# Those breakes have to be Readily Accessible



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Kohlers RDT 3R rated ATS with built in load center has a bolt on cover. Four 5/16 head screws. One in each corner. I just had an inspector tell me that because the cover bolts on it they are not Readily Accessible. I ASSUME he was referring to 240.24. I don't consider the cover to be an "obstacle" but I can see his argument.

I said well that is Kohlers design and it is UL listed. I say it meets 110.3(b) because the instructions tell you to install the ocpd's in the ats. He passed it but wants to get ruling for the next one he sees.....I have worked with this guy before. He is respectful for the most part knows his code and I have never had any issues with him. 

Opinions of Readily Accessible? Not that it matters.........


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Is it service rated?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

I disagree with him. The door could have 4 padlocks on it and still meet the definition of readily accessible


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Is it service rated?



No just a 100A switch. The 100Amp breaker feeding the ATS is in a panel next to it with a swing out door. I pointed that out also. 240.24? Another article?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> No just a 100A switch. The 100Amp breaker feeding the ATS is in a panel next to it with a swing out door. I pointed that out also. 240.24? Another article?


Now he's definately wrong


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> I disagree with him. The door could have 4 padlocks on it and still meet the definition of readily accessible




The definition of readily accessible does say "to be reached quickly" or "to remove obstacles" . I can see that applying to the cover.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> The definition of readily accessible does say "to be reached quickly" or "to remove obstacles" . I can see that applying to the cover.


There is nothing that requires your switch to be readily accessible.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> There is nothing that requires your switch to be readily accessible.



Read what I wrote McClary...He is referring to the branch circuit OCPD's in the load center. Read 240.24


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> Read what I wrote McClary...He is referring to the branch circuit OCPD's in the load center. Read 240.24


Oh, I thought it was just a switch. Take the bolts out and put in thumb screws


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Oh, I thought it was just a switch. Take the bolts out and put in thumb screws



IMO thumb screws do not meet the definition of being "reached quickly". However I think 110.3 makes 240.24 mute.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Just because a product has been listed and installed per the manufacturer's requirements does not mean it is a code compliant installation. Nothing in a listing or manufacturer's instructions can change or over rule a code requirement.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Just because a product has been listed and installed per the manufacturer's requirements does not mean it is a code compliant installation. Nothing in a listing or *manufacturer's instructions can change or over rule a code requirement*.




I disagree. Manufacture requires gfi protection for exhaust fan. NEC does not. You must GFI it......110.3(b) states you must follow manufactures instructions.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Just because a product has been listed and installed per the manufacturer's requirements does not mean it is a code compliant installation. Nothing in a listing or manufacturer's instructions can change or over rule a code requirement.




Now give your opinion. Code compliant or not.....


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Bulldog1 said:


> I disagree. Manufacture requires gfi protection for exhaust fan. NEC does not. You must GFI it......


You misunderstood what Don said. Don's point is that a manufacturer can't override a code requirement such as the requirement for an overcurrent device from being located in a readily accessible location. But a manufacture can require GFCI protection for their equipment because it goes beyond what the code requires.

Chris


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

raider1 said:


> You misunderstood what Don said. Don's point is that a manufacturer can't override a code requirement such as the requirement for an overcurrent device from being located in a readily accessible location. But a manufacture can require GFCI protection for their equipment because it goes beyond what the code requires.
> 
> Chris



I didn't misunderstand. Take the conductors inside of the ats feeding the bus in it. They are always smaller than what we would need to use. Because it was UL listed the NEC will accept it. That may be a bad example.

Your opinion on the original question of 4 screws not readily accessible?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> I didn't misunderstand. Take the conductors inside of equipment. They are always smaller than what we would need to use. Because it was UL listed the NEC will accept it.



In those cases the NEC does not apply at all.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Bulldog1 said:


> I didn't misunderstand. Take the conductors inside of the ats feeding the bus in it. They are always smaller than what we would need to use. Because it was UL listed the NEC will accept it. That may be a bad example.
> 
> Your opinion on the original question of 4 screws not readily accessible?


The NEC requires OCPD's to be located in a readily accessible location.

An OCPD located in an enclosure that requires removal of 4 screws to access the OCPD is not readily accessible according to the definition in Article 100.

Chris


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

BBQ said:


> In those cases the NEC does not apply at all.








Bad example....My point is most electrical equipment is made by the same people on the code panels. Either UL testing or a code change allows a lot of things we could not normally do. 


:blink:


Now give your opinion of readily accessible with 4 screws in cover.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

raider1 said:


> The NEC requires OCPD's to be located in a readily accessible location.
> 
> An OCPD located in an enclosure that requires removal of 4 screws to access the OCPD is not readily accessible according to the definition in Article 100.
> 
> Chris



It is listed as 3R load center. Instructions say to screw cover on. 110.3(b) says follow instructions....Catch 22?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

raider1 said:


> The NEC requires OCPD's to be located in a readily accessible location.
> 
> An OCPD located in an enclosure that requires removal of 4 screws to access the OCPD is not readily accessible according to the definition in Article 100.
> 
> Chris


Chris, what about thumb screws? And keep in mind, "quickly" is a relative term, I would even venture to say not enforcable


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

The spec sheet says it meets NFPA 70 NEC, NFPA 110, Emergency and Stand By Power systems. The enclosure is also CSA certified. Not that that means anything here.

Code compliant or illegal?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> The spec sheet says it meets NFPA 70 NEC, NFPA 110, Emergency and Stand By Power systems. The enclosure is also CSA certified. Not that that means anything here.
> 
> Code compliant or illegal?


I think it is. The handbook even mentions locked doors and cabinets. When they mentioned "obstacles" it was not meaning a cover. If that were the case, a 3r loadcenter with a lock would not pass. You guys are REALLY stretching that definition.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> I think it is. The handbook even mentions locked doors and cabinets. When they mentioned "obstacles" it was not meaning a cover. If that were the case, a 3r loadcenter with a lock would not pass. You guys are REALLY stretching that definition.





I had always been told an obstacle was something in the pathway to the load center and the readily meant no ladder needed. I hate vague terms like readily and obstacle. The spec sheet says it meets NFPA 70. It passed and like good ol SAL the generator king I'm happy..:whistling2: :lol:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> Now give your opinion of readily accessible with 4 screws in cover.


I see it like Chris.

I will also point out that unless you have an amendment in your area an inspector is not required to accept listed equipment.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

BBQ said:


> I see it like Chris.
> 
> I will also point out that unless you have an amendment in your area an inspector is not required to accept listed equipment.



Even with the spec sheet saying it meets NFPA 70?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I see it like Chris.
> 
> I will also point out that unless you have an amendment in your area an inspector is not required to accept listed equipment.


The handbook specifically says locks are ok. How can a locked door or cabinet be ok, but not bolts? Both are obstacles. If you're applying the word obstacles to a cover with bolts, then a cover with a lock is the same? Different? What are you using to substantiate a difference?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> Even with the spec sheet saying it meets NFPA 70?


Even then ........ 



> *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.* 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.


In my area 90.4 has been amended and says the inspector must accept listed equipment installed per it's listing and the NEC.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> The handbook specifically says locks are ok. How can a locked door or cabinet be ok, but not bolts? Both are obstacles. If you're applying the word obstacles to a cover with bolts, then a cover with a lock is the same? Different? What are you using to substantiate a difference?


OK you want to go down that road. :laughing:

How many bolts does it take before it becomes inaccessible?

How about rivets, we can drill those out.

How about welding, we can grind those off.

It is up to the AHJ.




> *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.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> I disagree. Manufacture requires gfi protection for exhaust fan. NEC does not. You must GFI it......110.3(b) states you must follow manufactures instructions.


 That is not an instruction that violates an NEC rule. Read what I wrote.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> Now give your opinion. Code compliant or not.....


 It is a very clear violation.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is not an instruction that violates an NEC rule. Read what I wrote.



No but I would not be following 110.3(b) if I did not install it to manufactures instructions.
So 110.3(b) say to follow instructions but by doing that I won't pass. If I install it not to instructions I fail..... :blink: Then should I sue them for saying it meets NFPA 70? :blink:

Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

BBQ said:


> OK you want to go down that road. :laughing:
> 
> How many bolts does it take before it becomes inaccessible?
> 
> ...



It is about the definition of "quickly" and "obstacle" . Bolts don't make it inaccessible at any point.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> It is about the definition of "quickly" and "obstacle" . Bolts don't make it inaccessible at any point.


Neither does welding the door on it.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Neither does welding the door on it.


I recommend J B WELD if you do that. Weighs way less than a mig set up....:thumbsup:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I had a talk with our state inspector and he also states a product can be UL approved or third party approved and still not meet the NEC code. Third parties are not testing for NEC code issues. 

I would think that thumb screws may be an acceptable alternative. IMO, the inspector made a tough but good call.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> OK you want to go down that road. :laughing:
> 
> How many bolts does it take before it becomes inaccessible?
> 
> ...


Hood pins?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I would think that thumb screws may be an acceptable alternative.


Seems reasonable to me as well.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> Opinions of Readily Accessible?


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I had a talk with our state inspector and he also states a product can be UL approved or third party approved and still not meet the NEC code. Third parties are not testing for NEC code issues.
> 
> I would think that thumb screws may be an acceptable alternative. IMO, the inspector made a tough but good call.



My Kohler distributor says over 100k of these have been sold in the last 5 years and he has never heard of an inspector saying not legal due to 240.24

That said the other AHJ's are accepting them. The instructions say it meets NFPA 70 and as SAL said before.....IT passed.....:whistling2: :laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> My Kohler distributor says over 100k of these have been sold in the last 5 years and he has never heard of an inspector saying not legal due to 240.24
> 
> That said the other AHJ's are accepting them. The instructions say it meets NFPA 70 and as SAL said before.....IT passed.....:whistling2: :laughing:


I will bet if you call Ron he will tell you it is not compliant. He mentioned this to me about a discussion I had about the cutler Hammer 400 amp meter main panel. He mentioned a generator switch that was not compliant because the breakers were not readily accessible. Sounds like the one you have.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I will bet if you call Ron he will tell you it is not compliant. He mentioned this to me about a discussion I had about the cutler Hammer 400 amp meter main panel. He mentioned a generator switch that was not compliant because the breakers were not readily accessible. Sounds like the one you have.



All the major brands are that way. Atsco, Russell, Kohler and CH.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

BBQ said:


> Even then ........
> 
> 
> 
> In my area 90.4 has been amended and says the inspector must accept listed equipment installed per it's listing and the NEC.


It is a common mistake to assume the AHJ and the inspector are one in the same. In a lot of situations they are not.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I had a talk with our state inspector and he also states a product can be UL approved or third party approved and still not meet the NEC code. Third parties are not testing for NEC code issues.
> 
> I would think that thumb screws may be an acceptable alternative. IMO, the inspector made a tough but good call.


Denny, by 3rd party do you mean NRTL's _other than_ UL? unfuzz me! ~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Even then ........
> 
> 
> 
> In my area 90.4 has been amended and says the inspector must accept listed equipment installed per it's listing and the NEC.


thanx for bringing this to our attention BBQ

 but for those _unammended _verbatim 90.4 areas, this basically equates to a no win potential

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Denny, by 3rd party do you mean NRTL's _other than_ UL? unfuzz me! ~CS~


 Yep. There are many third party testing agencies-- NRTL is one of many that NC will accept. ETL is another popular one.

Are you unfuzzed?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

*240.24 Location in or on Premises.*​

*(A) Accessibility. *
​​*Overcurrent devices* shall be readily accessible​
and shall be installed so that the center of the grip
of the operating handle of the switch or circuit breaker,
when in its highest position, is not more than 2.0 m (6 ft
7 in.) above the floor or working platform, unless one of the
following applies:
(1) For busways, as provided in 368.17(C).
(2) For supplementary overcurrent protection, as described
in 240.10.
(3) For overcurrent devices, as described in 225.40 and
230.92.
(4) For overcurrent devices adjacent to utilization equipment
that they supply, access shall be permitted to be​​​
by portable means.​ 
The verbiage in red would seem to indicate that any load center that has screws that would need to be removed to access the overcurrent device(s) would constitute a code violation.​ 
The handles of the overcurrent device would be readily accessible but the overcurrent device itself would not.​ 
That being said, it would be helpful if Bulldog could post a picture of the ATS. I searched for an image based on the model number given but didn't really have any luck.​ 
Pete​


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
> 
> (A) Accessibility.
> Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible
> ...


So, in your opinion, every single load center made thus far is illegal. Because they all hAve covers over the breakers, just not the handles.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

there seems to be a misunderstanding of what readily accessible means, even to some inspectors. I wish they would read their own code books (this is one case where the handbook is really helpful) I found this tidbit online where NASA asked OSHA what _their_ definition was, and the part about locks with different keys was interesting.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25159


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> So, in your opinion, every single load center made thus far is illegal. Because they all hAve covers over the breakers, just not the handles.


That is not what he said now is it?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

amptech said:


> It is a common mistake to assume the AHJ and the inspector are one in the same. In a lot of situations they are not.


Dude, you are preaching to the choir on that count.
:laughing:

But the inspector is usually a representative of the AHJ and as such _should_ be following the AHJs lead.

I fully realize it is not a perfect world.

(BTW the amendment in our area does not use the term AHJ, they change it up a bit)

MA Amendments



> *90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:*
> 90.4 Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising
> legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement
> of the Code shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in
> ...


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> That is not what he said now is it?


Yes, that's exactly what he said. He said the device itself is not readily accessible, but the handles are. Every single loadcenter made to date falls into that category.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> The verbiage in red would seem to indicate that any load center that has screws that would need to be removed to access the overcurrent device(s) would constitute a code violation.
> 
> The handles of the overcurrent device would be readily accessible but the overcurrent device itself would not.
> 
> ...





BBQ said:


> That is not what he said now is it?



This is what he said. According to him, every laodcenter ever made is illegal.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> This is what he said. According to him, every laodcenter ever made is illegal.



No, I am not seeing it.

Your trolling is sub-par lately.:laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> The handles of the overcurrent device would be readily accessible but the overcurrent device itself would not.
> 
> 
> Pete


Nice try, BOB, but tthere's only one way to interpret this, it's not like I'm stretching it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Nice try, BOB, but tthere's only one way to interpret this, it's not like I'm stretching it.


What exactly are you trying to ask?

If your asking if the wording a bit screwed up than yes I agree with you. As written the code requires the device to be readily accessible, not just the handle.

But I think we all know that they mean the handle and to go one about in my opinion is nothing but trolling.


How about you take a stab at answering the questions I asked earlier?


> How many bolts does it take before it becomes inaccessible?
> 
> How about rivets, we can drill those out.
> 
> How about welding, we can grind those off.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> What exactly are you trying to ask?
> 
> If your asking if the wording a bit screwed up than yes I agree with you. As written the code requires the device to be readily accessible, not just the handle.
> 
> ...


I was talking about pete's comment. Not the wording. 

But to answer your question, everything you posted above is disturbing or removing the building finish. Definately not the same as removing bolts. "Quickly"is is a relative term. If there's 24 bolts, you can still remove them quickly. The code specifically states, all wiring behind removable panels shall be considered exposed.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Just to clarify...

I do not have the opinion that every load center IS a violation I'm trying to say that I believe it could be interpreted that way and arguably so with the way the verbiage is structured.

Prior to this thread the thought never even entered my mind. I think it would warrant a proposal to change the verbiage to meet the intent. Don't know if it would be accepted but I think a bit of clarification would be in order even with a panel statement in the negative.

Do I think that the ATS in question is a violation... if the code were strictly followed then yes but you could say the same about some (if not all) load centers.

I suppose it would end up being a judgement call that I would have to discuss with my Chief Building Official (AHJ) and possibly a good application of 90.4 and special permission.

Pete


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

BBQ said:


> MA Amendments
> *90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:*
> 90.4 Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising
> legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement
> ...


I can't imagine that would be legal. It would let the manufacturer and or the listing agency change legally adopted codes without the required action of the government agency that has adopted the codes. 
This would only be an issue in cases like this one, where the listed product and its instructions, results in a code violation. 

Nothing that the listing agency or the installation instructions require should result in a code violation. I have no issue where the listing and or manufacturer's requirements go beyond the code minimum. I just do see any way that they should be able to permit something that does not comply with the code minimum.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

As Dennis stated NC's DOI says the switch is not code compliant. Here is a picture of one.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> As Dennis stated NC's DOI says the switch is not code compliant. Here is a picture of one.


 

That's a poor setup, but I still say the definition is too broad to apply to that. What about the breaker on the generator? That's behind a panel. The generac's are behind a panel with a keyed lock. "Quickly" is a relative term, so you can't apply the word quickly here. "Obstacle" is pretty vague too. If you call the bolt on cover an obstacle, then the load center beside it and the generator breaker are illegal too. IMO, unless the wording gets clarified, I would say there is no violation. How can you just say 4 bolts are an obstacle, but a lock is not? *That's a total judgement call with no code words to substantiate it.*


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

It is a judgement call but it is generally accepted that the use of tools, moving obstacles or getting ladders to reach a breaker would declare the breaker not readily accessible. The use of tools in not in the definition but it is implied to some by the conditions set forth in the definition.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> That's a poor setup, but I still say the definition is too broad to apply to that. What about the breaker on the generator? That's behind a panel. The generac's are behind a panel with a keyed lock. "Quickly" is a relative term, so you can't apply the word quickly here. "Obstacle" is pretty vague too. If you call the bolt on cover an obstacle, then the load center beside it and the generator breaker are illegal too. IMO, unless the wording gets clarified, I would say there is no violation. How can you just say 4 bolts are an obstacle, but a lock is not? *That's a total judgement call with no code words to substantiate it.*



Kohler is not the only ATS with a screw on cover.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

Bulldog1 said:


> Kohler is not the only ATS with a screw on cover.


Would the exception to this apply to "qualified personnel"? After all, the HO or other customer would not (under normal circumstances) have to have access to the MAIN, if the others that are part on the generator are tripping, it looks to me that there would be a problem that would require a little-more attention than the customer could provide. Just a thought here.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## yankeewired (Jul 3, 2008)

Bolts are not a violation of readily accessible. Just as a locked door is not a violation . It is not a violation because it can be reached quickly and you do not need to climb over obstacles or use a ladder to reach it . No where does it state that it must "tool free" to meet this requirement.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

yankeewired said:


> Bolts are not a violation of readily accessible. Just as a locked door is not a violation . It is not a violation because it can be reached quickly and you do not need to climb over obstacles or use a ladder to reach it . No where does it state that it must "tool free" to meet this requirement.


It is a violation according to NC's department of insurance. I actually agree having to use tools to remove the cover does not meet the definition of quickly.


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

jmsmith said:


> Would the exception to this apply to "qualified personnel"? After all, the HO or other customer would not (under normal circumstances) have to have access to the MAIN, if the others that are part on the generator are tripping, it looks to me that there would be a problem that would require a little-more attention than the customer could provide. Just a thought here.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


I was asking this to see if there was another alternative. I used to install locked generated houses for public and industrial customers that also had the emergency panels in them. The only ones that held a key were maintenance, and shift supervisors who were on-call in the event of an emergency.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## yankeewired (Jul 3, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *yankeewired* 
_Bolts are not a violation of readily accessible. Just as a locked door is not a violation . It is not a violation because it can be reached quickly and you do not need to climb over obstacles or use a ladder to reach it . No where does it state that it must "tool free" to meet this requirement._

It is a violation according to NC's department of insurance. I actually agree having to use tools to remove the cover does not meet the definition of quickly.

Where did you see the definition of "quickly " ? Art 100? There is none, therefore you must apply the whole context of description of readily accessible . It is stating that it doesnt want bodily physical barrier , something to prevent a person from approaching it,such as a wall , or moat , or razor wire fence or elevated height , It does not imply that screws, bolts, doors, gates, locks, tools, ect are anyway involved .


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

yankeewired said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yankeewired*
> _Bolts are not a violation of readily accessible. Just as a locked door is not a violation . It is not a violation because it can be reached quickly and you do not need to climb over obstacles or use a ladder to reach it . No where does it state that it must "tool free" to meet this requirement._
> 
> ...





You should of included a waiver......" In My Opinion" because NC does not see it like you do. If you needed to shut of a breaker as fast as possible, having to remove 6 screws to gain access to the breaker handles would slow you down. However if the door was hinged you could quickly shut the breaker off.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

so perhaps we're addressing the worst case senario of the unit spontaneously bursting into flame with fuel concerns .....?

~CS~


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> so perhaps we're addressing the worst case senario of the unit spontaneously bursting into flame with fuel concerns .....?
> 
> ~CS~


No 240.24 is referring to the location of OCPD devices. Nothing to do with the generator installation.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I was reading 240,24*(D)* Bulldog1.....~CS~


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I was reading 240,24*(D)* Bulldog1.....~CS~




Sorry man. I still haven't picked up your slang man......Kinda like I could of said it like this......


My bad bro, you be saying some stuff that only Mrs Cleaver in the movie airplane (speaking jive) know what you trying to say....


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

ok 240,24D slang then

don pit da disco nexta the gazoloina bro, shesa go baboom anna big flambang goona toasta da fingees der ......

~C_(justa pinch tween da chick an gumm)_S~


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> That's a poor setup, but I still say the definition is too broad to apply to that. What about the breaker on the generator? That's behind a panel. The generac's are behind a panel with a keyed lock. "Quickly" is a relative term, so you can't apply the word quickly here. "Obstacle" is pretty vague too. If you call the bolt on cover an obstacle, then the load center beside it and the generator breaker are illegal too. IMO, unless the wording gets clarified, I would say there is no violation. How can you just say 4 bolts are an obstacle, but a lock is not? That's a total judgement call with no code words to substantiate it.


It is a judgement call. Since I'm not the actual judge (although he does lend a lot of weight to my opinion) like I said it "could" be acceptable.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> It is a judgement call. Since I'm not the actual judge (although he does lend a lot of weight to my opinion) like I said it "could" be acceptable.



My distributor says that switch as well as other brands made like it have been sold all across north America with no issues. Most AHJ's just accept them I guess. Lets say for argument sake that your "junk" got caught behind the cover. If it was hinged you could get your "junk" out quickly...If you had to remove 6 screws while your "junk" was caught would you think removing the screws was quickly? :no:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> My distributor says that switch as well as other brands made like it have been sold all across north America with no issues. Most AHJ's just accept them I guess. Lets say for argument sake that your "junk" got caught behind the cover. If it was hinged you could get your "junk" out quickly...If you had to remove 6 screws while your "junk" was caught would you think removing the screws was quickly? :no:


 

Quickly is a relative term. In your example, yes you would get them bolts out quickly as compared to somebody who didn't have their junk caught in the door.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Quickly is a relative term. In your example, yes you would get them bolts out quickly as compared to somebody who didn't have their junk caught in the door.



I'm saying the hinged cover would allow you to quickly remove your junk. Removing the screws your junk would not think it was quick enough.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> I'm saying the hinged cover would allow you to quickly remove your junk. Removing the screws your junk would not think it was quick enough.


 
Yeah, you're right. I just think the term quickly is too vague to actually mean anything. It could have 100 screws in it. If you use a ratchet to take them all out, one could say you did it very quickly as compared to somebody with a wrench.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Yeah, you're right. I just think the term quickly is too vague to actually mean anything. It could have 100 screws in it. If you use a ratchet to take them all out, one could say you did it very quickly as compared to somebody with a wrench.



The NEC is famous for using vague terminology like that.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

According to the NEC Manual of Style subjective terms are supposed to be avoided. I agree that often they are not.

Pete


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

There is a clip at the bottom of the cover with a hole for a lock. Kohler says you can remove the screws and the clip will hold the cover on. I am waiting on NC DOI to say if they will accept that. They also asked for a picture of the switch to send to UL.


----------

