# Chris&Dennis I need help



## ICE (Nov 3, 2012)

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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 3, 2012)

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)


----------



## Dennis (Nov 3, 2012)

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


----------



## Dennis (Nov 3, 2012)

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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 3, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2012)

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?"


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2012)

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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 3, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> At five I took apart my grandfathers lawn mower.


Took the spark plug wire off first right???


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2012)

> 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*
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Dennis (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2012)

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
> 
> ...


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:
> 
> ...


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
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Dennis (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 4, 2012)

The design of that disco allows for a pad lock. Are we now going to debate toddlers lock picking skills?


----------



## Dennis (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 4, 2012)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Nov 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## Dennis (Nov 6, 2012)

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 (Nov 6, 2012)

ICE

FYI, CA has published a new solar guide, June 2012, "_California Solar Permitting Guidebook-2012_"

Guidebooks


----------



## gfretwell (Nov 6, 2012)

There is another free course on Solar installations here

https://www.nterlearning.org/web/guest/course-details?cid=402


----------



## ICE (Nov 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 6, 2012)

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?


----------



## ICE (Nov 6, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> 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?*


Well not quite like that.  The building permit covers the racks and any modifications of the roof structure that might be required.


----------



## ICE (Nov 6, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> 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.


I understand your side of the discussion and contractors install what they are given.  As an inspector I look at it with a "what if" perspective.  Most everything that is illegal or banned from a particular use was legal at one time.  It took someone to say no before that changed.

I talked with the office manager today and he is leaning towards a padlock and warning sign but he wants a ruling from our electrical section head so that every inspector will do it the same way.  While the padlock is better than nothing, I think it opens us up to criticism should there be a negative outcome.  Placing a padlock is an admission that there is a danger and rather than remove the danger a padlock is a patch.  Anyway it's not my decision.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 7, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> It took someone to *die* before that changed.


Fixed that for ya!


----------



## Dennis (Nov 7, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I understand your side of the discussion and contractors install what they are given.  As an inspector I look at it with a "what if" perspective.


  Unfortunately I really don't think an inspector can inspect based on what if's.  In those cases nothing would be compliant.  What if someone adds another breaker with twin breakers to an already full panel.  That is not the inspectors problem to deal with until it happens.  "What if's" are the bane of EC's simply because it could be used any and every where.  I realize the "what if" you mention is different but what if a child unscrews a main panel board?  There is almost nothing to prevent situations like that.  If this were seriously an issue then I am certain the NEC would change the call on this one.  As it stands it is compliant and oh well-- you need to worry less but don't give up totally and your desire to see things aresafe.


----------



## Dennis (Nov 7, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Fixed that for ya!


 Unfortunately that is partially true or at least someone gets hurt.  Look at how long it took to get TR receptacles-- I don't believe there were deaths involved but there were plenty of emergency room visits.


----------



## ICE (Nov 7, 2012)

"What if" is perhaps a poor choice of words.  That's true as applied to "what if" a panel board is altered after the fact.  Maybe "fatal flaw" better suits the situation.  In all honesty I will tell you that inspectors are not trained to think outside the box.  The opposite is true and we are told, time and again, to stick to the letter of the code.  That gives most inspectors plenty to keep busy.

I lost track of my place in the world.  I shouldn't raise a hand when I perceive a fatal flaw.  I am, after all, an inspector, in a box, with a code that I must follow without questioning beyond what is in that code.

Another stumbling block is the precept that if there is not a code for a given situation, then it didn't happen.  That applies here.  There is no code so there is no problem.

In the end I am exonerated no matter what simply because there is no mechanism to address what didn't happen.

A dead child might change that.  Code changes are hard won so it might take several dead children.  But hey, there is no code violation so it's not a poor reflection on me....and besides that, I'm just an inspector....what do I know...."Only what I'm told"


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 7, 2012)

Ul has a course for firefighters concerning photo electric systems

UL Knowledge Services - Firefighter Safety and Photovoltaic Systems - Non-CEU


----------



## jwelectric (Nov 28, 2012)

In this thread I read “AHJ” several times.

What is an “AHJ”?

I will bet my last dollar that it is not a Code Enforcement Official as some think it should be.

We must remember that a code enforcement official is nothing more than an employee of the AHJ and does not have the power to demand anything more than what the AHJ has adopted into law.

If anyone can appeal the discussion that has been made by someone then the appeal goes to a higher AHJ with the last appeal being sitting firmly in the lap of the final AHJ. In my state it is the court of appeals.

So for some lowly code enforcement official to start saying that they are the AHJ goes to show just how wrong they are in at least one aspect of the electrical trade.

When I hear a code official start with the “what ifs” I simply ask the question, what if a bull frog carried a .357 magnum where would this leave snakes?

It is listed so go home and teach your children the safety concerning electricity and let other parents do the same with their children. I started my kids off at an early age while they were still small enough to crawl around in large switch gears.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 28, 2012)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> In this thread I read “AHJ” several times.What is an “AHJ”?
> 
> I will bet my last dollar that it is not a Code Enforcement Official as some think it should be.
> 
> ...


Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.

    Informational Note: The phrase “authority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 28, 2012)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> In this thread I read “AHJ” several times.What is an “AHJ”?
> 
> I will bet my last dollar that it is not a Code Enforcement Official as some think it should be.
> 
> ...


So, since the only recourse to contractors in my area would be a court of law that would make the judge the AHJ in your opinion. Which is interesting because if inspectors are not an authority then they have no legal responsibility and it would all fall on the courts to ensure buildings are code compliant as the AHJ. When is the last time you have seen an officer of the court do a inspection? In your post you state "higher AHJ" and "final AHJ" so I'm willing to be you wouldn't discount inspectors from being AHJs, simply that there are many AHJs at different levels of authority.


----------



## ICE (Nov 28, 2012)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> So for some lowly code enforcement official


Anybody ever tell you that you have a way with words?



> Posted by *ICE*
> 
> So now I have to convince the Chief Electrical Engineer
> 
> ...


Anybody ever tell you that you don't understand words?


----------



## jwelectric (Nov 29, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Anybody ever tell you that you have a way with words?


 My wife





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Anybody ever tell you that you don't understand words?


 My wifeBy the way I did see what you had posted. The question was in general not directed to you in any way.

That was neat, thank you


----------

