6 disconnect rule violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

OK,

Here is the photo in it's entirety:
408-142.jpg


The point of showing only half of the photo was to draw attention to the first part of the code requirement for the panel to NOT be used as a "lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard". If this panel has the maximum of six disconnects as required and ONE of those disconnects supplies a lighting or appliance branch circuit then it has violated the code of "more than 10%" and therefore no longer qualifies as "suitable for use as service equipment".

This also has nothing to do with how a panel qualifies as "suitable as service equipment" or if it has a green screw in the first place.

Read the code sections without prejudice and see what conclusion you reach.
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike,
Circuits that are not part of a multiwire circuit are not allowed to have their handles tied together.
Click to expand...
What code section prohibits the use of handle ties on single pole breakers that are not a part of a multiwire branch circuit.
Don
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Mike,
Circuits that are not part of a multiwire circuit are not allowed to have their handles tied together.
Click to expand...
What code section prohibits the use of handle ties on single pole breakers that are not a part of a multiwire branch circuit.
Don
Click to expand...
224.33(B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers capable of individual operation shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all ungrounded conductors with no more than six operations of the hand.
Click to expand...
As outlined in bold
:)
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike the section you posted, 224.33(B) does not answer the question.

The question is;

What code section prohibits the use of handle ties on single pole breakers that are not a part of a multiwire branch circuit?

Remember ours is a permissive code. :cool:
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

This is a prime example of a section that can be read both ways and still be right.

If one particular setup is expressly permitted, we logically assume that to deviate from that is not permitted. It's a reasonable assumption.

There's no right or wrong; I think Mike is closer to the intent of it (multiwire only), and Bob is closer to the proper interpretation of it (it is not clearly prohibited).

IMO.
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

George (or Mike) I am curious why you think the NEC would not want us to place handle ties on single pole breakers that are not a part of a multiwire branch circuit.

What is the safety issue? :)

[ December 17, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Bob, I can't think of a good reason in the world not to allow it.

That said, it seems pretty conspicuous to specifcally mention "multiwire" if they wanted to include non-multiwire, is all. For whatever odd reason, they seem to intend to only allow multiwire circuits to have handle ties.

They seem to struggle to say what they mean at times. :D
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
For whatever odd reason, they seem to intend to only allow multiwire circuits to have handle ties.
Click to expand...
I disagree, IMO this section is making clear the use of handle ties on MWBC is fine in place of internal common trip breakers on MWBCs.
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Why wouldn't they use the term "multiple" instead of "multiwire"? Seems like a very clumsy whoops.

While there's no prohibition on putting multiple circuits under a handle tie, we're left with an uphill row to hoe to convince every AHJ of that, with the NEC using the term "multiwire" to confuse us. :(

These sections are dealing with disconnection, not overcurrent protection. So whether the neutrals are shared or not has very little bearing on the requirement in question. Why would they be so strangely specific?

It seems they have some sort of stigma about using the term "multiple" over "multiwire." Who knows why?

Edit: forgot a word and added several.

[ December 17, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

George IMO they used multiwire intentionally to make clear that a multiwire branch circuit did not have to use a two or three pole internal common trip breaker.

The 'name' of the section we are discussing is "224.33(B) Single-Pole Units" in order for it to be clear that single-pole units with handle ties can be used on a multiwire branch they decided to say it outright.

IMO it goes without saying that single pole-units can be used on multiple circuits and that using handle ties on them is an acceptable means to provide simultaneous disconnection.
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

everything in the code was written to confuse me .

two years college, two years trade school, four year apprentiship, many years experience and i am still confused. :p
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

225.33(B) is addressing the use of single pole switches or breakers installed on an outside feeder. It clearly states that these single pole units are allowed to utilize a handle tie on a multiwire circuit.

This section addresses the use of the single pole units and how they are to be utilized for this application. It gives relief in this application to use handle ties for the use on multiwire circuits.

Whether or not a handle tie can be used on single pole breakers for single branch circuits anywhere else is not part of this debate. What is part of this debate is the use of handle ties as outlined in 225.33(B)
:)
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I think the gist of this section is to tell you that you can add handle ties between individual breakers in order to reduce the number of hand throws required to disconnect everything. So you could have 12 individual breakers that are really 6 multiwire branch circuits. If you handle tie all of them (in multiwire pairs), you'll have the max of 6 disconnects you're allowed to have whereas before you had 12.

But the only handle ties that are going to count are ones used on multiwire branch circuits. Don't think about handle tying all your individual branch circuits together into a giant single handle, as the NEC won't count it as a single handle of the 6 permitted.

This whole interpretation fits in with the concept of no main breaker being required in a feeder fed L&A panelboard. I doubt you can have any multiwire branch circuits without the panelbaord being considered lighting and appliance. If you think that panel must then have a main, why would you care about how many handles you have on the multiwire circuits?
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by suemarkp:
Don't think about handle tying all your individual branch circuits together into a giant single handle, as the NEC won't count it as a single handle of the 6 permitted.
Click to expand...
Please fill us in.

Where is that prohibited?
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:
George IMO they used multiwire intentionally to make clear that a multiwire branch circuit did not have to use a two or three pole internal common trip breaker.
Click to expand...
I'll buy that. :)

The 'name' of the section we are discussing is "224.33(B) Single-Pole Units"
Click to expand...
My 2005's in the snow-covered truck, and it's snowing outside. Is there an article 224?
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:
Originally posted by suemarkp:
Don't think about handle tying all your individual branch circuits together into a giant single handle, as the NEC won't count it as a single handle of the 6 permitted.
Click to expand...
Please fill us in.

Where is that prohibited?
Click to expand...
225.33(A) says "no more than six switches or breakers". If you have 12 breakers, even if handle tied, its not going to count as one disconnect. 225.33(B) says using a handle tie on a multiwire branch circuit will allow the tied breakers to count as one disconnect of the 6 permitted.
 
Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
My 2005's in the snow-covered truck, and it's snowing outside. Is there an article 224?
Click to expand...
You will have to ask Mike as I just did a copy and paste from his post. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top