Article 225.39

[romex jockey]

My take is much of the old world wiring was done via taps before 240.21 expanded to address 225.39

240.21 B 5

(5) Outside Taps of Unlimited Length. , being applicable

~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I guess this will be one of the question I will ask the panel at our annual meeting on April 7-8 :thumbsup:

 

[iwire]

My take is much of the old world wiring was done via taps before 240.21 expanded to address 225.39

240.21 B 5

(5) Outside Taps of Unlimited Length. , being applicable

~RJ~

That would be fine as long as they did not leave or enter a building.

 

[Smart $]

I disagree and that was what I stated in the first post- the overcurrent protective device is the disconnect

I think that is EXACTLY the topic Dennis wishes to discuss and I think he has a good point.

In other words I am as not convinced your view is correct as you are.

Article 225 Part II title: Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)

Part II does not cover anything prior to the building or other structure served.

225.39 is in Part II.

I know that's what Dennis wants to discuss... but it's simply not in this Part, nor is it specified as he wants it to be anywhere else.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Article 225 Part II title: Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)

Part II does not cover anything prior to the building or other structure served.

225.39 is in Part II.

I know that's what Dennis wants to discuss... but it's simply not in this Part, nor is it specified as he wants it to be anywhere else.

You make a good point but that feeder originates in the first building. It is obvious this section is unclear to say the least but the interpretation by many of us does not make any sense at all.

I think I can accept the disconnect to be in the first building and still be a part of this section. Again why state the feeder disconnect instead of the building disconnect?

 

[iwire]

Article 225 Part II title: Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)

Yeah, I was kind of aware of that.

Part II does not cover anything prior to the building or other structure served.

Here I feel that is opinion, a common one and frankly a legitimate one but I don't see anything that clearly makes it a fact.

225.39 is in Part II.

I will not argue that point.

I know that's what Dennis wants to discuss... but it's simply not in this Part, nor is it specified as he wants it to be anywhere else.

I do not see it as black and white as you do.

Again I think this sums it up

I think it will be interpreted differently by many until the wording is more precise

 

[iwire]

I would agree, but IF we comply with Art 225 and install a 60 amp disconnecting means at the garage and supply it with #10s from a 30 amp breaker in the residence, are we in violation ?

I think we could be in violation of 225.39. For the reasons Dennis has laid out.

If we place a 6 circuit 100 amp panel with (4) 15 amp breakers and supply it with a #10 feeder are we in violation ?

Assuming the feeder disconnect at the supply end is less than what 225.39 requires I think we might be in violation.

 

[Smart $]

...Again why state the feeder disconnect instead of the building disconnect?

So in Article 230 should it be premises disconnecting means rather than service disconnecting means?

We are disconnecting the line side from the load side. The building is on the load side. Convention has inferred we call the disconnect by what is on the line side. We could enhance it by saying building [or structure] feeder disconnect, but I believe that's being a bit redundant given the title of the Part this falls under.

 

[Smart $]

I would agree, but IF we comply with Art 225 and install a 60 amp disconnecting means at the garage and supply it with #10s from a 30 amp breaker in the residence, are we in violation ?

If we place a 6 circuit 100 amp panel with (4) 15 amp breakers and supply it with a #10 feeder are we in violation ?

I think we could be in violation of 225.39. For the reasons Dennis has laid out.

Assuming the feeder disconnect at the supply end is less than what 225.39 requires I think we might be in violation.

I'm going with no violation in either scenario (as Code is currently worded, disregarding any contrary intent).

 

[romex jockey]

I guess this will be one of the question I will ask the panel at our annual meeting on April 7-8 :thumbsup:

It would be a good one to ask imho

~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I found this submitted by George back in the rop for the 2008

Submitter: George Stolz, II, Pierce, CO

Recommendation: Delete this section and its subsections.

Substantiation: Currently, this section is unclear as to what the ?rating?requirement is referring to. Some view it as an addition of the ratings of thebreakers installed at the separate structure in the panel(s). Some view it as arating requirement for the enclosure itself. Some even view it as the rating forthe OCPD that is installed at the supply side at the originating building,protecting feeder conductors. In any case, it appears evident that the size ofconductors feeding the disconnecting means are truly what constitute thecapacity of the system, and those conductors are sized and installedindependent of the requirements laid out in this section. Given the requirement given in 225.36, it appears that the purpose of thisarea of Article 225 is geared towards the ease of future expansion: should aseparate structure at some point be supplied by a separate service, such animprovement would be made easier if the existing equipment were alreadysuitable for such use. The requirements of this area are a reflection of nearlyidentical requirements of Article 230. However, section 90.1(B) states that compliance with the NEC ?...will resultin an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarilyefficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion ofelectrical use.? There is no hazard that is prevented by this section, it appearsto exist solely for future expansion, which is explicitly outside the desiredscope of the NEC per 90.1. Further, if such an improvement is made to a structure at a later date, it isprobable that most if not all equipment supplying that structure will beremoved due to age or fundamental changes in the use of the building requiringgreater capacity. Given the rampant misunderstanding of the nature of thissection, if it is retained, the language should be clarified to reflect what exactcomponent of the system is to bear the ratings listed in (A) through (D).

Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The title of the section clearly states the ?Rating ofDisconnect?. Simply stated, this is the minimum ampacity rating of thedisconnecting means regardless of type. The fact that it is service rated doesnot establish an ampacity rating. Future expansion has nothing to do with thisrequirement

IMO, this does nothing to help our understanding. It would have been nice if they explained it better

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I disagree and that was what I stated in the first post- the overcurrent protective device is the disconnect

It is my opinion that Part II of Article 225 does not address the supply end of the feeder and that the disconnect in 225.39 is the one required by 225.31.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So in Article 230 should it be premises disconnecting means rather than service disconnecting means?

Is it possible that the term service disconnect is a bad term? It does not change what the feeder disconnect would be. Seriously if I mention a feeder disconnect anywhere else what would you think about. I won't believe you if you dont say the overcurrent protective device.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It is my opinion that Part II of Article 225 does not address the supply end of the feeder and that the disconnect in 225.39 is the one required by 225.31.

That okay Don- I still love you.

 

[iwire]

 

[gaelectric]

"Example- if we feed a detached garage at a dwelling then IMO, the feeder disconnect is the overcurrent protective device at the main building. If 225.39(D) requires a 60 amp disconnect for the feeder then wouldn't you be required to run a 60 conductor to the garage? IMO, you must run a 60 amp feeder but I never see it enforced."


This is exactly the way the State Inspectors enforce it in Colorado. As I found out the hard way.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

"Example- if we feed a detached garage at a dwelling then IMO, the feeder disconnect is the overcurrent protective device at the main building. If 225.39(D) requires a 60 amp disconnect for the feeder then wouldn't you be required to run a 60 conductor to the garage? IMO, you must run a 60 amp feeder but I never see it enforced."


This is exactly the way the State Inspectors enforce it in Colorado. As I found out the hard way.

If you never saw it enforced then how did you find out the hard way????

 

[Smart $]

Is it possible that the term service disconnect is a bad term? It does not change what the feeder disconnect would be. Seriously if I mention a feeder disconnect anywhere else what would you think about. I won't believe you if you dont say the overcurrent protective device.

I understand your plight. I agree the feeder (or branch circuit) rating should be not less than the minimum required disconnect at the building or structure... but as the entirety of Article 225 is worded, there is no such requirement. All I am saying is that 250.39 refers to the disconnect at the building or structure, i.e. the disconnecting means stated throughout Article 225 Part II.

FWIW, there is a public input for 2017 that covers essentially the entirety of Article 225, with a summary purpose of bringing it more in line with the requirements of Article 230. There's your/our chance to get something 'inserted' to this effect during the comment stage. I suggest inserting a requirement comparable to what 230.42(B) does for 230.79.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I will try and remember to do that at the comment stage but there is no change in 225.39 that will change this argument.

BTW, I understand that you think it should be as I stated -- and I understand where you are coming from in terms of Charlie's rule. I just see the rule differently

 

[Little Bill]

Article 225.39 has been discussed here quite a bit and I don't agree with the interpretation by many. The section talks about the feeder disconnect. I hear everyone say- even myself- that this only affects the disconnect and I believe they are talking about the disconnect at the garage.

Example- if we feed a detached garage at a dwelling then IMO, the feeder disconnect is the overcurrent protective device at the main building. If 225.39(D) requires a 60 amp disconnect for the feeder then wouldn't you be required to run a 60 conductor to the garage? IMO, you must run a 60 amp feeder but I never see it enforced.

"Example- if we feed a detached garage at a dwelling then IMO, the feeder disconnect is the overcurrent protective device at the main building. If 225.39(D) requires a 60 amp disconnect for the feeder then wouldn't you be required to run a 60 conductor to the garage? IMO, you must run a 60 amp feeder but I never see it enforced."


This is exactly the way the State Inspectors enforce it in Colorado. As I found out the hard way.

If you never saw it enforced then how did you find out the hard way????

Dennis, I don't know what an "infracted moderator" is but it must be affecting your comprehension!

gaelectric was quoting you from your OP (in red above), thus the " " marks around the statement.:lol: