Snap Switch Clearances

[Jimmy4645]

Do snap switches that control lighting require in front clearnances? i have an architect leaving me eight inches of clearance between the ice maker and a bank of light switches. Thanks guys!!

 

[LarryFine]

Do snap switches that control lighting require in front clearnances? i have an architect leaving me eight inches of clearance between the ice maker and a bank of light switches. Thanks guys!!

I would say this would be non-compliant. Many of the icemakers I've seen would be considered quite stationary.

 

[iwire]

There is no code violation.

All that is required is access, it does not have to be easy access. Light switches are not likely to require servicing while energized.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You might make a case that this is a violation of the very first part of 110.26(A).

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.
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.

You do not have enough space to do maintenance...that is replace the switch.

However it is my position that all electrical equipment is "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized" and therefore all electrical equipment is covered by 110.26(A). This position is based on the CMP refusing to accept proposals to clarify what this section actually covers. I am sure they have no intention of making it apply to switches and receptacles, but as it is now written it does. It even makes it a violation of this section to install the required kitchen counter receptacles.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

You might make a case that this is a violation of the very first part of 110.26(A).

You do not have enough space to do maintenance...that is replace the switch.

However it is my position that all electrical equipment is "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized" and therefore all electrical equipment is covered by 110.26(A). This position is based on the CMP refusing to accept proposals to clarify what this section actually covers. I am sure they have no intention of making it apply to switches and receptacles, but as it is now written it does. It even makes it a violation of this section to install the required kitchen counter receptacles.

Well stated, and I agree.




Think of this:
How many times have you been in a kitchen where the refrigerator is parked right in front of the switch(es) and you have to flatten your hand to reach them?
Some of these fridges are not on wheels either or is in a cubby hole that is difficult to move out and access the switch when trying to decide what is wrong with the kitchen lights that do not work.

 

[ptrip]

What is the bank of light switches next to?

If it's next to a door opening ... no violation.

If it's next to a wall corner or other obstruction, then honestly I don't know. I'll be watching this thread to learn other's opinions.

In my opinion you've given us half the story. The NEC required working clearance does not need to be centered on the piece of equipment in question.

 

[iwire]

You might make a case that this is a violation of the very first part of 110.26(A).

You do not have enough space to do maintenance...that is replace the switch.

If there is 8" of space then I could replace the switch, not a code violation no matter how much we might want it to be.

Nothing says it has to be easy or that I can't use stubby tools and a mirror.

i have an architect leaving me eight inches of clearance

 

[charlie b]

I agree with Bob (break out the baloons! ). I think it is reasonable to say that there are certain things that are not likely to be worked on live, and I would include snap switches in this group.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree with Bob (break out the baloons! ). I think it is reasonable to say that there are certain things that are not likely to be worked on live, and I would include snap switches in this group.

Charlie,
Have you read some of the posts in this forum? I don't think that there is any way that I would ever say that a snap switch is not likely to be worked on live as I think it is very likely for that to happen.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

When Bob is using mirrors and a stubby screwdriver , how is he sure that the circuits are deenergized? He will need to test them while live...a mismarked breaker perhaps.

 

[charlie b]

Don, of course I read all the posts, before I added my own opinion. And I disagree with your take on the present wording. The code does not say "all electrical equipment." The fact that there is a phrase like "likely to require . . . " tells me the CMP is allowing for the possibility that there will be some things with wires attached that are "not likely . . . ."

Please note also the presence of the word, "require." The text does not say "likely to get worked on by some fool who should know better." It says "likely to require . . . ." Why should we infer that everything is "likely to require. . . "?

In my view, the one and only maintenance task that requires the device to be energized is a thermographic exam. I haven't seen any preventive maintenance program that applies thermography to snap switches. I can point to that as justification for not applying 110.26 to them.

 

[charlie b]

. . . how is he sure that the circuits are deenergized?

That's Bob's problem, not the NEC's problem, and not the AHJ's problem. I am confident that he is up to the challenge. The NEC does not tell us anything about that subset of electrical equipment that does not require live work. It does not say that we must keep any minimum space for the convenience of the future maintenance worker.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, of course I read all the posts, before I added my own opinion.

I didn't mean the posts in this thread, I meant the posts on the forum in general that indicate that a lot of work on energized equipment like this is occuring in the field.

And I disagree with your take on the present wording. The code does not say "all electrical equipment." The fact that there is a phrase like "likely to require . . . " tells me the CMP is allowing for the possibility that there will be some things with wires attached that are "not likely . . . ."

Again given the comments in this forum and the things I see in the field, it remains my opinion that this type of equipment is likely to be worked on while energized.

Please note also the presence of the word, "require." The text does not say "likely to get worked on by some fool who should know better." It says "likely to require . . . ." Why should we infer that everything is "likely to require. . . "?

Examination would include troubleshooting and that often "requires" the circuit to be energized.
My real point is that this is just very poor code and that the CMP refuses to accept proposals that will clear this up.

 

[SEO]

I would guess that over 90% of residential switches (120V) are pulled out of the box with the power on. May be a much higher%.

 

[iwire]

Please note also the presence of the word, "require."

This is a point I thought of while I was on the road today.

IMO few electrical devices require that they be worked on live. Many times people choose to work on things live when it is not actually required for the task at hand.

Changing fuses in a disconnect is a task often done with the supply side live but that is simply a choice made by the individual not a requirement.

The fact is the CMP wrote what they wrote and if we do not agree with it then we should try to change it, not simply ignore the words as adopted.

 

[iwire]

given the comments in this forum and the things I see in the field, it remains my opinion that this type of equipment is likely to be worked on while energized.

I agree it is likely to be worked on live.

But it is not likely to be required to work on while live.

Examination would include troubleshooting and that often "requires" the circuit to be energized.

Again that is a choice made by the troubleshooter, often to speed things up, you know as well as I do that many times you can troubleshoot with the circuit off and a continuity tester.

My real point is that this is just very poor code and that the CMP refuses to accept proposals that will clear this up.

Maybe they do not see it as poor? :smile:

 

[Buck Parrish]

What about the power outlet behind the ice machine?

 

[LarryFine]

Code aside, I've seen hard-plumbed and -wired ice makers, and I wouldn't want to have to use stubbies and mirrors.

This is one installation I would want an inspector to fail. Yech!

 

[iwire]

Code aside, I've seen hard-plumbed and -wired ice makers, and I wouldn't want to have to use stubbies and mirrors.

I don't like working like that either. :smile:

This is one installation I would want an inspector to fail. Yech!

But I don't want inspectors going beyond what the NEC requires and I know you do not either. :smile:

 

[iwire]

What about the power outlet behind the ice machine?

Nice