dishwasher means of disc.?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polarcat

Member
Ok, here is the deal. multifamily apt building dishwasher on a dedicated CB, hardwired to the unit. panel is not in sight. no other means of disconnect.

in review of the NEC 422.31B "the branch-circuit switch or circuit breaker shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means where the switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance or is CAPABLE of being in locked in the open position"

being that there is UL listed breaker lockouts availible, wouldnt that make this breaker only (set up) serve as the means of disconnect and be a code compliant instalation???. the word "capable" leads me to read it a s being OK. sounds silly but I am in a little battle with an owner that doesnt want to pay me and is grasping at anything he can. have a court date with him on friday..

Joe,
 

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
Cord and plug connection, switch in the counter backsplash, breaker lockout, and the installation of a dishwahser with a marked "off" position are among the typical means.

If I was you, I'd get a 5 dollar mountable-type breaker lockout for whatever manufacturer's breaker you used on that job, install it, and call it a job well done.
 
Last edited:

Polarcat

Member
mdshunk said:
Cord and plug connection, switch in the counter backsplash, breaker lockout, and the installation of a dishwahser with a marked "off" position are among the typical means.

If I was you, I'd get a 5 dollar breaker lockout from whatever manufacturer's breaker you used on that job, install it, and call it a job well done.

he had another contractor go in and put a cord and plug (behind the unit, voliation in itself, not accessible, have no way on getting in to prove it though) in and looking to take the $ (plus other silly stuff) off the top of my contract .

anyway, any ONE of the disc. means you listed is ok.
 

JES2727

Senior Member
Location
NJ
Polarcat, are you saying that you did not install a breaker lock, but because it will accept one if you wanted one this installation is compliant? Are you defining "capable of being locked in open position" as "the service tech could remove the panel cover, install a breaker lock, put the panel cover back on and lock out the breaker"? That's a hard sell, IMO.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
JES2727 said:
Polarcat, are you saying that you did not install a breaker lock, but because it will accept one if you wanted one this installation is compliant? Are you defining "capable of being locked in open position" as "the service tech could remove the panel cover, install a breaker lock, put the panel cover back on and lock out the breaker"? That's a hard sell, IMO.

I think that is what he is asking. If that is the case... No it is not code compliant.
 

Polarcat

Member
JES2727 said:
Polarcat, are you saying that you did not install a breaker lock, but because it will accept one if you wanted one this installation is compliant? Are you defining "capable of being locked in open position" as "the service tech could remove the panel cover, install a breaker lock, put the panel cover back on and lock out the breaker"? That's a hard sell, IMO.

yes i am saying that. and why whould you need to take the cover off. can install the typical one pole lockout devise to the face of the breaker. we have them in our shop.

what is the definition of capable? diff then "provide/d"
 

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
Polarcat said:
yes i am saying that. and why whould you need to take the cover off. can install the typical one pole lockout devise to the face of the breaker. we have them in our shop.
I think you're making this unnecessarily difficult. Every breaker manufacturer makes a lockout, purpose for their model(s) of breakers that will permanently install on the face of the breaker. I don't think those Brady/Panduit LOTO-type lockouts are going to pass muster.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Polarcat said:
yes i am saying that. and why whould you need to take the cover off. can install the typical one pole lockout devise to the face of the breaker. we have them in our shop.

what is the definition of capable? diff then "provide/d"


That would be counting on the repair technician to have every breaker lock brand avaiable. That ain't going to happen. It needs to be installed.
 

Polarcat

Member
Dennis Alwon said:
That would be counting on the repair technician to have every breaker lock brand avaiable. That ain't going to happen. It needs to be installed.

and why would i not assume that they would! do they have a diff set of OSHA reg then you and i have to follow?

the brady lockouts are UL listed (universal), so why not pass muster.

dont get me wrong, something so stupid is not worth this effort (will put in switch, in future), however they are just looking at taking $ off the bill. never gave me a punch list and or chance to correct anything. just saying here is a bill and we are not paying you.
 

JES2727

Senior Member
Location
NJ
Polarcat said:
the brady lockouts are UL listed (universal), so why not pass muster.
OK, I see what you're saying. I almost agree with you. You're right, the breaker is capable of being locked out with a Brady lockout. So why doesn't it pass muster? I don't know, except that I don't think it meets the intent. You're right also that it shouldn't matter that we're relying on the service tech to provide the lockout. If we install a permanent type lockout we're still relying on him to provide his own lock.
 

stickboy1375

Senior Member
Location
Litchfield, CT
To add another log to the fire, if that dishwasher is over 1/8th horsepower than the disconnecting means SHALL be within sight... so i would start with the HP before I argue about the breaker lock...
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Disconnect on a dishwasher? What's that?

Around here (southern New England area) we just hardwire them without a disconnect. Inspectors let it go all the time.

It's not right by the letter of the NEC but sometimes "regional practices" come into play. Like snap in bushings, for instance. ;)
 

stickboy1375

Senior Member
Location
Litchfield, CT
peter d said:
Disconnect on a dishwasher? What's that?

Around here (southern New England area) we just hardwire them without a disconnect. Inspectors let it go all the time.

It's not right by the letter of the NEC but sometimes "regional practices" come into play. Like snap in bushings, for instance. ;)


Pete, why not just rough in a receptacle and stop being a hack? :grin:
 

dhducati

Member
Location
Pennsylvania
stickboy1375 said:
To add another log to the fire, if that dishwasher is over 1/8th horsepower than the disconnecting means SHALL be within sight... so i would start with the HP before I argue about the breaker lock...

That is 422.32 (2005 NEC) disconnecting means for motor-driven appliance, requiring the disconnect to be located within sight from the motor controller.

I'm wondering when the not-within-sight part of 422.31(B) (2005 NEC) applies then? It allows a breaker lockout for permanently connected appliances over 300VA or 1/8 HP, when not in sight. It also states that "the provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed." This argues for installing the breaker-mounted lockout (and the service tech provides the lock).
 

splinetto

Senior Member
Location
Missouri
Is this new in 08?....Im not up on the changes as you are...Last I remember is that the on/off on the DW would suffice...What has changed? and then what about a double oven?
 

Polarcat

Member
99 code is in force then. now its the 02.

99 says nothing about installing the lockout,
and the code section i quoted is for the over 1/8hp or over 300va (correct me if wrong but you would be hard pressed to find a dishwasher under 300va) perm appliance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top