detached garage

[George Stolz]

So because a garage has one light and two general purpose outlets it is considered being supplied by a L&ABCPB? When is it considered just a branch circuit?

If you had two 15A breakers at the house (instead of the 2-pole 40A) supplying a panelboard containing two 15A breakers in the outbuilding, then you could say (subject to interpretation) that the overcurrent protection is in the middle of a branch circuit; the second set would be "supplementary overcurrent protection" somewhat as mentioned in 240.10.

If there is a large breaker supplying a panelboard of smaller breakers, that is a feeder. Same size breakers can be argued as a branch circuit, look at the definitions too.

Edit to add: The thing that makes a panelboard a Lighting and Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard are the definitions in 408.34. If it matches the use mentioned in 408.34(A), it's a L&ABCPB. If it's actually supplying a couple feeders or something, it becomes a power panelboard.

When does it come into play that you can use 6 snap switches as your disconnects in a residential application?

Interesting point - you could remove the panel and install a couple snap switches supplied from 15A or 20A breakers from the house, and that would be fine.

I don't have the problem doing the work, I want to know the facts, that's the difference in this case.

And I could hug you for it.

 

[M. D.]

Take a look at this picture, that Bob posted in the original thread where we figured most this out:

.

I have no Idea why it says "when not used as a lighting and appliance panelboard",But I have met Jeff and he is indeed a sharp cookie

 

[George Stolz]

That picture didn't say what I thought it did - look closer.

I'll find the right thread tomorrow, there were three or four and I'm not sure that's the one where it all came together.

 

[M. D.]

Just say it George, If it is a lighting and appliance panel , it is not a service rated disconnect ,... 225.36 ..:grin: I'm not so sure ,...formal interpretation anyone??

 

[augie47]

main in disconect

main in disconect

sometimes I get lost in the forrest. Was there ever a clear determination as to the need, or lack there of, for a main breaker in the detached garage panel ?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see what the big deal is. Put in a double pole 60 amp breaker for $10 and add the $3.00 main breaker kit and be done with it. No biggie.

When the NEC is that complicated to decipher sometimes it's not worth fighting over. I agree it would be nice to know what the intent was here but seems we will never figure that out.

 

[George Stolz]

Party pooper. I like the sig by the way.

I am getting in late tonight, so I'll go looking for that correct thread probably tomorrow. I know it was a long thread, and it had a huge detour in the middle, but then the answer popped up at the end. I remember it, because I was proved wrong in the end.

 

[M. D.]

Yeah, and when you have a guy like Jeff Sargent state that a Lighting and appliance panel board at a seperate structure can take advantage of the not more than "six swipes" rule, it highlights just how far the "code makers" missed the mark

 

[George Stolz]

sometimes I get lost in the forrest. Was there ever a clear determination as to the need, or lack there of, for a main breaker in the detached garage panel ?

Not that I am aware of. I don't think I've even seen a reason behind the service-rated requirement, much less the stigma about using a L&ABCPB for the six handle rule in a detached structure.

IMO, it's just an oddity of the cut-and-paste job they did to create 225 out of 230. I don't see any safety issue with the panel described in the OP.

 

[augie47]

wrong ???

wrong ???

Party pooper. I like the sig by the way.

I am getting in late tonight, so I'll go looking for that correct thread probably tomorrow. I know it was a long thread, and it had a huge detour in the middle, but then the answer popped up at the end. I remember it, because I was proved wrong in the end.

Understand ..one tends to recall those 1 in a 1000 events

 

[George Stolz]

Augie, it's not that it's rare, it's just that it sticks.

...it highlights just how far the "code makers" missed the mark.

Well, we do get in a whole lot deeper than normal around here, to be fair.

 

[M. D.]

Well, we do get in a whole lot deeper than normal around here, to be fair.

Amen,but we should be able to understand the minimum requirements just the same.:grin:

 

[angryhalfinch]

Well folks, the job is done. I put in a 60A 2-pole breaker complete with the lock down bracket. Installed a ground bar. Seperated the nuetrals and the grounds. Pounded 2 ground rods and ran a #4 bare for the ground. I also replaced the 2 outlets in the garage with gfci outlets, which the home inspector didn't seem to concerned with. I appreciate everyones help and input on this matter. Thank You.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Well folks, the job is done. I put in a 60A 2-pole breaker complete with the lock down bracket. Installed a ground bar. Seperated the nuetrals and the grounds. Pounded 2 ground rods and ran a #4 bare for the ground. I also replaced the 2 outlets in the garage with gfci outlets, which the home inspector didn't seem to concerned with. I appreciate everyones help and input on this matter. Thank You.

You did the right thing. I will sleep better tonight. :grin:

 

[angryhalfinch]

Well I didn't want to be responsible for any lost sleep that I could have caused anyone.

 

[George Stolz]

Hey! We weren't done yet!

Pounded 2 ground rods and ran a #4 bare for the ground.

Why #4?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Why #4?

I missed that. #6 is all that is needed.

 

[M. D.]

#4 , #6 , who cares , I still don't understand the restriction on L &APB , 225.36 indeed :grin:

 

[M. D.]

Sorry about the length ,.. but In 08 Idon't think there will be Lighting and appliance panel boards ,..I wonder what the ul sticker will say now??​

____________________________________________________________​

9-117 Log #2643 NEC-P09

Final Action: Accept in Principle​

(408.34, 408.35, and 408.36)

​

​

________________________________________________________________​

Submitter:​

Kevin J. Lippert, Eaton Corporation​

........Substantiation:​

The intent of this proposal is 3-fold: 1) Permit more than 42​

circuits in all panelboards; 2) Eliminate the category of ?Lighting and
Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard?; and 3) Require that all panelboards (for
new installations) be protected on the line side by a single integral or remote
main overcurrent protective device (except as presently permitted for service
equipment).
A code-making panel Task Group studied this topic for Proposal 9-142 to the
1996 NEC. That resulted in Proposal 9-120 for the 1999 code and included
revised material for 384-14 and 384-16 as recorded in NFPA 70 - A98 ROP.
Those changes were a ?step in the right direction.? However, continuing
harmonization of codes and product standard requirements, along with the
desire to simplify and clarify requirements, indicates that it is now time to
?finish the job? on this subject.
As documented by the Task Group, an original (circa 1933) intent of the
circuit limitation was to prevent overheating by installing too many rubberinsulated
wires in the panelboard. This preceded the present UL 67 Panelboard
Standard constructional requirements for Wiring Space, Wiring Gutters and
Wire Bending Space. UL 67?s thermal test requirements that incorporate
?worst-case? loading conditions, coupled with industry advances in conductor
insulation, entirely eliminate this as a concern.
As documented by the Task Group, the method to restrict the 42-circuit
limitation only to ?certain? panelboards results in the category of ?Lighting and
Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard.? Therefore, if the 42-circuit limitation is
lifted, then the category itself is no longer needed. It is ironic that when a
panelboard is presently categorized as ?power? panelboard, the 42-circuit
limitation is no longer a concern. In fact, most domestic panelboard
manufacturers make a 2nd design of product without the 42-circuit restriction,
and export them for installation in Canada where there is no circuit restriction
for any panelboard application.
Lastly, the Task Group report states ?the Task Group believes that these
panelboards will be safer with main overcurrent protection sized to the panel
bussing? and yet not so for ?service equipment (which) are likely to have much
better supervision and inspection than the same equipment used as remote
subpanels.? This concern is addressed by requiring overcurrent protection for
all panelboards, but retaining the reference to service equipment in 230.71.
(Note that this proposal would also exempt existing installations because the
intent is not to require a complete panelboard replacement when a circuit is
added to this type of existing construction.)​

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle​

Delete section 408.34.

Delete section 408.35.
Change 408.36 to read as follows:
408.36 Overcurrent Protection. In addition to the requirements of 408.30, a
power panelboard with supply conductors that include a neutral, and having
more than 10 percent of its overcurrent devices protecting branch circuits rated
30 amperes or less, shall be protected by an overcurrent protective device
having a rating not greater than that of the panelboard. This overcurrent
protective device shall be located within or at any point on the supply side of
the panelboard.
Exception No. 1: Individual protection shall not be required for a panelboard
used as service equipment and containing not more than six overcurrent
devices. For the purposes of this exception, the term ?overcurrent device?
means a single or a multipole circuit breaker, or a single fuse or set of fuses,
operable or disconnectable by a single motion of the hand and that supplies a
single load.
Exception No. 2: Individual protection shall not be required for a panelboard
individually protected on its 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. A panelboard wired under this exception shall not contain more
than 42 overcurrent devices. For the purposes of this exception, a 2-pole or a 3-
pole circuit breaker shall be considered as two or three overcurrent devices,
respectively.
Exception No. 3: For existing panelboards, individual protection shall not be
required for a panelboard used as service equipment for an individual
residential occupancy.
(C) (A) Snap Switches Rated at 30 Amperes or Less. (No change.)
(D) (B) Supplied Through a Transformer. (No change.)
(E) (C) Delta Breakers. (No change.)
(F) (D) Back-Fed Devices. (No change.)​

Panel Statement:​

The panel has reworded the exceptions to maintain as much​

continuity as practical with prior code practice. Exception No. 1 is based on
current 408.36(B) Exception, which is intended to recognize a long standing
practice of allowing a small panel to be used as service equipment, with large
line-to-line loads leaving at this point and a smaller feeder entering the building
to supply what formerly was called a lighting and appliance branch circuit
panelboard. The limitations now to be built into this exception prevent the
extension of this limited practice to what could otherwise become a split-bus
panelboard of unlimited size in the future. The six-circuit limit echoes the
customary service limitation in 230.71.
Exception No. 2 corresponds to the parent language in 408.36(A). Since prior
practice effectively limited these panelboards to 42 circuits, the wording in the
panel action carries that limitation forward, but only for these split-bus panels.
Exception No. 3 corresponds to present 408.36(A) Exception No. 2, and it
continues without change.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 11​

Ballot Results: ​

Affirmative: 9 Abstain: 1​

Ballot Not Returned:​

1 de Vega, H.​

​

 

[angryhalfinch]

2 reasons for the #4 ground. That's what was on the truck and I didn't have to worry about running it in a conduit.