Thread: Disconnect location

Is this ok?.....it's definitely in sight and accessible.

Similar Threads:

• Combustion air venting location
• Propane tank location
• Light switch location
• Water Heater Location
• a/c disconnect

Sort of ... but not really.

If that panel is not designed to be removable to allow access for service, repair, inspection, or replacement, then, yeah, maybe it might be okay ... but if that panel is designed to allow access to the equipment, then no, it is not supposed to be there (although some AHJ seem to allow placing the disconnect there as that panel is not *the* panel which is intended to be removed for service, etc.).

Location of the disconnect looks ok as long as the panel is not a panel that needs to be removed for service, but the conduit is not strapped,the gas line could rub on the hole in the unit it is running thru and it may also keep the service panel from being removed and the blocks for support under the pad are a joke.

The disco itself looks OK, sealtite needs strapping, but the gas flex is not exposed completely & the gas shut off is bass ackwards,(needs to be ahead of the flex), & the base is not very secure.

Edit: No trap on the condensate drain, so insects can enter....


A bad install IMO.

In addition to the other problems already posted: Csst gas pipe shall not be exposed where it could be subject to physical damage. Look for the electrical bonding jumper for the csst. The stainless portion of the csst should be wrapped. The csst should line up with the fitting rather than be at a ten degree angle. If there are fuses inside the disconnect, the working clearance is not there.

I only commented on the location of the disconnect ... but I am surprised that no one mentioned (unless I missed it) the lack of a sediment trap.

Thanks everyone for your responses. It didn't look right to me, turns out it's ok so I'm glad I asked......I will admit that i didn't see all of the other defects until it was put under the IN microscope.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

... but I am surprised that no one mentioned (unless I missed it) the lack of a sediment trap.

Never around here, and if you bring it up it gets shrugged off.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

If there are fuses inside the disconnect, the working clearance is not there.

No fuses....the difference is?

The difference between fuses and a disconnect is that fuses require servicing whereas a disconnect does not.

Originally Posted by chris mcintyre

No fuses....the difference is?

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

The difference between fuses and a disconnect is that fuses require servicing whereas a disconnect does not.

Chris, David,

There is NO difference whether there are fuses or no fuses, the working space requirements are one and the same ... and it looks like that disconnect has the required working space.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Chris, David,

There is NO difference whether there are fuses or no fuses, the working space requirements are one and the same ... and it looks like that disconnect has the required working space.

Can we agree to disagree?

Just a side bar.

The OP is from S.C. [from his profile] and thus, I suspect, under the "I' codes - so as others have responded the location of the disconnect is compliant.

However, for those jurisdictions under the "U" codes [IAPMO Uniform Codes] this is not a code compliant installation.

Section 309.0 of the U-codes require disconnects to be 'adjacent to' the equipment [thus not attached to the equipment]. Not too long ago in the Q&A section of IAPMO magazine this was brought up and IAMPO clearly indicated no disconnects were to be attached to the equipment.

Dana,

Could you please post a link to the IAPMO newsletter?

Thanks,
David

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

There is NO difference whether there are fuses or no fuses, the working space requirements are one and the same ... and it looks like that disconnect has the required working space.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Can we agree to disagree?

No.

There IS no difference in working space requirements for fuses or no fuses.

The working space requirements are based on if the equipment has the possibility of being inspected, maintained, or worked on "while energized".

An unfused a/c disconnect has the potential to be inspected, worked on, or maintained "while energized" to the same extent as a fused disconnect.

This is black and white, and, yes, you may disagree ... but you will also be incorrect.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No.

There IS no difference in working space requirements for fuses or no fuses.

The working space requirements are based on if the equipment has the possibility of being inspected, maintained, or worked on "while energized".

An unfused a/c disconnect has the potential to be inspected, worked on, or maintained "while energized" to the same extent as a fused disconnect.

This is black and white, and, yes, you may disagree ... but you will also be incorrect.

Actually the code uses the words "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized". There is nothing about an A/C disconnect that would render it likely to require any of that while energized. With or without fuses, that remains the same. When you claim working space is required for anything that could possibly be .....while energized, well that's everything.

There are several forms of disconnect recognized by the code. A disconnect can be a switch or cord and attachment plug with a receptacle. Would those require working space?

Panelboards, switchboards etc. require working space and the inclusion of an overcurrent device in an enclosure changes it from merely a disconnect to now containing a panelboard and therefor working space is required.

Mr. Bertrans,

Control of maintaining the unit is OFF so as to work upon the equipment, fits that description. Keep in mind, it must also be (expressly so designated) readily accessible from the unit and within sight and distance certain while maintaining or servicing the condensor.

Opening the cover to adjust the postiion of the dircuit breaker/disconnect or cycling it to complete OFF, and again adjusting servicing it to resetting it to ON; or removing the fuse block, so as to disconnect it - fits that description. Opening the cover of the disconnect, is often done while energized. Clearing out a cob web, afront of the deadfront, often done. The realitty is that operating the disconnect, so as to disconnect the unit while energized (that is to say the line is previously live, doesn't mean there is active WORKING of electricity at the time) happens all the time when the compressor is serviced or for that matter whenever work is done of other nature in the vicinity of the overall installation.

The condensor itself is a remote structure, it requires a disconnect. Servicing the condensor itself requires the servicer the ability to control power ON and OFF throughout the servicing process.

The equipment is otherwise triggered to work (electricity) and stop (working electricity) in an automatic that is to say non-manual, or not requiring human interaction/control, i.e. thermostat to logic board or relay.

Working space for that human servicer to access the panel, even though it might just be a single 2p CB on board or a pair of pull-out fises, is required.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Actually the code uses the words "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized". There is nothing about an A/C disconnect that would render it likely to require any of that while energized. With or without fuses, that remains the same.

Inspection of the disconnect is "examination", removing the dead front cover to connect/disconnect a new condenser unit is "servicing or maintenance", and all of those will "likely" be done "while energized".

Remember, just because you pull a pull out (fused or otherwise) THE disconnect is still "energized" by the line coming in.

There are several forms of disconnect recognized by the code. A disconnect can be a switch or cord and attachment plug with a receptacle. Would those require working space?

The switch, yes, if it is being used as the disconnect for the condenser unit as it would need to be opened for one to replace the wiring to a condenser unit, and, as such, would require working space.

Do - should - ALL switches require working space? If the switch is to "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized", you betcha it requires working space.

Does a cord and plug require working space? No, and the only a/c units which will be cord and plug connected will be portable window units, as such that is not germane to the discussion of a disconnect for a/c condenser units.

Panelboards, switchboards etc. require working space and the inclusion of an overcurrent device in an enclosure changes it from merely a disconnect to now containing a panelboard and therefor working space is required.

There is no requirement for electrical equipment to contain overcurrent devices before requiring working space. Not sure where you heard that (whoever said that was wrong), where you learned that (whoever taught that was wrong), or why you would think that on your on (you are wrong in thinking that) ... there *is* "no" requirement/limitation which only applies working space to electrical equipment with overcurrent devices.

We can discuss this until the cows come home and the correct answer will not change - there is NO requirement for a disconnect (which is "electrical equipment") to have overcurrent protection before working space is required in front of that disconnect.

Likely to REQUIRE .....while energized. Why would anyone be REQUIRED to do anything to an A/C disconnect while it is energized? Any dummy can stick his hands into energized equipment but the dummy is not REQUIRED to do so.

Perhaps you can reference a code section that would back up your claim that all disconnects require working space.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Likely to REQUIRE .....while energized. Why would anyone be REQUIRED to do anything to an A/C disconnect while it is energized? Any dummy can stick his hands into energized equipment but the dummy is not REQUIRED to do so.

Seems that some dummies speak without thinking ...

LIKELY to require ... "LIKELY" ... "to require". with "likely" being the key word there; other key words are "WHILE ENERGIZED".

So let's go through that:
- "likely" as in something is electrical and is likely to, at some point in time, at ANY point in time, require servicing ... wait, there is that word "require"
- "to require" ... well, I figure everyone here was not a dummy, thus no explaining of that was needed; this is not saying that someONE "is required" to do something, this is saying that someTHING is likely TO REQUIRE repair, service, examination, inspection, etc., ... wait, there is that pesky "likely" word ... seems difficult to explain the use of one without using the other.

Now, being as there appears to be a dummy here, I may have to get into a more simple explanation, using simple words: when something electrical QUITS WORKING, that something electrical WILL NEED to have someone look at it and FIX IT. Also, IT IS LIKELY that someone WILL NEED to examine, i.e., "inspect", that something electrical as some time or at any time.

The above FIXING and "inspecting" will be done WHILE ENERGINZED, as in the line side of the disconnect is energized while the load side of the disconnect is de-energized by the disconnect being operated, whether means a pull-out was removed, a switch was switched, etc.

Perhaps you can reference a code section that would back up your claim that all disconnects require working space.

The dummy already posted that code wording, but the dummy apparently does not understand how to read words, especially code words such as:
- likely
- to
- require
- examination,
- adjustment,
- servicing
- or maintenance
- while
- energized

I suspect that all other readers here get it, even H. G. Watson understands it.

Jerry
Why is it when someone disagrees with you , you resort to insults.


My house is 35 years old, I have lived here 18 years.
In that 18 years (and LIKELY since new) the A/C disconnect has not been serviced, or repaired, I doubt that it has been inspected. If it had been serviced, repaired or inspected, only a dummy would do so while it was energized. It's just to easy to shut the power off at the panel.

I suspect that all other readers here get it,...

This is not the first time this has be questioned.
I don't think they have changed their minds, they just don't say anything because they don't want to be belittled by you any more.

BTW
Tell us about the many times have you serviced, ..... an A/C disconnect
WHILE ENERGIZED.

If it wasn't energized, THATS THE POINT
If it was energized, well, whose the dummy.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

My house is 35 years old, I have lived here 18 years.
In that 18 years (and LIKELY since new) the A/C disconnect has not been serviced, or repaired, I doubt that it has been inspected. If it had been serviced, repaired or inspected, only a dummy would do so while it was energized. It's just to easy to shut the power off at the panel.

Rick,

Have you ever serviced or replaced your a/c condenser unit, or had someone service or replace it?

If so, they "likely" used the disconnect for the purpose it was intended - to shut power off to the condenser unit while it was worked on.

In doing so, they reached this threshold: "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized".

If they went further and replaced the liquidtight conduit between the condenser unit and the disconnect, then they reached this threshold: "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized"

BTW
Tell us about the many times have you serviced, ..... an A/C disconnect
WHILE ENERGIZED.

I see that YOU don't get it either ... you do not have to "service" the disconnect while it is energized to require working space, you just have to meet this: (I am using underlining and bold to highlight the critical words for you) "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized" ... oh, yeah, I did not underline or bold "servicing" as you already picked that ONE up, but that is not the ONLY one which applies.

If it wasn't energized, THATS THE POINT
If it was energized, well, whose the dummy.

Okay, for clarity I will ask you a question, I suspect your answer will clue you in on the application and my follow-up response ... otherwise "who's the dummy":

Q. When you pull the pull-out or turn off the molded case switch in the disconnect ... is the disconnect STILL "energized"?

A. Yes. or No. It is a simple question with a yes or no answer.

On your other point, 'twas not I who first used the term "dummy". I have learned in the past that those who use endearing terms such as that only understand terms like that in responses. Civility has already been lost on them.

Okay, your answer to the above question is ... ?

Peck,

Using my reference to someone who would risk electrocution needlessly as a dummy as an excuse to malign me is moronic. A personal attack on me does not elevate your position but rather points to the fact that you are a petty person without a valid argument. Having witnessed your diatribes in the past, I should have known better than to engage in any discourse with you.

Unlike you, I expect to be wrong on occasion and it gives me a sense of accomplishment because it means that I am still able to learn. Unlike you, I do not resort to insulting people that can teach me what I don't know. Unlike you, I will never know it all and I look forward to learning more. Unlike you, I consider forums as a place to learn rather than a place to strut my stuff. Unlike you I am thankful that I am not you.

It is lamentable that a few people like you can drag an entire forum down to a level where it becomes worthless. .

Have you ever serviced or replaced your a/c condenser unit, or had someone service or replace it?
Yes

If so, they "likely" used the disconnect for the purpose it was intended - to shut power off to the condenser unit while it was worked on.
Yes,

In doing so, they reached this threshold: "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized".
I disagree, they USED the disconnect, but it was not serviced, repaired, or….
What was being repaired, serviced, or…. was the condenser.


If they went further and replaced the liquidtight conduit between the condenser unit and the disconnect, then they reached this threshold: "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized"

True, THEN the threshold is met.
And they LIKELY would have shut off the power at the main, therefore it was not energized.


Q. When you pull the pull-out or turn off the molded case switch in the disconnect ... is the disconnect STILL "energized"?

Yes, unless the power has been turned off at the main that supplies the disconnect.



On your other point, 'twas not I who first used the term "dummy”.
Yes, I see that. However his use of “Dummy” was not personalized at you.
You on the other hand did make it personal to him.

I have learned in the past that those who use endearing terms such as that only understand terms like that in responses. Civility has already been lost on them.
Here’s what I’ve learned.
Over the years of reading IN, my knowledge and understanding has increased many times.
I didn’t learn it because you are so knowledgeable (which you are), but because someone posted a question, or made a statement, that you or someone else was able explain and answer correctly.
But when people think they are going to be criticized or belittled for asking a question, then they will not ask the question. When someone makes a statement that in incorrect, it does not make him or her stupid or a dummy. It means they do not know. Explain (Teach) to them what is correct.
Not everyone will learn, but nobody will learn anything if there is fear of asking a questing or making a statement.

I think it was Zig Zigler that said
You will never get someone to say they were wrong, you may however, get them to change their mind, if you provide them with new information

Remember, if nobody ask questions, or makes incorrect statements, YOU will have lost the opportunity to teach them anything at all, and they may forever have incorrect information.


Getting back to the disconnect
I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
The way I see it is;
Since it is likely that trained, qualified, professionals, will be working on the disconnect.
It is also likely that they would remove the power to the disconnect at the main panel before servicing, Therefore the equipment (the disconnect) is not likely to be energized when serviced, repaired, or whatever.
Since the rule applies to equipment that is likely to be energized when serviced, repaired, inspected, or…., the rule does not apply.
Because the equipment is not likely to be energized.
That’s the way I understand it, and honestly, I don’t understand why you don’t see it that way also.
But I don’t think you’re dumb.

Misters Bertrans and Cantrell,

I can see both your points, IF there are two disconnects ahead, such as for example a Main Circuit Breaker panel and a branch circuit or feeder disconnect ahead of the local AC condensor disconnect mounted on the house before the wiring to the remote structure.

However, IF, for example, the supply to this local disconnect is a OCPD on a split bus panel, that is to say there are not two disconnects ahead, then this would be the second OCPDdually functioning as a disconnect and would absolutely require space to access without making contact with the equipment and for the equipment itself dedicated equipment space.

If there was an equipment emergency and the disconnect needed to be employed access to the disconnect and deactivating it must be able to be done safely.

Imagine if you will an example such as an accident at the equipment or damage to the equipment that involves a person - and consider if you will, that the service entrance & first service disconnect is interior to the premisis, not upon the exterior (such as is common in most residential throughout the country). I recall for example a particular circumstance where an item of clothing dangling (specifically a drawstring) was inadvertantly "caught up" and wound on the fan post drawing the person trapped against the guard, and a subsequent series of additional events and failures. Had there been additional delays of any kind in cutting power to the equipment so as to safely extricate the trapped/pinned, injured, and further endangered party, the individual would not have been resisitatable or survived only with significant additional injuries.

Also keep in mind that many POCOs offer programs and on-board cycling equipment to control usage of condensors during peak periods; same often simply "cut off" a half phase via the remotely operated/signal device. These "devices" are usually installed and serviced by the POCO (or their subcontractors). The PoCo often impose additional "limitations", "restrictions" and "requirements" to addresses/services they provide power to as a condition of "service", including working space and access; there may also be additional "codes" or ordinances which address the overall issue, such as fire codes, zoning ordinances, and property maintenance codes depending on locality, and the specific installation location and its proximity to lot lines, side yards, etc. If you've ever wondered why most such equipment is "rated" at 60A or higher Max and has higher short circuit ratings, that has "something" to do with the nature of the installation being remote. There is also the consideration as to if the disconnect is physically installed to the main structure or if it is not, and if not addtional safe bonding path and clearance for access.

As you might expect, there are further areas which may address the situation. Specific additional requirements due to the nature of the equipment so being "disconnected" are of issue in the NEC.

On a different note, it may interest you to know that now in the 2011 NEC even combination GFCI receptacle test/reset buttons must remain readily accessible and unobstructed by furniture, appliances, storage, etc.

Switchboards, panelboards, appliances, refrigeration equipment, and motors, controllers, switches & disconnects also have requirements of standards, listings, and instructions designed to include their safe operation as intended.

There are often areas where by design and intention there is some redundancy in critical operation/systems - for safety.

Hope that helps.

C.M.:

Since the disconnect itself is not mounted on the primary structure, but on the remote/adjacent structure - It may therefore requires local bonding and electrode bonding that distant structure's required rated disconnect, depends on distance, etc.. This is neither a supplemental nor supplementary electrode and is not tied into the primary structure's gec system. The structure itself has more than one metalic path to the primary structure, and is suspected of being supplied with far more than 15 or 20 amps - gets into the distinctions between a branch circuit, a feeder, and/or a tap; to remote or detached structure and the various conditions and exceptions that may apply, distance above grade, length of conductors not horizontal distance, and other factors which may or may not effect the a determination regarding the appropriateness of the installation.

It further occurs to me that (and this may just be an illusion due to perspective in the photo) that the metal gas pipe and its path encroach on the dedicated space of the disconnect box, and further that one could NOT lift the top and therefore open the front panel so as to access the disconnect located within, without making case/can/box contact with the metallic/conductive gas pipe. It also appears the gas valve and the entrance hard pipe is being supported solely by the panel of the equipment, and that there is no appropriate support or protection for the flex connection supply pictured. Both electrical supply and gas supply are indeed subject to damage - i.e. landscaping equipment, etc. Should that gas supply valve be operated into the closed position, it would also enroach/make electrical contact with either the panel of the equipment, or the raised top of the disconnect "box" when same is being accessed.

Finally, it APPEARS that the hard gas pipe has had PTE/Teflon TAPE (not gas pipe dope) used on its threaded connections, and there is present significant oxidation/deterioration (rust), indicating trouble. Further the valve type, red faded plastic handle, is suspect for the application (exterior, exposed to UV, degraded, and looks similar to one of several which may have been recalled (including watts brand).

Why does this AC need any more than an equipment ground? There is no need for additional bonding or electrodes. What is the magic distance where all this would take place?

This is not a feeder to a remote building nor does it meet the NEC definition of a structure.

Structure. That which is build or constructed.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Why does this AC need any more than an equipment ground? There is no need for additional bonding or electrodes. What is the magic distance where all this would take place?

This is not a feeder to a remote building nor does it meet the NEC definition of a structure.

Structure. That which is build or constructed.

The unit is attached to the structure, a crappy install IMO, but attached through the plenum/ductwork so I have to agree w/ Jim.

IMO,the whole thing needs to be redone in a proper manner,starting w/ a secure pad..........

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Peck,

Using my reference to someone who would risk electrocution needlessly as a dummy as an excuse to malign me is moronic.

Bertrams,

To consider someone working on a disconnect while energized when they are working on the load side with the disconnect off putting themselves at risk of electrocution is moronic.

The disconnect is put there for that very reason - too allow the service person to disconnect the power to the condenser unit and be able to replace the condenser unit and the wiring from the load side of the disconnect.

Your injection of the word dummy set the stage for my follow-up use of the word dummy, I was simply "speaking your language".

Apparently you have not been a reader of the forum very long, otherwise you would know that I do indeed know I am not always correct and have on many occasions stated that I would take my 40 lashes with a wet noodle and go sit in the corner, or other words to that effect.

A connection of the packaged unit notwithstanding, it is not primary to the structure. NFPA and other code making bodies defer to designated standard definition based upon yet another organization's standard definitions and designations. AS pictured and set upon, this unit is not. Architectual and engineering determinations beyond that understood or considered by an unlicensed non-master level self-proclaimed electrician.Furthermore concrete pad propped up as it may be, is still an electrically conductive surface.

I agree that there are isues with securing of gas line and carflex, the disconnect is allowed, providing that it not mounted on a service panel. Also the mounting area on the back of the disconnect needs cleaned to bare metal as well as the area on the condensort and the disconnect needs be attached by nut and bolt, tec screws are not allowed. Thhis allows for proper bonding of the disconect tothe condensor.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

A connection of the packaged unit notwithstanding, it is not primary to the structure. NFPA and other code making bodies defer to designated standard definition based upon yet another organization's standard definitions and designations. AS pictured and set upon, this unit is not. Architectual and engineering determinations beyond that understood or considered by an unlicensed non-master level self-proclaimed electrician.Furthermore concrete pad propped up as it may be, is still an electrically conductive surface.

Again the code article asked for has not been provided to back up this claim. Are you saying there needs to be a bond grid for the concrete pad? Again prove what you say in black and white with the appropriate code article.

Are you also aware of the libel issue of posting about peoples credentials?

I can't help but notice how many threads on this board are regressing into nothing more than 3-way arguments replete with name calling and insults where the participants keep trying to one up and demean each other. You guys may know your stuff and you have helped me in the past but I don't know who to take seriously anymore because all you seem to want to do is prove the other guy is wrong.

I'm all for not ignoring bad behaviors on this board if I feel somebody is being a dick. But can't you guys take your pissing matches off-line and do it in PMs?

I will only speeak for myself, but when statements are made that cannot be backed up with Code articles I feel they need to be corrected. An HI trying to do an inspection with incorrect assumptions or information does not add credibility to the industry nor does the buyer get what they are paying for. It can also cause the present HO to spend money to fix something that is not broken.

I agree Jim. But I can't tell who is right or wrong anymore because the individuals who appear to be the most knowledgable/expert about the subject matter are telling the other participating "experts" that they are wrong. And nobody wants to be wrong or admit to being wrong because the other participants will hold it against them and remind them about the times they were wrong (which lately also seems to be happening more).

Apparently the obvious distinctions with differences clearly pictured in the photograph, and brought up in the subsequent discussions, are being missed. The majority of "the time" an HI is going to see the feeder attached to the building surface or exit from the building directly into the enclosure which is mounted to the building surface, and then a Branch circuit going to the extra-to-the-building fixed equipment. This is not the case here. Distinction with a difference, especially packaged or split HP or AC which is similarly NOT mounted UPON the BUILDING surface, but upon a non-building or extra to the building structure - not cantillevered, not conjoined, not even sharing a foundation footprint, cover, extention, etc.

1. This is outside wiring, outside and off of the building surface. Premises does not equate to building, nor does dwelling unit equate to premises or building, or structure.

2. The packaged unit (fixed equipment) surface is NOT a BUILDING surface.

3. The area below the preformed, not interconnected, supported or attached concrete pad is NOT a BUILDING surface.

4. The concrete pad under the packaged unit is not in continuous contact with the ground.

5. Most important - the supply to this supposed OCPD (fuse block or MCB) containing ENCLOSURE containing "disconnect" is NOT a branch circuit - it is a feeder circuit, OUTSIDE, and neither the feeder conductors wiring method nor the enclosure are mounted upon the "building" surface, nor within the building surface footprint, but have exited and are not upon same.

6. The conductors FROM the last OCPD which are outside in an enclosure mounted TO the Packaged Unit are the origination of the individual multiwire branch circuit which is OUTSIDE and NOT supplying the BUILDING structure - but the adjacent/remote structure.

7. It is the bonding of the OUTDOORS, remote of the BUILDING, remote to the building surfaces, ENCLOSURE I was referring, i.e. the
110.28 Enclosure Types. Enclosures (other than surrounding fences or walls) of switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, motor control centers, meter sockets, enclosed switches, transfer switches, power outlets, circuit breakers, adjustable-speed drive systems, pullout switches, portable power distribution equipment, termination boxes, general-purpose transformers, fire pump controllers, fire pump motors, and motor controllers, rated not over 600 volts nominal and intended for such locations, shall be marked with an enclosure-type number as shown in Table 110.28.

I.e. the enclosure which is mounted upon the packaged unit not upon the building surface, which is supplied via outside wiring FEEDER and contains the final OCPD denoting the demark from Feeder to Branch Circuit of an extra-building structure with extra-to-the-building and not-upon-the-building-surface wiring methods/path. Furthermore - upon a conductive/considered to be, and should be, grounded surface (as per the NEC).

Distinctions with differences. Feeder vs. Branch Circuit(s); Wiring OUTSIDE, and NOT UPON the BUILDING's SURFACE.

2011 NEC, Art. 100: Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived syste, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.

2011: Feeders, Article 215, 225.11, Art. 225 Part II, 315.6, and a host of others. Air Conditioning, etc. equipment Art. 440 Part II, Fixed Equipment Grounding Art. 250,

Bonding of the enclosure containing OCPD/disconnect and demark of feeder to branch circuit, mounted upon the adjacent, remote, outside STRUCTURE.

I'm not going to bother getting into the requirements for proper gec to electrode since your still making mistakes with 2005 and have already admitted several times you refuse to even read 2011, or Formal interpretations of 2008 or the CMPs statements.

For Mr. B,

2011 NEC Art. 110, Part II

II. 600 Volts, Nominal, or Less
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.

(1) Depth of Working Space. The depthof the working space in the direction of live parts shall not be less than that specified in Table 110.26(A)(1) unless the requirements of 110.26(A)(1)(a), (A)(1)(b), or (A)(1)(c) are met. Distances shall be measured from the exposed live parts or from the enclosure or opening if the live parts are enclosed.

(2) Width of Working Space. The width of the working space in front of the electrical equipment shall be the width of the equipment or 762 mm (30 in.), whichever is greater. In all cases, the work space shall permit at least a 90 degree opening of euqipment doors or hinged panels.
(3) Height of Working Space. The workspace shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to a height of 2.0 m (6-1/2 ft) or the height of the equipment, whichever is greater. Within the height requirements of theis section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
Exception No. 1: In existing dwelling units, service equipment or panel oards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be permitted in spaces where the height of the working space is less than 2.0m (6-1/2 ft).
Exception No. 2: Meters that are installed in meter sockets shall be permitted to extend beyond the other equipment. The meter socket shall be required to follow the rules of this section.
(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.
(C) Entrance to and Egress from Working Space.
(1) Minimum Rquired. At least one entrance of sufficient area shall be provided to give access to and egress from working space about electrical equipment.

(E) Dedicated Equipment Space. All switchboards, panelboards, and motor control centers shall be located in dedicated spaces and protected from damage.
Exception: Control equipment that by its very nature or because of other rules of the Code must be adjacent to or within sight of its operating machinery shall be permitted in those locations.

--(2) Outdoor. Outdoor electrical equipment shall be installed in suitable enclosures and shall be protected from accidental contact by unauthorized personnel, or by vehicular traffic, or by accidental spillage or leakage from piping systems. The working clearance space shall include the zone described in 110.26(A). No architectural appurtenance or other equipment shall be located in this zone.


Oddly enough, the enclosure containing disconnect/final OCPD, thus mounted upon the equipment so fixed upon the ODD and questionably "errected" platform does little to isolate the enclosure from vibrations, magnified by the questionably errected support/platform the equipment has been placed upon. The equipment itself is questionably secured to the "platform" and the Platform itself is questionably constructed esp. with open sides above grade - uplift, sheer wind resistance, flood/washout, etc.

-fin-

The bonding of the disconnect enclosure is the same had a metallic box been used inside. The EGC is connected to a grounding buss or a grounding screw.

There is no proof that there is any OCPD mounted in the disconnect. You ignore that fact that this might be a simple pullout.

Are you aware that grounding rods are for things like lightning strikes and have nothing to do with the proper operation of this circuit?

Why does you think Article 225 would apply to this installation? An AC unit is not a structure.

Roger F has some good diagrams. Maybe he can share.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Why does this AC need any more than an equipment ground? There is no need for additional bonding or electrodes. What is the magic distance where all this would take place?

This is not a feeder to a remote building nor does it meet the NEC definition of a structure.

Structure. That which is build or constructed.

The structure to which this fixed equipment is afixed/placed/installed upon/supported by, is: (drum roll) the "built or constructed" block supported "floating" concrete pad.

This IS a feeder which is not run within or upon the BUILDING surface that supplies the ENCLOSURE. The demark of the feeder circuit to branch circuit is on the load side of the last OCPD between the service conductors and the equipment. This takes place outside and outdoors, and OFF of the building surface.

The Enclosure containing last OCPD is not mounted upon the building surface, it is mounted to the fixed equipment which is installed upon a structure which is NOT part of the building, but adjacent to same. The branch circuit originates OFF of the building and at the adjacent STRUCTURE which is outdoors, exposed to weather, wet location, and extraneous/has exited/off of the primary building structure or its surfaces.

The concrete pad "supported" by cracked, crumbling, dry-stacked and (far right corner - corbelled) staggered hollow concrete blocks is an extra-structure - some 16-20" above grade, and a good 5-8" above foundation line, is NOT a part of the primary building, attached to the primary building, or supported by the primary building, it (this secondary structure) is adjacent and technically remote to it.

It is frankly unfathomable that you defend ANY aspect of what is pictured. Try actually LOOKing at the photo.

I am VERY aware of the purposes of electrodes and GECs for remote structures and their ENCLOSURES, especially those installed EXPOSED.

You are obviously NOT, have not yet grasped the easily identifyable ERRORS in the 2008 NEC's attempts at correction and revision, and are obviously completely without a clue regarding the complete reworking on the entire subject e.g. 2011 NEC which addresses those issues completely. It is futile discussing this with you for you are engrossed in a oft practiced but was then and remains technically wrong and unsafe practice. Your latest question/post regarding MY awareness speaks volumes regarding your own ignorance and inability to follow a conversation, nor identify WHAT THE ISSUE(S) is/are as PICTURED and demonstrated through topical discussion.

The Enclosure containing last OCPD is not mounted upon the building surface, it is mounted to the fixed equipment which is installed upon a structure which is NOT part of the building, but adjacent to same. The branch circuit originates OFF of the building and at the adjacent STRUCTURE which is outdoors, exposed to weather, wet location, and extraneous/has exited/off of the primary building structure or its surfaces

How do we know where the OCPD is located? I see some continue to use their x-ray vision to see into a closed disconnect or thru the walls of the building to see into the panel.

Again you try to apply items are probably were not even adopted or written when this was installed. Yor assertion that Article 225 would apply to a stack of concrete blocks is absurd.

It is you who are being absurd.2011 Art. 225 is entitled "Outside Wiring".Art. 215 is entitled "Feeders".Obviously this STRUCTURE is absudly built or constructed, but it is a stucture and it is separate and distinct and not attached to the brick faced building, and IS the location of the Equipment, but it is THIS structure to which the packaged unit IS FIXED upon/placed/supported by/installed, and this concrete pad atop of drystacked failing blocks which is being ELECTRIFIED.For you to asset your latest must be an unprotected pull out, only makes the pictured MORE WRONG for a packaged unit, and still requires bonding the enclosure and the CSST.

The installation is absurd, as is the wiring path from under the preformed failing blocked up concrete pad.

Next you'll be claiming a 15 or 20 amp circuit, a straight non-slant supply, or that this somehow falls into a lighting standard exception, or claim some thing other than what is pictured for the wiring (type, SIZE, etc.) - or its path.I'm returning you to the see-no list, fritzkelly/Count Rumford/benjamin T and A.D./ElliotFransen need company and you're obviously not capable of refraining from inventing and misrepresenting what is actually pictured, or what has been actually said (or not said) by others, or the NEC for that matter.

I thought I was already on your ignore list since you haven't answered numerous questions or provided proof of your assertions.

A pullout disconnect would satisfy the requirement for a maintence disconnect.

You also ignored the question about why you think codes from the future would apply to this installation.

The CSST only requires to be bonded once. Just because it was not done within the scope of the photograph does not mean it was not done anywhere.

PS proper sentence structure using spacing would help.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

I can't help but notice how many threads on this board are regressing into nothing more than 3-way arguments replete with name calling and insults where the participants keep trying to one up and demean each other. You guys may know your stuff and you have helped me in the past but I don't know who to take seriously anymore because all you seem to want to do is prove the other guy is wrong.

I'm all for not ignoring bad behaviors on this board if I feel somebody is being a dick. But can't you guys take your pissing matches off-line and do it in PMs?

I hear you Nick and I should have stopped at "Can we agree to disagree" Let me make it up to you with a HI story. First let me tell you that I am not a HI.

I was approached by a beautiful woman. She was first class, impeccably dressed in business attire and not a hair out of place. She explained that she had made an offer on a house and a HI had written up the fact that there was no fire wall between the house and the attached garage. She wanted to know what that entailed and what it might cost. She was a serious sort and listened to my explanation. When I told her that it could cost between $600 to $1000 she looked at me hard in the eye and said, "Well then I am going to tell Mr. Smith{seller} that he must drop the price $1000 or he can kiss my a$$." Did I mention that she was very pretty? So there she was with her serious look on her face and I said, "Well I don't think that's going to work out for you". Still serious she says "Well why not?", and then she realized what she had said and what I meant, smiled real pretty like and strode out of the office.

Since I am not a HI, I really have no business weighing in on a forum devoted to the HI business. Please accept my apology for having mucked it up and enjoy your forum.

If the woman was as attractive as you say David, the seller might have been more than happy to take the buyer up in the latter part of her offer.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

The difference between fuses and a disconnect is that fuses require servicing whereas a disconnect does not.

I realize you think you know this to be the case, and most likely due to questions/answers posed/presented at an IAEI Chapter meeting, (which are often quoted, but are not authoritative, and occasionaly downright wrong when the assigned "volunteer" responds to a question)

Originally Posted by WRONG ANSWER, WHAT JUDGE?!? The Same guy who couldn't see the language of the subsection or read 110.26?

Quest. Is a non-fused air conditioner disconnect required to meet the working clearance requirements in 110.26

Ans. 110.26(A).
A disconnect switch is not judged ( ?!?) to require servicing while energized. If the disconnect has fuses, overloads, or Circuit Breakers inside, 110.26 applies. The disconnect must be readily accessible and within sight of the unit per 440.14.

The control panel on the AC unit should have sufficient access for service personnel and otherwise meet 110.26.

Guess David B and others missed "a memo" for the western annual meeting bounced on this as well, then finally got it right thusly, in this RIGHT ANSWER (quoting CMPs):

Originally Posted by THE RIGHT ANSWER IAEI West Sect

Question: The disconnects for A/C units shown behind outside condensers. Are these disconnects required to meet 110.26? Does it make a difference if they are fused or non-fused?

Answer: Yes they are required to meet the clearances prescribed by 110.26.

There was a proposal to the 2008 via proposal 11-94 to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in 440.14 to require disconnecting means to comply with 110.26. The Panel rejected with a Panel statement: "Section 110.26 already applies per 90.3".

A similar proposal was included in the 2011 ROP, which was to add a FPN to 440.14 to remind code users that 110.26 apply. The Panel accepted, however the TCC has directed the Panel to reconsider, since there is no need to duplicate 110.26 in accordance with 4.1 of the NEC Style Manual, i.e. 90.3.

Regarding the question of fused vs. nonfused, 110.26 (A) requires adequate working space for equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance while energized. Accordingly, whether fuses are installed or not, service personnel will check for the presence of voltage on the line and load side of the disconnect. Yes the requirements of 110.26 would be applicable, regardless of fused or nonfused disconnect.

Code Reference: 110.26 & 90.3.

It makes no difference, 110.26 DOES apply. I quoted 110.26 (and 110.26(A)) in an earlier post, try reading it. Operating a 600V or less 800 A or less, disconnect (so as to disconnect the load from its energizing source) while energized, is the primary function of a disconnect, the requirement is to be able to do so safely for personnel doing same.

Mr. Watson,

The person I must answer to is the chief electrical engineer and he disagrees with the conclusion stated. If you could be so kind as to provide me with an authoritative reference that I can present to the CEE, perhaps my discussion with him can continue. You mention a meeting where this information was adopted but I don't know who had the meeting or whether they can speak for the NEC/NFPA.

I am one of more than 100 inspectors at this AHJ so it takes some convincing to achieve changes.

Thanks

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Mr. Watson,

The person I must answer to is the chief electrical engineer and he disagrees with the conclusion stated. If you could be so kind as to provide me with an authoritative reference that I can present to the CEE, perhaps my discussion with him can continue. You mention a meeting where this information was adopted but I don't know who had the meeting or whether they can speak for the NEC/NFPA.

I am one of more than 100 inspectors at this AHJ so it takes some convincing to achieve changes.

Thanks

I provided reference and citation to Code Making Panel(s), please try reading again, you'll see referenced ROP a number and a referenced edition cycle followed by the panel's statement in "'s.

The CMPs for NFPA 70 are referenced in the second quote.

However your answering for yourself and your incorrect assertions here.

110.26(A) is a part of 110.26. One MUST read 110.26 as well as 110.26(A). There are more than "servicing" provisions for the disconnect itself which are covered for equipment 600V and less.

Which california chapter of IAEI you a member of? What CEE, which "jurisdiction" office. What's the EE's name? A CEE if shown the entirety of what I had just posted and you just responded to, would have recognized the references to ROPs, NFPA 70, & references to the TCC and application of appropriate edition of the Style book. Further an EE would be aware of the ANSI standards referenced in the listing standards, relative to the installation of such equipment.

However, the installation wasn't in "California" IIRC, so its rater inconsequential - and this is not a code site or a code inspection site.

"this is not a code site or a code inspection site". Well said, Watson, well said indeed.