Time Clock as a disconnect

[iwire]

Iwire , 680.12 "One or more means to disconnect all ungrounded conductors shall be provided for all utilization equipment other than lighting......."

Key words; all utilization equipment The timer needs a disconnect as far as I can tell just for the fact that it uses electricity, as well as the reasons Ron pointed out.

Interesting read on that.

Do you regularly see disconnects, other than the branch circuit OCP installed on the line side of time clocks?

 

[M. D.]

I'm not sure the question is relevant , but no ,not often enough. Have you ever tried to change the "guts" of a time clock without a disconnect on the line side and no access to the ocpd??

 

[iwire]

Have you ever tried to change the "guts" of a time clock without a disconnect on the line side and no access to the ocpd??

When is the OCPD not accessible?

It is required to be accessible.

Don't misunderstand me, I would not use a time clock as a disconnecting means.

I just feel the original poster brought up a good question as far as the NEC goes on this.

 

[iwire]

Larry I am not sure I agree with this route for a red tag.

A T/C is a controller just like a starter.

Both make the motor go.

Disconnect req'd on line side.

A single pole toggle switch is as much a controller as a time clock.

 

[M. D.]

When the door is locked. I'm not the homeowner, I'm the service guy.

 

[iwire]

When the door is locked. I'm not the homeowner, I'm the service guy.

Than it looks like your making another trip.

By the way....who said the clock for this pool is not in the house at the panel.

 

[M. D.]

Who said it is?? You did not answer my question. Have you ever run into this problem? as a "service guy" I mean?

It would be a trip I would hate to make, and one that the homeowner would hate to pay for.

It is required , 680.12 is clear ,"All utilization equipment..." until someone can show me a time clock that does not use the flow of electricity , it will require a disconnect.

 

[iwire]

MD welcome to the forum, may I suggest you 'lighten up' a bit.

Who said it is?? You did not answer my question. Have you ever run into this problem? as a "service guy" I mean?

Have I as a service guy run into the problem of accessing equipment?

Well yeah.....of course....it goes with the job.

Have I run into this problem at a pool involving a time clock?

No, never.

It would be a trip I would hate to make, and one that the homeowner would hate to pay for.

Guess they should be home if your going to working there or at least leave you with access.

It is required , 680.12 is clear ,"All utilization equipment..." until someone can show me a time clock that does not use the flow of electricity , it will require a disconnect.

Given the condition the opening poster described I would not put a disconect on the line side of the time clock, I would install it on the load side.

If the inspector wants to enforce 680.12 as you see it which IMO goes against common sense, than I would install one on both the line and load side of the clock.

There is no way I am going to set it up so that each time the homeowner shuts the pump off they need to reset the clock.


Bob

 

[M. D.]

Bob , I'm not heavy, I was just wondering if you had to make "the second trip" yourself. It is part of the job , but one that should be avoided whenever possible
Are you saying that the time clock does not fit the definition for utilization equipment?
I think it is important to know, to the best of our ability what N.E.C. requires .
If 680.12 is senseless in this regard then it should be changed.

The time clocks I have seen all have a manual switch for the homeowner , he / she can turn the pump on or off without effecting the time clock motor.

 

[iwire]

Bob , I'm not heavy, I was just wondering if you had to make "the second trip" yourself.

Fair enough, sometimes it is tough to tell someones tone without using the smiles.

Are you saying that the time clock does not fit the definition for utilization equipment?

Did I say that?

I think it is important to know, to the best of our ability what N.E.C. requires .

It is, I have said as mush many times.

If 680.12 is senseless in this regard then it should be changed.

I would support an exception for simple time clocks.

The time clocks I have seen all have a manual switch for the homeowner , he / she can turn the pump on or off without effecting the time clock motor.

Isn't that what we have been talking about?

The home owner wants to clean out the strainer basket, they turn the pump off at the clock, start the maintenance and then the clock kicks in.

I don't read 680.12 Maintenance Disconnecting Means as a disconnecting means just for electrical maintenance but also for general pool maintenance.

IMO The only way to be entirely code compliant and provide a good design for the customer is to provide a disconnecting means on both sides of the time clock.

The one on the load side would be there for daily use by the home owner for pool maintenance and the one on the the line side would be there to comply with code but almost never be used.

Bob

 

[M. D.]

Bob I can't manipulate the little smiley guys as of yet. (insert smiley guy in your mind)

You may not have said it but it is implied , if you don't think 680.12 applies to the time clock.(insert smiley guy in your mind)


I guess your right if you had your hand inside the pool motor or the time clock motor , for whatever reason I would hope that any of us would want to be able disconnect the supply . I think we agree after all.(insert smiley guy in your mind)

 

[iwire]

You may not have said it but it is implied

I think if you read carefully you will see I implied ignoring the specific wording.

Of course I would never willfully ignore a code rule and inspectors never overlook a specific rule when they see an installation that is safe.

Bob I can't manipulate the little smiley guys as of yet

Understood.

Click Here

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

As far as service calls, I did a lot of them, it is how I built my business. You learn the hard way sometimes.
What it came down to was scheduling someone there or having access permitted by the guard or some other means... or a payment for lost time if arranged access was denied.

Did I ever have to go back twice... sometimes more than twice, a few times never actually getting access.

 

[M. D.]

Bob , I'm new here but , "ignoring the specific wording" ?? I don't get the nuance ?

I also know who is liable for the work performed and it isn't the inspector.
There are jobs every day , in every state that have all sorts of violations and they pass inspection , most of which the inspectors saw as safe . What's your point?? I don't understand , even with the little smile guy. sorry.

680.12 says what it says and quite frankly I think it also makes sense .
Why is servicing the pool motor any more dangerous than servicing the time clock motor ?( electrically speaking ) . It is utilization equipment and it requires a disconnect.
Don't you agree?

 

[iwire]

Don't you agree?

I think it is fairly obvious I do not.

I am well aware of who is on the hook for any installation.

 

[M. D.]

Hey Bob , I guess we should agree to disagree.

 

[iwire]

Hey Bob , I guess we should agree to disagree.

MD that is fine, I do not expect that you should change your mind here.

It is just my opinion that the clock should be allowed to be on the line side of the local (in sight) disconnecting means.

The breaker can serve as the disconnecting means for the time clock just as they can for HVAC equipment etc.

Don't forget, I already stated that to be in true NEC compliance and provide a good design for the HO that a disconnecting means should be provided on both sides of the time clock.

 

[sandsnow]

Larry I am not sure I agree with this route for a red tag.



A single pole toggle switch is as much a controller as a time clock.

Hey Bob, not ignoring the discussion, just out of town. Really fast:

A SP toggle is a controller, but permitted under 430.109(C)(1) to serve as disc. means. More under 430.111; but gotta go - go -go out w/ the family

Of course that 1st section is limited to 2HP

 

[M. D.]

"The breaker can serve as the disconnecting means for the time clock just as they can for HVAC equipment etc".

Nope.

 

[iwire]

"The breaker can serve as the disconnecting means for the time clock just as they can for HVAC equipment etc".

Nope.

MD Your taking my words out of context.

It is just my opinion that the clock should be allowed to be on the line side of the local (in sight) disconnecting means.

The breaker can serve as the disconnecting means for the time clock just as they can for HVAC equipment etc.

The above quote was my opinion on the subject.

What I was trying to point out is that a breaker with a lockout device can be used as the disconnecting means for HVAC equipment.

You had asked me this question;

Why is servicing the pool motor any more dangerous than servicing the time clock motor ?(

To that I have to ask why is servicing a simple time clock more dangerous than servicing an HVAC unit?

And lastly one more time.

Don't forget, I already stated that to be in true NEC compliance and provide a good design for the HO that a disconnecting means should be provided on both sides of the time clock.