6 disconnect rule violation?

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:

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?

It may be silly , it also may help him see his silly ness.

 

[suemarkp]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I'd (mail) the corrective action notice back to him!!!

Inspector 102: The fact that its a subpanel doesn't alleviate the requirement for a 6 stroke or less disconnect. However, it does eliminate the one or two main breaker rule for lighting and appliance panelboards if you have a feeder breaker upstream.

{Moderator's Note: Edited to remove inappropriate language.}

[ November 21, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

 

[eprice]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I have to agree with the majority here. The inspector should not be failing an install because of the potential for future modifications. By the same logic, a #12 wire on a 20 amp breaker would be a violation. The panel is listed for use with breakers larger than 20 amps and someone could repalce the 20 amp breaker with a larger breaker.

{Edit for spelling}

[ November 21, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: eprice ]

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

lets say the inspector passes this, and a year from now a homeowner or contractor installs more than six breakers, and has no room for a main disconnect, and fails inspection for the panel exceeding 6 breakers, I am sure then we would be bashing the inspector for not failing the original installation, and have 3 or 4 pages of inspector bashing.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Why would we bash the inspector ? Bash the contractor if he doesn't know any better.

 

[charlie b]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:. . . I am sure then we would be bashing the inspector for not failing the original installation. . . .

I wouldn't. I'd be bashing the homeowner or contractor for attempting to construct something that violates the code.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I am going to join Jim and Charlie on this one.

An inspector should absolutely not be inspecting for the future.

 

[Awg-Dawg]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I see alot of bedrooms being turned into future dens.

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

On somewhat of a similar "future" problem, how does this inspector handle a 125 amp feeder with a fused disconnect.

The disconnect would be rated 200 amps with 125 amp fuses protecting 125 amp conductors, is he going to turn this down because someone in the future could install larger fuses? :roll:

We must remember there are inspectors and then there are knowledgeable inspectors.


Roger

 

[pierre]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Inspections are not for "what if" or "if they install this in the future". That is part of the culture we need to change for the inspectors who do this type of inspection. Help from the inspectors who already know this would be of great help in training/retraining those who do not understand it.

If we were to wire or inspect for "what if", we would all be out of business.

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Installing a bunch of breakers is silly, and if the guy is halfway reasonable he can be made to see that.

The inspector doesn't bend. He might have been more receptive up until the point that I threatened to soil the field correction notice in a certain manner and mail it back to him.

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Let's say the electrician had a spare 42 circuit MLO panel and installed it in the same location with the same breakers as the original post.

Would this also be acceptable? Would it be a violation?

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by websparky:
Let's say the electrician had a spare 42 circuit MLO panel and installed it in the same location with the same breakers as the original post.

Would this also be acceptable?

Absolutely.

The code section limits only the number of disconnects not the potential for disconnects.

 

[pierre]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

" He might have been more receptive up until the point that I threatened to soil the field correction notice..."

Is that the same as "earthing/grounding"?

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

OK. So where does it end? Where does your logic lead to? What would stop someone from installing 2 or 3 panel boards in an accessory building as long as there were only six breakers installed. I just don't get where this "if it isn't disallowed verbatum, in words that are clear for everyone to understand, then it is allowed"

Please!!!!!!!!!!

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by websparky:
OK. So where does it end? Where does your logic lead to? What would stop someone from installing 2 or 3 panel boards in an accessory building as long as there were only six breakers installed. I just don't get where this "if it isn't disallowed verbatum, in words that are clear for everyone to understand, then it is allowed"

Are you saying you would fail the installation?

What section would you cite?

[ November 21, 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[pierre]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

This section might be a very good example of trying not to read more than is written.
When one buys a "panel", he is actually buying a panelboard, enclosure, and usually circuit breakers to be installed.

That covers 3 Articles, 312, 408 and 240.
The disconnecting Part in Art 230 mentions 6 disconnnecting means. I am sure all of the CMPs realize what is going on out in the real world - okay most of the time anyway . Which means that the wording has stayed as is, because that was their intentions from the start.

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I am well aware you cannot inspect for the future or what if, but if a contractor puts a 20 circuit MLO panel in, and only puts 1 breaker in, and the inspector passes it which he should, I will bet that will be the last inspection he will ever do at that structure, and in all honesty do you think this will be a code compliant job in 6 months to a year, oops I am looking into the future when that panel has 20 breakers and no main, no permits and no inspections, sorry, but we all know that will never happen.

 

[pierre]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

The problem does not lie with the installer, or the inspector, but the integrity of the person who follows them in the future...

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

MPD, how do you enforce 210.21(B)(2)? This is a potential violation that will happen after your final visit isn't it?

Inspect the present, go home and sleep knowing you did your job.

Roger