I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
pump.   Here's the situation.   The well is located about 25 ft from
an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment.  The
new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel.   It's close to line of
sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
between which partially block an open, unobtructed view.     If anyone
were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.

The inspector, citing 2005 code,  failed it for not having a means of
disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker.    Yet
the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
entire cover.  Isn;t that sufficient?

So, what gives?   It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
buster.   Especially since the same panel passed previous inspections
and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
subpanel and breaker.  So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 80%
visible, it's no good?

"Bob Johnson" <n...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
> pump.   Here's the situation.   The well is located about 25 ft from
> an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment. 
> The
> new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel.   It's close to line 
> of
> sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes 
> in
> between which partially block an open, unobtructed view.     If 
> anyone
> were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
>
> The inspector, citing 2005 code,  failed it for not having a means 
> of
> disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker. 
> Yet
> the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock 
> the
> entire cover.  Isn;t that sufficient?
>
> So, what gives?   It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
> buster.   Especially since the same panel passed previous 
> inspections
> and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
> subpanel and breaker.  So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
> with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
> turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 
> 80%
> visible, it's no good?

The only thing I can tell you is this. It's the price you pay for 
living in the city, or in a place that subjects to "inspectors". 
Living in the country, we're not subject to all of that encroachment 
upon our property rights. So, you pays your money and you takes your 
whipping, whatever it may wind up being. "You can't fight city hall". 
You can try, but I hear it seldom, if ever, is worth what it costs. To 
me, yep, you're stuck with a "ball buster". 

Bob Johnson wrote:
> I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
> pump.   Here's the situation.   The well is located about 25 ft from
> an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment.  The
> new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel.   It's close to line of
> sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
> between which partially block an open, unobtructed view.     If anyone
> were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
> 
> The inspector, citing 2005 code,  failed it for not having a means of
> disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker.    Yet
> the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
> entire cover.  Isn;t that sufficient?
...

Apparently it wasn't or you wouldn't be asking would you?  :)

Why not trim the bushes if that's the complaint?

What's the ramification--you w/o water 'cause can't turn on the pump, no 
COO, ...?

Would seem adequate enough, but then again, only one person has the 
say-so.  Depending on the jurisdiction, you might be able to get an 
alternate opinion or review of the decision by a higher-level muck in 
the chain of mucketies...

--

"Bob Johnson" <n...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
> pump.   Here's the situation.   The well is located about 25 ft from
> an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment.  The
> new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel.   It's close to line of
> sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
> between which partially block an open, unobtructed view.     If anyone
> were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
>
> The inspector, citing 2005 code,  failed it for not having a means of
> disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker.    Yet
> the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
> entire cover.  Isn;t that sufficient?
>
> So, what gives?   It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
> buster.   Especially since the same panel passed previous inspections
> and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
> subpanel and breaker.  So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
> with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
> turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 80%
> visible, it's no good?


I believe the inspector is technically correct. The individual breaker would 
require the lock, not the entire panel.
 The electric line doesn't go from the panel to the well pump, it has to go 
to a controller first, and a lockable switch or disconnect at that location 
should meet the in site from requirement 

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Bob Johnson
<n...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
>pump.   Here's the situation.   The well is located about 25 ft from
>an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment.  The
>new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel.   It's close to line of
>sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
>between which partially block an open, unobtructed view.     If anyone
>were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
>
>The inspector, citing 2005 code,  failed it for not having a means of
>disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker.    Yet
>the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
>entire cover.  Isn;t that sufficient?
>
>So, what gives?   It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
>buster.   Especially since the same panel passed previous inspections
>and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
>subpanel and breaker.  So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
>with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
>turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 80%
>visible, it's no good?


Is there a junction box at the top of the well head? If so just put a
snap switch in there with a weather proof cover.
It doesn't really accomplish anything since the installer will have to
get in that box to replace the pump but it should shut up the
inspector.

On Aug 5, 7:11=A0pm, "RBM"  wrote:
> "Bob Johnson"  wrote in message
>
> news:d...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
> > pump. =A0 Here's the situation. =A0 The well is located about 25 ft fro=
m
> > an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment. =A0The
> > new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel. =A0 It's close to line o=
f
> > sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
> > between which partially block an open, unobtructed view. =A0 =A0 If any=
one
> > were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
>
> > The inspector, citing 2005 code, =A0failed it for not having a means of
> > disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker. =A0 =A0=
Yet
> > the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
> > entire cover. =A0Isn;t that sufficient?
>
> > So, what gives? =A0 It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
> > buster. =A0 Especially since the same panel passed previous inspections
> > and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
> > subpanel and breaker. =A0So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
> > with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
> > turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 80%
> > visible, it's no good?
>
> I believe the inspector is technically correct. The individual breaker wo=
uld
> require the lock, not the entire panel.
> =A0The electric line doesn't go from the panel to the well pump, it has t=
o go
> to a controller first, and a lockable switch or disconnect at that locati=
on
> should meet the in site from requirement- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The controller is located right under the breaker and lockable panel
box in question, within 3 ft.    The line of sight issue the inspector
cited is from the well head to the disconnect, so the easiest solution
that's going to work is to make the disconnect lockable, in which
case, line of sight doesn't matter.

The inspector claimed there are devices available to fit the breaker
in the panel, making the breaker lockable.    I talked to the well
guys and they say they have never seen one.  I googled online and came
up with a bunch of lockouts for breakers, but from the descpription
and pic, they all appear to me to be of the type that you put on
temporarily when doing maintenance work, as opposed to being
permanently installed.

Anyone know of such a lockout widget that can be permanently installed
on a breaker?   If so, it's the perfect and easiest solution.   The
panel and breaker are both siemens, breaker is double pole.

On Aug 5, 2:54=A0pm, Bob Johnson  wrote:
> I have a question regarding code requirements for a submersible well
> pump. =A0 Here's the situation. =A0 The well is located about 25 ft from
> an existing 60 amp subpanel that also serves the pool equipment. =A0The
> new breaker for the welll is in this subpanel. =A0 It's close to line of
> sight from the well head to the subpanel, but there are some bushes in
> between which partially block an open, unobtructed view. =A0 =A0 If anyon=
e
> were at the subpanel though, you could see them from the well head.
>
> The inspector, citing 2005 code, =A0failed it for not having a means of
> disconnect that is visible from the well or a lockable breaker. =A0 =A0Ye=
t
> the breaker panel itself has provisions for a padlock to lock lock the
> entire cover. =A0Isn;t that sufficient?
>
> So, what gives? =A0 It would seem to me this guy is being a ball
> buster. =A0 Especially since the same panel passed previous inspections
> and serves the pool lights, which are totally out of sight of the
> subpanel and breaker. =A0So, I can stand in the pool and screw around
> with lights without having to worry about someone coming by and
> turning the circuit back on, but for the well pump, which is about 80%
> visible, it's no good?

Been there done that. I had to install a disconnect  for my in-law's
new well a few years ago. Actually it has come in handy a few times
when doing maintenance on the well.
I just mounted a weatherproof disconnect on a 4x4 post.

Jimmie

Bob wrote:
...
> The controller is located right under the breaker and lockable panel
> box in question, within 3 ft.    The line of sight issue the inspector
> cited is from the well head to the disconnect, so the easiest solution
> that's going to work is to make the disconnect lockable, in which
> case, line of sight doesn't matter.

I still fail to see how locking the box isn't as effective as the 
breaker itself, but... :(

> The inspector claimed there are devices available to fit the breaker
> in the panel, making the breaker lockable.    ...
> 
> Anyone know of such a lockout widget that can be permanently installed
> on a breaker?   If so, it's the perfect and easiest solution.   The
> panel and breaker are both siemens, breaker is double pole.

If there is one for the application it'll be in the Siemens catalog.  If 
this guy is this anal, unless it's specifically listed for the box he'll 
probably not approve it, anyway...

--

dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:

>If there is one for the application it'll be in the Siemens catalog.  If 
>this guy is this anal, unless it's specifically listed for the box he'll 
>probably not approve it, anyway...

It sounds like the inspector just wants to see something like a central A/C
circuit interrupter box. These go for $20 at the big box stores. $30 if you want
it fused.