# Changing panel



## cda

Zzzzzzzzxxxzzzzz

Can't copy and paste??
Will work on it


----------



## cda

I saw this on another site, and wondered what the answers might be


The question finally::::

This is an issue we have in our home. We have a condo in a 6 unit building. Condo was built in 1910 and it looks like the units were rebuilt in late 1970s, possibly early 80s. The electrical panel was placed in the same space as the laundry closet, so the panel is above one side of the dryer...close enough to the front to have access to it. The closet is only big enough for the washer and dryer...they can't be moved.

I'm sure the 3ft rule in front of panels was in the NEC code in the late 70s and early 80s...and all of these condo units are the same.

We are having an electrical replace the panel...the existing one is a Federal Pacific Stabloc (the kind that have failed). One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule.

My questions are: 
How would this have been approved to begin with? 
Is there a grandfather clause for this somewhere (I can't believe there is)?
Is it allowable because the washer/dryer can be moved to allow for 'working space'?
What other options are there? The wall behind this panel is in the dining room...so really don't want a panel there.


----------



## steveray

Our State would grant a modification for that as an existing condition....Not sure exactly, but movable items might be allowed in 3' space,(although washer/dryer would really be pushing it) have to really read 110.26 and the definitions. Would be enforced a little more strictly commercially than residentially...


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Installations built before the 1978 NEC only require a minimum clearance of 2 ft in front of electrical equipment.
The 30-in.-wide rule has been used since the 1971 NEC.
Headroom clearance has been required since the 1965 NEC.

*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.

*(B) Clear Spaces. *Working space required by this section shall not be used for storage. When normally enclosed live parts are exposed for inspection or servicing, the working space, if in a passageway or general open space, shall be suitably guarded.

Could hang a picture over the panel in the dining room


----------



## linnrg

first thing I ask is:   What is on the other side of that wall?
Stacked Washers and dryers are becoming more common.
And in these types of cases we would consider the incorrect installation to continue.  But in this case seeing that the other face of the wall could be used I would work to get it reversed.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

cda said:


> I saw this on another site, and wondered what the answers might be
> 
> My questions are:
> How would this have been approved to begin with?
> Is there a grandfather clause for this somewhere (I can't believe there is)?
> Is it allowable because the washer/dryer can be moved to allow for 'working space'?
> What other options are there? The wall behind this panel is in the dining room...so really don't want a panel there.



1.Maybe it was clear when the inspector showed up (nothing in front).
2.No.
3.Possibly.  A building official can make that determination but may not allow that same option for brand new construction.
4.Pay for a licensed contractor to completely reconfigure the wiring and electrical service.


----------



## north star

@ ~ @

cda,

My Code Forum friend, here is where the "rubber meets the
Code Road" sir !

If your electrician has already stated that there is a problem
[  i.e. - make sure the washer & dryer are moved when the
Inspector comes by  ], then IMO, you have three choices:  *(1)*
call your BO and ask about any type of grandfathering, or
*(2)*  install the "new" panel on the Dining Room wall and
hang a picture of an electrical panel over it.......That
way you can show your many friends & family members
just how serious you are about the Codes, or *(3)* install the
"new" panel somewhere else in a compliant location.

Please let us know what the outcome is sir.........Thanks !


*@ ~ @*


----------



## Paul Sweet

My first house was built under the 1970 CABO code and passed inspection with the electric panel above and to the side of the dryer.  The electrical inspector probably figured you can reach all the breakers to operate them, and if somebody had to pull the cover to work on the panel they could easily move the dryer out of the way first.


----------



## Rick18071

I let them replace panels in basements all the time where the ceiling is less than 6'-6".


----------



## mfichter80

cda:

How was it approved to begin with?

"One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule."

I think you answered your own question.

Or maybe there was a stacked unit originally?

I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.

Aside from what an inspector decides to do, if that were my house (and being someone who adds breakers to my electrical panel) I would not have a big grounded metal box between me and the panel.   If it was a wooden base cabinet and counter, that's one thing.  If someone leans on that dryer while working in that panel, and gets shocked, he dead.


----------



## tmurray

mfichter80 said:


> I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.



When dealing with existing buildings, the court is usually pretty understanding when it comes to making an either or decision. It usually asks that if code compliance is infeasible (note that the courts will consider something infeasible from a financial standpoint based on the potential hazard to public safety) what the inspector did to mitigate any foreseeable problems. I'd recommend relocation, but on the assumption that if anyone needs to service the electrical panel, the w/d units will be moved and the workspace will be provided. Write a memo and throw it in the file, just in case anything happens and move on to something more important. Does the violation make the building "less safe"?

As long as the property owners know what all the options are and the ramifications of each choice, they can make the best decision for them.


----------



## mfichter80

tmurray said:


> When dealing with existing buildings, the court is usually pretty understanding when it comes to making an either or decision. It usually asks that if code compliance is infeasible (note that the courts will consider something infeasible from a financial standpoint based on the potential hazard to public safety) what the inspector did to mitigate any foreseeable problems. I'd recommend relocation, but on the assumption that if anyone needs to service the electrical panel, the w/d units will be moved and the workspace will be provided. Write a memo and throw it in the file, just in case anything happens and move on to something more important. Does the violation make the building "less safe"?
> 
> As long as the property owners know what all the options are and the ramifications of each choice, they can make the best decision for them.



It's one thing to recognize that someone needs to move a dryer in order to work in a panel.  I'm an electrician, and I don't think there's one electrician I have worked with that would move a dryer to add a breaker to a panel.

Also for what it's worth, these are not union electricians I'm talking about.  Union electricians supposedly aren't allowed to work in a live panel.


----------



## ICE

mfichter80 said:


> cda:
> 
> How was it approved to begin with?
> 
> "One of the things he stated was when the inspector comes by, be sure the washer and dryer are not in place because of the 3 ft rule."
> 
> I think you answered your own question.
> 
> Or maybe there was a stacked unit originally?
> 
> I worked on an apartment complex where the inspector had to compromise as far as clearance on the furnace disconnect (which follows the same rules) and that had to do with the fact that the blueprints were drawn so that it was impossible to have proper clearance, but the inspector determined that is was safer to have a disconnect with very little clearance than it was to not have a disconnect at all.
> 
> Aside from what an inspector decides to do, if that were my house (and being someone who adds breakers to my electrical panel) I would not have a big grounded metal box between me and the panel.   If it was a wooden base cabinet and counter, that's one thing.  If someone leans on that dryer while working in that panel, and gets shocked, he dead.




"Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 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), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code."

A non-fused/breaker disconnect does not require working space.  If it did there would be violations aplenty with cord and plug disconnects.

The panel in question has been there for 40 years in multiple units.  That's a track record that you can rely on.


----------



## tmurray

mfichter80 said:


> It's one thing to recognize that someone needs to move a dryer in order to work in a panel.  I'm an electrician, and I don't think there's one electrician I have worked with that would move a dryer to add a breaker to a panel.
> 
> Also for what it's worth, these are not union electricians I'm talking about.  Union electricians supposedly aren't allowed to work in a live panel.



Sure, and if it were my house, it would be moved when the electrician arrived to work on the panel. Again, since the condition is existing, this seems like a decision the owner can make since it does not create a public safety hazard (no one is going to be squeezing into the space).


----------



## ICE

That is a fused disconnect.  Would you consider the working space to be sufficient or would you ask that it be moved?


----------



## steveray

Brand new or replacement?


----------



## mfichter80

Looks like a judgement call but I think it looks alright.  Plus if there is at least 30 inches from the edge of the unit to that bump out in the wall, it was installed correctly and everything else is what needs to be moved. What is that tank thing anyway?


----------



## mfichter80

ICE said:


> "Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 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), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code."
> 
> A non-fused/breaker disconnect does not require working space.  If it did there would be violations aplenty with cord and plug disconnects.
> 
> The panel in question has been there for 40 years in multiple units.  That's a track record that you can rely on.



I think that's a stretch.  That working space has been required on anything I've worked on . Outlets don't have exposed live parts, and non-fused disconnects are installed for the purpose of servicing the units they are connected to.


----------



## ICE

My AHJ has determined that the working space is not required with disconnects that do not contain anything that could require service/maintenance such as fuses and circuit breakers.





How's this for working space?


----------



## mfichter80

ICE said:


> My AHJ has determined that the working space is not required with disconnects that do not contain anything that could require service/maintenance such as fuses...



I see your point.  With an outside unit though, I could see an hvac guy at some point installing a more efficient system, and replacing the disconnect with a fused one, so he wouldn't have to stock every type of breaker on his truck.

In the case of the apartments I was talking about, that was with air handlers in a closet.  I guess for a disconnect like that you would just determine if it is readily accessible?


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Ha ha.  The disconnect may not have 30-inches.  I'm sure that the water softner came after the fact, the usually do...


----------



## Paul Sweet

If #15 is a pullout and the fuses are in the pullout, it's not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized


----------



## Filthy McNasty

That would be incorrect.  The NEC code panelists have all stated that this type of equipment needs the required clearances and that the intent of the code is to have the clearances.  What if a journeyman electrician or an HVAC guy wanted to put a tester on one of the terminals (_examination, servicing_)?

This "wordsmithing" of the section that you quote needs to stop, because you are giving readers an incorrect interpretation.  That is not the intent of the NEC and that is incorrect application of the code language.  Trust me.


----------



## steveray

We are with ICE and others...A "switch" does not need clearance. OCPD do...


----------



## Filthy McNasty

A "switch" was never the issue.  Don't change the entire subject.  A pullout disconnect needs the clearances.  I'm shocked (no pun intended) at the lack of knowledge here.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Don't mislead the public, and people that want to learn the meaning of the codes.


----------



## ICE

Filthy McNasty said:


> A "switch" was never the issue.  Don't change the entire subject.  A pullout disconnect needs the clearances.  I'm shocked (no pun intended) at the lack of knowledge here.


I am happy to leave it up to you.


----------



## steveray

Filthy McNasty said:


> A "switch" was never the issue.  Don't change the entire subject.  A pullout disconnect needs the clearances.  I'm shocked (no pun intended) at the lack of knowledge here.





Filthy McNasty said:


> Don't mislead the public, and people that want to learn the meaning of the codes.



Not changing or misleading anything. Without knowing what type of disco is there, We have no idea what is required. Do you argue that a switch or receptacle requires working clearance? What if someone wants to test the terminals? If it works like a switch and acts like a switch and serves on other purpose but that of a switch, what is it?


----------



## Filthy McNasty

The arguments being attempted in this forum (reasoning how a disconnect does NOT have to have the required clearances) have been tried unsuccessfully for decades.  A disconnect, BY CODE, must have the required clearances in Article 110.26.  Period.  Will an inspector let it go sometimes, like in the instance of where someone added a water softner after the fact and it encroached on the clear space?  Sure.  But that doesn't make it correct, and it doesn't blanket-cover the same issue down the road in the future.

I am just a poor boy.  I am just filthy and nasty.  I work out of the back of my 2002 Toyota pickup truck.  Nobody likes me.  I have no friends.  I am not here to gain web friends, or to be anybody's bud.  I'm just here to point out the codes AS THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THEM.

Please do not waste my time, and others, with questions such as _"does a receptacle require clearances?"_  Or, _"does a switch require clearances?"_  I'm not playing that game of twisting code language, and twisting code logic to support incorrect determinations, nor do I have to defend against such.

I will continue to post the correct code interpretations, regardless of the people who "ban together" with incorrect consensus in order to make themselves feel better.  Sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.  But code is not a game.  Clear spaces are not a game.  "Concensus" doesn't validate codes being applied incorrectly.  

I just post the truth and tell it like it is.  That's all.  I will keep on doing it.  Stating that a disconnect must be "interpreted" as to whether or not it is being used as a switch and then applying code IS INDEED misleading the public, and any person that wishes to gain code knowledge, by reading the form here.

Hopefully, the "good ole' boys" club that exists here will learn something.  Like ICE says, it's up to you.


----------



## ICE

I reckon I'm as sorry as you are that you found this forum.


----------



## steveray

Filthy,
I am glad you are passionate about your work and the code. Really I am, and we need people that are. I fail plenty of stuff for 110.26 every day, but I couldn't approve anything if the "unfused" disconnects needed working clearance. Do you have airhandlers in attics where you are? Or crawlspaces? Now, not only do I need to make them put in a catwalk (24") to the equipment and a 30" deep platform on the service side of equipment, but now  a 30x36 platform to work on a disconnect? And BTW, cut that truss as you don't have 30" between them...

We don't all agree here which is at least part of the reason places like this exist and why we come here. But it should always remain discussion and not bashing. If you can get a formal interpretation out of NFPA, post it up, we would all love to see it. 2014 Handbook does specifically reference "switches" so maybe that is what they meant. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Each AHJ is free to make their own call on this, kinda like "nearest the point of entrance" in 230.70(A)1


----------



## north star

*% ~ %*


Everybody play nice !......Remember, we all do not have
the same viewpoints, but that does not mean that we should
not be civil and courteous to one another.  

If the dialogue cannot be civil & courteous, we can close this
thread........Just sayin' !


*% ~ %*


----------



## mfichter80

Filthy McNasty said:


> That would be incorrect.  The NEC code panelists have all stated that this type of equipment needs the required clearances and that the intent of the code is to have the clearances.  What if a journeyman electrician or an HVAC guy wanted to put a tester on one of the terminals (_examination, servicing_)?
> 
> This "wordsmithing" of the section that you quote needs to stop, because you are giving readers an incorrect interpretation.  That is not the intent of the NEC and that is incorrect application of the code language.  Trust me.



I agree with Filthy on this.  I'm a journeyman electrician, and this is what I was taught.

Once Ice challenged me on it the first time, I did start thinking about air handlers, and I'm pretty sure I have mounted disconnected on a 2x4 nailed to a rafter directly behind the the unit, and that would not meet working clearances.  And like I said with my apartment closet example, I have seen inspectors compromise to some extent about meeting this code.

Honestly the way this is being picked apart, it looks like no one arguing the other side of this is an electrician.

To me this is just a matter of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.  There are always tight spaces and certain circumstances that inspectors will let slide.  That doesn't mean that the code doesn't apply to those things.

This kind of arguing just means that in 5 years the wording will be changed.  But the intent of the code would still be the same.


----------



## north star

*& = & = &*


mfichter80 ( and others ),

Speaking from experience, if as an Inspector I were to
[ attempt  ] to enforce every single aspect of the various
adopted Codes, then I would not be employed very long.

IMO, is the matter of "Working Clearances" an actual
& Legal code, ...Yes !.......It is the "Letter" of the Code.
Sometimes, I have had to decide which Code I would
try to enforce  [  i.e. - which hill to die on so-to-speak  ].
I did so out of self preservation........Maybe some of the
other Code Officials & Inspectors on here have done,
and are doing the same.........Not saying it was the right
thing to do [  i.e. - the Letter of the Code  ], but I, and
others, DO have to pick and choose sometimes.

For me, it has been a judgment call numerous times...

Thanks !



*& = & = &*


----------



## Filthy McNasty

steveray said:


> Filthy,
> I am glad you are passionate about your work and the code. Really I am, and we need people that are. I fail plenty of stuff for 110.26 every day, but I couldn't approve anything if the "unfused" disconnects needed working clearance. Do you have airhandlers in attics where you are? Or crawlspaces? Now, not only do I need to make them put in a catwalk (24") to the equipment and a 30" deep platform on the service side of equipment, but now  a 30x36 platform to work on a disconnect? And BTW, cut that truss as you don't have 30" between them...
> 
> We don't all agree here which is at least part of the reason places like this exist and why we come here. But it should always remain discussion and not bashing. If you can get a formal interpretation out of NFPA, post it up, we would all love to see it. 2014 Handbook does specifically reference "switches" so maybe that is what they meant. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Each AHJ is free to make their own call on this, kinda like "nearest the point of entrance" in 230.70(A)1



Steve,
Don't mind me like I said, I'm just "nasty."  I will show no quarter.  I hope somebody out there appreciates that.

NFPA will give no formal interpretation when the code language is clear.  The code language is clear.  But what I can give you is a blurb from the handbook:
_
"The intent of 110.26(A) is to provide enough space for personnel to perform any of the operations listed without jeopardizing worker safety. These operations include examination, adjustment, servicing, and maintenance of equipment. Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment. It is important to understand that the word examination, as used in 110.26(A), _*includes such tasks as checking for the presence of voltage using a portable voltmeter."
*


----------



## Filthy McNasty

north star said:


> *& = & = &*
> 
> 
> mfichter80 ( and others ),
> 
> Speaking from experience, if as an Inspector I were to
> [ attempt  ] to enforce every single aspect of the various
> adopted Codes, then I would not be employed very long.
> 
> IMO, is the matter of "Working Clearances" an actual
> & Legal code, ...Yes !.......It is the "Letter" of the Code.
> Sometimes, I have had to decide which Code I would
> try to enforce  [  i.e. - which hill to die on so-to-speak  ].
> I did so out of self preservation........Maybe some of the
> other Code Officials & Inspectors on here have done,
> and are doing the same.........Not saying it was the right
> thing to do [  i.e. - the Letter of the Code  ], but I, and
> others, DO have to pick and choose sometimes.
> 
> For me, it has been a judgment call numerous times...
> 
> Thanks !
> 
> 
> 
> *& = & = &*



Sounds like very weak enforcement has become the norm in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

mfichter80 said:


> I agree with Filthy on this.  I'm a journeyman electrician, and this is what I was taught.
> 
> Once Ice challenged me on it the first time, I did start thinking about air handlers, and I'm pretty sure I have mounted disconnected on a 2x4 nailed to a rafter directly behind the the unit, and that would not meet working clearances.  And like I said with my apartment closet example, I have seen inspectors compromise to some extent about meeting this code.
> 
> Honestly the way this is being picked apart, it looks like no one arguing the other side of this is an electrician.
> 
> To me this is just a matter of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.  There are always tight spaces and certain circumstances that inspectors will let slide.  That doesn't mean that the code doesn't apply to those things.
> 
> This kind of arguing just means that in 5 years the wording will be changed.  But the intent of the code would still be the same.



They are only fooling themselves.  They will give an example of when the inspector _may_ have cut some slack.  But then they like to apply that same example to every installation.  This is joke enforcement.  Don't buy into it.  The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the NEC code panelists will tell you.  Period.  Keep up the good work.

PS - It is always up to the building official whether or not he/she chooses to be wrong.  I give the correct interpretation of the code.  What a building official or an inspector did [incorrectly] is not my concern here.  I come to educate.


----------



## steveray

If I cut slack, I am personally and professionally liable. If I interpret the code differently than you do, that is my job. If you are going to hang your hat on "checking for voltage" would an electrician need to do that at every switch and receptacle and light fixture at some point? What about transformers and HVAC equipment mounted in ceilings or attics or crawlspaces? Where do you draw your line on what requires working clearance? A smart electrician works safely no matter what the conditions are and doesn't service things live that he doesn't need to.


----------



## mfichter80

Filthy McNasty said:


> Sounds like very weak enforcement has become the norm in your neck of the woods.



Filthy, good call on checking the Handbook.

I agree that this debate is silly, other people picked this fight, and we have the correct position on what the intent of the code is.

That being said I'm an inspector, and inspectors do have to pick their battles.  Different localities have different budgets, no one can see and know everything, and we don't have the time to reinspect every job 5 times.  So we do have to pick our battles.


----------



## ICE

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 600 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), and (A)(3) or as
required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.


Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices,
appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like
used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical
installation.

There it is...black and white...no mistaking what is meant.  Any and all equipment requires working space.  Equipment per the NEC is everything right down to fittings.  So your literal, black and white Code is screwed up.  A thinking man looks at that and says, "Hm that has problems...perhaps a line is required between what equipment deserves such space and the rest of it".  My jurisdiction, which Trumps electricians, has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection didn't make the cut.

Electrical work is inherently dangerous.  Protection is built into the code.  It has to be so in order to protect the lame idiots that  produce the sloppy work that I have shown here for years.  But guess what....if you can't probe a disconnect in tight quarters you should have been a plumber.

You bloviaters ranting about educating the public or calling me silly are arrogant.  Shirley you are done learning.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Incorrect.

Some like to rely on "the code isn't clear" (your opinion).  But in this case, it is clear.  The obvious fact that a PULLOUT disconnect requires one to PULL IT OUT means that one needs to get near it is reason enough to require the clearances.  The obvious fact that an HVAC guy may want to test the voltage is reason enough to require the clearances.  It is totally commonplace for HVAC technicians to pull out the disconnect when working on equipment.  That is what they do.

I understand that some people here may have been violating this code for 20 years or more, so they will fight to the end to say "the code isn't clear" to justify themselves.  They are only fooling themselves.

The true professional seeks out information and input.  The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the NEC code panelists will tell you. Period.   I've spoken with them personally at continuing education classes.  

The true professional seeks out information and input.  The interpretation that I'm giving you is what the handbook will tell you.

The true professional seeks out information and input.  The interpretation that I'm giving you is what is taught to journeyman and master electricians in test preparation classes.

The true professional seeks out information and input.  Case law supports the interpretation that I'm giving you.

Any jurisdiction that has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection doesn't need clearances is completely incorrect.  Yet - as I've stated previously, It is always up to the building official whether or not he/she *chooses to be wrong*. I give the correct interpretation of the code. What a building official or an inspector did [incorrectly] is not my concern here. I come to educate.  They are merely shirking their professional responsibility and making it "easy" for themselves.  I hope they get a good retirement with all that taxpayer money for doing such a terrible job.


----------



## mfichter80

ICE said:


> 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 600 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), and (A)(3) or as
> required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.
> 
> 
> Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices,
> appliances, luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like
> used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical
> installation.
> 
> There it is...black and white...no mistaking what is meant.  Any and all equipment requires working space.  Equipment per the NEC is everything right down to fittings.  So your literal, black and white Code is screwed up.  A thinking man looks at that and says, "Hm that has problems...perhaps a line is required between what equipment deserves such space and the rest of it".  My jurisdiction, which Trumps electricians, has decided that a disconnect with no overcurrent protection didn't make the cut.
> 
> Electrical work is inherently dangerous.  Protection is built into the code.  It has to be so in order to protect the lame idiots that  produce the sloppy work that I have shown here for years.  But guess what....if you can't probe a disconnect in tight quarters you should have been a plumber.
> 
> You bloviaters ranting about educating the public or calling me silly are arrogant.  Shirley you are done learning.



Filthy quoted the NEC Handbook, and it's pretty clear.  You didn't have to pick this fight but you did.  You're choosing to be difficult, and you're wrong.  I'm an adult man, I can admit when I'm wrong, and I can acknowledge other people's opinions.  That's how an adult man is supposed to act.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

We have no way of knowing who the people are (on this or any other forum) that have installed disconnects without clearances for their entire careers.

I'm sure they were very happy with their building official's erroneous interpretations.  It makes for a quicker, easier, installation.


----------



## ICE

I hear the tolling of a bell.  Oh well.


----------



## Rick18071

So filthy your saying that We could never allow any any equipment or switches in attics or crawl spaces without the required 6.5' head room.


----------



## mfichter80

Rick18071 said:


> So filthy your saying that We could never allow any any equipment or switches in attics or crawl spaces without the required 6.5' head room.



That's a good point, but Filthy didn't write the NEC Handbook.  Maybe you should ask the people who did.


----------



## steveray

The handbook is not code...Just like commentary...


----------



## mfichter80

steveray said:


> The handbook is not code...Just like commentary...



You guys are hilarious.


----------



## steveray

mfichter80 said:


> You guys are hilarious.



Guys....Answer the question and you will earn my respect, (not that you care about it, but anyway) keeping dodging and no one is going to respect you. How would you compliantly install the required disconnect on an air handler in an attic or crawlspace?  I think they do that in VA and WA don't they?


----------



## mfichter80

steveray said:


> Guys....Answer the question and you will earn my respect, (not that you care about it, but anyway) keeping dodging and no one is going to respect you. How would you compliantly install the required disconnect on an air handler in an attic or crawlspace?  I think they do that in VA and WA don't they?



Clearly it isn't addressed, so you can't.  You can find examples like that with all kinds of code stuff.  But if the handbook refers to that code applying to switches and HVAC equipment, and using volt meters, the handbook is a better authority than you are, so I'm going with the handbook interpretation.  I'm not acting like I know everything.  But some of you guys on here were ganging up on filthy mcnasty, which is not cool.  And this was an arbitrary fight that ICE chose to pick when responding to one of my comments, which was not directly related to this thread.

You guys look like a bunch of jerks.

Since it's all about "earning respect" here, how about this:

-Bigger disconnects, for three phase systems, unfused.  They are "just a switch" so they don't need working clearance?

-Go home and short out a 60 amp 240 v circuit, then come back on here and tell everyone a 60 amp disconnect doesn't need working clearances.

-Do you understand any of the troubleshooting process of addressing issues on an outside unit?  When they get older they pull more amperage, sometimes to the point of tripping the breaker.  So it might make sense to check the voltage and amp draw at the disconnect.


----------



## steveray

So, are you saying you have never wired a unit like that?

Why would I be dumb enough to short a 60A/240V?....With the required arc flash gear and safety gear required by 70E, shouldn't be a problem...


----------



## mfichter80

steveray said:


> So, are you saying you have never wired a unit like that?
> 
> Why would I be dumb enough to short a 60A/240V?....With the required arc flash gear and safety gear required by 70E, shouldn't be a problem...



So this is a bulletin board of trolls.  I thought you guys were inspectors, or at least people who want this to be an informational resource.  You're a joke.  I'm deleting this account and getting my information elsewhere.  Have fun in your echo chamber.


----------



## Paul Sweet

And I though attic stairs and egress windows in studies were controversial.


----------



## steveray

Off to drink the Mike Holt Kool Aid no doubt...


----------



## fatboy

I believe it is time to shut down the arguments, y'all have stated your opinions, many times, and nobody is changing anybody's minds now. It's come down to name calling and rhetoric. So, lets just let it go, and we won't have to lock the thread down. More than my opinion, a PM was sent to me regarding the thread.


----------



## ICE

mfichter80 said:


> I'm deleting this account and getting my information elsewhere.


Well that was easy enough...and allow me to say thanks.  Oh but what about your buddy?....be a peach and take him with you.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

I understand that you may rule this forum, but truth hits right between the eyes.  I've posted the correct information for anyone out there that may be reading this thread.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Rick18071 said:


> So filthy your saying that We could never allow any any equipment or switches in attics or crawl spaces without the required 6.5' head room.



No.  You're saying that.  And - you are trying to use a completely different hypothetical situation to influence the thread.  That my friend, is called flawed logic.


----------



## mfichter80

Filthy McNasty said:


> I understand that you may rule this forum, but truth hits right between the eyes.  I've posted the correct information for anyone out there that may be reading this thread.



Yeah they just want people to honor them as the unchallenged authorities in their domain.  They don't want any real discussion or discourse.

Notice how a lot of my comments, even when I have a different view I still say things like "that's a good point" or "I hadn't thought of that."  That's because I am a civilized adult that treats people with respect.  Not these guys though.  These guys are "real men" I guess.  Can't challenge the authority of a real man, he has to stand his ground no matter what, even when he's wrong.  As if he's a 2 year old who wants a piece of candy.  It's pathetic.

It's too bad because otherwise this is a good forum that has a lot of people looking at it and giving their input.


----------



## ICE

Alrighty then, I'll leave it to you and all of the other good people.


----------



## Filthy McNasty

mfichter80 said:


> Yeah they just want people to honor them as the unchallenged authorities in their domain.  They don't want any real discussion or discourse.
> 
> Notice how a lot of my comments, even when I have a different view I still say things like "that's a good point" or "I hadn't thought of that."  That's because I am a civilized adult that treats people with respect.  Not these guys though.  These guys are "real men" I guess.  Can't challenge the authority of a real man, he has to stand his ground no matter what, even when he's wrong.  As if he's a 2 year old who wants a piece of candy.  It's pathetic.
> 
> It's too bad because otherwise this is a good forum that has a lot of people looking at it and giving their input.




What I really like about this website is the forum "mechanics" - the website always seems to work flawlessly.  I can't say that for the ICC website.

As far as the electrical code discussion here - I find it to be well below-average.  As you described, it seems to be "consensus building" for making oneself feel good about interpreting the code incorrectly, or doing the installation against code.  *True code-mongers realize that education is a never ending process*.  I'm going to keep posting the correct information in case someone out there reads these threads, at least the info will be here, somewhere.

What I won't do - is to respond to hypotheticals that change the subject matter of the thread entirely: _ "There is an electrical panel in a cave up in the mountains.  To get in the cave there is a gate that is closed with a chain and lock.  I'm the only one who has the key....is it still an electrical code violation if I don't put the panel cover back on..."_  - that kind of stuff which seems to happen quite a bit here.

Heck, I think today someone even made a derogatory remark about Mike Holt.  While maybe he will say something I don't agree with from year to year, that website gets down to the nitty-gritty code issues as they are intended to be interpreted from the people that write the NEC.


----------



## cda

Filthy McNasty said:


> What I really like about this website is the forum "mechanics" - the website always seems to work flawlessly.  I can't say that for the ICC website.
> 
> As far as the electrical code discussion here - I find it to be well below-average.  As you described, it seems to be "consensus building" for making oneself feel good about interpreting the code incorrectly, or doing the installation against code.  *True code-mongers realize that education is a never ending process*.  I'm going to keep posting the correct information in case someone out there reads these threads, at least the info will be here, somewhere.
> 
> What I won't do - is to respond to hypotheticals that change the subject matter of the thread entirely: _ "There is an electrical panel in a cave up in the mountains.  To get in the cave there is a gate that is closed with a chain and lock.  I'm the only one who has the key....is it still an electrical code violation if I don't put the panel cover back on..."_  - that kind of stuff which seems to happen quite a bit here.
> 
> Heck, I think today someone even made a derogatory remark about Mike Holt.  While maybe he will say something I don't agree with from year to year, that website gets down to the nitty-gritty code issues as they are intended to be interpreted from the people that write the NEC.




Not into electrical except changing a house fan, switch or outlet at my house 


Do you mind saying what you do for a living ??


----------



## tmurray

I think people aren't seeing others sides in this.

It's great that you are uncompromising on your interpretation of the code. And I know your going to say that it's not just your interpretation, its THE interpretation. but, please keep in mind that we have this argument so often we could play you back a recording. At the end of the day, you can walk away from something you're not comfortable doing. My town can't. We have to figure out a way to deal with things that don't appear  to be addressed (or at least addressed well) by the codes. What can be challenging to understand about inspections and enforcement is that we are not expected to be code enforcement robots. The courts, our employers, contractors and the general public expect us to be able to work with them on issues of code where full application of the code is impossible or implausible. Keep in mind that the code cannot address every possible situation. We must take into account the objectives of the code and try to achieve those goals as much as possible where full code compliance is impossible or unrealistic. And it can be impossible for a couple of different reasons; technically impossible or financially impossible. Our main issue as inspectors, is that we have to remain consistent, so any decision we make has to be backed up on facts to create a policy. Policies are wrong all the time. But at the end of the day, we have to prioritize what we are enforcing and how because we can't have an inspector on a job site 24/7. So we prioritize on has the biggest life safety issues and the biggest impact on our community. Yes we are buying liability when we do this, but there is no other way to do this.

The thing I love about this forum is that those of us who have been here a while, even our regular contractors, keep this a place for exchanging ideas and different perspectives. This tread disappointed me because it descended into personal attacks. 

Also, not an electrician and don't inspect electrical...


----------



## Filthy McNasty

The issue and the code being discussed is not that hard to interpret.

Unfused disconnects require working clearances.  

At times, AHJ's may make an exception for old construction. 

*On new construction, it's a dead issue.*
Don't be fooled by those stating that it's ambiguous.


----------



## cda

Filthy McNasty said:


> The issue and the code being discussed is not that hard to interpret.
> 
> Unfused disconnects require working clearances.
> 
> At times, AHJ's may make an exception for old construction.
> 
> *On new construction, it's a dead issue.*
> Don't be fooled by those stating that it's ambiguous.




Do you mind saying what you do for a living ?


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Yes; I don't post any personal information anywhere on the web.


----------



## cda

Filthy McNasty said:


> Yes; I don't post any personal information anywhere on the web.




Just asking what kind of work you do

Electrician

Engineer

Inspector

Architect

Other??

Just helps with answering questions


----------



## Filthy McNasty

Please refer to the answer I gave some moments ago.  Thanks.


----------



## FLSTF01

Troll.  Under a bridge-type.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Filthy kinda makes you work on your anger management skills, doesn't he! 

Where's Brudgers?


----------



## fatboy

Locking thread, Jeff can unlock if he wishes. I see no new information coming out, and it is coming down to personal attacks. You were warned a couple time a while back to keep it on topic and civil.


----------



## ICE

fatboy said:


> Locking thread, Jeff can unlock if he wishes. I see know new information coming out, and it is coming down to personal attacks. You were warned a couple time a while back to keep it on topic and civil.


Take it easy fatboy. I'm pretty sure that a person like FN has heard it many time before and it has had no effect whatsoever.  It's not fair if people have to listen silently.


----------

