• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Chris&Dennis I need help

ICE

MODERATOR
Staff member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
13,878
Location
California
This is an AC disconnect that is part of a solar installation at a residence.

It is between the inverter and the service.

As you can see, there is no dead-front and it is not finger safe. [Finger safe isn't in the code but the Chief Engineer used the term so I figured what the Hell, I'll use it too. If he can make stuff up, why can't I? ;) Well duh! He is the Chief, and that's why.]

I don't like the fact that a kid can open it and get hurt but there it is next to a service panel.

110.27 says that the live parts are guarded against accidental contact because they are in an enclosure.

There is no mention of intentional contact by the uninitiated. Is that not an issue? Ever?

I can't even find a section that would require a lock on the door and I really want it gone.

I am taking tons of flak from nationwide solar companies.

Unless I can come up with a code section, they refuse to consider a change and there are a bunch of them being installed.

One dead child might convince them and that's what scares the Hell out of me.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

DSCN7284.jpg


DSCN7325.jpg


DSCN7383.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hang on TL, I believe I can speak for both Dennis and myself in stating we are not 690 experts so this will take some research. For starters I can say the means of attachment of the double lug appears to be in violation of 250.8(A) and the two conductors on the left in said lug are in violation of 110.3(B). (I'm guessing you knew that)
 
Ice I think you may have to let it go. Imo if the disco is listed without an inner cover then there is nothing you can do about it. I remember many years ago using a brand of disco that was similar to that. It is code compliant, IMO
 
Also a small child will have a hard time opening this disco as the handle must be turn off to open the turn. It is not that easy to pull the handle down as it takes some strength.
 
I only saw one pic when I responded. After seeing the others does that door not lock when the handle is on?

Or what Dennis just said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the kind of work I am dealing with. When I told the workman that this is wrong he said hold on I'll call our engineer. He put the phone on speaker without telling the engineer. The workman said, "We do it this way everywhere but an inspector is saying no, so what's up". The engineer said, "The inspector is right and we don't have a leg to stand on. Can you talk him out of it?"

DSCN7338.jpg
 
chris kennedy said:
I only saw one pic when I responded. After seeing the others does that door not lock when the handle is on?Or what Dennis just said.
The door won't open unless the handle is in the off position. In the off position the inverter shuts down and the normally load side is still live because it is back-fed from the service. The only way to kill the entire disconnect is to open the solar breakers at the service.

Any five year old can throw the switch and open the cover. I'm just not used to open terminals that anyone can get to at a residence.

At five I took apart my grandfather's lawn mower. I was into everything, with tools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations,

including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the

responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a

number of the rules.

100 Definitions.

Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

110.2 Approval.

The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.

(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

(2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided

(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
So now I have to convince the Chief Electrical Engineer to say no. I was hoping for a code section that said point blank that if you find something that is blatantly dangerous you can say no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never seen an inspector pull 90.4 if the equipment is listed. If that is the case the inspector can turn down every install because they don't like it. I think that is not a good thing to do.
 
Dennis,

If one accepts the premise that a problem exists, then it's not a stretch to deny the particular use of a listed product.

An AHJ has the authority to determine what is approved and what is not approved.

As far as a listing goes, it is the basis for approval if the AHJ decides to approve.

Listing does not mean that the AHJ shall approve.

Listing is a basis upon which a approval may be granted.

Listing is a tool that's available to an AHJ. Obviously most jurisdictions lack the wherewithal to test equipment so listing by a NRTL fulfills that requirement. An AHJ can evaluate equipment and rely on the listing or not.

In this case I choose not. There is a clear and present danger of a curious child opening the enclosure. It should be safe enough that the child or his dimwitted father will need a tool to expose live parts. That is the case with all other residential disconnects.

Would this disconnect be allowed in any other setting where the public has free access? The listing would allow that to happen but somehow it never does. Why is that the case? Is it the insurance companies? Why would we sanction such a disconnect in backyards?

90.7 Examination of Equipment for Safety. For specificitems of equipment and materials referred to in this Code,

examinations for safety made under standard conditions

provide a basis for approval where the record is made

generally available through promulgation by organizations

properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing,

inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service value

determination through field inspections.
Who is granting an approval per 90.7? It is not UL, CSA or any other NRTL. It is the AHJ that grants approval. Are we being told that the NRTL grants approval? No, we are being told that a listing by a NRTL can be taken as proof that the equipment meets certain criteria spelled out in certain Standards. That's all a NRTL is good for. The NRTLs do not write code, they do not enforce code, they are a resource for those that do write and enforce code.

Is there a standard that would prevent the condition I am addressing? I don't know but if there isn't, there should be.

Those that believe that a listing is tantamount to perfection and can't be denied miss the fact that we live in an imperfect world. I am but an inspector [some would say a butt of an inspector] and I have found deficiencies in listed equipment that have been borne out to be a deficiency by the NRTL that listed the equipment. In other words, I have found the mistakes made by a NRTL so why can't I "find" this mistake.

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.(A) Examination.

In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code

FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
I do realize that a Fine Print Note is not part of the enforceable code but it is there for the purpose of clarification. Here it says may. Nowhere in the code or any FPN does it say shall as in if equipment is listed it shall be approved. Quite to the contrary, I think that the code has been made abundantly clear that the opposite is true.

90.4 Enforcement.By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that

equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety. This Code may require new products, constructions, or

materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or

materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.
The AHJ has the authority to waive specific requirements and approve alternate methods based on what exactly? That would be based on the best judgment of the AHJ. How then is that same judgment not good enough to say, "Hold on, Shirley we can't approve this".

High desert communities have declared WEEB clips illegal within their jurisdiction. WEEB clips are listed. How were they able to do that? Well I'm convinced that I have shown you how and I want it done with these dangerous disconnects?

The city of Chicago banned Romex. That had to hurt and they did it anyway. Where did Chicago get the authority to do that? The code, that's where, it's in the code. No entity can force an AHJ to approve anything.

Remember this much. I can't do anything about anything because I'm just an inspector. The authority of the AHJ does not reside in me. Ultimately I will be told to sit down and shut up. Well I can be made to sit down....shutting me up is another thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This type of disconnect is allowed wherever a disconnect is needed. That is my point. I don't see the danger that you do in this product and IMO if it were dangerous then it would not be allowed in certain applications. That is not the case so IMO it does not warrant rejection. I realize an inspector has the right however I don't believe I have ever seen an inspector turn down a UL listed product. That would be a bad precedent and could lead to a nightmare of failures. Those disconnects are not easy to shut off and it must be shut to open the cover. Of course the line side is still hot but a child is not likely to pull that down.

Xmas tree lights are more dangerous than that disconnect. In the past the line voltage lights were the norm and how often were bulbs missing from the set. A child could easily stick their fingers in the socket. Do you turn down keyless sockets in a basement or crawl space that is easily reached by a child. What about the stove burners, oven elements, etc. We can only do so much and IMO, this is not one of them to bother with.
 
Dennis said:
This type of disconnect is allowed wherever a disconnect is needed. That is my point. I don't see the danger that you do in this product and IMO if it were dangerous then it would not be allowed in certain applications. That is not the case so IMO it does not warrant rejection. I realize an inspector has the right however I don't believe I have ever seen an inspector turn down a UL listed product. That would be a bad precedent and could lead to a nightmare of failures. Those disconnects are not easy to shut off and it must be shut to open the cover. Of course the line side is still hot but a child is not likely to pull that down. Xmas tree lights are more dangerous than that disconnect. In the past the line voltage lights were the norm and how often were bulbs missing from the set. A child could easily stick their fingers in the socket. Do you turn down keyless sockets in a basement or crawl space that is easily reached by a child. What about the stove burners, oven elements, etc. We can only do so much and IMO, this is not one of them to bother with.
Previous mistakes and other dangerous products are not sufficient reason to allow another dangerous mistake.

You say, "I realize an inspector has the right" but then want to take away that right.

You recognize that an inspector has the right and then say, "That would be a bad precedent and could lead to a nightmare of failures."

The right has been there all along and yet there has not been a cascade of failures.

When you say, "I don't see the danger that you do in this product and IMO if it were dangerous then it would not be allowed in certain applications" it is clear that if you did see a danger you would not have a problem with an inspector failing it.

I do see a danger. Other inspectors and electrical engineers see a danger. Even an el. engineer that works for a major solar installer acknowledged the danger. Perhaps it is no more dangerous than Christmas tree lights or an electric stove and how about a screw shell lamp holder. Are those the threshold to judge the disconnect by? I don't think so and as I said, just because there are other dangers in the world, we aren't compelled to approve this danger.

As I see it Dennis, you are backing my play if the danger is real.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am backing your play if the product isn't listed and installed as approved. I see no reason for this. You do, so make the call.

The part I don't understand is that you started this thread to get help finding an article that supports your view. IMO, there isn't one. Article 90 is an introduction and as such is not enforceable. I think looking for something to red tag a job is really not the way to do this. There are many installs I don't like but if I were an inspector I would not be able to turn it down for that reason. IMO, if the product is listed and used as approved then it should be allowed. The code is a minimum and generally will not allow an unsafe install.

You have to do what you think is right but I cannot support you in this nor can the NEC, IMO.
 
You two are the smartest electricians I know of so that's why I brought it to you. I'm just making sure that you guys don't give up too easily. I want to be sure that I am correct and so far no argument against my position other than opinion has been presented. While I value your opinions I need more than that to be convinced and maybe I'm just too damned stubborn to admit that I am wrong.

Chris,

A padlock is what I have been told to ask for. That and a warning sign stating "open the solar breakers at the service before working on the disconnect." The operative word is "ask" because there isn't a code for that padlock and warning sign. That is an admission that there is a problem without providing a workable solution. We gave it a band-aid instead of finding a cure.

As it stands, the AHJ recognizes the danger but doesn't recognize any authority to deal with the problem other than to "ask" for a padlock that can't be enforced. If I have lost the battle, so be it, I did win the war. I have demonstrated that the AHJ does have the authority to fix such a problem and to me that is the bigger issue.

Dennis,

There is a difference between a listing and an approval. The listing comes from a NRTL and an approval comes from an AHJ. Equipment can't be used contrary to it's listing. As an example, a generic receptacle can't be used in a wet location but a receptacle that's listed for a wet location can.

Now that receptacle that's listed for a wet location can't be used in a location that could easily be under water such as in a planter with no drain. Nothing in the receptacles' listing says anything about it being under water in a planter and it took an inspector to recognize a problem and say no. The listing made it seem to be legal where it was. The location was wet but I decided that it could be too wet. There was a listing but not an approval. Right or wrong, I stood my ground and the contractor backed down. It helped that the homeowner didn't want to roll the dice. Chances are the AHJ would not have backed my play that time either but it didn't get that high up the chain.

Alright you guys, you know that I don't take myself too seriously and we can agree to disagree as we have in the past. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and remember that you are always three steps ahead of me.......I'll never overcome the time zone advantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
You two are the smartest electricians I know of so that's why I brought it to you. I'm just making sure that you guys don't give up too easily. I want to be sure that I am correct and so far no argument against my position other than opinion has been presented. While I value your opinions I need more than that to be convinced and maybe I'm just too damned stubborn to admit that I am wrong.Chris,

A padlock is what I have been told to ask for. That and a warning sign stating "open the solar breakers at the service before working on the disconnect." The operative word is "ask" because there isn't a code for that padlock and warning sign. That is an admission that there is a problem without providing a workable solution. We gave it a band-aid instead of finding a cure.

As it stands, the AHJ recognizes the danger but doesn't recognize any authority to deal with the problem other than to "ask" for a padlock that can't be enforced. If I have lost the battle, so be it, I did win the war. I have demonstrated that the AHJ does have the authority to fix such a problem and to me that is the bigger issue.

Dennis,

There is a difference between a listing and an approval. The listing comes from a NRTL and an approval comes from an AHJ. Equipment can't be used contrary to it's listing. As an example, a generic receptacle can't be used in a wet location but a receptacle that's listed for a wet location can.

Now that receptacle that's listed for a wet location can't be used in a location that could easily be under water such as in a planter with no drain. Nothing in the receptacles' listing says anything about it being under water in a planter and it took an inspector to recognize a problem and say no. The listing made it seem to be legal where it was. The location was wet but I decided that it could be too wet. There was a listing but not an approval. Right or wrong, I stood my ground and the contractor backed down. It helped that the homeowner didn't want to roll the dice. Chances are the AHJ would not have backed my play that time either but it didn't get that high up the chain.

Alright you guys, you know that I don't take myself too seriously and we can agree to disagree as we have in the past. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and remember that you are always three steps ahead of me.......I'll never overcome the time zone advantage.
Doesn't 690.17 require the signage

690.17 Switch or Circuit Breaker. The disconnecting means for ungrounded conductors shall consist of a manually operable switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) complying with all of the following requirements:

Located where readily accessible

Externally operable without exposing the operator to contact with live parts

Plainly indicating whether in the open or closed position

Having an interrupting rating sufficient for the nominal circuit voltage and the current that is available at the line terminals of the equipment

Where all terminals of the disconnecting means may be energized in the open position, a warning sign shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means. The sign shall be clearly legible and have the following words or equivalent:

WARNING

ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARD.

DO NOT TOUCH TERMINALS.

TERMINALS ON BOTH THE LINE

AND LOAD SIDES MAY BE ENERGIZED

IN THE OPEN POSITION.
 
Where all terminals of the disconnecting means may be energized in the open position, a warning sign shall be mounted on or adjacent to the disconnecting means.

The sign shall be clearly legible and have the following words or equivalent:

As soon as the disconnect is in the open position, the inverter shuts down. When that happens only the terminals that are fed from the service are still live. The condition is not "all terminals may be energized" so no, that warning sign isn't required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The office manager made it official yesterday. We will do nothing. In can still follow the engineers advice and ask for a padlock but that was told to me in a way that made it clear that I can only suggest a padlock. If I did that, I would be the only inspector asking for it and the way he said it gave me the idea that he would prefer to just let it go.

I'm going to tape a lollipop to the door and send him a picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really think that is the right thing to do also. I have seen so many light fixtures with UL stickers I have to shake my head and wonder how in the world it got approved. UL says they don't test for NEC standards but only test what the manufacturers ask them to test. If every UL fixture that was suspect got disapproved I am afraid there would be thousands of red tags on fixtures alone. I don't like it but I install it because it is an approved product.
 
pete_t said:
ICEFYI, CA has published a new solar guide, June 2012, "California Solar Permitting Guidebook-2012"

Guidebooks
Thanks Pete,

I attended a seminar on that last week. The state of California is pushing solar. One new rule is that the maximum fee that a jurisdiction can charge for a solar installation is now $500. $500 covers plan check for the el. and structural as well a building permit and any planning dept. fee. Most have been less than that but some are much more so I anticipate that they will now all be $500 as an effort to balance them out.

Another rule is that it is almost impossible to say no. For example. Several years ago a couple applied for a permit to erect a patio cover in the front yard set-back and were denied permission by the Glendale CA planning dept. They then applied for a permit for a ground mounted solar system that is supported by what looks exactly like a covered patio. The city said no again and the couple sued under the rule that the city can't say no to a solar system and the couple won.
 
CO has a similar law on the books,$500 max for review and permit, $1,000 for commercial. But, we would in my opinion be allowed, and would separate any structural work from the PV system, and permit it under our fee schedule. If not, what, I can build a new house, and put a system on the roof, and get a $500 permit? My factory for a $1,000?
 
Back
Top