WALK-IN COOLER FAN DISCONNECT

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

POSTELEC19

Member
IS A DISCONNECT REQUIRED INSIDE A WALK IN COOLER OR FREEZER FOR THE EVAPORATOR FANS. THE POWER FOR THESE FANS IS SUPPLIED BY THE COMPRESSOR/CONDENSERS ON THE ROOF. THE FANS ARE LESS THAN 1/8 HP. THERE ARE DISCONNECTS ON THE ROOF. THE REFRIGERATION PEOPLE SAY THEY DON'T WANT A SWITCH FOR THE FANS INSIDE BECAUSE IF IT WERE TURNED OFF, THE COMP/CONDENSER ON THE ROOF COULD FREEZE UP. THESE WALK-INS ARE THE TYPE IN SMALL RESTAURANTS.

THANKS
BP
 
Yes, Article 440.14 calls for a disconnecting means in-sight from refrigeration equipment unless the conditions of Exception One apply. I have seen the installation of a warning sign to inform people not to turn off the fans in the cooler because of the situation you describe. Maybe you can put the disconnect switch in a box that has a lock that is only accessible to qualified persons. Regardless, the disconnect switch is required to be readily accessible and with-in sight of the cooler fans.
 
gary b said:
Maybe you can put the disconnect switch in a box that has a lock that is only accessible to qualified persons.
Click to expand...
. . . and . . .
gary b said:
Regardless, the disconnect switch is required to be readily accessible and with-in sight of the cooler fans.
Click to expand...
Aren't those statements in conflict?
 
Please turn off the ALL CAPS feature. It makes the post more difficult to read. It is also considered impolite, as though you were SHOUTING at us.
 
Article 100 definition for readily accessible does not include locked doors in the language. Article 110.26 says that enclosures housing electrical apparatus that are controlled by a lock shall be considered accessible to qualified persons. I see no conflict in the statement as per the code. Where do you see a conflict?
 
gary b said:
Article 100 definition for readily accessible does not include locked doors in the language. Article 110.26 says that enclosures housing electrical apparatus that are controlled by a lock shall be considered accessible to qualified persons. I see no conflict in the statement as per the code. Where do you see a conflict?
Click to expand...
The difference between "accessible" and "readily accessible".

" . . . enclosures housing electrical apparatus that are controlled by a lock shall be considered accessible to qualified persons."
Click to expand...
But, is that considered "readily accessible"?

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.
Click to expand...
It seems that the latter is, or should be, less restrictive, meaning more easily approached, than the former.
 
I agree with what you say but I think something can be readily accessible and be behind a locked door and still be code compliant. Consider OCPD?s behind a locked mechanical room door with the panel cover locked also to prevent unauthorized persons from getting to the OCPD?s. The definition for readily accessible does not mention ?locked? like the definition of accessible does. Also 110.26 address? this also. Interesting!!!
 
LarryFine wrote:
It seems that the latter is, or should be, less restrictive, meaning more easily approached, than the former.
Click to expand...
_________________
Larry Be Great
Master Electrician :p

Sorry Larry, couldn't resist; just had to change that signature.
And I agree; something under lock and key is not readily accessible. :)
 
dlhoule said:
And I agree; something under lock and key is not readily accessible. :)
Click to expand...
I also agree with Larry.
Something under lock and key is not readily accessible.

David
 
I need to change my last post and use more specific terms.

Handbook commentary of "Accessible, Readily" page 13, "The definition of readily accessible does not preclude the use of a locked door for service equipment or rooms containing service equipment, provided those for whom ready access is necessary have a key (or lock combination) available. For example, 230.70(A)(1) and 230.205(A) require service disconnecting means to be readily accessible. Section 225.32 requires that feeder disconnecting means for separate buildings be readily accessible. A commonly used, permitted practice is to locate the disconnecting means in the electrical equipment room of an office building or large apartment building and to keep the door to that room locked to prevent access by unauthorized persons. Section 240.24(A) requires that overcurrent devices be so located as to be readily accessible."

This commentary says it is "commonly used, permitted practice", which is a statement that I don't disagree with, but need to add that this practice is not specified by the code. I don't think the use of a lock should always be permitted in situations that require equipment to be readily accessible.

The disconnect is "within sight" and not more than 50ft away. There is an expectation that the disconnect itself should be no less accessible than the equipment that it deenergizes for servicing. The definition for "accessible, readily" says that you should not have to "remove obstacles" for access. If you can access the equipment to service it, but can not access the disconnect, I would consider that an obstacle.

If there was a lockable door on the access to the wiring section of the equipment that was keyed with the same key as the disconnect, then there would be no difference in access. In my opinion, it would be acceptable to have a lock on the disconnect under that very specific situation.

David
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top