six hand-throws rule

[Powergrid]

We were recently called on a "six hand-throws rule" violation. We supplied a subfeed from a new meter pole about 30-40 ft. from the house. We installed a raintight surface mounted sub-panel on the exterior of the new residence. Even though there is a main breaker at the meter within sight of the sub-panel on the house, the inspector required another main breaker at the sub-panel. I have asked around, and while many people claim familiarity with the rule, no one can tell me where to find it in the code book. My father and I have looked for several days without success. Of course we know the requirement for a main disconnect where more than six services are grouped together, but we cannot find where the code requires another main breaker in a sub-panel that contains more than six breakers. Can anyone tell me where to find this rule?

 

[cowboyjwc]

I don't need to tell you where to find it because you already found it. That is the only reference to the "six movements of the hand". If you have a breaker for the subpanel at the main you are not required to have one at the sub.

Now you just need to convince the inspector.

 

[Sass5150]

230.71 (a)

 

[pete m.]

230.70 and 230.71 (2005 NEC) are probably the most pertinent sections to your particular installation.

As far as requiring another "main" at the house the inspector might be using 225.30, 225.31 and/or 225.32.

Hope this helps.

Pete

 

[petersonra]

I have to wonder why anyone would use a MLO panel in a residence these days. It is actually cheaper in many cases to buy the package deal with the main breaker installed then to get a MLO panel.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The disconnect at the meter is not at the structure being served. 225.31 requires means of disconnet at the second structure. 225.33 says that you cannot have more than six means of disconnet at the second structure. There is no exception for cases like this where there is a disconnect within sight of the second building.
Don

 

[cowboyjwc]

I don't want to start a big debate Don because I usually agree with you, but where does it say in 225.31 that the disconnecting means must be at the building. Look at the exceptions for 225.32

 

[jwelectric]

I don't want to start a big debate Don because I usually agree with you, but where does it say in 225.31 that the disconnecting means must be at the building. Look at the exceptions for 225.32

If I am reading the original post correctly then the main is on a pole and the subpanel is on the house.

This panel on the house must comply with the requirements of 225.
I don?t think that a residence would fall under any of the exceptions found in 225.32

 

[raider1]

but where does it say in 225.31 that the disconnecting means must be at the building.

The first sentence of 225.32 states "The disconnecting means shall be installed either inside or outside of the building or structure served or where the conductors pass through the building or structure." This section isn't very clear but it implys that the disconnect must be mounted on, or in the building or structure, or there would be no need for the exceptions.

The general rule is that the disconnect must be installed at the separate building or structure unless you meet the one of the exceptions. The OP was talking about a house and I don't see an exception to 225.32 that would apply to a house.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

I don?t think that a residence would fall under any of the exceptions found in 225.32

I agree. (It has to happen once in a while, doesn't it Mike? )

 

[Terrynistler]

225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one building
or other structure is on the same property and under
single management, each additional building or other structure
that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load
side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied
by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in
225.30(A) through (E). For the purpose of this section, a
multiwire branch circuit shall be considered a single circuit.

He is feeding the sub panel by a single feeder where does it state that it has to have it's own main disco?

 

[raider1]

225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one building
or other structure is on the same property and under
single management, each additional building or other structure
that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load
side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied
by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in
225.30(A) through (E). For the purpose of this section, a
multiwire branch circuit shall be considered a single circuit.

He is feeding the sub panel by a single feeder where does it state that it has to have it's own main disco?

Look at the next code sections, 225.31 and 225.32.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

He is feeding the sub panel by a single feeder where does it state that it has to have it's own main disco?

Nothing says the sub-panel must have its own main breaker. But 225.31 says the building must have a means for disconnecting all conductors entering the building.

The essential question is whether the disconnect located at the meter can be counted as the disconnecting means required for the building. It is within 50 feet. I don't know if there is a tree between the meter pole and the externally-mounted sub-panel, but let's assume you can see the one from the other. I am leaning towards saying you don't need a separate disconnect at the sub-panel. Thus, the "one to six" disconnect rule is satisfied by having a main disconnect (i.e., at the meter), and you can have up to 42 breakers in the sub-panel (i.e., the limit of six does not apply).

 

[Terrynistler]

I did! Define nearest?

More Than One Building or Other Structure

225.31 Disconnecting Means. Means shall be provided
for disconnecting all ungrounded conductors that supply or
pass through the building or structure.
225.32 Location. The disconnecting means shall be installed
either inside or outside of the building or structure
served or where the conductors pass through the building or
structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily
accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.
For the purposes of this section, the requirements
in 230.6 shall be utilized.


230.6
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than
450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other
structure

Where does it say he can't do it his way?

 

[raider1]

OK Terrynistler,

Using your logic there is no requirement for the disconnect to be on the exterior of the building or structure, just outside somewhere correct? There is also no requirement for the disconnect to be within sight from the building either so it could be 1000 feet away and behind another building.

Again I am going to use common sense (I could be getting myself into trouble ) and say that the meaning of "or outside the building" intends that the disconnect be physically attached to the building on the exterior side. If that wasn't the intent then the exceptions to 225.32 make no sense and wouldn't be needed.

JMHO,

Chris

 

[charlie b]

Chris, the rule says that the disconnecting means must be at a ?readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.? The phrase ?readily accessible? is defined in article 100, and only requires that the device be able to be reached and operated quickly, without needing to move obstacles or to use a ladder. I had though it also meant ?in sight and within 50 feet,? but I can?t remember where that comes from.

So if I stand at the point of entrance of the conductors (i.e., at the sub-panel), and can see the disconnect (the one at the meter), and if that disconnect is within 50 feet, how have I violated the NEC?

 

[hmspe]

It is within 50 feet.

Is there a basis for 50'? The text of 225.32 does not say "within site of". If I invoke "Charlie's Rule" I see "inside or outside ... nearest the point of entrance of the conductors". 50' away doesn't seem to qualify as "nearest".

Martin


Edit -- changed '225.31' to '225.32'

 

[Terrynistler]

OK Terrynistler,

Using your logic there is no requirement for the disconnect to be on the exterior of the building or structure, just outside somewhere correct? There is also no requirement for the disconnect to be within sight from the building either so it could be 1000 feet away and behind another building.

Again I am going to use common sense (I could be getting myself into trouble ) and say that the meaning of "or outside the building" intends that the disconnect be physically attached to the building on the exterior side. If that wasn't the intent then the exceptions to 225.32 make no sense and wouldn't be needed.

JMHO,

Chris

Not trying to start an argument just learning. Say I had 5 structures (that which is built or constructed) in a circle with the disco in the center all no more then 40' from the main SE mounted on a pole that had 5 feeders to the structures. Each structure had a sub panel appropriately wired. This was all on my property and within my control.

What would stop me from implementing the same system as the OP?

What is the def of feeder?

Say I just built a new house and I have a pole 5 feet from it with the meter/disco on it and then run an underground feeder to the main panel in the house where is that against code.

With all this said (I) would still use a main breaker in the house but just curious as to where how and why I could not do this? I see it done all the time.

 

[hmspe]

I had though it also meant ?in sight and within 50 feet,? but I can?t remember where that comes from.

From Article 100:

In Sight From (Within Sight From, Within Sight). Where this Code specifies that one equipment shall be "in sight from,'' "within sight from,'' or "within sight,'' and so forth, of another equipment, the specified equipment is to be visible and not more than 15 m (50 ft) distant from the other.



225.32 doesn't use or imply any of the terms listed.

Martin

 

[raider1]

Charlie,

So if I stand at the point of entrance of the conductors (i.e., at the sub-panel), and can see the disconnect (the one at the meter), and if that disconnect is within 50 feet, how have I violated the NEC?

The disconnecting means must be nearest the point of entrance not within sight from the point of entrance. JMHO.

Again, nearest the point of entrance isn't defined in the NEC, so the AHJ must define what would constitue "nearest the point of entrance."

Chris