6 disconnect rule violation?

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
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 ?

IMO This is the best argument yet and seems to prohibit (in terms of economics and common sense) any basic shed type building from using an MLO panel of any size.

In larger buildings the panel may well be a power panel but a one panel shed is certainly going to have it's panel considered a lighting and appliance panel.

Bob

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
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 ?

IMO This is the best argument yet and seems to prohibit (in terms of economics and common sense) any basic shed type building from using an MLO panel of any size.

In larger buildings the panel may well be a power panel but a one panel shed is certainly going to have it's panel considered a lighting and appliance panel.

Bob

I thought that it was established that the xxx.79 rating of the disconnecting means in the case of a MLO panel was the rating of the panel (say 100 amp), and not the rating of any particular branch breaker that may be installed in it? Seems like we had a thread on that a month or so ago.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Dave,

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 would call that theft too. There are abuses on both sides of the fence and both are wrong.
Don

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Don,

Agreed.

Thank you.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mdshunk:
...I thought that it was established that the xxx.79 rating of the disconnecting means in the case of a MLO panel was the rating of the panel (say 100 amp), and not the rating of any particular branch breaker that may be installed in it? Seems like we had a thread on that a month or so ago.

Established by whom? Per the definition in Article 100, a panelboard by itself is not a disconnecting means.

 

[mdshunk]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by bphgravity:

Originally posted by mdshunk:
...I thought that it was established that the xxx.79 rating of the disconnecting means in the case of a MLO panel was the rating of the panel (say 100 amp), and not the rating of any particular branch breaker that may be installed in it? Seems like we had a thread on that a month or so ago.

Established by whom? Per the definition in Article 100, a panelboard by itself is not a disconnecting means.

This thread: http://www.mikeholt.com/cgi-bin/codeforum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=007979#000000 is the one I was referring to. It is remiscent of that topic we're discussing now.

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I feel that by the wording each disconnect allowed by 230.71 is in it's own right a service disconnect as per :

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2,

These can be one circuit two circuit services.
With that in mind now apply 230.79

A) One-Circuit Installation. For installations to supply only limited loads of a single branch circuit, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 15 amperes.

It seems to allow a 15 amp or calculated load as the determining factor in the minimum size of the OCPD.
A service disconnect and branch circuit protection can be both, where does it say it can't?

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Oh and one more little tid-bit:

230.80 Combined Rating of Disconnects.
Where the service disconnecting means consists of more than one switch or circuit breaker, as permitted by 230.71, the combined ratings of all the switches or circuit breakers used shall not be less than the rating required by 230.79.

Ok that might put to rest that each breaker dosn't need to be rated 60 amps, But I haven't found anything to disput my other post just above this one.

 

[websparky]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Hurk,

I think you're mixing 230 with 225 and coming up confused!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by mdshunk:
This thread is the one I was referring to. It is remiscent of that topic we're discussing now.

We never really came to a clear answer in that one, either.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by hurk27:
230.80...the combined ratings of all the switches or circuit breakers used shall not be less than the rating required by 230.79.

Websparky wrote:
I think you're mixing 230 with 225 and coming up confused!

Are you kidding? This is huge!

The requirements of 225 are essentially lifted off the requirements of 230. I think you'd agree that there's more than a passing resemblance to many sections, from one to the other.

If 230 gets it's value for the "rating" of a disconnecting means by adding the handles together, and 225 doesn't offer a method, then it's reasonable to assume that it is intended to use the method outlined in 230 when determining compliance with a 225-governed application.

So, in my scenario:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">20 amp temp 120V GFI circuit</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">15 amp 120 V furnace circuit</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">30 amp 240V Dryer circuit</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have a total of 65. I would need to slap in a 20 and a 15 amp breaker to be in compliance with the minimum for a dwelling unit.

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

george

does anything in art. 225 refer you to art. 230
in the post that is being debated.

and I thought we are not supposed to guess or assume the intended use.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I guess it comes down to whether you think (or the AHJ thinks) the language in 230.80 has been intentionally left out of Article 225 or if the ommission is by mistake.

 

[mpd]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

read the scope of art. 225 and 230

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I have been closely watching this thread and have come to at least one conclusion.

There is a misunderstanding about a temp saw service as George has posted above and a distribution panel as outlined in the original post.

A listed power outlet (self contained temp service) does not require a main as would the distribution panel that George is trying to use as a temp service. When a panel is set and the receptacle outlets are not contained with-in the panel (a listed power outlet) then this panel is required to have a main as outlined in 408.36.

408.36 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. 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 of the panelboard.

Although there are similarities between 225 and 230 these two article address two completely different conductors. 230 addresses unprotected conductors while 225 addresses protected conductors that are installed outside.

There are a couple of different sections that we need to look at when installing a panel in a separate building such as an unattached garage.
First let?s look at 225.31, 32 and 33. In 31 a disconnect is required, 32 states that it can be inside or outside and 33 states the six disconnect rule.
We now know that one is required somewhere at the point of entry and it can not have more than six disconnects installed.

Now we must ask what this enclosure that we are installing is being used for. Will there be more than ten percent of the overcurrent devices rated at or below thirty amps that will utilize the grounded neutral conductor? If the answer to this question is yes then this panel will be required to comply with 408.36 as posted above.

A real close reading of 408.36 will find an exception;

Exception No. 1: Individual protection for a lighting and appliance panelboard shall not be required if the panelboard feeder has overcurrent protection not greater than the rating of the panelboard.

This exception is knocked down by the rule found in 225.31 and 32 which states that the separate building is required to have a disconnecting means either inside or outside.

Article 225 took exception one of 408.36 out of the picture for the panel located in a separate building but the main rule still stands. Should this panel fit the definition of a lighting and appliance panel then a main is now required.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
When a panel is set and the receptacle outlets are not contained with-in the panel (a listed power outlet) then this panel is required to have a main as outlined in 408.36.

I just realized something: 408.36(A) does not require a main at all.

408.36 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. 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 of the panelboard.

Zero is not more than two.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

The choice is one or two but not zero.

408.36 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. 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 of the panelboard.

The section requires OCP.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Dang.

 

[necbuff]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I think JW is on the mark.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

The question is,.. can this protection be remote and just how remote?
ajacent building remote ?
right next to the panelboard remote ?
Does a Main(s) circuit breaker have to installed in the panelboard which it serves?


I think it says not more than two so you can still use a split bus panel board for lighting and appliance loads
408.36 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. 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 of the panelboard.