6 disconnect rule violation?

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
if you can find a 40 circuit main lug only panel listed as suitable as service equipment I would love to see it.

Here is a FAQ from Square D.

Question Are all panels rated for use as service entrance equipment?

Answer All panels are suitable for use as service equipment when used as permitted by the National Electrical Code. The statement for service entrance equipment can be found on the torque and wiring diagram on every panel.

This applies to: NQOD, NF, I-LINE, QMB, NQOD, NF and I-LINE Non-Linear and RTI interiors.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by tshea:
I was thinking more on the lines of installing non-reversing screws in the bus mount holes for bolt-on breakers. (A product I would not use on resi)

Maybe we should just weld the cover in place to prevent any future hacks from violating any NEC sections.

 

[tshea]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:
Maybe we should just weld the cover in place to prevent any future hacks from violating any NEC sections.

 

[pierre]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I just spent some time at the GE site reviewing loadcenters. Jeez, there is a lot to know. Each class of panel is different with regards to MLO being used for service panels. There are only certain breakers permitted, and on some of the panelboards, very specific locations where these breakers are permitted to be installed.

There is some interesting info on feed-thru lugs, even for residential. I always assumed that those types could only be installed for other than residential.


BTW - that welding issue, is a license necessary to weld those covers on?

[ November 24, 2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I didn't mean to stirr the pot up but I'm confused at this also, I went to the UL site thinking to get some answers but it only added to the confusion, Where in one place it's saying that "There must be at least one combination of switching units that can be mounted to occupy all available space for switching units" But we see as Don has pointed out that even a panel intended to be used as a no-main lighting and appliance branch circuit panel board can still be used as service equipment when no more than 6 disconnects are installed.

It seems there is a very conflicting views even in UL that seem to conderdict even in the very same marking guide?

Item 22 even seem to more confuse it as it seems to say that a no-main panel can be used for a lighting and appliance panelboard if there are only 2 breakers used that when added together don't exceed the rating of the panel board?

22. Some panelboards may have the required number of handles and service overcurrent devices, when the maximum number of the smallest units are installed and used without handles or ties or
similar devices. These panelboards may have the shorter marking ?Suitable for use as service
equipment? or ?Suitable only for use as service equipment.? The shorter marking is suitable for Class 9 CTL (circuit limited) lighting and appliance panelboards since they cannot have more than two main overcurrent protective devices as specified in Section 408.16(A) (384-16(a)) of the NEC.

408.16(A) has always puzzeled me as to why would you have two over current devices in series with a panel? Two in parallel would be a violation so they must mean in series? and in 408.16 how if in series could they have a combined rating not greater than that of the panelboard? Did they meen on the load side of the panelboard? like the same requirment but 6 disconnects for a power panelboard?
Now that would make sense.

 

[dan_mcquiston]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

If this is a sub-panel due to being in a separate building, the main panel is the disconnecting means, I believe.

As far as future, if the panel is able to support 8 breakes, the inspector must assume that all openings area available for use. However, the main panel has the 2-pole breaker to feed this and you must have a lock-out clip installed on this breaker.That should solve your problem.

Dan McQuiston
Master Electrician
Washington State

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by dan_mcquiston:
If this is a sub-panel due to being in a separate building, the main panel is the disconnecting means, I believe.

Welcome Dan.

225.31 requires a disconnecting means be located at a separate building or structure.

225.33 tells us that there may be one to six disconnecting means.

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. There shall be no more than six disconnects per supply grouped in any one location.

Originally posted by dan_mcquiston:
As far as future, if the panel is able to support 8 breakers, the inspector must assume that all openings area available for use.

Well that many of disagree strongly with, there is no code language to support your position.

To use a common example.

Say you supplied a 125 amp load with a 200 amp fused disconnect switch equipped with 125 amp fuses.

Now, what prevents someone in the future from replacing the fuse with a larger one?

The point is an inspector can only inspect what is there in front of them at the time of inspection.

The only thing that prevents any future code violations is the qualifications of the person performing work in the future.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
if you can find a 40 circuit main lug only panel listed as suitable as service equipment I would love to see it.

Here is a FAQ from Square D.

Question Are all panels rated for use as service entrance equipment?

Answer All panels are suitable for use as service equipment when used as permitted by the National Electrical Code. The statement for service entrance equipment can be found on the torque and wiring diagram on every panel.

This applies to: NQOD, NF, I-LINE, QMB, NQOD, NF and I-LINE Non-Linear and RTI interiors.

Bob I picked the first one, NQOD , this is what I found it can be used as service equipment if ... Well, I'll let you read it for yourself .

Main Lugs Interiors
? Will accept plug-on or bolt-on branch circuit breakers.
? Suitable for use as service entrance (USA only); meets
local electrical codes.
? Top or bottom feed.
? 65k AIR maximum branch circuit breakers (fully rated).
? 200k AIR maximum when supplied by remote I-LIMITER?
circuit breaker (series rated).
? 100A and 225A are suitable for use as service entrance
with back-fed QOB circuit breaker (USA only).
? Field-installable sub-feed lug kits for 100?225A interiors.
? Factory installed main lugs on all interiors.
? 225?400A main lug interiors are convertible to main circuit
breaker by adding a main circuit breaker and adapter kit.
? Available with silver-plated copper or tin-plated aluminum
bus (aluminum is standard). Tin-plated copper bus is
available as an option. Branch connector fingers are all
tin-plated copper; silver-plated branch connector fingers
are optional.

And on top of this the sub panel in the OP is a lighting and small appliance panel isn't it?
I think Mdshunk might want to take a closer look at the fine print on the listing labels

 

[jim dungar]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Just remember that the UL document, that hurk27 is referencing, is not the "official" UL listing requirements. Personally I view it similar to the commentary in the NEC Handbook.

As far as a combination of breakers, don't forget to add shunt trips and other accessories that take up space without adding circuits. And there is no language saying the handle tie has to be a standard product.

What it all comes down to is: Check the label on the specific device. And, the inspector can not prevent future possible mis-application.

[ November 25, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: jim dungar ]

 

[necbuff]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Maybe a silly rule of thumb, But I base it on the phases. If it is a single phase system, I permit a 12 space enclosure (up to 6 - 2 pole breakers). If it is a 3 phase system, I permit up to an 18 space enclosure(for 6 - 3 pole breakers). This is mine and only my rule. While I am not one to make my own rules, I feel this is a safe call for this gray area.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Marc you said

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Jim , if you can find a 40 circuit main lug only panel listed as suitable as service equipment I would love to see it.

A simple question to which I gave a simple response.

Square D's own FAQ stated all their panels are suitable for use as service equipment.

I am sorry if I mislead you posting info direct from the Manufacture.

Here is the label on a Cutler Hammer MLO panel I worked on today.

My point here is do not assume that there is no such thing as a service rated MLO, they do exist.

Jim D said it well.

Originally posted by jim dungar:
What it all comes down to is: Check the label on the specific device.

So Marc you and I do agree that if it is not listed as service equipment it would be a 225.36 violation.

Never assume that an MLO panel is not service rated.

[ November 25, 2005, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

iwire

where does it say its a 40 circuit?

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:
iwire

where does it say its a 40 circuit?

For those famaliar with Cutler Hammer products, they'll automatically know that the PRLxx are the Pow-R-Line panelboards. They are normally fitted with up to 14, 3-pole breakers. That's 42 spaces if you use singles.

[ November 25, 2005, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: mdshunk ]

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Hang on a minute ,original post "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. "
Why did you even offer a panel ? This all could have been done with no breaker or panel.At most a single pole switch.Had it been a simple building with a few receptacles it need nothing.The switch was a disconnect for the lights and receptacles requed no disconect.And i have ran many garages with a 12-3 (1 circuit) and passed every time with no ground rod or panel.You simply went overboard and got into a hassel
I feel to see any danger,violation or hazard. Can we assume the supply wire went to a main lug ? In that case the 1 breaker did not need even a lock down kit.The inspector might seen this as a set up for some add ons.Solution is remove panel.One circuit does not require a panel.
Also curious as to the feed to this 8 circuit panel.Was it fed with 120/240 or just 1 leg of 120

[ November 25, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

mdshunk

I am sorry, I thought that model number sounded like a standard panelboard in a residential detached structure.

its obvious there is two interpretations of art. 225, and I am sure if you decided to take an inspector to board of appeals over this, you would probably at best have a 50/50 shot of winning.

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:
... and I am sure if you decided to take an inspector to board of appeals over this, you would probably at best have a 50/50 shot of winning.

My experience with appeals boards is that they are really non-technical folks. You really have to "school" the board from beginning to end on all the factors related to your case, trying to be as clear as possible. Most of the time it boils down to who educates the appeals board better; you or the inspector. The inspector has an automatic advantage from the beginning.

A former boss of mine was fond of saying, "It doesn't matter what the code says. It matters what the inspector says." It shouldn't have to be that way, I always add.

Originally posted by jimwalker:
Why did you even offer a panel ? This all could have been done with no breaker or panel.At most a single pole switch.Had it been a simple building with a few receptacles it need nothing.The switch was a disconnect for the lights and receptacles requed no disconect.And i have ran many garages with a 12-3 (1 circuit) and passed every time with no ground rod or panel.

There's several ways this could have been done. Some methods are more common than others. In this case, assume that the job was in the country and the customer only told the electrician after he arrived that he "might want 220 for somthing out there later on". The most suitable panel on truck stock was an 8 space MLO panel.

Regardless of how you'd do it, installing the 8 space MLO panel with only a breaker or two, while unusual, still seems to satisfy code in my mind. Worst case, I'll backfeed a breaker as a main and put in the hold down accessory. Seems like if I'm gonna have this issue, I might should put a hold down kit on truck stock.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Maybe a silly rule of thumb, But I base it on the phases...

?

I am so gonna have a stroke.

To feel better about it, I am going to find a 12-space panel to fill with single pole breakers.

[ November 26, 2005, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mdshunk:

Originally posted by mpd:
iwire

where does it say its a 40 circuit?

For those famaliar with Cutler Hammer products, they'll automatically know that the PRLxx are the Pow-R-Line panelboards. They are normally fitted with up to 14, 3-pole breakers. That's 42 spaces if you use singles.

That is the fact jack.

[ November 26, 2005, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:
its obvious there is two interpretations of art. 225,

Not so obvious to some of us.

[ November 26, 2005, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:
iwire

where does it say its a 40 circuit?

It's not 40 circuit.

3 phase panels do not come in 40 pole versions, this happens to be a 42 pole MLO panel.