 110.26(A) has the overall form "If X, then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5". X is the predicate, and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the requirements imposed by 110.26(A) if X holds. The text in 440.14 refers to those requirements 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, without referencing the predicate X, and imposes them on all Article 440 disconnects.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
If you like, 110.26(A) has the overall form "If X, then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5". X is the predicate, and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the requirements imposed by 110.26(A) if X holds.
Click to expand...
Correct 440.14 does reference 110.26(A) so it does reference predicate X.
The only way to avoid X in legaleze is explicitly, they could have just wrote
Disconnecting means shall meet the working space requirements of 110.26(A)(1) through 110.26(A)(5).
or
For the purposes of 110.26(A), the disconnecting means shall be considered likely to require examination while energized.

 
tortuga said:
Correct 440.14 does reference 110.26(A) so it does reference predicate X.
Click to expand...
No, the limiter "the working space requirements of" changes the meaning of the reference to 110.26(A) to exclude the predicate X. You can't just ignore those words.

I do not accept any reading of the change in 440.14 that reduces to "Disconnecting means shall comply with 110.26(A)," as that is obviously vacuous. The previous version with the Informational Note already conveyed that information.

I do agree that your alternate forms would be clearer; in fact the first one you gave was what the original PI proposed.

Cheers, Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top