# You can't be serious.  A very bad NEC interpretation



## jar546 (Nov 14, 2022)

Ok so this one has me riled up.  The Building Officials Association of Florida (BOAF) of which I am a member came out with this informal interpretation that some people are hanging their hat on as gospel as though it is an official interpretation.  I would love to send this to the NFPA to get their take on this.  See the attached PDF.  

Essentially, you know what?  Just read it.

Here is my rebuttal.  

1) Electricians and HVAC service technicians are always working in live disconnects taking voltage readings.  Read 110.26.  The interpretation only uses the word _service _and completely ignores the other verbiage in 110.26 such as _examination, adjustment, & maintenance._  I cannot for the life of me understand why you would render an opinion on a life safety item that is black and white with no gray area.

2) Does 110.26 really have to say disconnect?  Isn't a disconnect electrical equipment?  It is almost as though this interpretation was a favor to someone.


----------



## ICE (Nov 14, 2022)

_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 1000 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. _

If a disconnect does not contain an overcurrent protective device, 110.26 does not apply.  There is no need to adjust, service or maintain a disconnect and any examination can take place with the disconnect de-energized.

If the argument is presented that servicing HVAC might require access to the disconnect the obvious question is how about junction boxes that could also be be part of the installation.  While a junction box is required to be accessible, 110.26 does not apply.

Remember, the only one of the four tasks that apply to a disconnect is examination.  There is no need to examine a disconnect while it is energized.

That is the policy with the AHJ that employed me for 25 years...  While I can see your point I can also see the other way to look at it.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 14, 2022)

ICE said:


> If a disconnect does not contain an overcurrent protective device, 110.26 does not apply. There is no need to adjust, service or maintain a disconnect and any examination can take place with the disconnect de-energized.


A disconnect is a functioning piece of electrical equipment that is often opened and closed for the purpose of taking voltage readings, whether or not there is any OCPD inside. Hence the word _examination.  _We open the disconnect and examine the wiring in order to take live voltage or current readings.  110.26 applies to AC disconnects.


----------



## steveray (Nov 14, 2022)

I'm with ICE....unless we want to not allow switches over counters in the kitchen anymore.....But I am sick of stupid NEC stuff....


----------



## ICE (Nov 14, 2022)

jar546 said:


> A disconnect is a functioning piece of electrical equipment that is often opened and closed for the purpose of taking voltage readings, whether or not there is any OCPD inside. Hence the word _examination.  _We open the disconnect and examine the wiring in order to take live voltage or current readings.  110.26 applies to AC disconnects.


Do you open J-boxes to take readings?  What about what steveray asked?

Electricians are like frustrated surgeons.....they need a theater to work in.

HVAC contractors are not electricians.  They are willing to stand on their head and work with their toes.

You will not win this one Jeff.  For starters, the opinion has already been disseminated.  When was the last time something like this was taken back?  They are not going to be embarrassed.  And then there's you being wrong and all.

By the way, this is not the first time that we have agreed to disagree on this subject.  The BOAF siding against you puts the ICEing on the cake hey.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 14, 2022)

Regardless of what you think or try to bring in junction boxes, the verbiage in the code is clear on this.  This is not a discussion about junction boxes which don't have to be readily accessible.  There is no winning.  Every state and jurisdiction I worked in all enforce 110.26 the same way when it comes to AC disconnect which has moving parts and is electrical equipment.  You are comparing apples with oranges by dragging the junction box distraction into the mix.  There is no winning.  In my town, 110.26 applies.  In every town I worked for someone else, 110.26 applies.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 14, 2022)

steveray said:


> I'm with ICE....unless we want to not allow switches over counters in the kitchen anymore.....But I am sick of stupid NEC stuff....


This comment is in left field.


----------



## steveray (Nov 15, 2022)

A disconnect without OCPD is really nothing more than a switch....Switches don't get working clearance....Unless you want to apply all of 110.26 (depth, height, width, projections) to every switch, I like the OCPD "rule".....


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 15, 2022)

They can always remove the access panel on the unit, which has adequate clearance if the unit was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.  if they want to be lazy and just pull the popout they need to take protective measures on their own.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Nov 15, 2022)

I had always believed that 110.26 applied to AC disconnects. A disconnect is certainly a piece of electrical equipment. On further examination, it depends entirely on if the AHJ believes that a disconnect is likely to be worked on while it is live. 

A friend of mine had an issue with their AC condenser and asked me to come look at it. I am not an HVAC guy. I went out and cycled the unit on and off a few times. The problem seemed to be electrical in nature - it turned out that it was the capacitor in the unit. I wanted to eliminate the possibility of any problems coming from the house wiring feeding the unit, so I opened the disconnect and tested the voltage. Everything tested fine, so I knew the problem was in the unit, and probably the capacitor. The home owner hired a licensed HVAC company, who did their own analysis and replaced the capacitor. This story mainly illustrates that sometimes the disconnect is the best place to test if you think something may be screwy with the house wiring to the AC unit.

An AC unit's case is bonded, so if you contact live parts while touching the case of the AC unit, you're gonna get nailed. Completely different than leaning over wood cabinets in a kitchen. If the disconnect is behind the unit, you might have to lay across the bonded metal to access the disconnect.

My opinion is that 110.26 applies, but the other interpretation is valid if it is made by the AHJ.


----------



## steveray (Nov 15, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> An AC unit's case is bonded, so if you contact live parts while touching the case of the AC unit, you're gonna get nailed. Completely different than leaning over wood cabinets in a kitchen. If the disconnect is behind the unit, you might have to lay across the bonded metal to access the disconnect.
> 
> My opinion is that 110.26 applies, but the other interpretation is valid if it is made by the AHJ.



But I have stainless counters in my kitchen....


----------



## jar546 (Nov 16, 2022)

A minor update.

I took this to our IAEI chapter meeting last night and was surprised that another inspector brought it for the same reason.  If any of you don't know, the IAEI is not just inspectors but has a lot of electricians as members, actually more electricians than inspectors, so it represents both sides.  Not one person agreed with the interpretation and was bewildered on how something that is so black and white could have been presented as having a gray area and misinterpreted.  At first I thought we would have conflicting opinions from the electricians, but not at all.  Oh for those that don't know IAIE is the International Association of Electrical Inspectors.


----------



## steveray (Nov 16, 2022)

Maybe IAEI needs to get some people on a CMP and clarify it?


----------



## ICE (Nov 16, 2022)

jar546 said:


> A minor update.
> 
> I took this to our IAEI chapter meeting last night and was surprised that another inspector brought it for the same reason.  If any of you don't know, the IAEI is not just inspectors but has a lot of electricians as members, actually more electricians than inspectors, so it represents both sides.  Not one person agreed with the interpretation and was bewildered on how something that is so black and white could have been presented as having a gray area and   misinterpreted.  At first I thought we would have conflicting opinions from the electricians, but not at all.  Oh for those that don't know IAIE is the International Association of Electrical Inspectors.


I am not surprised that members of the IAEI meeting agree with you.  There are a great many electricians and building officials/inspectors that agree with you.  I know quite a few myself.  I also know many that do not agree with you and they are no slouch.

I have lost a great deal of respect for the electrical industry as a whole.  I see energized residential service panels left with the door open and the dead front removed waiting for an inspector to arrive.  The work is often so wrong that I lose track of the violations. 

I respect you Jeff and I count on a balanced, informed, fair opinion.
With this issue I would have no problem siding with you even If I disagree.  That's me willing to admit that I can be wrong.  Requiring working space is a step towards greater safety so it's easy to concede.


Back at it.​
Do you apply 110.26 to other disconnects or is it just condensers?  For example, a furnace in a closet?...how about an electric water heater?

What is special about an AC condenser?  I think that because many condenser disconnects are fused and they require working space, it has become common practice to require working space always.  I understand the reluctance to reach over equipment to reach a disconnect. I use a non-contact voltage tester on anything metal before I touch it.  The best approach is to assume that everything metal is trying to kill you and yet I never trip a breaker before opening a disconnect and removing the dead front.

This is from the BOAF informal interpretation:
_The Building Officials Association of Florida, in cooperation with the Florida Building Commission, the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, ICC, and industry and professional experts offer this
interpretation of the Florida Building Code in the interest of consistency in their application statewide. *This
interpretation is informal, non-binding and subject to acceptance and approval by the local building official.*_

It is noteworthy that four reputable organizations have come to an interpretation that conflicts with the vocal members of one IAEI chapter meeting.  Also noteworthy is that you nor anyone else must pay heed to that interpretation.  Do as you will and don't look back.

Food for thought: Section 440.14 has an informational note to see 110.26.   Obviously there is something in 110.26 that can have a bearing on the condenser disconnect.  However, that something is not ironclad because were it so there would not be just an informational note...no not at all.  If 110.26 applied to every disconnect the body of 440.14 would include the requirement to adhere to 110.26.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 16, 2022)

Per the NFPA as of today based on this question, below is the answer.

Document Number: 70

Edition: 2017

Section: 110.26 and 440.14

Subject: The application of 110.26 to AC disconnects under 440.14

Question for NFPA: Does section 110.26 for working space requirements apply to A/C disconnects or are
they permitted to be readily accessible in the opinion of the inspector in lieu of compliance with 110.26?


Answer:  
No.  Section 110.26 is applicable to providing working space about all electrical equipment.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> It is noteworthy that four reputable organizations have come to an interpretation that conflicts with the vocal members of one IAEI chapter meeting. Also noteworthy is that you nor anyone else must pay heed to that interpretation. Do as you will and don't look back.


FYI on that one.  This is standard verbiage on non-binding decisions and as you know, the ICC has nothing to do with the contents of the NFPA which uses an extensive group of panels to make code changes.  This was done with just a few people, only one of them was required to have any electrical experience.  BOAF does not have separate panels for electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or structural, accessibility, etc.  Just one person "should" have experience in this.  The NFPA does not agree with this non-binding interpretation and neither does anyone else I spoke to.  It's just void of common sense and tries to make something black and white appear to be gray when, in fact, it is not.  

This is not one I will let go of.  This is the hill I will die on.


----------



## steveray (Nov 16, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Question for NFPA: Does section 110.26 for working space requirements apply to A/C disconnects or are
> they permitted to be readily accessible in the opinion of the inspector in lieu of compliance with 110.26?
> 
> 
> ...


Does anyone understand what this actually says or am I just hard of reading today?


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Nov 16, 2022)

steveray said:


> Does anyone understand what this actually says or am I just hard of reading today?


Sounds like the individual who answered did not properly read the question.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 16, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> Sounds like the individual who answered did not properly read the question.


No, an ac disconnect that is readily accessible does not mean that 110.26 does not apply. In other words.  All AC disconnects must meet 110.26


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 17, 2022)

As an electrician twisting tools in the field 6 days a week I'll share my view. On a trouble call I will start with the incoming power to the equipment.
Open disconnect and visually inspect (examine). Look for burnt lugs or conductors. Next check line and load voltage.

Thats this electricians opinion. 

But what do I know? I'm just the guy who's body was found on a roof crammed between an RTU and non-compliant disco after his wife reported him missing when he didn't come home from work.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2022)

I will continue.  I pay the NFPA for online code access and there are expandable sections of the code produced by the NFPA.  Here is the expanded content of 110.26(A)

ENHANCED CONTENT
The intent is to provide enough space for the performance of any of the operations listed without jeopardizing workers. Minimum working clearances are not required if the equipment is not likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized. However, access and working space are still required by the opening paragraph of 110.26.
Examples of such equipment include panelboards, switches, circuit breakers, controllers, and controls on heating and air-conditioning equipment. Note that the word “examination” includes tasks such as checking for the presence of voltage using a portable voltmeter.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2022)

chris kennedy said:


> But what do I know? I'm just the guy who's body was found on a roof crammed between an RTU and non-compliant disco after his wife reported him missing when he didn't come home from work.


That guy put himself in a situation where electricity could kill him.  Apparently he didn't recognize the danger  and that resulted in a deadly outcome.

When I hear about workplace mishaps I often wonder why the worker did what killed him.  How did he not know that the trench was dangerous, the high voltage lines are too close......perhaps he shouldn't be using tools to begin with.

If the proximity of a disconnect is to be blamed for the injury/death of a workman there has to be a lack of skill, training or awareness.   The incorrect disconnect is a lessor contributing factor.

The picture shows a violation.  What is your judgement of the violation?  Will moving the disconnect a foot improve the installation enough to justify the expense?






This condenser can't be where it is due to a setback incursion.  The disconnect is also a violation.




How about these?





Here is a disconnect that is technically legal.


----------



## steveray (Nov 17, 2022)

ICE said:


> That guy put himself in a situation where electricity could kill him. Apparently he didn't recognize the danger and that resulted in a deadly outcome.


I wonder if he was following 70E?


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2022)

All of those photos by ICE could have easily been installed correctly and compliant with NEC 110.26.  The laziness to allow this to happen astounds me.


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2022)

jar546 said:


> All of those photos by ICE could have easily been installed correctly and compliant with NEC 110.26.  The laziness to allow this to happen astounds me.




First of all you don't know what I let go....secondly, if I write every violation that I come across it marks me as rigid and over the top with corrections.  If, in my opinion a FUSED disconnect is difficult to reach as well as lacking the letter of the law compliance with 110.26 it will be written up.  But clearly that is not always the case.

And Jeff, you are the first person to tell me that I am lazy... 

The code section states that the space shall be safe.  Who but the inspector decides if the space is safe.
_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._

In this picture that craptastic condenser could be legal if it stuck out no more than six inches from the face of the disconnect but ten inches is a violation.  I wouldn't do this if it were mine but it seems picky to ding them for four inches.




The next one almost complied with 110.26.  Ah but it missed by two inches.  Tell me this....how about if it missed by six inches.




Is this so much worse?




I could have just as easily written the next one up.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2022)

ICE said:


> seems picky to ding them for four inches


Why do you feel the need to come up with excuses for contractors and enable their continued non-compliance?  You had the opportunity to teach others how to do work code compliant.  What about the contractors who always do it right?  It is those that make excuses for others that enable them, drag down the industry and never help make others better by holding them to the minimum standard.  You held them to a less than minimum standard which means you did not do your job.  I am not sorry for my attitude but after 20 years of helping others and holding them to a minimum standard, there are a lot of great electricians out there that are proud of their work and happy that I showed them the way.  I never had to try to justify why I did not do my job.  Too harsh or too real?


----------



## ICE (Nov 17, 2022)

Is it too late to apologize? Not


----------



## Glenn (Nov 19, 2022)

I have faced this interpretation issue for many years teaching decks, and I hate it.  If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?

In both my ICC deck books where I must work with the opinions of their technical editors, I have had to state that the AC and disconnect fall under these clearances, however, I also state that the section is very broad in referring to "electrical equipment" and then the list of potential activities.  I state that a building official is meant to interpret the code for their community in a reasonable manner.  I think ICE has provided examples of that.

In my own independent education, I teach deck builders they could run into an inspector that will call them on this, which could potentially end completely a back deck project, or reduce it's size or design.  When I teach inspectors deck codes, I encourage them to be reasonable about this 6-6 thing.

My primary issue with applying AC and their disconnects to working clearance is the absurd 6-6 height.  A finished basement can be two inches lower at 6-4 (beams, ducts "obstructions') and no one questions their ability to perform any task underneath in.  We expect a firefighter to rescue someone from a window under a deck 3 feet off the ground and carry them for a limitless distance.

I got AC in my house when my daughter was born.  She is 20 now.  The disco has never been pulled.  I need a new AC so badly.  No, the condenser has never been serviced.  I am a typical American.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 19, 2022)

Glenn said:


> If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?


Yes, yes it does.  If you want to build a new deck then move the AC equipment to a new location or move the location of your new deck.  It happens all the time.  It cost money to do the things you want and you should be prepared to pay to do things right.  There are people in my town with AC equipment and generators on flat roofs because they can't fit them on the property and meet setbacks because they chose to build a house as big as they possibly can.  If you want a deck, then do the necessary work so as not to create an code violation.  A deck is not a necessity, it is a choice and if you can afford to build a deck, you can afford to build it to the minimum standards without creating an electrical violation.  If you want to install AC in your house, place the condensing unit in a code compliant location.  It is rather simple.

To elude to the fact that building officials need to "interpret" the code in a way that suits those who don't want to pay to comply when they can is unreasonable and detracts from the industry.  Our job is not to make excuses for others that are too lazy to do and design jobs the right way.

What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 20, 2022)

jar546 said:


> What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.


Agree but this goes both ways since the building official also cannot impose additional requirements.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 20, 2022)

If you do not like the code provision propose a code change.

If possible try to understand how the authors of this code section interpret it.  Then try to understand why it is the way it is.  What problem is the code provision attempting to solve?


----------



## jar546 (Nov 20, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Agree but this goes both ways since the building official also cannot impose additional requirements.


That is correct.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 20, 2022)

Mark K said:


> If possible try to understand how the authors of this code section interpret it. Then try to understand why it is the way it is. What problem is the code provision attempting to solve?


When you do research and go through the code-panel minutes, you have a better understanding of the intent.  In this case, electrical disconnects for AC equipment is required to comply with NEC 110.26 and it does not matter if you want to build a deck or not.


----------



## ICE (Nov 20, 2022)

You're a funny guy Jeff.  Because I disagree with you, you have labeled me as lazy and accused me of willful negligence.  Somehow you got the idea that I have a need to be liked.   I could consider all of that a compliment in that the alternative would be that I am just plain ignorant.....but wait a minute, I saw that too. Were any of that true I would have gone a lot further in my career.

You toil in what can best be described as a little pond.  Not that it's a bad thing.  After all, somebody has to be there so it might as well be you.  I on the other hand spent decades in an ocean.  Inspectors in little ponds might write thirty corrections in a week....I doubled that daily more often than not.  Hardly fits with being lazy.

As to willful negligence driven by a need to be liked, well what can I say about that. ..... You're kidding me right???   Look at the content and volume of what I have posted at this forum.  I had thousands of coworkers and worked with thousands of contractors,  damn few liked me.....    Willful negligence my ass..... Need to be liked???   I don't even have a dog.

I am now going to show you two examples of an average day. Both are related to working space about electrical equipment.

This is a picture of a patio cover and the inspection was for lath.  I was filling in for an inspector and had not been there before.   Framing, rough electrical and rough plumbing had been signed off.





Next is a major remodel/addition that included HVAC and a swimming pool.  As in the first example I was filling in and had not been there before.  The inspection requested was a pre-plaster for the swimming pool.  Pre-plaster is tantamount to a final in that the pool is then filled with water in order to cure the plaster.  The job card had all of the necessary signatures for the pool and equipment. The mechanical permit was signed for final before I got there.











That is not an unusual day.  So you would birth a cow over a condenser disconnect that's off by four inches?  I suppose you would drop a herd over these.

I was a contracted inspector after I retired from LA County.  In those examples, and many more, I simply refused to proceed.   .....   too many .... the work dried up.

Jeff, I can tell you that your plan checker's forum has become a source of comic relief.  Seeing the things that get people excited, the violations that flummox, the marshaled clueless troops, life in a small pond....well that's worth the price of admission.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 20, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Yes, yes it does.  If you want to build a new deck then move the AC equipment to a new location or move the location of your new deck.  It happens all the time.  It cost money to do the things you want and you should be prepared to pay to do things right.  There are people in my town with AC equipment and generators on flat roofs because they can't fit them on the property and meet setbacks because they chose to build a house as big as they possibly can.  If you want a deck, then do the necessary work so as not to create an code violation.  A deck is not a necessity, it is a choice and if you can afford to build a deck, you can afford to build it to the minimum standards without creating an electrical violation.  If you want to install AC in your house, place the condensing unit in a code compliant location.  It is rather simple.
> 
> To elude to the fact that building officials need to "interpret" the code in a way that suits those who don't want to pay to comply when they can is unreasonable and detracts from the industry.  Our job is not to make excuses for others that are too lazy to do and design jobs the right way.
> 
> What a building official can't do is waive code requirements by having a unique "interpretation" that defies obvious, black and white verbiage just to be a nice guy.


Respectfully, I would not want to live in your community.  You have put all your faith in the NFPA over the reality of the Americans you serve.  I'm really surprised by how dismissive you are in regard to the desires, dreams, and limitations of your fellow Americans.  I'm surprised you did not respond to why a basement can be 6-4 but not under a deck.  I'm surprised that all you respond with is arguments to prove the NFPA as the unquestionable truth.  Why not be willing to have a conversation with fellow professionals about what should be or could be, not what has been declared from above.  This forum should encourage and inspire professionals to argue the real value of these glorious codes to The People, not just prepare warriors to go to private homes and cut people down with words in a book.

Perhaps it's a decade of participation in the ICC code development process that has shown me the ivory tower of "code" is no more than the opinions of the most vocal and effective speakers that show up.  The codes must constantly be challenged to represent BALANCE between all aspects of the built environment, not just safety.  They must allow the voice of all opinions and experiences to be heard, not just those able to invest in the process for a return.  The end user, The People, should be the number one concern, and I know first hand that is not the motivation of everyone involved in creating them.

I want to live in a community whose building authority serves me, not the NFPA.  I want the NFPA to be a tool used to serve me and my neighbors, not a master we must unquestionably bow to, and never dare question.  I say this as someone with respect for the NFPA and their codes, but I do not put anything on any pedestal of perfection that cannot be challenged.  I believe in the importance of local governance.  Governments clearly have no concern in making changes to the I-codes to better serve their communities.  I am so confused then why the NEC is so untouchable?  I understand there is a qualification necessary to argue the technical parts of electrical services, but a clearance is much more about the human condition than the science of electrons.

Jeff, I already told you both my ICC books provide the guidance you are demanding.  So... I challenge you to pretend the NFPA doesn't exist, and sell me on why it is absolutely critical that my AC not be under a deck unless a 6-6 clearance, but I can do anything in a basement under a 6-4 beam.  If you can't sell the people on the reason, then we need to challenge it.  This forum should be a safe and welcoming conduit for that type of discussion and challenge.  

That's why I support it every year as a corporate sponsor.  I can read the NFPA docs for free.


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 20, 2022)

Slippery slope.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 20, 2022)

What I find interesting is how easy it is to install a code-compliant AC disconnect or deck, yet we somehow believe that it is imposing and not in the spirit of the community to enforce minimum standards.  Sometimes we have to step back from asking why we have to comply with the codes and ask how can comply with the codes.  Disconnects can be moved to where they are within sight and still be compliant.  A little bit of conduit and wire, and we are all fixed, but apparently, this is too much to ask.

Honestly, what is so difficult about this one safety-related code?  I ask why some feel the need to circumvent 110.26 for the good of a deck or because of workload?  What is so hard to comply?  An extra $200 to move a disconnect is too much but an unnecessary $12,000 deck is not?  

I will also state that the NFPA process is over a hundred years old, refined and broken down into panels that review tons of changes and have data to back up their decisions while the ICC is about 20 years old and still has growing pains.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 20, 2022)

Essentially what I am hearing is that although there is a fix to make something code compliant, it is easier to ask the inspector to ignore it.  Really?


----------



## ICE (Nov 20, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Essentially what I am hearing is that although there is a fix to make something code compliant, it is easier to ask the inspector to ignore it.  Really?


You are only hearing what you want to hear.


----------



## steveray (Nov 21, 2022)

Glenn said:


> Perhaps it's a decade of participation in the ICC code development process that has shown me the ivory tower of "code" is no more than the opinions of the most vocal and effective speakers that show up. The codes must constantly be challenged to represent BALANCE between all aspects of the built environment, not just safety. They must allow the voice of all opinions and experiences to be heard, not just those able to invest in the process for a return. The end user, The People, should be the number one concern, and I know first hand that is not the motivation of everyone involved in creating them.


Exactly this....but it is worse with NFPA....One fatality where they can sell or mandate a product is too much....With little input from the people that have to enforce it in the field....


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

steveray said:


> Exactly this....but it is worse with NFPA....One fatality where they can sell or mandate a product is too much....With little input from the people that have to enforce it in the field....


Did you know that everyone blames manufacturers for the tamper proof receptacle requirement in dwellings.  It was already a requirement in the pediatric healthcare setting.  The reality is that the CPSC presented a case to the NEC code panel that had documented 10,000 electrocutions for children under the age of 9 and these were just the ones that escalated to the emergency room.  The tamper proof receptacle change had nothing to do with manufacturers but most don't know that.  It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.

Now that I brought that up.  What is so difficult about installing tamper-proof receptacles?  The cost factor was negligible.  If it saves children from being injured after it was proven that there were 10,000 injured, why should it be questioned?


----------



## Glenn (Nov 21, 2022)

jar546 said:


> It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.


This is a desperate and low blow to the professionals in this discussion, and has ended this dialog for me.  I need not defend myself or steveray against such childish commentary.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 21, 2022)

Suggesting that building officials ignore inconvenient code provisions is a suggestion that we participate in an act of civil disobedience.  Does this mean that this local consensus replaces the written code?  What does this say about our system of laws?

There is another dimension to this.  Let us assume the building official ignores a code provision.  While this allows you to get a permit and a certificate of completion there is still a code non-compliance,  Let us assume that as a result of something related to this non-compliance somebody gets hurt.  The individual who consciously decided to ignore the code could be found to be negligent and thus responsible for the bad outcome.  So while the building official has no liability the person who decided to violate the code is liable.

If you do not like the code work to change it but do not decide that you will not comply with it.


----------



## steveray (Nov 21, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Did you know that everyone blames manufacturers for the tamper proof receptacle requirement in dwellings.  It was already a requirement in the pediatric healthcare setting.  The reality is that the CPSC presented a case to the NEC code panel that had documented 10,000 electrocutions for children under the age of 9 and these were just the ones that escalated to the emergency room.  The tamper proof receptacle change had nothing to do with manufacturers but most don't know that.  It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.
> 
> Now that I brought that up.  What is so difficult about installing tamper-proof receptacles?  The cost factor was negligible.  If it saves children from being injured after it was proven that there were 10,000 injured, why should it be questioned?


Jeff.....the FACT is that NFPA seems to be over responding to issues..... About 10X more people die on stairs than electrocutions, but we are not outlawing them or changing how we do things because there are acceptable amounts of injuries and deaths.....One girl getting an ice cream in the basement freezer that Shirley had a problem, gets whacked and falls down and hits her head and dies and now we GFCI all basements. She did not die from the electricity, maybe we should outlaw hard floors instead? Or mandate helmets? One guy running from the cops steps on a condenser and gets electrocuted and dies? The wiring was damaged prior which lead to it, maybe GFCI would have saved him so now we GFCI exterior HVAC equipment except for VFD/ mini splits because they can't meet the leakage so obviously they won't kill anyone ...If there ever was a bend to the industry.......Maybe they will have to put a sign on them that says "don't step here when you are running from the cops"?

At least I can be involved in ICC a little easier, not that they have a perfect system either....We need more people that do this every day involved in code development and not just a bunch of industry folks or people unwilling to go against the grain....


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

How about some specific examples of how private industry gets its way with code changes?  Glad you asked.

Tesla asked to have the ampacity tables changed to accommodate car charging cables.  This was rejected by CMP-12.  Tesla then filed an appeal with the motions committee to have the decision by CMP-12 overturned.  The required 2/3 majority Tesla needed was not achieved so the tables stand.

My point with this story is that there is a system in place and industry does not always get its way in contrast to popular belief.  There is a large cross-section of industry professionals that sit on the NFPA 70 code panels and all changes are taken seriously, and a solid case must be made for the change.  In the case I presented to you in the beginning of this reply, private industry lost out.

Again, it is always easy to say things are corrupt, but much harder to try to fix what you believe is corrupt.  There are a lot of code panels to join if you want to make a difference.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

General Cable wanted a change that was denied and like Tesla, General Cable filed an appeal with the Motions Committee to overturn the code panel.  Again, private industry did not get their way.  You see, there is a process and procedure and it may not be as skewed as one thinks.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

I will continue my rant.

I looked at 41 NFPA 70 proposed changes for the 2017 cycle.  I use 2017 because that is my current NEC for my jurisdiction and I am more familiar with it.
Of the 41
17 proposed changes were from private industry which includes industry organizations.
13 proposed changes were from electrical contractors
0 of the 41 propose changes were from AHJ's
2 proposed changes were from standards organizations
1 proposed change was from an individual
8 proposed changes were from unknown entities or people that I could not determine.

Not one of the 41 had anything to do with requiring new technology, new equipment or expanding.  Most of these were clarification changes being proposed and some that would allow certain products to be expanded in their use based on testing data from standards & testing labs.

Everyone has a voice and anyone can propose a change.  So if anyone feels so inclined to do so please do.  Please submit and justify your change that would create an exception to compliance with 110.26 because of a deck or the fact that it is just too expensive or whatever excuse you have that you can't comply.


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 21, 2022)

steveray said:


> About 10X more people die on stairs than electrocutions, but we are not outlawing them or changing how we do things because there are acceptable amounts of injuries and deaths


I'd guess much more than 10 times since stairs result in over $100B in injuries every year, and growing as population ages.  The irony is that NFPA 5000 has 7/11 stairs in all occupancies whereas IRC has more hazardous 7 3/4 / 10 - mostly as a result of the NAHB code efforts. Talk about industry influence.  

I participate in code development in both organizations, have since late 1980s.  I prefer NFPAs consensus and the expertise it brings in the people who vote over ICCs governmental consensus.


----------



## steveray (Nov 21, 2022)

Jeff...it's appearances...regardless of where it comes from actually....Why do we need WR outlets and outlet covers in "some" basements now? Mudrooms have also been suggested...If the basement is damp than anything within a couple feet of the sink should be too...

Location, Damp.

Locations protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. (CMP-1)
Informational Note:
Examples of such locations include partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage warehouses.

There are others, but I am going to tap out of this one...I will take some of the blame as someone who tries to participate, but I had 1200 building code changes to attempt to vet so I am not available for NEC stuff...And lets not even get into the IECC craziness...


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

steveray said:


> Jeff...it's appearances...regardless of where it comes from actually....Why do we need WR outlets and outlet covers in "some" basements now? Mudrooms have also been suggested...If the basement is damp than anything within a couple feet of the sink should be too...
> 
> Location, Damp.
> 
> ...


Damp in south Florida, specifically near the coast causes a lot more problems than damp in central Pennsylvania.  One size does not fit all but one standard will.  They make a seatbelt for a just to fit most Americans but there is always someone that needs a belt extender.  Either way, they are wearing a belt.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

This was submitted as a code change in order to clarify that NEC 110.26 applied to what we started this discussion on, which are AC disconnects.  The petitioner wants to clarify that all of the items he mentions apply but the CMP rejected his recommendation because the items in question meet the definition of "equipment."  This further clarifies that disconnects for AC equipment are required to comply with NEC 110.26.

1-135 Log #593 NEC-P01 *Final Action*: Reject (110.26(A))
*Submitter*: Robert G. Fahey, City of Janesville 
*Recommendation*: Revise text to read as follows: 110.26(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 include but not limited to, panelboards, switchboards, motor controllers, motor control centers, adjustable speed drives, fusible disconnects and similar such equipment, shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code. Substantiation: The added language is intended to add clarity to this Code Section as to what types of equipment are required to have the safe working space. Similar language is in the NEC handbook as commentary and by adding the above information to the actual Code Section, this will help the installer and the Inspector in determining when the working space requirements are to be applied. As an Electrical Inspector, I receive many questions as to what types of equipment this Code Section is referring to, by adding items into the actual Code, this will assist the designer, the installer and the Inspector in determining what type of equipment requires the safe working space. I have always required the proper work space be provided if equipment is typically serviced while energized or required to be energized for troubleshooting purposes. 
*Panel Meeting Action*: Reject 
*Panel Statement*: The proposed text does not clarify the requirement. The listed items in the proposed text meet the definition of “equipment” in Article 100. *Number Eligible to Vote*: 12 Ballot 
*Results:* Affirmative: 12


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

Glenn said:


> This is a desperate and low blow to the professionals in this discussion, and has ended this dialog for me. I need not defend myself or steveray against such childish commentary.


It is my opinion that this response to what was quoted is a bit dramatic.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

Did you know that not all AC disconnects are little 240v 30A ones?  Did you know that some of us worked on 200A 480 disconnects on RTUs, and ground mounted chillers?  Sometimes it is necessary to remember that the world you live in is not the same that others live in and you can't simplify everything to be so basic, simple and not so important.  So when you think of this code requirement, ask yourself if you want to inspect and open a 200A 480V live disconnect while in a precarious position.


----------



## ICE (Nov 21, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Sometimes it is necessary to remember that the world you live in is not the same that others live in


Go ahead and try that out.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 21, 2022)

Around here on residential homes the electrician installs the disconnect months before the AC condenser is installed. It is easy to call the electrician out for the code violation but in reality, the HVAC contractor was the one who is responsible for the code violation since he placed the unit in front of the disconnect.

In every one's world our jobs are about educating contractors and construction workers. This should include the why and intent behind the code.

Jar
Since Fl allows Class A & B HVAC contractors to run the electrical from the disconnect to their equipment, I think you should be focusing on the HVAC contractors being wrong and not the electricians.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

mtlogcabin said:


> Around here on residential homes the electrician installs the disconnect months before the AC condenser is installed. It is easy to call the electrician out for the code violation but in reality, the HVAC contractor was the one who is responsible for the code violation since he placed the unit in front of the disconnect.
> 
> In every one's world our jobs are about educating contractors and construction workers. This should include the why and intent behind the code.
> 
> ...


That I understand.  It needs to be corrected, and we have our mechanical inspectors and electrical inspectors on board with this.  Regardless of who creates the issue, it is a failed inspection and needs correction.


----------



## Msradell (Nov 21, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Did you know that everyone blames manufacturers for the tamper proof receptacle requirement in dwellings.  It was already a requirement in the pediatric healthcare setting.  The reality is that the CPSC presented a case to the NEC code panel that had documented 10,000 electrocutions for children under the age of 9 and these were just the ones that escalated to the emergency room.  The tamper proof receptacle change had nothing to do with manufacturers but most don't know that.  It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it.
> 
> Now that I brought that up.  What is so difficult about installing tamper-proof receptacles?  The cost factor was negligible.  If it saves children from being injured after it was proven that there were 10,000 injured, why should it be questioned?


This brings up an injection point, almost all the injuries involving outlets involved young children yet the code applies to all households.  It's very difficult for many elderly people to plug something with the "childproof" receptacles.  Maybe the code should just be enforced for homes with children younger than 10?  Obviously, this is not practical but..


----------



## jar546 (Nov 21, 2022)

Msradell said:


> This brings up an injection point, almost all the injuries involving outlets involved young children yet the code applies to all households.  It's very difficult for many elderly people to plug something with the "childproof" receptacles.  Maybe the code should just be enforced for homes with children younger than 10?  Obviously, this is not practical but..


You are right.  It is not practical.  Grandparents have grandchildren over all the time.  It may be more difficult sometimes to plug something in but it is not impossible.  Think of it like physical therapy.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 22, 2022)

jar546 said:


> It is my opinion that this response to what was quoted is a bit dramatic.


Jeff, you dismissed the opinions and comments from myself and others by claiming "It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it."

If we disagree with a code, an interpretation, or with you, then it must be because we haven't tried hard enough to learn?  When conversations turns to those tactics, I tend to walk away.  Nothing to learn from that kind of response.  And yeah, after all these years, I guess I thought you knew me better than that.  So it was a little personally insulting as well.  All good. I do not disregard or dismiss your opinions.  I just don't like the negative vibe from this thread, which I am part responsible for.  See you on the next one!


----------



## ICE (Nov 22, 2022)

Glenn said:


> then it must be because we haven't tried hard enough to learn?


There's lazy …. derelict too and don't leave out gratuitous malfeasance.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 22, 2022)

Glenn said:


> Jeff, you dismissed the opinions and comments from myself and others by claiming "It is easier to say the system is corrupt than to dig deep, do research and understand it."
> 
> If we disagree with a code, an interpretation, or with you, then it must be because we haven't tried hard enough to learn?  When conversations turns to those tactics, I tend to walk away.  Nothing to learn from that kind of response.  And yeah, after all these years, I guess I thought you knew me better than that.  So it was a little personally insulting as well.  All good. I do not disregard or dismiss your opinions.  I just don't like the negative vibe from this thread, which I am part responsible for.  See you on the next one!


There is a clear and concise black and white code requirement that has been confirmed through a non-binding interpretation by the NFPA and by the CMP who rejected a change where someone wanted to add AC disconnects to it because the CMP said that AC disconnects are electrical equipment under Article 100.  There is no gray area here, justs facts.  You stated that you:  "_When I teach inspectors deck codes, I encourage them to be reasonable about this 6-6 thing_" which is not encouraging them to enforce the code but lessen the standard because it is a deck.  Why are we encouraging non-compliance when there is always an alternative?

In addition, you mentioned the ICC process when this, is, in fact, an NFPA process that is superior to the ICC process.  Once again you eluded and danced around to allowing non-compliant installations by waving the flag with this statement: "_I'm really surprised by how dismissive you are in regard to the desires, dreams, and limitations of your fellow Americans."_

How about I am protecting Americans by enforcing safety codes?  I like that one better.  When there are options for a fix to comply with a code one of those options should not be to ignore the code which is arguably un-American to you.  We can agree to disagree but you really need to read your responses too.

Now that I am on this let's look at an example.

Apple pie, all American family wants to build a deck off their house.  In doing so, they will end up 6' off of grade, directly above an AC unit that has an NEC 110.26 compliant disconnect.  Installing the deck in this location creates a code violation.  But, alas, there are options.  Let's look at options.
1) Don't put the deck over an existing AC unit that is legally installed.
2) Change the height of the deck so as to not create a code violation.
3) Move the AC unit and disconnect to a code compliant location.
4) Move the AC disconnect to a location within site that is compliant with NEC 110.26.

If you create a code violation by installing a deck, it is your responsibility to decide how you are going to handle this.  When you teach, you are coming from a position of influence and responsibility.  Encouraging non-compliant approvals when there are options to make code compliant fixes is really not good for the industry, especially with rules designed for the safety of the public and workers.

Now to answer your 6'4" question that you think I am ignoring.  Show me in the exceptions to 110.26 where it states 6'4" is acceptable.  You can't drag an unrelated code into this situation because it is convenient. 

I think I need to bow out of this because as owner of the site, I can't be passionate about a subject and have people think I am not being fair.  So everyone out there can ignore whatever codes you want when it is convenient for you and feel sorry for those that work in my jurisdiction because I am such a dick for enforcing the codes as written, and intended, even with NFPA backup.  My name is JAR546 and this is my first meeting with Assholes Anonymous. (now that is a childish comment)


----------



## ICE (Nov 23, 2022)

The thread started out as an argument against an interpretation of section 110.26 (Space About Electrical Equipment) rendered by BOAF.
The following is the interpretation:

_Question:   Section 440.14 requires the A/C disconnect to be "readily accessible", it also references 110.26 in the informational notes. Does section 110.26 for working space requirements apply to this A/C disconnect or are they permitted to be readily accessible in the opinion of the inspector?

Answer:    2017 NEC 110.26 does not specifically mention disconnects. 440.14 requires disconnects for A/C equipment to be within sight and readily accessible. Readily Accessible is defined as capable of being reached quickly for operation without having to use tools or removing or climbing over or under obstacles. If the disconnect mentioned can be accessed without climbing over or under the unit or any other obstacle, then it would comply.
On 10/25/2022 at 4:48 PM

Commentary:   If the disconnect is just a pull out then 110.26 would not apply as a pullout type disconnect does not typically require service "while energized" as stated in the code section, if utilizing a breaker for the disconnect that might require service then 110.26 applies.:_

Who came up with the interpretation and what is their reason for doing so?

_The Building Officials Association of Florida, in cooperation with the Florida Building Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, ICC, and industry and professional experts offer this interpretation of the Florida Building Code in the interest of consistency in their application statewide. This interpretation is informal, non-binding and subject to acceptance and approval by the local building official._

The group deals with the construction industry in a mostly regulatory capacity.  What is the motive?    BOAF didn't take the time to formulate an opinion without a reason.  It has to do with ongoing, repetitive conflict with the code.

As an inspector I can relate that AC condenser disconnects are a frequent violation.  The pictures that I posted are a common occurrence. LA County Building Safety has determined that if the disconnect is not equipped with an overcurrent protective device, 110.26 does not apply.  The obvious fix if a disconnect has been installed with a fuse or breaker in violation of section 110.26 is to replace it with a bare disconnect.

The BOAF interpretation goes one step further and allows any “pull out” disconnect.  A pull out disconnect can contain fuses.  However, the group determined that a disconnect that incorporates a circuit breaker (panelboard) must adhere to the strictures of section 110.26. Inconveniently ignored is any other type of disconnect such as a knife switch.  It seems that the group took two steps forward and one step back.

The thread slowly became more about the application of section 110.26 than the merit of the interpretation rendered by BOAF.  Jeff’s position is there is no discretion available.  Any deviation from the bare bones of 110.26 is ….well it’s bad….no I mean really bad….awfull even.

Let’s take a look at 110.26.  There is an exception for an existing residential panelboard that allows it to have less than 6’6” headroom.  And not just less but apparently, all the way down to none.  The disconnect with a breaker is a panelboard that can be in a crawl space.  A crawl space might be 18” headroom.  That’s a solution to Glenn’s question.


_(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to a height of 61⁄2 ft or the height of the equipment, whichever is greater……._
_Exception No. 1: In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the height of the working space is less than 61⁄2 ft. _

_(a) Where equipment is installed above a lay-in ceiling, there shall be an opening not smaller than 22 in. × 22 in., or in a crawl space, there shall be an accessible opening not smaller than 22 in. × 30 in. _

Allrighty then, I hear you…we’re dealing with disconnects and seldom is a disconnect with a circuit breaker (panelboard) installed.  The point is that there is a huge amount of deference given to a panelboard and a disconnect deserves some assessment also.

The BOAF didn’t take up the task because they were out of things to do.  They did it to address a common concern.  The group came to the conclusion, which by the way, nearly matches how a great many AHJs handle the AC disconnect, that a pull out AC disconnect need not adhere to 110.26.

Jeff, You are are able to decide how the code will be applied within your jurisdiction.  You do not have to compromise your ethics.  What you should do is recognize the reality for the rest of us. In the grand scheme of things, an AC disconnect hardly rises to the top.  For every hundred out there, more than half are less than what you expect.  How many result in an electrocution?  Would that be none?

Well I have gone on too long.  This forum is nothing like the real world of construction as it relates to inspectors and inspection…it just doesn’t come close.  And honestly, there’s no way that a forum could.


----------



## steveray (Nov 29, 2022)

ICE said:


> Exception No. 1: In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the height of the working space is less than 61⁄2 ft.


And then adding the deck over the existing disco at the "existing dwelling unit" would comply with this exception...Unless that is not verbatim?


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Nov 29, 2022)

It is verbatim... but I think you could argue that an AC disconnect is neither service equipment or a panelboard by definition.

I think it is obvious that this section was intended for existing installations, not adding something new to encroach on the working space. 

Whether the code should be more lenient on in single family housing is not something I have a strong opinion on in this case, but I think the headroom between the disconnect and wooden structure is less of a hazard than placing the disconnect behind the AC unit.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 29, 2022)

I think the crux of this issue is if local AHJs feel the workings space requirements are too restrictive or not. If they feel it is too restrictive, they get "creative" with their code interpretation. As Mark K mentioned, this is an issue. 

Code should first be amended by whatever legal means exist by the adopting agency. If this is not possible, the local jurisdiction needs a fairly rigorous policy in place to explore the issues related to a modified enforcement regime. Choosing not to enforce something without a detailed review of the issue is a disservice to those we serve as inspectors. 

I will agree with those who say you can't mindlessly enforce the code.

I will also agree that you can't turn a blind eye to obvious code violations. 

There is however a third path. A path where we look at an issue on a local level, involve stake holders and make an informed opinion on the issue that serves our community. Make no mistake. This path is the most work, but it is also the only alternative in my mind. 

There. I think I've pissed off both sides of this debate.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> It is verbatim... but I think you could argue that an AC disconnect is neither service equipment or a panelboard by definition.


A panelboard can be an AC disconnect.  


Beniah Naylor said:


> I think it is obvious that this section was intended for existing installations, not adding something new to encroach on the working space.


Chicken or the egg?  


ICE said:


> _Exception No. 1: _*In existing dwelling units*, service equipment or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the height of the working space is less than 61⁄2 ft.


It is the dwelling that is existing....not a particular configuration.  At an existing dwelling one can install a service or panelboard under a deck .... you can install a deck over an existing service or panelboard.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Nov 29, 2022)

ICE said:


> A panelboard can be an AC disconnect.


This is correct, and I apologize for not using specific enough language. I will amend that statement and say that many AC disconnects are neither service equipment or panelboards.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 29, 2022)

steveray said:


> And then adding the deck over the existing disco at the "existing dwelling unit" would comply with this exception...Unless that is not verbatim?


Not when you create a code violation.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2022)

tmurray said:


> I think the crux of this issue is if local AHJs feel the workings space requirements are too restrictive or not.


There is not a debate about the dimensions provided in 110.26 and 110.26 is all about dimensions.  The debate for some is whether an AC disconnect is always bound by 110.26 and a further debate involves the degree of application of 110.26.

The largest jurisdiction in California is LA County B/S.  I worked there for twenty-five years.  The policy on AC disconnects was that if there was no overcurrent device within the disconnect 110,26 did not apply.  A great many disconnects were pull-out style with fuses.  110.26 applied to them.  A great many of them were less than perfectly placed. 

Is there a line that can be drawn and you get a pass if you didn't cross the line?  You show up for a final inspection and find a bedroom with receptacles that are fourteen feet apart.  The code says that no wall space shall be more than six feet from a receptacle but this is seven feet.  The kitchen counter has receptacles sixty inches apart.  Unless you are the inspector that approved the rough wiring, you have a decision to make.  

There is a line.  








Sometimes the only thing right about it is the disconnect.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 29, 2022)

ICE said:


> A panelboard can be an AC disconnect.


Yeah, but you still can't create a code violation.


ICE said:


> you can install a deck over an existing service or panelboard.


Yes, and create a code violation which would not be allowed.

Here is my opinion and my quote that I've said forever:

If you can't afford to do it right, you can't afford to do it.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 29, 2022)

In every picture shown by ICE on post #69 a code compliant installation is possible.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2022)

jar546 said:


> In every picture shown by ICE on post #69 a code compliant installation is possible.


That's true of every picture I have posted at this forum.  Thousands of correctable mistakes.  Some easier than others for sure but a fix exists for each of them.  In the rare jurisdiction where perfection is not only achievable but expected each of the installations in post #69 would result in corrections. 

You should focus on the word rare.  What happens in your jurisdiction would pass for Nirvana here in southern California.




There's just no end to the wrong that's available here.  Getting wound up over a few inches here and a few inches there would get you crucified in this part of the world.  While I commend your fortitude you need to see the windmills for what they are.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 29, 2022)

Ahh, the roof pictures.  You know what?  I've been there and done that as an electrician.  We make a rack of disconnects within site of the RTUs and sometimes mount them on the RTU if factory approved.  Always code compliant.  I'd rather look for a solution than to try to find an excuse for not doing something the right way.



ICE said:


> In the rare jurisdiction where perfection is not only achievable but expected each of the installations in post #69 would result in corrections.


Rare?  There is a much bigger world out there than the little bubbles we live in.  Not everything is according to your bubble or my bubble.  As someone who has performed work in two different states and dozens of municipalities, I can tell you the degree of compliance based on enforcement certainly varies but the clear majority don't look for excuses as to why they don't have to expect the minimums to be performed.  Contractors complain that the codes aren't uniform enough and there are too many places that have different requirements.  However, when you peel that onion back you find out that the problem is that many contractors get use to working in very lax, poorly enforced towns and then struggle when they have to meet the minimums.  This is why poor and lazy enforcement is a disservice to both  the contractor and other municipalities that expect at least minimum standards to be achieved.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2022)

In twenty-five years the industry turned upside down.  Well anyway Jeff I can't argue with you anymore. I don't even work anymore.  Our worlds are far apart.


----------



## steveray (Nov 30, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Not when you create a code violation.


It's not a violation...it is an existing dwelling unit...it's allowed per the exception....Don't forget, you can't get to the NEC until you go through the building code first....

[A] 101.4 Referenced codes. The other codes specified in
Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere
in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements
of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 30, 2022)

steveray said:


> It's not a violation...it is an existing dwelling unit...it's allowed per the exception....Don't forget, you can't get to the NEC until you go through the building code first....
> 
> [A] 101.4 Referenced codes. The other codes specified in
> Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere
> ...


I thought we were talking about creating a code violation by installing a deck over a condensing unit and disconnect.


----------



## steveray (Dec 1, 2022)

jar546 said:


> I thought we were talking about creating a code violation by installing a deck over a condensing unit and disconnect.


Correct....bad code language, but it is an existing dwelling unit, therefore the reduction per the exception is allowed.....had the geniuses on the CMP written it something like "existing installations"....., that would have some legal traction.....But then the NEC really needs to stay out of that as the IEBC has it handled....

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof
shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe
than its existing condition.
Exception: Where the current level of safety or sanitation
is proposed to be reduced, the portion altered shall
conform to the requirements of the International Building
Code.


----------



## ICE (Dec 1, 2022)

steveray said:


> Correct....bad code language, but it is an existing dwelling unit, therefore the reduction per the exception is allowed.....had the geniuses on the CMP written it something like "existing installations"....., that would have some legal traction.....But then the NEC really needs to stay out of that as the IEBC has it handled....
> 
> 701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof
> shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe
> ...


The NEC stands alone and unless the property fell out of the sky with the deck over the disconnect already there....well then....I mentioned the chicken and the egg...how about the forest for the trees.  A closed mind is not going to agree with anything that you put forth. Die on that hill he will.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Dec 10, 2022)

Glenn said:


> I have faced this interpretation issue for many years teaching decks, and I hate it.  If an AC and disconnect are under a deck, or a deck built over, does the deck have to be 6 foot - 6 inches above the equipment?
> 
> In both my ICC deck books where I must work with the opinions of their technical editors, I have had to state that the AC and disconnect fall under these clearances, however, I also state that the section is very broad in referring to "electrical equipment" and then the list of potential activities.  I state that a building official is meant to interpret the code for their community in a reasonable manner.  I think ICE has provided examples of that.
> 
> ...


wat do you consider to be absurd about the 6.6 clearance?


----------



## wwhitney (Dec 11, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> I will amend that statement and say that many AC disconnects are neither service equipment or panelboards.


The NEC definition of panelboard (identical in 2017, 2020, and 2023):

"Panelboard. A single panel or group of panel units designed for assembly in the form of a single panel, including buses and automatic overcurrent devices, and equipped with or without switches for the control of light, heat, or power circuits; designed to be placed in a cabinet or cutout box placed in or against a wall, partition, or other support; and accessible only from the front."

Based on that, there is a reasonable argument that a typical fused AC disconnect is a panelboard.  It is installed in a cabinet (see the definition, there's a swinging door), it has automatic overcurrent devices (at least 2 fuses), and it has buses connecting the lugs provided for termination to the fingers that the pullout mates with.

Cheers, Wayne


----------

