6 disconnect rule violation?

[mdshunk]

Has anyone ever been violated for installing 1 single pole breakers in a 8 circuit MLO panel at a residential accessory structure? (assume breaker had required hold down). I'm having a discussion with an inspector on another site who insists that this would be a 225.33 violation, because the panel has the potential for 8 breakers. I maintain that you can't inspect for the potential for a future violation.

His quote:
"My area with your panel having 8 circuits available would make me react saying you have capacity of more branch circuit breakers calling for more than the 6 sweeps of the hand in replacement of a main breaker and I would call for the main breaker in that detached structure.

Problem is your panel is listed and labeled for more than 6 sweeps of the hand unless all the breakers are double pole breakers. If you have one breaker installed in that panel then you have listing and labeling of more than 6 sweeps of the hand. I am inspecting what is. 8 circuit listed for use installed with one being a single pole breaker potentially exceeding the 6 sweeps of the hand."

That mentality really strikes a nerve with me.

[ November 20, 2005, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: mdshunk ]

 

[tshea]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Reminds of years ago, we had an 8' wireway with 2 100A fusible disconnects for a 6-disconnect service. Inspector rejected because we had the "potential" to install many more. He eventually agreed it was NOT our "future responsibility.

Go back to the panel, install the 4 double pole breakers, with 1 the amperage you need for the single pole breaker. Connect your load and walk away.
(He's being unreasonable.)
Good luck.

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I disagree. The AHJ has the authority to require a change.
Read this sentence in 90.4:

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.

[ November 20, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: websparky ]

 

[benaround]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

mdshunk,

With that type of thinking,even a four circuit enclosure is capable of 8 "sweeps of the hand" if mini breakers (half size) are used.

IMO,any size panel is fine even a 42 circuit,as long as 6 sweeps or less at time of inspection,I can't see a code violation. His concern of a future violation of code or law (no permit) should not be at your expense.

 

[infinity]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I'm with Frank. The installation at the time of inspection is all that required to comply. There are countless "what if" scenarios. Using 90.4 to make up his own interpretation is just not right. If the inspector is simply going to enforce his own rules than why to we need to NEC?

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I like this Idea , if reason won't work.

Originally posted by tshea:




Go back to the panel, install the 4 double pole breakers, with 1 the amperage you need for the single pole breaker. Connect your load and walk away.
(He's being unreasonable.)
Good luck.

 

[jim dungar]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

4 double pole breakers is 8 circuits and a violation.

Most main lug panels are shipped with a label that says in effect "suitable for use as service entrance equipment when provide with not more than 6 circuits". So even the NRTL labling requirements recognize that the determining factor is the number of circuits actually installed vs. the number capable of being installed.

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

By Jim D.: 4 double pole breakers is 8 circuits and a violation

Jim Read 230.71(B)

It allows single pole breakers with handle ties to count as one disconnect, It also allows two-pole breakers to be counted as one. The counting of each space for a two pole breaker is only mention in 408.15.

You could have 18 single pole breakers with handle ties accros every three and still meet 230.71.

 

[benaround]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Marc,

To me,that just adds more power to a person who is abusing the power intrusted in him/her in the first place. If adding 4 double pole breakers,3 without any load connected to them makes this install code compliant and pass inspection,then that would prove to me 'power abuse' because by using the original logic nothing has changed.I'll bet that the 2-pole breakers are listed and labled to be removed and replaced with single pole breakers.

The only people that can keep these type of situations from getting worse are us,I personally feel it is my obligation to finish the process of trying to keep the code in check.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jim dungar:
4 double pole breakers is 8 circuits and a violation.

Regardless of 230.71(B) since when do we call a circuit originating from a two pole breaker 'two circuits' would that mean a 3 pole breaker always serves 3 circuits?

Even a multiwire branch circuit is normally considered by the NEC as one circuit.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Code says up to 6 throws not 6 breakers.But if it will shut him up then go for the 4 doubles.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jimwalker:
Code says up to 6 throws not 6 breakers.But if it will shut him up then go for the 4 doubles.

Send Jim the bill for the breakers.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

No problem,send it but you might be waiting a bit on your check

It is a shame that we sometimes must do stupid stuff like that just to shut an inspector up.Solves nothing.

 

[jbwhite]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

using this inspectors line of reasoning, that their is a potential for future code violation, what measures do i have to take to assure that their are no future code violations.

If i install a circuit for a freezer rated 16 amps on a 20 amp breaker how am i supposed to insure that some dork wont come behind me next year and tap off of this and add another outlet?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mdshunk:
Has anyone ever been violated for installing 1 single pole breakers in a 8 circuit MLO panel at a residential accessory structure? (assume breaker had required hold down).

Did you backfeed the panel, or use the lugs?

 

[jim dungar]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mea culpa.

However, the original question had to do with a residential out building so, 230.71 is not applicable.

The correct reference should be 225.30 and 225.33(B) which does actually use the phrase "operations of the hands".

[ November 21, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: jim dungar ]

 

[raider1]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Something else to think about is 408.16(A).

This says "Each lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be individually protected on the supply side by not more than TWO main circuit breakers or sets of fuses having a combine rating not greater than that of the panelboard."

I understand that the original post talked about one breaker but I thought this was worth mentioning.

Chris

 

[inspector 102]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

My first question on this installation is if the panel is connected to a main panel elsewhere. It was indicated that this was an accessory building, so I am thinking this is fed from a main panel in the principle structure. If there is a main at that panel, this the accessory building becomes a sub-panel and would not be required to met the 6 switch limit. Am I picturing the installation correctly?

 

[macmikeman]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

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.

Before I got myself edumacated at the Mike Holt code fourm, I used to fall into thinking that any electrical inspector showing up on the job was the AHJ. I have since learned that is not always, or better yet mostly never the actual case. If you check into it you will most likely find the actual AHJ, is up the feeding chain a couple of steps at your local building department. He will however try to support his own personel (as he well should), in most cases, unless something really wrong is called by the local inspector.

 

[charlie b]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I suppose that if I had a 42 slot panel with the bottom 4 slots blanked, that would be a violation. The reasoning is that someone could come back later and install 8 half-width breakers, and bring the total to beyond 42.

The fundamental presumption (false as we all know it is in practice) should be that all future work will be done under a permit by a licensed person. Therefore, the burden of complying with code during the future work lies on the shoulders of the future contractor.

That is why, as an example, it is acceptable for me to design a facility with a 50 amp breaker connected to a 50 amp feeder supplying power to a 225 amp panel. If I calculate the load at 45 amps, I do not have to worry about some future change that will bring the load above 50 amps. That future job will have to swap out the breaker and the feeder, but my installation is acceptable today.