3 Element water heater

[ufeonline]

Hello,
I currently have a 3-element water heater with 3- 2pole breakers 40amp on the main panel and 3 non fusible disconnects next to the water heater. Inspector is requesting to put a handle tie to simultaneously trip all 3 breakers. I have contacted various supply stores and they indicate that it does not exist. Inspector is requesting a sub panel next to the water heater and just a main breaker at the panel. This doesn't make any sense to me. Is there any were in the code that references simultaneously tripping all 3 breakers for a water heater?

 

[infinity]

Equipment can have more than one supply and does not require that they all be handle-tied together. The reason that you cannot find one is because they are not required. Ask for a code reference.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[augie47]

I don't agree with the inspector. 422.30 simply says the disconnect means shall be grouped and identified.

 

[ufeonline]

Equipment can have more than one supply and does not require that they all be handle-tied together. The reason that you cannot find one is because they are not required. Ask for a code reference.

Welcome to the Forum.

Just asked for a code reference. Lets see what he comes up with.
Thank you very much for the quick response. I will update as soon as he send it.

 

[ufeonline]

I don't agree with the inspector. 422.30 simply says the disconnect means shall be grouped and identified.

thank you for the quick response. I agree. I don't understand what a subpanel will do differently than the 3- 2pole breakers at the main panel won't do. Hes asking to simultaneously trip all 3 breakers but with a sub panel it will do the same thing.

 

[James L]

I don't understand what a subpanel will do differently than the 3- 2pole breakers at the main panel won't do. Hes asking to simultaneously trip all 3 breakers but with a sub panel it will do the same thing.

He probably doesn't mean that they would all trip together, becsuse that wouldn't happen with a hndle tie.

He probably means to turn all off together for servicing the unit.

With a subpanel that includes a main breaker, that main could be turned off and it would shut down all 3 circuits at the same time.

Not that I agree with his request, just that I think I understand what he's after

 

[ufeonline]

Inspector replied with N.E.C 422.30 and also replied with N.E.C 90.4. In article 422.30 says:

422.30 General. A means shall be provided to simultaneously disconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors in accordance with the following sections of Part III. If an appliance is supplied by more than one branch circuit or feeder, these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified as being the multiple disconnecting means for the appliance. Each disconnecting means shall simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors that it controls.

 

[infinity]

Inspector replied with N.E.C 422.30 and also replied with N.E.C 90.4. In article 422.30 says:

422.30 General. A means shall be provided to simultaneously disconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors in accordance with the following sections of Part III. If an appliance is supplied by more than one branch circuit or feeder, these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified as being the multiple disconnecting means for the appliance. Each disconnecting means shall simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors that it controls.

So he's incorrect based on what you've posted.

 

[James L]

If an appliance is supplied by more than one branch circuit or feeder, these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified as being the multiple disconnecting means for the appliance.

You currently have more than one branch circuit, with multiple disconnecting means. Are they grouped and identified?

 

[ActionDave]

Inspector replied with N.E.C 422.30 and also replied with N.E.C 90.4. In article 422.30 says:

422.30 General. A means shall be provided to simultaneously disconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors in accordance with the following sections of Part III. If an appliance is supplied by more than one branch circuit or feeder,

That's what you have.

these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified as being the multiple disconnecting means for the appliance.

It sounds like you did that. Maybe need to add some labels?

Each disconnecting means shall simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors that it controls.

That's what the disconnect switch does. Switch number 1 simultaneously disconnects its ungrounded conductors, switch number 2 does it for its ungrounded conductors....

 

[jaggedben]

Seems to me that if the unfused disconnects by the water heater itself are grouped and identified then the requirement he cited is met, regardless of anything about the breakers in the panel.

 

[augie47]

I understand what he is saying even if incorrect. The wording is a bit tricky as it states the switch must disconnect all ungrounded conductors which IT controls not all conductors to the appliance which would be desirable especially if the breakers are not at the appliance but what you have is compliant if the breakers are in sight from or lockable

 

[jaggedben]

Yeah, "which it controls" is key.

 

[infinity]

Yeah, "which it controls" is key.

Yes. Three simple words that can easily be overlooked.

 

[Charged]

Is there a situation where a disconnect wouldn’t simultaneously disconnect all the ungrounded conductors ?

 

[retirede]

Is there a situation where a disconnect wouldn’t simultaneously disconnect all the ungrounded conductors ?

The requirement disallows using a single pole disconnect on a 240V load, or a 2 pole disconnect on a 3 phase load, for example.

 

[Charged]

The requirement disallows using a single pole disconnect on a 240V load, or a 2 pole disconnect on a 3 phase load, for example.

Was that a typical practice at one time. I guess what I’m getting at … Is that a real concern or is the code worded in way that allows the interpretation but wasn’t the intent.

 

[Little Bill]

I understand what he is saying even if incorrect. The wording is a bit tricky as it states the switch must disconnect all ungrounded conductors which IT controls not all conductors to the appliance which would be desirable especially if the breakers are not at the appliance but what you have is compliant if the breakers are in sight from or lockable

In the OP's case, the breakers don't have to be in sight, or lockable, as he has disconnects at the water heater.

 

[augie47]

Is there a situation where a disconnect wouldn’t simultaneously disconnect all the ungrounded conductors ?

In the OP's case, the breakers don't have to be in sight, or lockable, as he has disconnects at the water heater.

oppps still taking remedial reading... forgot he had those.... thanks for correcting

 

[retirede]

Was that a typical practice at one time. I guess what I’m getting at … Is that a real concern or is the code worded in way that allows the interpretation but wasn’t the intent.

I don’t think it was ever typical for a disconnect, but it’s not unheard of for a switch to not interrupt all of the ungrounded conductors (electric heater controls sometimes do this). The load shuts off just fine, but obviously it’s not safe to work on. The code would not allow this type of switch to serve as the required disconnect.

I can’t comment about intent.