AC Disconnects

I called these disconnects as missing interior cover plates. Electrician disagrees. Looking for help on this one. Exterior covers are present. Thanks.

Airdrie 037.jpg

Airdrie 038.jpg

Ask the electrician if his kids or grandkids were playing in the yard, and they opened the cover, would he be comfortable with them sticking their hands in there and grabbing the wires.

There is no “interior” cover in an electrical panel, but the dead front is secured by screws. In this case there is an exterior cover, but it is not secured.

Whether it is “required” or not, seems to me to be a moot point. It isn’t safe. He can fix it, or not. That’s between he and your client. I would tell him, and the client it’s not safe, and then let them work out the rest.

Mark,

Thanks for the response, my thoughts exactly. Attached image of closed exterior cover, no lock.

Airdrie 039.jpg

Airdrie 041.jpg

Are you going to re-manufacture that thing, or make an inside cover for it?
8-

That pnl is designed NOT to have any exposed wiring connections.

David is correct. There are no exposed, live components when the cover is open. These do not require an interior (dead front) cover.

Well, I made an error, thanks for the information. I will say that most disconnects do have a “dead front”. I guess the manufacturer saved a buck!

I don’t like them, but it’s by design. Here’s another thread on the subject.

Learn something new EVERY day… :slight_smile:

Feel free to enlighten us.

What is the purpose of the cover?

What is the purpose of this design?

Oh ****, that’s right.
Must keep the home inspector happy!

LOOK, a disconnect with a dead front, from this morning’s inspection!

010.JPG

The condutors that are feeding the AC equipment do not appear to be in conduit.
Rightfully or wrongly I thought that electric wire exposed to potiental danger to cutting or knicking (weed wacker) are required to be protected ie in conduit

UF cable is to be installed according to part II and III of Article 334 (NM cable). Where subject to physical damage they’re required to be protected. Subject to physical damage is a judgment call since it’s not defined in the NEC.

David, if you’re referring to me, I simply said I don’t like them. Meaning I would choose not to buy one when I could buy one with a full dead front cover instead. I would guess that this type is a few cents cheaper. There is nothing wrong with it from a code or protection standpoint, however.

I did the same thing when I first came across one of these too John. :oops: