Disconnect required in sight of a water heater

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eddy Current

Senior Member
Doesn't the code say that the disconnect for a water heater has to be within sight? I was at a condo the other day where the water heater was in a closet, but no disconnect, only a piece of plastic looking smurf flex that fed straight into a whole in the wall.
 
jumper said:
It depends on which code cycle the WH was installed.

The local disco was not always a requirement.
Click to expand...


2007 was when the condo was built, the house I live in now was built in the late 70s and it has the disconnect beside the water heater.
 
jumper said:
I believe in days of yore the breaker was allowed to be the disconnect without leaving a permenant means locking as long as you could put a portable lock on on.
Click to expand...

Really not sure, the means for a lock is a new one I agree.


But when I started in the early 80s I was taught if iI was wiring an appliance that does not plug in it gets a disconnect within sight. :)
 
Has 422.31 not allowed a permanent breaker lock as the disconnect for the last three or more Code cycles ?
 
jumper said:
Yes, but prior to that a permenant breaker lock device was not required. No?
Click to expand...

I went back to '99 Code and it appears to me a breaker lock was acceptable
since then unless I'm missing something
 
augie47 said:
I went back to '99 Code and it appears to me a breaker lock was acceptable
since then unless I'm missing something
Click to expand...

Yes, the '99 edition seems to be where this started. I looked at the '96 and the lockable requirement is not there, just that the breaker must be indicating and does not mention in sight.
 
JMO but the breaker lock option has been there for a long time, I think the intent was probably for the locking device to remain attached to the breaker when not in use but was not clarified until more recently with wording changes - maybe 2008?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top