Thread: 2008 NEC : Hard wired appliance (110v) - switch OK as disconnect

I remember getting dinged on this by a home inspector last year. We had a circa 2005 home with a hard wired garbage disposal. He noted that this was against code as it did not have a disconnect.

We're building new construction currently to 2008 NEC. I'm wiring a range hood (110v). We're doing finish wiring prior to drywall. I had the GC call his electrician to confirm that we need a disconnect on this appliance.

What the GC was told was that a switch functions as a disconnect. I don't think this is the case - as I see the requirement of code (which I can't site) as needing a hard disconnect so the appliance does not endanger a service person when being serviced. A switch is easily and accidentially tripped and still has a neutral connected...

References appreciated...

Similar Threads:

• American Appliance water heater age
• Light switch location
• Light switch position.
• smoke alarms wired together
• a/c disconnect

Ok, as I understand it, it needs a switch within view of the appliance OR a lock-out on the breaker box.

Originally Posted by Darin Ginther

I remember getting dinged on this by a home inspector last year. We had a circa 2005 home with a hard wired garbage disposal. He noted that this was against code as it did not have a disconnect.

We're building new construction currently to 2008 NEC. I'm wiring a range hood (110v). We're doing finish wiring prior to drywall. I had the GC call his electrician to confirm that we need a disconnect on this appliance.

What the GC was told was that a switch functions as a disconnect. I don't think this is the case - as I see the requirement of code (which I can't site) as needing a hard disconnect so the appliance does not endanger a service person when being serviced. A switch is easily and accidentially tripped and still has a neutral connected...

References appreciated...

422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.
(A) Rated at Not over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1/8 Horsepower. For permanently connected appliances rated at not over 300 volt-amperes or 1/8 hp, the branch-circuit overcurrent device shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.
(B) Appliances Rated over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1/8 Horsepower. For permanently connected appliances rated over 300 volt-amperes or 1/8 hp, the branch-circuit switch or circuit breaker shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means where the switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance or is capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed.
Section 422.31(B) requires a special locking device for service and maintenance personnel. A device that is attached to the circuit breaker handle by a set screw is not an acceptable means to serve as a safe method of locking the device in the off position. The device must have provisions for placement of a lock on it to secure the device in the off position. The lock-out device must be part of the disconnect assembly and must remain in place after the padlock is removed, whether it is a fused disconnect switch, a single circuit breaker, or a circuit breaker in a panelboard. See 422.33(B) for electric ranges.
FPN: For appliances employing unit switches, see 422.34.
422.32 Disconnecting Means for Motor-Driven Appliance.
If a switch or circuit breaker serves as the disconnecting means for a permanently connected motor-driven appliance of more than 1/8 hp, it shall be located within sight from the motor controller and shall comply with Part IX of Article 430.
Exception: If a motor-driven appliance of more than 1/8 hp is provided with a unit switch that complies with 422.34(A), (B), (C), or (D), the switch or circuit breaker serving as the other disconnecting means shall be permitted to be out of sight from the motor controller.

Originally Posted by Darin Ginther

I'm wiring a range hood (110v).

Originally Posted by Darin Ginther

Ok, as I understand it, it needs a switch within view of the appliance OR a lock-out on the breaker box.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.
(A) Rated at Not over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1/8 Horsepower. For permanently connected appliances rated at not over 300 volt-amperes or 1/8 hp, the branch-circuit overcurrent device shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.

What Aaron was pointing out was "(A) Rated at Not over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1/8 Horsepower ... the branch-circuit overcurrent device shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means" - meaning no disconnect is required for the range hood, and no lock-out is required for the breaker handle.

To me, that never made sense when they require "(B) Appliances Rated over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1/8 Horsepower ... is capable of being locked in the open position. ".

Why? Because the same *circuit* is supplying both types of appliances, it is *the circuit* which is going to shock or electrocute people, not the appliance. So who cares if the appliance is over or under 300 VA or 1/8 HP, the friggin' appliance is setting there in the floor, it's those two stinkin' wires poking out of the wall you have to be concerned with.

I think the difference indicates that high amperage circuits are perhaps more dangerous to work on than a typical low-draw circuit. You could argue the point, I suppose.. but it makes sense to me on that level.

What doesn't make sense is a bunch of the new requirements in the 2008 NEC for residential - I mean "tamper resistant" plugs on every outlet? I don't have kids.. and if I did, I'd simply put those plastic plugs in the outlets for .10 each.

How about protecting outlets in the kitchen that you really can't access?

The darn 2005 NEC - 2008 NEC upgrade really ran up our electrical budget.

I was in a medical facility and they had those plastic covers on receptacles - 6 feet up the wall.
I also had one of my kids tried to help mom out with the vacuuming and used a knife to pull cover off - I had to replace the receptacle and the knife.

Originally Posted by Darin Ginther

I think the difference indicates that high amperage circuits are perhaps more dangerous to work on than a typical low-draw circuit.

That is what I was pointing out ... "the circuit" will be the same 15 amp or 20 amp 120 volt circuit ...

... regardless of what appliance is connected to that circuit.

Yet, if you connect a small enough appliance to that circuit, the circuit itself is deemed less hazardous?

What doesn't make sense is a bunch of the new requirements in the 2008 NEC for residential - I mean "tamper resistant" plugs on every outlet? I don't have kids.. and if I did, I'd simply put those plastic plugs in the outlets for .10 each.

What does not make sense of protecting young children against themselves?

I know, I know, we all survived without them, heck, we even survived with those dang little plastic plug caps too. "We", as in "all of use still here". Those not included in the "we" include those "who did not survive" all the things "we" did.

The darn 2005 NEC - 2008 NEC upgrade really ran up our electrical budget.

Yeah, you should have seen what it did when all circuits, receptacles, and other things had ... to be ... GROUNDED ... OH MY GAWD! That really killed all those electrical budgets then too.

Should we NOT have adopted THAT code, for THAT reason?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

What does not make sense of protecting young children against themselves?

I have to say that I got myself zapped in younger years.. A plastic cap would have prevented it. I consider the caps adequate. We're implementing this for significant minority of the population.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yeah, you should have seen what it did when all circuits, receptacles, and other things had ... to be ... GROUNDED ... OH MY GAWD! That really killed all those electrical budgets then too.

Should we NOT have adopted THAT code, for THAT reason?

I would have thought that all those things had to be grounded at least by NEC 2005. If I'm wrong, then I completely agree that those things SHOULD be there.

Darin,

2008 NEC. Are you also putting AFCIs on every circuit that is not required to have a GFCI?

That is my understanding of what is necessary to meet code and should be part of the subcontractors work. Breakers are not in yet, but I'm watching for the AFCI.

Originally Posted by Darin Ginther

We're implementing this for significant minority of the population.

Children are a significant minority of the population?

Could be, but they are still our future.

I would have thought that all those things had to be grounded at least by NEC 2005. If I'm wrong, then I completely agree that those things SHOULD be there.

They were there in the 2005 NEC, ONLY BECAUSE they were brought in from one code edition to the next code edition, brought in in the 1962 NEC edition, if I recall correctly. And that change ... COST EVERYONE *A LOT MORE MONEY* (which was my point) ... than the current changes you are complaining about.

When did you apply for your permit? When did the 2008 NEC become the effective code? Typically, the date of the application is the date taken as to which codes apply. Again, TYPICALLY, once a permit has been applied for, no code updates become applicable to that permit - the code in effect at the time of application is the code typically applied to that project throughout the projects lifetime (provided the permit is not allowed to expire, be suspended or revoked. Once expired, suspended or revoked, the new and updated codes could be applied to the project.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

They were there in the 2005 NEC, ONLY BECAUSE they were brought in from one code edition to the next code edition, brought in in the 1962 NEC edition, if I recall correctly. And that change ... COST EVERYONE *A LOT MORE MONEY* (which was my point) ... than the current changes you are complaining about.

I agree with that change. It makes sense to me. Other changes do not and seem to be a bit more controversial.. I'm merely expressing a personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

When did you apply for your permit? When did the 2008 NEC become the effective code? Typically, the date of the application is the date taken as to which codes apply. Again, TYPICALLY, once a permit has been applied for, no code updates become applicable to that permit - the code in effect at the time of application is the code typically applied to that project throughout the projects lifetime (provided the permit is not allowed to expire, be suspended or revoked. Once expired, suspended or revoked, the new and updated codes could be applied to the project.

I'm in a rural area and only have to apply for a "general development" permit. Note that this permit does not trigger inspections, so once again, I think it's a bit silly as a permit and should simply be called taxation. What is the point of a permit if you're not going to check for compliance?

I am in Texas. Recently there are new rules out of the TRCC (Texas Residential Construction Commission) that are pressed upon residential licensed builders and apply to rural construction. One of the "fuzzy" areas is what code you're required to comply with if there is no dictation by the governing ETJ or county.. As neither my ETJ or county require any sort of inspection or code compliance, we look to the state. This is probably a good thing for inspectors to know, I'll bet you catch a lot of construction not in compliance. This applies only if there is no requirement by city, county, or ETJ - and it applyies only to licensed builders. I do not think it applies to owner-builders.

Ref: Electrician Licensing Frequently Asked Questions

1. What electrical code has the State adopted?
Effective September 1, 2008 the Department adopts the NEC 2008 Edition as it existed on August 15, 2007 as adopted by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc.