Service Entrance Rated Fused Disconnect

[ABP Electric Inc.]

I agree, he is an idiot. 230.70c isn't applicable the way he is using it. The reference is environment. As another stated, it is a listed disconnecting means, so "accessibility" isn't a reason to shut down per 230.70c. If it was a corrosive environment and the disconnect was deteriorating , that would be covered. 110.26 is just dumb. "accidental" isn't over riding the door interlock, and opening the door in the energized position and then sticking your hand in, isn't accidental.
408. Have the inspector read the definitions, a disconnect isn't a switchboard, panelboard or switchgear. The code is very specific. And a disconnect doesn't have a dead front.

Thank you for your input and knowledge.

 

[ABP Electric Inc.]

That's not a definition based answer, just an assertion. Although I agree that is my preconception and understanding of common usage.

So what part of the definition excludes typical disconnect switches? Is it the part about buses, looking at a few pictures it looks like there are generally no buses? Do they ever have buses?

Thanks,
Wayne

Thanks for your input Wayne.

 

[jap]

110.26 (E)(2)(a)(2) requires protection from accidental contact by unauthorized persons.

The problem with this rule is it doesn't expand on exactly what you cant make accidental contact with.

JAP>

 

[zbang]

Unauthorized contact?? Throw a lock on it. Otherwise, that rule would pretty much make all outdoor panels a violation unless further enclosed in cabinets or within a fence. If that's the case, there are a gazillion violations out there for houses with outside panels.

 

[jap]

Unauthorized contact?? Throw a lock on it. Otherwise, that rule would pretty much make all outdoor panels a violation unless further enclosed in cabinets or within a fence. If that's the case, there are a gazillion violations out there for houses with outside panels.

By the way that rule reads ,,,, you couldn't even brush up against a piece of electrical equipment with your shoulder and not be a violation.

With the inspectors mention of "kids" that may be the way he's interpreting the meaning of an unauthorized person.

JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

I like how he puts "Jackson county school board" in his signature. Get real.....Sounds like a real big shot.

 

[jap]

Unauthorized contact?? Throw a lock on it. Otherwise, that rule would pretty much make all outdoor panels a violation unless further enclosed in cabinets or within a fence. If that's the case, there are a gazillion violations out there for houses with outside panels.

But the rule doesn't indicate contact with "energized parts" it simply indicates unauthorized "contact".

Simply touching a piece of electrical equipment could be considered contacting it.

Just sayin.

JAP>

 

[zbang]

This gets back to "the inspector is an idiot".

 

[electrofelon]

This gets back to "the inspector is an idiot".

So many possible temping replies to the inspector in a case like this:

1. You've never seen a fused safety switch used as a service disconnect? How long have you been doing this like a week?

2. Where did you get your inspection certificate? A correspondence course?

3. There are these things called strip malls, go walk behind one sometime.

4. What exactly would we use a service rated fused disconnect for then?

5. Where did you get your inspection license? From the school board?

6. Are you just a substitute today? I have heard of substitute teachers but not a substitute inspector.

 

[zbang]

It would be "instructive" to know if this inspector would allow a NEMA 3r or 4 enclosure to be installed outdoors.

(Little to none of this helps the OP, but it's still entertaining.)

 

[Strathead]

But the rule doesn't indicate contact with "energized parts" it simply indicates unauthorized "contact".

Simply touching a piece of electrical equipment could be considered contacting it.

Just sayin.

JAP>

The wording is "accidental contact". I would be much more concerned about a typical dry type transformer and a kid with a conductive stick.

 

[jap]

The wording is "accidental contact". I would be much more concerned about a typical dry type transformer and a kid with a conductive stick.

And you'd have every right to interpret that rule that way should you choose to do so the way it is written.

There was a saying on this forum that a rule says what it says, not what we think it should say or what we'd like for it to say, or something to that extent..

Accidental contact by an unauthorized person could mean in some persons mind as meaning a child making contact with an energized piece of electrical equipment that may become energized by some malfunction.

So, is it the inspector really that far off base , or, does the rule need stated more clearly?

JAP>

 

[zbang]

Why not both?

 

[jim dungar]

Accidental contact by an unauthorized person could mean in some persons mind as meaning a child making contact with an energized piece of electrical equipment that may become energized by some malfunction.

Can you provide an example of a metallic enclosure or structure that could never become energized?

Using this rationale, unqualified persons, especially children, should not be allowed to contact all appliances and hard piped plumbing fixtures.

 

[jap]

Can you provide an example of a metallic enclosure or structure that could never become energized?

Using this rationale, unqualified persons, especially children, should not be allowed to contact all appliances and hard piped plumbing fixtures.

Can you name a piece of electrical equipment that you could never make accidental contact with?

I can't.

If that's the case then why is it written that way?

JAP>

 

[jap]

Why not both?

I agree completely.

JAP>

 

[jim dungar]

Can you name a piece of electrical equipment that you could never make accidental contact with?

I can't.

If that's the case then why is it written that way?

JAP>

The section is addressing surfaces where proper grounding reduces the shock risk. The NEC assumes proper grounding renders metallic surfaces safe.

 

[ABP Electric Inc.]

He finally seen my point of view.

Subject: RE: Permit # 14832 - 20320 Central Ave. W, Blountstown, FL



Provide a padlock on the service panel that is located outside the enclosed (fenced) area, and authorization to connect will be issued. Be advised, however, that if the service panel, at any time, is without the lock in place (unlocked), the power will be disconnected without further notice.

Thanks,



James W. Grant

Florida Building Code Administrator

Building Official:

City of Marianna

City of Blountstown

Chipola College

Jackson County School Board

Cell: 850-526-8367

jameswgrant@outlook.com

 

[roger]

So he approved with a threat, classy.

 

[hillbilly1]

He finally seen my point of view.

Subject: RE: Permit # 14832 - 20320 Central Ave. W, Blountstown, FL



Provide a padlock on the service panel that is located outside the enclosed (fenced) area, and authorization to connect will be issued. Be advised, however, that if the service panel, at any time, is without the lock in place (unlocked), the power will be disconnected without further notice.

Thanks,



James W. Grant

Florida Building Code Administrator

Building Official:

City of Marianna

City of Blountstown

Chipola College

Jackson County School Board

Cell: 850-526-8367

jameswgrant@outlook.com

No you called him on it, and now he is pissed off because he was shown he was wrong. LOL!