6 disconnect rule violation?

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

There is absolutely nothing in either those sections that speaks of spaces or poles, only the number of disconnects.

Why would you need more than 12 or 18 poles?

1)Shunt trip units take up a pole each.

2)None of anyones business, simply a design issue.

Take a look at this label from a 42 circuit MLO panel and read what it says.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by necbuff:
It clearly says up to how many disconnects we can have and no more.

Yes it very clearly says disconnects.

It does not say anything about panel capacity.

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

the listing on that panel says 6 service disconnects, would those 6 breakers in that detached residential garage be service disconnects, does anyone have info on a residential loadcenter instead of this 3 phase panel, lets at least debate a panel that would be installed in a residential structure.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mpd:
the listing on that panel says 6 service disconnects, would those 6 breakers in that detached residential garage be service disconnects, does anyone have info on a residential loadcenter instead of this 3 phase panel, lets at least debate a panel that would be installed in a residential structure.

mpd It does not matter if we are suppling grandmas garden shed with 240/120 30 amps or supplying her grandsons machine shop 208Y/120 400 amps the code rules remain the same.

I do not know if there are any plug in style MLO load centers that are indeed service rated.

At the same time none of us know that there are not any.

As Jim D said so well, the only sure answer is to read the label on the panel itself at the time of inspection.

By the way, I agree it is not likely the opening post was using this panel, the enclosure is almost 7' tall.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by necbuff:
[QB] Why would you need a bigger enclosure?

Why does it matter?

Here's a perfect example: Let's say I'm working on a remote house, 1.5 hour's drive from my shop. Let's say it's the last day, and I go to install the panel, and discover I forgot the main breaker for my 200 amp MLO - MDP Siemens convertible panel.

I'm screwed.

No, wait, I'm not. I can use the factory-installed lugs, and install one breaker for my temp GFI circuit, one circuit for my furnace, and one circuit for my dryer (240V temp outlet).

This is a 42 space panel, with 20+ circuits in it. But I have no need for the others yet. So, in the mean time, the NEC gives me the option of simply using only 6 throws of the hand, an option you are swift to throw away because it's unconventional.

When I return to trim out the house, the NEC will force me to either backfeed the panel, or install a main breaker. I am using a panel that allows me to configure it either as an MLO or an MDP, so it's not as though I have to throw away this panel when the system gets "upgraded."

And I shouldn't have to answer to a red tag because I choose to exercize my NEC-granted options.

That's one scenario. There are probably infinute scenarios that can make use of these sections.

This is in no way making up rules as we go. It clearly says up to how many disconnects we can have and no more.

Exactly. How many circuit breakers, not spaces.

Look, Kenny, I have nothing against you. It's the principle behind your statement that is unfounded, and unnecessary. No hard feelings from me.

I just hope that you can come around to the idea that all actions aren't self-explanatory. If you were to inspect that panel, you'd have failed it. You can't see the big picture at any given moment in time, so you can't inspect as though you can.

In my foolish young inexperience, I ask that an old hand review his take on this, and perhaps change his stance.

With respect,
George

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

These Square D 40 circuit MLO load centers can be used for service equipment when no more than 6 disconnects (breakers) are installed.

Q. Do the QO403L60NF, QO403L60NS or QO403L60NRB load centers meet service entrance requirements?

A. These load centers are marked ``Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six service disconnects are provided and when not used as a Lighting and Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard`` (see 2002 National Electrical Code - Article 408.14). For a Service Equipment Use application, the neutral shall be bonded to the enclosure at the time of installation. A bonding screw is provided for this application.

You can see it yourself BY CLICKING HERE


Roger

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
... I can use the factory-installed lugs, and install one breaker for my temp GFI circuit, one circuit for my furnace, and one circuit for my dryer (240V temp outlet)...

But doesn't each disconnect means have to be rated at least 60A for feeder?

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

What if I intend to use 3-pole, switched neutral breakers, with shunt trip? They take 5 spaces. We could go on and on. A disconnect is still not an enclosure.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by roger:
These Square D 40 circuit MLO load centers can be used for service equipment when no more than 6 disconnects (breakers) are installed.

Q. Do the QO403L60NF, QO403L60NS or QO403L60NRB load centers meet service entrance requirements?

A. These load centers are marked ``Suitable for use as service equipment when not more than six service disconnects are provided and when not used as a Lighting and Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard`` (see 2002 National Electrical Code - Article 408.14). For a Service Equipment Use application, the neutral shall be bonded to the enclosure at the time of installation. A bonding screw is provided for this application.

You can see it yourself BY CLICKING HERE


Roger

I am under impression that this (O.P.) is a Lighting and appliance panelboard in which case I don't believe either these or the panel listing Bob posted would qulify as suitable for service equipment.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by bphgravity:
But doesn't each disconnect means have to be rated at least 60A for feeder?

What George described sound like branch circuits.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
I am under impression that this (O.P.) is a Lighting and appliance panelboard in which case I don't believe either these or the panel listing Bob posted would qulify as suitable for service equipment.

Please explain how you come up with that?

The CH panel I posted was being used as a lighting and appliance branch circuit board.

UL does not determine what is a Power panel and what is a lighting and appliance branch circuit panel is.

That determination is based on what breakers we install in the panel.

 

[necbuff]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

No hard feelings from me, I promise. But I do not need a cartoon rambo firing RPG's at me because of my unpopular interpretation. Again, some field calls are tough and not everything is black and white. That is why the NEC gives some us flex ability, not rampant renegade rule making.

But I am not convinced that temp service is compliant either. Depending on the ampacity of the OCPD's it may need a main per 408.36. Uh oh, incoming!! I do see your point. Hope you see mine. I imagine this won't be the last time I disagree with someone. It is just the nature of the business.

I do have another somewhat challenging question. I will put it in a new post. Look for it under patient care areas in the NEC forum. Another good example of technology surpassing code. It will never end.

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I kind of a agree with a past post that intentionally making a ruling that is not within the wording of the NEC tantamount to steeling.

This has been said several times by several electricians throughout this thread. This statement is not only irresponsible but could also be used against any electrician here. Certainly electricians here have made a mistake or intentionally installed the wrong material with the idea that it will not be caught during inspection.

I'm always amazed at the amount of vehement replys when an inspector posts his opinion and the electricians here jump all over it. The trouble with this reaction is it sets the wrong tone and makes it hard for either side to listen and learn.

The main problem is the code is not perfect in it's coverage of each situation. It is not a fair statement for one to say 225.xx is clear and another to say it is not exactly clear and therefore no one can add their two cents.

The code is not an all inclusive standard and it says so in 90.2. There is a provision for items that are not clear and it is in 90.4.

Forget about the argument that "you are not the AHJ" and just read what is there.

Think about how many words have been written in this thread agueing the side of the electrician vs. the inspector. Does it help anyone understand the code any better?

 

[jbwhite]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by websparky:
Certainly electricians here have made a mistake or intentionally installed the wrong material with the idea that it will not be caught during inspection.

I am glad you put the word "or" in there. I have made alot of mistakes in my life, and will likely continue to do so, until they start throwing dirt on the hole i am in.

Originally posted by websparky:
The main problem is the code is not perfect in it's coverage of each situation.

If it were, threads like these could not go on for as long as they do.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by websparky:
This has been said several times by several electricians throughout this thread. This statement is not only irresponsible but could also be used against any electrician here.

When I said that I made it clear that I was not talking about an inspector simply making an honest mistake.... as we all do.

I was referring to an inspector making a ruling fully believing they would be a 50 / 50 chance the ruling was wrong.

If an inspector has an issue that they are that doubtful about wouldn't it be more responsible to find out the more about the code section rather than saying "No big deal, they can win on appeal"?

Originally posted by websparky:
Certainly electricians here have made a mistake or intentionally installed the wrong material with the idea that it will not be caught during inspection.

Mistakes are mistakes, as far as intentionally violating the code certainly they have, no doubt about it. They should also be stopped from taking those actions as well.

I am for a level playing field, I am expected to install following the NEC and inspector must inspect following the NEC.

[ November 26, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Bob , the ones Roger posted are marked as such and the one you posted Has to be ordered as suitable for use as service equipment. I don't know why ? I'm not familiar with these , maybe you know?
Is it so the neutral can be detached ?


Type PRL3a
Application Description

.Lighting and appliance branch
panelboard or power distribution
panelboard.

.Fully rated or series rated.

.Interrupting ratings up to 200 kA
symmetrical.

.Suitable for use as Service Entrance
Equipment, when specified on
the order

.See Pages 14-3 through 14-16 for
additional information.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Bob , the ones Roger posted are marked as such and the one you posted Has to be ordered as suitable for use as service equipment. I don't know why ? I'm not familiar with these , maybe you know?

Is it so the neutral can be detached ?

Truthfully I do not know either, I suspect you are correct.

I am not involved with the purchasing of much.

I fax an order to our purchasing dept. and they handle it, or it is specified on the prints.

It seems odd though as the CH panel was not being used as service equipment, it was the second section to a double tub (84 circuits) panel board set.

I can't see why it would have been special ordered as service equipment considering it's intended location

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Bob you mentioned that the panel you used was defined as a lighting/ appliance panel based on the load served . Can , in your opinion , the over current protection at the detached building serve this requirement ?

Each lighting and appliance branch
circuit panelboard shall be individually
protected on the supply side by not
more than two main circuit breakers or
two sets of fuses having a combined
rating not greater than that on the
panelboard.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:
What George described sound like branch circuits.

Agreed, but he is also using them for the service/feeder disconnecting means aswell for the means of discoonecting the branch circuit they serve. In this case they can't be rated less than the XXX.79 section.

This is the way I see it. You have service/feeder. A disconnecting means is required. This sdisconnecting meanes can be up to six switches. Each of these switches must be rated per the XXX.79 section. Once you have met these requirements, you now provide OCD and disconnects for all branch ciruits and feeders served by this fedder/service.

Am I way off base? It seems some of you are saying that if one of the six disconnects happens to serve a single branch circuit, then it must not be smaller than the load to be served or 15A. But, if you are using this to also serve as the feeder/service that feeds that panelboaard, doesn't it have to meet the rating requirements including everything the feeder/service will supply?

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Bryan did you feel this thread was not complicated enough?