230.71(B)

[don_resqcapt19]

Hello again,
I have been thinking about this change made to the 2 -6 disconnects rule with my fellow EC's.

Do I have this correct. If you have a main switch ahead of the multi-meter stack you do not need to have separate compartments and such.
Meaning you can have the style of meter stacks that have the meters on top and the breakers below with a flip top cover and barrier to the live parts when a breaker is installed.
If that is the case then it furthers my argument of the absurdity of the wording of this and many other codes.

You don't need a separate compartment on the load side of the disconnect because YOU can open the disconnect and create an electrically safe working condition. The ability for the electrician to create an electrically safe working condition is the whole reason for the rule.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You don't need a separate compartment on the load side of the disconnect because YOU can open the disconnect and create an electrically safe working condition. The ability for the electrician to create an electrically safe working condition is the whole reason for the rule.

Exactly my point, Electrical contractors are not allowed to pull a meter ( as they are locked) to make repairs behind. If someone breaks the seal or cuts the lock and then gets fried that's on them. Darwinism .

What electrical contractor will turn off the entire building to change a circuit breaker. The CMP once again created a so-called safer situation where one was not needed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Exactly my point, Electrical contractors are not allowed to pull a meter ( as they are locked) to make repairs behind. If someone breaks the seal or cuts the lock and then gets fried that's on them. Darwinism .

What electrical contractor will turn off the entire building to change a circuit breaker. The CMP once again created a so-called safer situation where one was not needed.e

The CMP acted to make an electrical system that can be worked one within the requirements of OSHA and 70E. I am aware of very large contractors who absolutely do no energized work other than troubleshooting and have "fired" clients that want them to work live. I worked in plants where working on anything live, even a 120 volt 2 amp PLC circuit, would get you walked out of the plant and possible get the contractor also escorted off the property for working live.

There is ZERO reason to work live!

If you want to do that, I really don't care, but it is not worth the risk for anyone to do that.

And for the clients that insist you have to work live and cannot schedule an outage for safe work, ask then what will happen of the live work results in an outage...one that will last 10s to 100s of times longer than the plan outage.

I understand you don't like this rule, and I really don't care. The rule is in the code...you had an opportunity to try to change it, but there are no PIs to change this, so you did not object to the rule enough to spent 10 minutes submitting a PI to try and make a change.

We are done discussing this issue.

 

[Sierrasparky]

The CMP acted to make an electrical system that can be worked one within the requirements of OSHA and 70E. I am aware of very large contractors who absolutely do no energized work other than troubleshooting and have "fired" clients that want them to work live. I worked in plants where working on anything live, even a 120 volt 2 amp PLC circuit, would get you walked out of the plant and possible get the contractor also escorted off the property for working live.
As you said ok to troublshoot live. Most of the time it is necessary to be live.
There is ZERO reason to work live!
You just gave one.
If you want to do that, I really don't care, but it is not worth the risk for anyone to do that.

And for the clients that insist you have to work live and cannot schedule an outage for safe work, ask then what will happen of the live work results in an outage...one that will last 10s to 100s of times longer than the plan outage.

I understand you don't like this rule, and I really don't care. The rule is in the code...you had an opportunity to try to change it, but there are no PIs to change this, so you did not object to the rule enough to spent 10 minutes submitting a PI to try and make a change.

We are done discussing this issue.

Boy did I hit a nerve. I must have something right in my gripe.

Ok so I think the problem is that you and some of the cronies here think that it is unsafe to pull a push in breaker in a 120/240v meter center. That you need to call the utility. Remember this is only a requirement if more than 6 meters and greater than 2.
So if there is only 1 meter then it is ok to change the main breaker as there is no switch ahead. I am speaking of a push in type. Think of what this code represents from a lawyers point. Ok to contact energized equipment one way but not the other. Make no reasonable sense.

As far as making a objection at the time , that was years before our republic adopted the stupid rule. Any objection made at the CA level would have gone nowhere and you know that. By the way during that time of the impleementation of this code My wife was dying of Cancer. This stupid code was not of my concern. I would hope that reasonable people would have made reasonable code changes without me. I guess that is one more place that reasonable people don't exist. ( The CMP's)

Then the claim made that should not be done live ever. Well the utility company does so. Are we supposed to turn off the neighborhood next because we cannot hire competent people to do that work. If the utility can pull a meter live then a properly trained electrician can do so safely.
With all due respect Don your explanations are not reasonable. IMHO

 

[augie47]

Opinions have been duly expressed.
Closing Thread