Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Irrigation' started by Mikegyver, Jun 20, 2012.
I see it as a code violation and dangerous.
If they don't have one or both of these, then send them home.
Explain. Explain what code is violated by a disconnect box. And if you manage to get that far, demonstrate how your explanation would not apply to air conditioning work.
a) Irrigation controllers are not air conditioners.
b) Air conditioning/refrigeration equipment are covered under a different article of the NEC.
c)There is a reason irrigation controllers come with cords. You take the cord off, then you are responsible for providing the same protection for the controller that would have been provided if it had been plugged into a GFCI protected receptacle. Hardwiring does not negate the need for GFCI protection nor does it nullify the GFCI requirements or intent of the code.
d) A disconnect, particularly a locked one, does not provide any personnel protection.
e) I have seen inspectors flag irrigation controllers that were not GFCI protected.
If that was your expert testimony, go away and play with your magnets.
Nothing you stated touches upon the actual governing codes. As it happens, controllers do not come with cords. They never will come with cords.
All controllers are powered by class-2 control transformers. Before there ever was a modern irrigation controller, there were, and still are, class-2 control transformers that are hard-wired without any additional protection beyond the circuit breaker that supplies the transformer. There is no additional risk created by a hard-wired outdoor controller, and the disconnect is the safe, economical means to supply said controller.
Apparently you need someone to read the NEC to you then.
Really? Seems to me I remember some controllers coming with cords, not to mention controllers with wall warts. In fact, I have a container filled with unused irrigation controller cords and old wall warts. Hmmmmm.
Tell that to the inspectors who flagged controllers that were not GFCI protected. Further, who gives a rats ass how it "used to be". Codes have changed boots.
Perhaps I'll do it your way, then when the inspector flags it I will just say...
but boots said I could do it this way and he said it complies with code, so screw you ..... Mr. Inspector .... sir
Your inspectors who operate by personal prejudices instead of actual written codes have my express personal invitation to fornicate themselves.
If the class-2-transformer input of an irrigation controller is in any way a danger to anyone whatsoever, it is equally dangerous whether or not it is hard-wired. If the output of a class-2-transformer is in any way a danger, then every heating thermostat in America is equally a hazard, as the wires entering them are connected to a class-2 transformer, with no GFCI involved.
Remember we are talking codes here. We do not care about any particular local ordinance that might affect someone's work in a particular municipality. That falls outside of codes.
Blah, blah, blah.
NEC article 210.8
210.8 refers to receptacles and a hard-wired device involves no receptacle
A hardwired device that is intentionally wired around a receptacle to bypass the receptacles intended purpose. Hmmm boots, I wonder how the inspector will view that. The intent of the code is quite clear, regardless of your creative interpretation, and until you can show me where the code has a specific exception for hardwired devices such as irrigation controllers, you are pissing into the wind.
BTW boots, I have the code on my desktop, so feel free to cite any appropriate article you want.