6 disconnect rule violation?

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by suemarkp:
225.33(A) says "no more than six switches or breakers".

I'll buy that, why didn't Mike point that out instead of messing around with 225.33(B)?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by georgestolz:
My 2005's in the snow-covered truck, and it's snowing outside. Is there an article 224?

You will have to ask Mike as I just did a copy and paste from his post.

Well, jeez, if I knew we were being that thorough, I would have just put this one up and settled the argument once and for all:

91.4 Ultimate Interpretation. Where it may be found in this Code sections that are written so poorly as to not indicate a clear intent or purpose, the last written opinion of member 19734 of the Mike Holt Online Code Forum shall serve as the official interpretation of the section in question.

Exception: Where member 19734 clearly has his head securely supported in his own posterior, it shall be permissible to use the last written opinion of member 47 as the last word.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

George we will both be used as concrete encased electrodes if 91.4 is adopted.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

[ December 18, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

225.33 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The disconnecting means for each supply permitted by 225.30 shall consist of not more than six switches

or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard.

(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.

These single pole units are not part of a multi wire circuit there fore a disconnect must be installed.

 

[geezer]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

These single pole units are not part of a multi wire circuit there fore a disconnect must be installed.

To return to the original posters question, if only one branch circuit is installed in the panel pictured (picture three of previous post), IYO, does the single breaker qualify as the disconnecting means for the building?

[ December 22, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: geezer ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

IMO, Yes.

Mike, handle ties are not prohibited on a non-multiwire circuit. Please give an explanation for how you see "permission to use handle ties on multiwire" as a "prohibition from using handle ties on non-multiwire".

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Geezer

Should a panel be installed that panel would be required to be listed as ?suitable for use as service equipment?. If that panel stated on its label that it is suitable for use as service equipment with one single pole breaker then I would have no choice. I don?t believe that you will find one that is listed ?suitable for use as service equipment? without requiring a main breaker.

What size feeders are being supplied to this panel? Now why would someone go to the expense of installing a main lug panel for one breaker? Would not a single pole switch work for the same job?

These are some of the questions that would and should come to mind when an inspector looks at this type of installation. As an instructor of inspector classes I lead off a class with this statement, ?You are there to inspect and not expect but always apply some common sense to your job.?

My personal answer to you question:

Originally post by geezer
IYO, does the single breaker qualify as the disconnecting means for the building?

No, the panel will be required to be listed as ?suitable for use as service equipment? and I don?t believe you will find one that will fit this requirement without a main.

A reading of 225.36 (outside branch circuits and feeders) will state that ANY disconnect installed at a remote building with the exception of residential property where a snap switch or a set of 3-way or 4-way snap switches the disconnecting means is required to be suitable as service equipment.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
IMO, Yes.

Mike, handle ties are not prohibited on a non-multiwire circuit. Please give an explanation for how you see "permission to use handle ties on multiwire" as a "prohibition from using handle ties on non-multiwire".

George

All I did was read what is written in the NEC and I will post it so everyone can read it for their selves.

225.33 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(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.

As can be seen in 225.33(B) the NEC does give permission to use handle ties on single pole units but only when these single pole units are part of a multiwire circuit.

I am not disputing the use of handle ties on single pole units; I am disputing the use of handle ties on anything other than multiwire circuits as outlined in black and white above.

Are we not talking about article 225? Is this not what is stated in 225.33(B)? Then why is all this argument about the use of handle ties?

 

[mvannevel]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

We can all agree that the panel must be listed for use as service equipment. If it is, it will usually say, "when not more than six main disconnecting means are installed and not used as a lighting and appliance panelboard". It will also usually include a reference to 480.14 to give a definition of lighting and appliance panelboard. We should all also be able to agree that this panelboard, in a remote structure, with one single-pole breaker installed is indeed a lighting and appliance panelboard. However, we don't have to stop at 408.14. Exception #1 to Article 408.16(A) gives us relief from the requirement to provide individual protection at this panelboard when the feeder has overcurrent protection not greater than the rating of the panelboard. Nothing in Article 225 prevents us from using this provision of Article 408.

What size feeders are being supplied to this panel? Now why would someone go to the expense of installing a main lug panel for one breaker? Would not a single pole switch work for the same job?

These are some of the questions that would and should come to mind when an inspector looks at this type of installation. As an instructor of inspector classes I lead off a class with this statement, ?You are there to inspect and not expect but always apply some common sense to your job.?

It makes no difference if the feeders are #3 copper and the single circuit they supply in that panel is a 15 ampere circuit. Why would someone go to the trouble of installing a main-lug sub-panel inside a structure when a single branch circuit might fill the bill? For future capacity would be my guess. I would think that would be the "common sense" answer. But that question has no bearing on whether or not we should allow or reject this installation. The code sections cited provide all the justification.

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

mvannevel

read art. 225.1 and 225.2.

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike
The only permission in 225.33 is for the use of single pole switch's or breakers on a multiwire circuit.
The handle ties is a requirement if we so use this permission. and it's only required to meat the six movements of the hand.
The comma's are there for a reason.

There is nothing in the NEC that does not allow handle ties on single pole circuits.

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

So did the CMP's mess up when they put 240.20(B)(2) in the book?

240.20(B)(2) Grounded Single-Phase and 3-wire dc Circuits. In grounded systems, individual single-pole circuit breakers with approved handle ties shall be permitted as the protection for each ungrounded conductor for line-to-line connected loads for single-phase circuits or 3-wire, direct-current circuits.

Line to line loads are not a multiwire circuit?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

II. Location
240.20 Ungrounded Conductors.
(A) Overcurrent Device Required. A fuse or an overcurrent trip unit of a circuit breaker shall be connected in series with each ungrounded conductor. A combination of a current transformer and overcurrent relay shall be considered equivalent to an overcurrent trip unit.
(B) Circuit Breaker as Overcurrent Device. Circuit breakers shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both manually and automatically unless otherwise permitted in 240.20(B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(3).
(1) Multiwire Branch Circuit. Except where limited by 210.4(B), individual single-pole circuit breakers, with or without identified handle ties, shall be permitted as the protection for each ungrounded conductor of multiwire branch circuits that serve only single-phase line-to-neutral loads.

In section 240.20 (B) we find a reference to 210.4(B) as it relates to a multiwire circuit. We also see in (B)(1) that handle ties are allowed for MULTIWIRE circuits that serve ONLY line to neutral loads.

210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
(B) Devices or Equipment. Where a multiwire branch circuit supplies more than one device or equipment on the same yoke, a means shall be provided to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors supplying those devices or equipment at the point where the branch circuit originates.
(C) Line-to-Neutral Loads. Multiwire branch circuits shall supply only line-to-neutral loads.
Exception No. 1: A multiwire branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.
Exception No. 2: Where all ungrounded conductors of the multiwire branch circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch-circuit overcurrent device.

210.4(B) states that if a multiwire circuit is hitting a single device on one yoke that handle ties are not allowed and (C) states that a multi wire circuit is for line to neutral loads only with exception of a single piece of equipment such as a range or dryer to wit handle ties again are not allowed.

There has been a lot of debate about the use of handle ties on single circuits in a main lug panel at a remote building. It is clear that the NEC does not allow handle ties on individual breakers for the purpose of maintaining the six disconnect rule. This is pointed out in detail in 225.33(B) as I have already pointed out in this thread.

Handle ties are mentioned in five articles of the NEC with permission to use them on multiwire circuits in four of these articles. 225 Outside branch circuits and feeders, 230 Services, 240 Overcurrent protection and 590 Temporary installations. Article 514 Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities forbid the use of handle ties on dispensing equipment.

As pointed out in 240.20(B)(1),(2)&(3) the use of handle ties are allowed on multiwire circuits ONLY.

Based on the aforementioned facts I am of the STRONG opinion that a disconnect or a main breaker SHALL be provided for the remote building outside or immediately inside the building and that handle ties are NOT allowed on individual breakers to fulfill this requirement.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

How do you comply with 210.7(C) if you can't put handle ties on non-multiwire circuits?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
How do you comply with 210.7(C) if you can't put handle ties on non-multiwire circuits?

2002 cycle
210.7(C) Multiple Branch Circuits. Where more than one branch circuit supplies more than one receptacle on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those receptacles shall be provided at the panelboard where the branch circuits originated.

In the 2005 (C) was deleted and is now (B)
210.7(B) Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those devices shall be provided at the point at which the branch circuits originate.

Let me see now, I am not to sure; yep this is talking about more than one circuit such as a multiwire circuit. This has already been covered.

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike where do you see that 240(B)(2) or (3) is talking about a multiwire circuit?

Are you even reading these section's?
240(B)(2) and (3) are line to line loads....
a line to line circuit is not a multiwire circuit!!

210.4(B) states that if a multiwire circuit is hitting a single device on one yoke that handle ties are not allowed and (C) states that a multi wire circuit is for line to neutral loads only with exception of a single piece of equipment such as a range or dryer to wit handle ties again are not allowed.

You have got to have a misprinted code book or you are not reading the words correctly?????

210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
(B) Devices or Equipment. Where a multiwire branch circuit supplies more than one device or equipment on the same yoke, (it say's MORE THAN ONE DEVICE) a means shall be provided to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors supplying those devices or equipment at the point where the branch circuit originates.
(C) Line-to-Neutral Loads. Multiwire branch circuits shall supply only line-to-neutral loads.

Exception No. 1: A multiwire branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.

Exception No. 2: Where all ungrounded conductors of the multiwire branch circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch-circuit overcurrent device.

(C) states that a multi wire circuit is for line to neutral loads only with exception of a single piece of equipment such as a range or dryer to wit handle ties again are not allowed.

Thats funny my code book is saying that mu;tiwire circuit can only serve line to neutral loads when single pole breakers are used, but can serve both line to line and line to neutral loads when used to feed one utilization equipment when a means is provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors or when to feed a combo 125/250 volt rated receptacle when a two pole breaker is used.

Mike I still say
The only permission in 225.33 is for the use of single pole switch's or breakers on a multiwire circuit.
The handle ties is a requirement if we so use this permission. and it's only required to meat the six movements of the hand.

The first part is the permission, the second part is the requirment if the permission is used.
The handle ties is not a permission! It is a requirment if you use single pole breakers on a multiwire circuit that feeds two or mor devices on a single yoke! The single pole breakers are the permission!

Again I say there is no place in the NEC that will state that you can not use handle ties on single pole circuits.
It's just not there!

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Let me see now, I am not to sure; yep this is talking about more than one circuit such as a multiwire circuit. This has already been covered.

I don't think sooooooo

Multiple Branch Circuits that have each it's own neutral is not a multiwire circuit! but if both circuits feed receptacles on the same yoke then 210.7(B) will require handle ties.

210.4(A)does not say multiple Branch Circuits are permitted to be considered as multiwire circuits does it? No it doesn't it say's that a multiwire branch circuit can be considered as a multiple branch circuit!
Why? well multiple branch circuits can have ungrounded conductors on the same phase because each will have it's own neutral run to it.(and would no longer fit the NEC's definition of a multiwire circuit)
Ever wonder why the neutral side of a duplex receptacle has the same break off tab that the hot side has? well now you know.

Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system.

As you see in the definition it clearly states two ungrounded conductors and "A" grounded conductor which would mean only one neutral not one for each ungrounded conductor! multiple branch circuits will have one neutral for each ungrounded conductor!

[ December 23, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Wayne
I will attempt to try and explain this to you as best as I can. This would be a lot easier if we were sitting across a table from each other than using a post and read thread so it will take a little understanding on both our parts to achieve this.

Let?s start by looking at the definition of a ?multiwire? circuit.?

Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system.

Now a quick look at 210.4 as to the uses allowed for this multiwire circuit.

210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
(A) General. Branch circuits recognized by this article shall be permitted as multiwire circuits. A multiwire circuit shall be permitted to be considered as multiple circuits. All conductors shall originate from the same panelboard or similar distribution equipment.
(B) Devices or Equipment. Where a multiwire branch circuit supplies more than one device or equipment on the same yoke, a means shall be provided to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors supplying those devices or equipment at the point where the branch circuit originates.
(C) Line-to-Neutral Loads. Multiwire branch circuits shall supply only line-to-neutral loads.
Exception No. 1: A multiwire branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.
Exception No. 2: Where all ungrounded conductors of the multiwire branch circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch-circuit overcurrent device.

In section (A) we are told that a multiwire branch circuit is permitted to be considered as ?multiple circuits? such as a set of three conductors and one neutral supplying lights from a three phase panel. No need for a three phase breaker or handle ties.

Section (B) was changed in the 2005 cycle and the words ?dwelling unit? was removed. Here we are told that if a multiwire circuit hits a device on a single yoke that the overcurrent device must open all poles simultaneously. The use of a handle tie will not achieve this therefore handle ties would not be allowed for this installation. This is also stated in 210.7(B) of the 2005 and 210.7(C) of the 2002

(B) Multiple Branch Circuits. (as mentioned in 210.4(A) ) Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those devices shall be provided at the point at which the branch circuits originate.

Note that 210.7 states that if on the same yoke it must open simultaneously which a handle tie will not accomplish.

In 210.4(C) we are told that multiwire circuits are to supply only line to neutral loads but there are two exceptions. #1 is for equipment such as ranges and dryers where there is a neutral and more than one ungrounded (hot) conductor installed.
#2 states that a multiwire circuit that uses line to line loads must open all ungrounded conductors simultaneously and again handle ties will not achieve this, therefore handle ties can not be used.

When we get to 240.20 for the location of the required overcurrent protection we are told once again that handle ties are permitted to be used on line to neutral loads as limited by 210.4(B) This is covered above.

240.20 Ungrounded Conductors.
(A) Overcurrent Device Required. A fuse or an overcurrent trip unit of a circuit breaker shall be connected in series with each ungrounded conductor.
(B) Circuit Breaker as Overcurrent Device. Circuit breakers shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both manually and automatically unless otherwise permitted in 240.20(B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(3).
(1) Multiwire Branch Circuit. Except where limited by 210.4(B), individual single-pole circuit breakers, with or without identified handle ties, shall be permitted as the protection for each ungrounded conductor of multiwire branch circuits that serve only single-phase line-to-neutral loads.

Notice that 240.20(B)(1) states that handle ties are permitted for use on ?multiwire? circuits. This is again pointed out in 225.33 for the use of single pole units in a remote building.

I think that most if not all of the confusion about the handle ties comes from not understanding the difference between multiwire branch circuits and general purpose branch circuit.

Branch Circuit, General-Purpose. A branch circuit that supplies two or more receptacles or outlets for lighting and appliances.

Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system.

No where in the code am I allowed to install handle ties on general purpose circuits in order to obtain the six disconnect rule of a service 230.71(B) or panel in of a remote building 225.33(B).

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike you keep reading that the handle ties is what 225.33 is giving permission to do. 225.33 is giving permission to allow single pole breakers to be used. Look at the heading of it:

(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.

"Two or three single-pole switches or breakers capable of individual operation shall be permitted on multiwire circuits,"

This is the only permission in this section. Handle ties is the requirment to combine these single pole breakers to allow them to lower the total amount of handles to 6 or less.

I showed you two places where the code allows handle ties for non- multiwire circuits
A circuit that only supplys line to line current is not by the definition in the NEC a multiwire branch circuit, It does not have a neutral.
240.20(B)(2) and (3)

There is a differance in common trip and common disconnect, Handle ties will commonly disconnect both legs, a common trip will disconnect both legs when breaker trips, the sections that you refered to, do not all ask for a common trip,

There is only one place in the NEC that directly does not allow handle ties on single pole breakers, and that is 514.11(A)

There is a differant reason for this, they want all conductors disconnected going to dispensing equipment.

I'm trying to learn how you are turning around what is required for use in a permission that allows single pole breakers to being a requirment not to allow handle ties on nothing but multiwire circuits?
Even when I showed you 2 sections where code does allow handle ties on non-multiwire circuits.