Permanent padlock provision

[hillbilly1]

We have an inspector that is requiring a permanent padlock attachment on a breaker, the problem is, it's an old Square D EHB, which is obsolete, and the attachment is no longer made. The motor it controls does have a lockable disconnect. I know I've seen the requirement before, but I can't remember where it was located. Anybody know it of the top of their head?

 

[S'mise]

430.102(b) 430.227

Can you take out the old sq D and just use the disc downstream? :lol:

 

[infinity]

If the motor already has it's own disconnect then why do you need a locking provision on the CB?

 

[hillbilly1]

If the motor already has it's own disconnect then why do you need a locking provision on the CB?

That's why I wanted to read the code requirement, I thought it strange that he wanted both.

 

[iwire]

The controller needs LOTO

 

[hillbilly1]

The controller needs LOTO

This is a self contained air compressor, so a disconnect meets the requirements of of 430, this is a podunk town, so its probably on of those "Inspects everything" inspectors.

 

[infinity]

This is a self contained air compressor, so a disconnect meets the requirements of of 430, this is a podunk town, so its probably on of those "Inspects everything" inspectors.

IMO the inspector is mistaken in his thought. I've heard many times that you need to kill all power to a piece of equipment with it's own integral disconnect.

 

[iwire]

This is a self contained air compressor, so a disconnect meets the requirements of of 430,

You had not mentioned that both the motor and controller where together., I had assumed the motor was remote from the controller with a lockable disconnect at the motor.

 

[iwire]

IMO the inspector is mistaken in his thought. I've heard many times that you need to kill all power to a piece of equipment with it's own integral disconnect.

I agree with you as far as current code but to be honest I think it would make sense for the NEC to require a lockable disconnect external to the equipment. Such as a lock at the breaker.

It would be easier to comply with 70E / OSHA.

 

[hillbilly1]

I agree with you as far as current code but to be honest I think it would make sense for the NEC to require a lockable disconnect external to the equipment. Such as a lock at the breaker.

It would be easier to comply with 70E / OSHA.

A lot of industrial engineers are starting to add that to the prints for that very reason.