Code regarding flood stopper solenoid valve tied on to light switch

[h1h2h3]

Hi All,

I'm an in house electrician for a commercial real estate company. Recently we had a major flood due in part to the fact that the receptacle for the flood stopper solenoids class 2 transformer was tied into and controlled by the kitchen light switch. The tenant is trying to hold us responsible for the flood. I believe this is ridiculous since their office build out was done by an outside electrical contractor who should have known better then to connect a flood stopper, which requires constant power to the lv transformer in order to function effectively. However, the tenant wants specific code articles to prove it was an error on their contractors part. Needless to say I'm having a hard time doing so. So far I've come up with 110.12 (neat and workman like manner), 110.3 (A+B), and that's about it. I am interested to see if there is anything in the code that would expressly prohibit this. I wish their was a code article siting that all dumb installations and gross acts of negligence shall be prohibited. I understand that per 90.1 (a, b, and c) the code does not guarantee an installation that makes sense. I was wondering if you guys could please list any articles that you know of that would make this installation a code violation.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

 

[david]

Hi All,

I'm an in house electrician for a commercial real estate company. Recently we had a major flood due in part to the fact that the receptacle for the flood stopper solenoids class 2 transformer was tied into and controlled by the kitchen light switch. The tenant is trying to hold us responsible for the flood. I believe this is ridiculous since their office build out was done by an outside electrical contractor who should have known better then to connect a flood stopper, which requires constant power to the lv transformer in order to function effectively. However, the tenant wants specific code articles to prove it was an error on their contractors part. Needless to say I'm having a hard time doing so. So far I've come up with 110.12 (neat and workman like manner), 110.3 (A+B), and that's about it. I am interested to see if there is anything in the code that would expressly prohibit this. I wish their was a code article siting that all dumb installations and gross acts of negligence shall be prohibited. I understand that per 90.1 (a, b, and c) the code does not guarantee an installation that makes sense. I was wondering if you guys could please list any articles that you know of that would make this installation a code violation.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

you need to look at the manufactures installation instructions. If you find little or no help their I doubt that their is any liability in regards to the kitchen lighting branch circuit. Remember statements given here are unofficial opinions, many here are experts in their fields but no one here is giving expert advise or an expert opinion

 

[h1h2h3]

To clarify I am not looking for expert advise or opinions or to use this as legal ammunition. I simply want to be able to provide code references if possible to back up my argument. 110.3 is one of the answers I came up with really the only viable one I found to hold weight, manufacturers instructions

 

[JDBrown]

Sorry, I don't know of any Code articles that specifically prohibit being a knucklehead. I mean, really, whether it's a Code violation or not, how can anyone in their right mind expect a piece of electrically-operated equipment to work if they've turned off the power to it?

I had a whole response typed up, commiserating with you about how there's no way to make your case using the Code, but as I was about to click "Post" I happened to glance down at my Code book, and I noticed Article 110.22(A). So I deleted my original response in favor of this:

110.22 Identification of Disconnecting Means.
(A) General. Each disconnecting means shall be legibly marked to indicate its purpose unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

I think this may be your best bet as far as citing the Code goes. The tenant could always argue that it doesn't apply because the receptacle -- not the light switch -- is the disconnect for the flood stopper, but the more I look at 110.22(A) the better I think your chances are. After all, it says "each disconnecting means," not just the required disconnecting means.

Show them 110.22(A) and ask to see the permanent sign next to the kitchen light switch advising everyone that it also controls power to the flood stopper. If, by some miracle, they have such a sign, then politely suggest that whatever knucklehead turned that switch off is responsible for the flood damage.

 

[david]

though I agree that the receptacle should not have been controlled from the light switch for the kitchen lighting. Is the kitchen light switch the control for the kitchen light(S) or are you defining it as a required disconnect for the kitchen light or lights.

I just do not see any help in these sections of the code to make the above argument, I do agree with the knuckle head portion of your post.

 

[JDBrown]

While there's no question that the kitchen light switch is the control for the kitchen lights, it is also a disconnecting means for the lights and the flood stopper. It may not be THE code-required disconnecting means, but it is A disconnecting means.

ARTICLE 100
Definitions
...
Disconnecting Means. A device, or group of devices, or other means by which the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their source of supply.

Since the kitchen light switch (indeed, any switch) meets the general definition of "disconnecting means", Article 110.22(A) applies. Unless it is somehow evident that one of the purposes of that switch is to cut power to the flood stopper (which I seriously doubt), the switch is required to be marked to indicate that purpose.

That's my take, anyway, and I think it could strengthen the OP's position.

 

[charlie b]

However, the tenant wants specific code articles to prove it was an error on their contractors part.

What places the burden of proof on your shoulders? What role did your company have in the design, installation, operation, or maintenance of this equipment? None, I should think. The person installing a system is responsible for what was installed. Period! The installing contractor is at fault here, not because their installation violated a code requirement, but rather because they created an installation that had a serious design weakness. The NEC does not address design weaknesses, it addresses minimum requirements for a safe electrical installation.

 

[david]

What if it is a three way or four way switch would it still be a disconnect for the kitchen lights.

My point is unless the switch is installed to serve the purpose of a disconnect. It should not be assumed that it is acting as a disconnect.

For instance if the rec. for the solenoid had a receptacle acting as a disconnect is it your position that a switch used to control that receptacle if one was installed for whatever reason would have to meet the requirements that you point to for a disconnect.

I just do not see a strong case being made that would be helpful for op

 

[charlie b]

Is the kitchen light switch the control for the kitchen light(S) or are you defining it as a required disconnect for the kitchen light or lights?

There is no requirement for a disconnect for a kitchen light, and so therefore no requirement to meet any labeling rule for disconnects. The only light that needs a disconnect is a double-ended fluorescent fixture with a ballast that can be serviced in place, and that rule does not apply to dwelling units. 410.30(G).

 

[david]

Sorry,
I think this may be your best bet as far as citing the Code goes. The tenant could always argue that it doesn't apply because the receptacle -- not the light switch -- is the disconnect for the flood stopper, but the more I look at 110.22(A) the better I think your chances are.

After all, it says "each disconnecting means,"

not just the required disconnecting means.

There is no requirement for a disconnect for a kitchen light, and so therefore no requirement to meet any labeling rule for disconnects. The only light that needs a disconnect is a double-ended fluorescent fixture with a ballast that can be serviced in place, and that rule does not apply to dwelling units. 410.30(G).

he is not saying it is a disconnect for the kitchen lights he saying the control for the kitchen lights is a disconnect installed in series with the solenoid for the flood control. He is saying that the rule does not mandate that it be a required disconnect that it is enough that it is disconnecting the rec. at the solenoid.

I am simply saying that I do not see that as a strong argument that will be helpful to the OP

 

[acrwc10]

Unless it is a defined circuit like a ''small appliance branch circuit" or a "furnace circuit" etc. by default it is "lighting circuit" per section 220. If one pulls power off of an outlet on a "lighting circuit" it seems reasonable to check to see if it is controlled by a Switch.

 

[h1h2h3]

Thank you all very much for your input. Your wealth of knowledge and advanced application of the NEC is always appreciated. Cheers.

 

[qcroanoke]

I looked up the manufacturers instructions and nowhere did it mention the outlet must be hot at all times in order for it to work as required.
However if I was on that jury I would never side with the installing electrician or the person that was trying to put it back on the building's owner. JMO