Installation of disconnect on exhaust fan

Status
Not open for further replies.

rlqdot

Member
Location
St. Louis, MO - USA
Occupation
Professional Engineer (multiple states) - building design
I am an engineer, not an installer. One of my clients has a completed installation (in California, but this question would apply Anywhere, USA) where the electrical contractor installed the maintenance disconnect switch to a part of a roof-mounted exhaust fan that has to be tilted up to gain access to the fan for adjustment and maintenance. With the disco and conduit mounted where it is, the fan cannot be tilted without removing the disco - clearly not the intended method for turning off power to the fan and then performing maintenance.

The contractor has been told to relocate the disco but refuses until / unless someone can point to code or specification requirement that prohibit him from installing the disco as he has. Nothing in the spec to prohibit and I can't find anything in the code. I expected to see something in the "good workmanship" area but did not.

Can anyone point me to anything in writing that would force the contractor to install the disco so that the equipment can be serviced without disassembling the serving branch circuit?

Thanks!
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
I guess the NEC needs a "No Bozos" clause...
no_bozos.gif
:slaphead:

How about Article 100 under definitions, pertaining to the fan itself, not the disconnect.
Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being
reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections
without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite
to actions such as to use tools, to climb over or remove
obstacles
, or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.
So tell him that his installation of the disconnect has created a violation by making the fan no longer readily accessible, then rather than you dictating to him what he needs to do, tell him he can work it out with the HVAC contractor to decide who has to relocate, and neither of them is going to get paid until it is worked out. Takes you out of the equation.

Specific to his disconnect, I think he violated 110.26:
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.
So assuming the fan was there first, his location of the disconnect encroached into this space requirement for the fan. Even without being able to see it, I can't imagine how it can end up creating this situation without having violated at least one section of 110.26 or another.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
There is no requirement that a motor be readily accessible.

Short of a job specification I think you will be paying to move the switch.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
There is no requirement that a motor be readily accessible. ...
Hmmm... I was thinking of the motor as "electrical equipment", but come to think of it you're right, we've all seen motors buried in machines that are totally inaccessible without tearing the machine apart, or motors on trapeze mounted fans that cannot be accessed without a ladder or lift.
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
I am an engineer, not an installer. One of my clients has a completed installation (in California, but this question would apply Anywhere, USA) where the electrical contractor installed the maintenance disconnect switch to a part of a roof-mounted exhaust fan that has to be tilted up to gain access to the fan for adjustment and maintenance. With the disco and conduit mounted where it is, the fan cannot be tilted without removing the disco - clearly not the intended method for turning off power to the fan and then performing maintenance.

The contractor has been told to relocate the disco but refuses until / unless someone can point to code or specification requirement that prohibit him from installing the disco as he has. Nothing in the spec to prohibit and I can't find anything in the code. I expected to see something in the "good workmanship" area but did not.

Can anyone point me to anything in writing that would force the contractor to install the disco so that the equipment can be serviced without disassembling the serving branch circuit?

Thanks!

There may be something in the installation directions from the fan mfg that nothing is to be attached to the shroud or body of the fan.

Is there anything in the NEC that would prohibit the disco from being mounted to eqpt vs the building?
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
You won't find anything in the code or in the manufacturer instructions for having common sense when installing electrical equipment.

The only thing close that I found in the NEC is 440.14 location of disconnect. However, 440 is about air conditioning.

You may have the following in your favor
90.1(A)
90.1(B)
90.4
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
One of my clients has a completed installation (in California, but this question would apply Anywhere, USA) where the electrical contractor installed the maintenance disconnect switch to a part of a roof-mounted exhaust fan that has to be tilted up to gain access to the fan for adjustment and maintenance. With the disco and conduit mounted where it is, the fan cannot be tilted without removing the disco - clearly not the intended method for turning off power to the fan and then performing maintenance.

Well, no. You have to cut them some slack in California. Duuuude, just install that disco so we can grab our boards and get down to the beach. Surfs up!

Seriously, would it be OK to install a disco on a door next to a machine so that in order to open the door you would have to unwire the disco? The NEC doesn't address stupidity but not getting paid until it's changed does.

-Hal
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Hmmm... I was thinking of the motor as "electrical equipment", but come to think of it you're right, we've all seen motors buried in machines that are totally inaccessible without tearing the machine apart, or motors on trapeze mounted fans that cannot be accessed without a ladder or lift.

OK, re-re thinking this, the Article 100 definition of "equipment" seems to be inclusive of the fan, if not the motor;
Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices, appliances,
luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as a
part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.
So combined with 110.26, I think it's the electrician's problem.

I think if I were an AHJ, I'd bounce it. To paraphrase that Supreme Court Justice when ruling on a pornography case; "... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it..."
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
I am an engineer, not an installer. One of my clients has a completed installation (in California, but this question would apply Anywhere, USA) where the electrical contractor installed the maintenance disconnect switch to a part of a roof-mounted exhaust fan that has to be tilted up to gain access to the fan for adjustment and maintenance. With the disco and conduit mounted where it is, the fan cannot be tilted without removing the disco - clearly not the intended method for turning off power to the fan and then performing maintenance.

The contractor has been told to relocate the disco but refuses until / unless someone can point to code or specification requirement that prohibit him from installing the disco as he has. Nothing in the spec to prohibit and I can't find anything in the code. I expected to see something in the "good workmanship" area but did not.

Can anyone point me to anything in writing that would force the contractor to install the disco so that the equipment can be serviced without disassembling the serving branch circuit?

Thanks!

There may be something in the installation directions from the fan mfg that nothing is to be attached to the shroud or body of the fan.

Is there anything in the NEC that would prohibit the disco from being mounted to eqpt vs the building? Are the sections of flex too long w/o supports so that the disco can be moved?
 
There may be something in the installation directions from the fan mfg that nothing is to be attached to the shroud or body of the fan.

If the instructions describe opening the fan for adjustment, point that out to the installer.

"See? You gotta open the box here to adjust the fan. Where that disco is? Means ya can't open the box. Notice a problem? If ya can't open the box without removing the disco, kinda makes everything hard to work on, doesn't it? Move the disco."

I almost wonder if the electrician has some gripe with the GC or client.
 
You won't find anything in the code or in the manufacturer instructions for having common sense when installing electrical equipment.

The only thing close that I found in the NEC is 440.14 location of disconnect. However, 440 is about air conditioning.


For the record, the NEC does not define air-conditioning equipment and it's an exhaust fan so it is conditioning the air. :p
 

brantmacga

Señor Member
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Former Child
You sure the motor is below the hinge? Typically it's not, and the hinge is there to have access to the duct work for cleaning.

Either way, EC should not have installed in such a way to prevent opening the unit, but you'll prob have to pay them to move it and write a spec on future projects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Most roof top exhaust fans I have ever encountered could use a better design on how to get the power to them. Some are nearly impossible to mount any kind of disconnect on, even a simple toggle switch for a disconnect, and penetrating the roof a second time for a disconnect is just stupid.
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
For the record, the NEC does not define air-conditioning equipment and it's an exhaust fan so it is conditioning the air. :p

I agree!! But...

From the 2014 Handbook

"Article 440 does not apply unless a hermetic refrigerant motor compressor is supplied"
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I agree!! But...

From the 2014 Handbook

"Article 440 does not apply unless a hermetic refrigerant motor compressor is supplied"
Handbook commentary is the authors opinion and not official NFPA interpretation of what is published in the NEC.

But that comment pretty well summarizes what is mentioned in 440.1.
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Handbook commentary is the authors opinion and not official NFPA interpretation of what is published in the NEC.

But that comment pretty well summarizes what is mentioned in 440.1.

I know. But if it nonsense NFPA would not have allowed it.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
wouldn't it be nice if the CMP's changed 440.1 to read "Article 440 does not apply unless a hermetic refrigerant motor compressor is supplied"

As well as make similar simplifications throughout the code?:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top