Mike Dolt Enterprises
Mike Dolt Enterprises
User: markstg, Location: Big Easy
Asked on: Friday, April 17, 2009 at 6:26 pm EDT
Answered on: Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 5:00 pm EDT
Question: Hi all,I restored my Father-In-Laws house after it got flooded with 6" of water. Work was to remove and replace all flooring, woodwork and kitchen cabinets.The city required that if the kitchen wall were opened up, that the electrical circuits would have to be brought up to Code...Minimum number of circuits and GFCI's.I got an electrical contractor who gave me a price and he obtained the electrical permit for the work.When the city electrical inspector came to do the rough-in inspection he said I needed to replace the Service Panel.The Service Panel was a 60A, 240V with cartridge fuse main and screw base branch circuits.10 Years prior central air was added to this house. Electric Service for this 30A MAX Overcurrent Protection A/C unit was obtained by connecting #8 wire to the line side of the Service Panel Main, and going to a 30A 2P disconnect mounted right next to the Service Panel.The Electrical Inspector Said that it was not obvious that there was a 2nd disconnect to Totally disconnect power to the house and therefore failed my inspection.I screw attached a Sign on the front of the Service Panel and the A/C disconnect (Phenolic, with 3" high letters) saying there were two disconnects to completely disconnect power to the house, Service Main and A/C Disconnect Switch.Electrical Inspector would not pass the service, and I had to replace the service.I don't think he had anything to stand on, and all was within Code. There were no electrical loading problem (all appliances are gas and heat is gas).I think he had a problem with the A/C branch circuit being connected under the lugs with the main service drop feeder, but they fit just fine, and there was no sign of overheating.Should I have fought this one, or was there a code violation somewhere?
Code Violation
NEC 240.40(B) requires that the service disconnecting means (main breaker or fused switch) for a building be located at a readily accessible location outside the building, or at a point of entry into a building.In your case, the second disconnect (A/C disconnect) was not located at the point of entry into the building, making it difficult to completely disconnect power to the house.
Electrical Inspector's Decision
The electrical inspector was correct in failing the inspection because the service did not meet the requirements of NEC 240.40(B).
Your Options
Fight the Decision
You could have argued that the sign on the service panel and A/C disconnect clearly indicated the presence of two disconnects. However, this argument would likely not have been successful since the sign did not modify the physical location of the second disconnect.
Replace the Service
You chose to replace the service, which brought it up to code.
Additional Considerations
Overloading
The inspector may have also been concerned that the A/C branch circuit was overloading the service panel, as it was connected under the lugs with the main service drop feeder. However, you indicated that there were no electrical loading problems, so this was likely not an issue.
Overheating
You mentioned that there was no sign of overheating at the connection between the A/C branch circuit and the main service drop feeder. This further supports the idea that the loading was not excessive.
Conclusion:
While you could have potentially argued the inspector's decision, it was reasonable for him to fail the inspection based on the violation of NEC 240.40(B). By replacing the service, you brought the electrical system up to code and ensured the safety of the building. Flag for review