proper disconnect?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike L.

Member
this question has led to an impasse by some knowledgable enginners and inspectors. air conditioning unit has a factory installed power disconnect [non-fused] wired inline with properly sized unit fusing, both within easy view of each other. the manufacturer has wired this way for many years and carries ETL label. some inspectors say that this doesn't comply with code, but all electrical enginners that have review this wiring approve it.
is there a definitive ruling?
 
iwire said:
Authority Having Jurisdiction

Who that is can sometimes be tough to determine.
Click to expand...

The guy who I thought was the AHJ isn't, necessarily, nor his boss, maybe the SED board, but then again our AG has a say and don't forget the insurance companies... Whoever it is, don't get on their list or you may end up talking to one or more of the others. I thought it was all easy until I started visiting here.
 
mpd said:
what about 90.7
Click to expand...

What about it? :-?

None of us are mind readers. (At least I don't think so. :smile: )

IMO 90.7 does not require an AHJ to accept listed equipment.

Here in MA we have a amendment to 90.4 that requires the AHJ to accept listed and labeled equipment.
 
iwire said:
What about it? :-?

None of us are mind readers. (At least I don't think so. :smile: )

IMO 90.7 does not require an AHJ to accept listed equipment.

Here in MA we have a amendment to 90.4 that requires the AHJ to accept listed and labeled equipment.
Click to expand...
If an AHJ rejects a listed piece of equipment which is manufactured using listed electrical compenents, isn't he still obligated to consider the listed component design portion which falls under NEC jurisdiction.

In other words, say the AHJ does not recognize ETL listings but recognize UL listings. The disconnecting means section of the ETL listed equipment is comprised of UL listed components. Should he, or not, determine compliance based on the components?
440.14 Location. Disconnecting means shall be located within sight from and readily accessible from the air-conditioning or refrigerating equipment. The disconnecting means shall be permitted to be installed on or within the air-conditioning or refrigerating equipment.
____The disconnecting means shall not be located on panels that are designed to allow access to the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment or to obscure the equipment nameplate(s).

Exceptions omitted for brevity
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
The AHJ can refuse to accept listed equipment. The NEC does not require the AHJ to approve any equipment.
Click to expand...

I'm painfully aware of that, I was assuming it has something to do with the disconnects in series...

I didn't realize it was purely an inspector - UL vs. ETL deal...
 
The real argurment that is proposed by some inspectors[this particular episode is in Florida] is whether a non-fused disconnect with properly sized fusing on the load side is a proper over current protection device. the inspectors usually want the electrician to install a fused disconnect external to the equipment. but we believe that 2 separate components are in compliance with NEC
 
Mike L. said:
The real argurment that is proposed by some inspectors[this particular episode is in Florida] is whether a non-fused disconnect with properly sized fusing on the load side is a proper over current protection device. the inspectors usually want the electrician to install a fused disconnect external to the equipment. but we believe that 2 separate components are in compliance with NEC
Click to expand...

There should be no argument.
The important thing is the disconnect (with or without OCP).
 
Mike L. said:
The real argurment that is proposed by some inspectors[this particular episode is in Florida] is whether a non-fused disconnect with properly sized fusing on the load side is a proper over current protection device. the inspectors usually want the electrician to install a fused disconnect external to the equipment. but we believe that 2 separate components are in compliance with NEC
Click to expand...


So! Has the inspecting authority cited a legal document that has been violated?? (such as the NEC)????
 
I don't see how any inspector can cite 90.4 for listed equipment that is installed in accordance with the listing & labeling and there are no NEC issues, IMO that is not the purpose of 90.4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top