What's Wrong Here?

[jtedesco1]

What's Wrong Here?

Who is responsible for this working space violation?

[David A. Andersen]

In the commercial world, HVAC has first crack at location. However, the panels were set in accordance with the architectural plans. The architect should have taken into account the clearance requirements when placing the panels on the plan.

The HVAC contractor, who came in after the electrician should have addressed the clearance issues before installing the equipment. Moved their equipment or had the service moved. They did not install the equipment with correct clearance to the building , or each other so they were not addressing anything.

Who was to fault?
1. The architectural design is first. (slight overlook)
2. HVAC contractor is second. (should have known better)
3. The electrical inspector for allowing it to go.

But it "looks" nice!

[jtedesco1]

Thank you for your reply, and I agree, just didn't want to blame the electrician.

May I submit your reply to my article in EC&M, with credit to your company and other information, of course?

If I may I have many HACR and HVAC electrical images that I would like to pass by you for comments here, it is all for learning and to show what is acceptable.

Joe

[David A. Andersen]

Shure, anything I post on this bulletin board is for anyone to use. Thanks for asking.

HVAC and Electrician issues create a big gray area sometimes. The Electrician brings the electrical service to the unit, but it's up to the HVAC contractor to ensure its suitability for use.

One additional note on your posted picture, mechanical clearances require an 18 inch access to service panel's on HVAC equipment. However, even if the unit is 18 inches away from the wall it still falls within the clearance requirement area , 30" x 36" for an electrical panel access. This is a good example of how HVAC contractors (as well as home inspectors) must understand electrical code, even though we are not here to enforce it (and some refuse to even talk about).

[Bob Badger]

The installation looks great and IMO is not a safety issue.

Before we get carried away lets look at the actual code rule.

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 comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (2), and (3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.

Remember the local AHJ gets to decide if the disconect switches are going to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.

There is a way to de-energize the disconect before performing examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance.

Not all AHJs use a 'one interpretation fits all' approach.

Some actually judge each installation on it's own merits.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by Bob Badger

The installation looks great and IMO is not a safety issue.

Before we get carried away lets look at the actual code rule.



Remember the local AHJ gets to decide if the disconect switches are going to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized.

There is a way to de-energize the disconect before performing examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance.

Not all AHJs use a 'one interpretation fits all' approach.

Some actually judge each installation on it's own merits.

Thanks Bob . I see no easy way that it can be made better.
These are normaly used a isolation switches for the trades to do work .
Looks sensible to me .
Roy Cooke sr .. Royshomeinspection.com

[bkelly1]

I have been in the situation many times. It also comes down to the trades working together, and the electrician checking submittals on the heights of the disconnects. It could have been much better, but it appears you could work on the disconnect if needed. I guess a rack could have been built off the the side with all the disconnects on it, but talk about a price increase......

The rule would be better if it were for Service Equipment, and Load centers. There needs to be some allowance for Disconnects that are rarely used, and when used do not take long to trouble shoot, or repair.


Joe, How many panels have you seen mounted above the Transformer that sets on the floor? I have seen many, that passed inspection, I cant seem to find a picture though.

[Bob Badger]

Originally Posted by bkelly1

I guess a rack could have been built off the the side with all the disconnects on it, but talk about a price increase......

I agree and will add at some point we should also take into consideration how it looks. Well after we have left the job the building owner is stuck with our work.

Truthfully that looks like any number of Hotels we have down and sometimes we would mount the switches even lower.

And you know what?

The inspectors look at it and have no problem.

On the other side of the coin there are some local inspectors that must be disciples of Joe Ts classes as they force us to give three feet on pretty much everything.

To keep on rambling this examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized should be a moot point as that type of work almost always is an OSHA violation even with PPE.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

What's Wrong Here?

Who is responsible for this working space violation?

I feel Joe could be helping HIs better if he quit trying to teach code.
He would have a better understanding of our profession if he went on a couple of hundred inspections
and saw the things we have to really be concerned about .
He is not helping the newer inspectors with all his posts it only tends to confuse them .
I and I guess a lot more just tend to ignore the larger amount of his posts.
Roy Sr
</IMG>

[jtedesco1]

Ben:

Transformmers are installed in front of panelboards at many locations, and it seems that this condition was overlooked or not cited because of some old school thinking.

What does the CEC say about this Roy?

There are situations that will come back to haunt us if someone gets hurt!

How would a Lawyer look at this issue, I agree that the equipment may be reached, but if the cause of the accident was determined to be electrical you lose!

I am on the Amtrak now on my way to Maryland to present a seminar, and the NACHI material I have gives this interpretation too.

I just don't get it, why is this such a problem? The original argument was mentioned in the first post here and that's why it is in the HVAC area, see the excellent comments by David.

[Bob Badger]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

I just don't get it, why is this such a problem?

It's not a problem.

But the world does not revolve around electrical installations.

As a mutual acquaintance of ours would say;

Theres a real world out there

The NFPA left this call up to the local AHJ / Inspector to determine if the equipment needs to be serviced while energized.

That is why those words are in the requirement.

Each AHJ gets to use their own judgment on this issue.

Life is good.

[jtedesco1]

Bob:

Theres a real world out there

JR or LM?

How would the answer on an examination be considered, go ahead and make up four stems, a., b., c., and d., and tell me which one will get the answer scored right?

[Greg Fretwell]

This working clearance thing on HVAC disconnects is certainly a local case by case call. I see it going both ways, sometimes depending on the location.
If you have an air handler in a closet or in the attic there is no way to get full working clearance so the same guy who would tag those condensers seems to not see that air handler as being a problem.
I like the clearance, mostly to make them convenient enough that the tech will actually use them.

[David P. Valley]

So... (in an everyday situation) Is this installation fine?

[Bob Badger]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Bob:

[i]

JR or LM?

Your good.

LM.