tied breaker handles for two different circuits

[68Malibu383]

Hi. I inspected a house built in 1998 and found seven throws in the main panel and wrote that up. I went back to re-inspect and an electrician had taken the central vac 20 amp breaker and irrigation breaker 20 amp breaker and tied the handles together. Two completely different circuits. Now there are six throws. I can't imagine this is correct but I can't find the specifics so I can get my language correct. Any help is appreciated.

 

[infinity]

Is it a MWBC? Sounds like that would be part of the requirement.

Welcome to the Forum.

225.33 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The disconnecting means for each supply permitted by 225.30 shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be no more than six disconnects per supply grouped in any one location.
Exception: For the purposes of this section, disconnecting means used solely for the control circuit of the ground-fault protection system, or the control circuit of the power-operated supply disconnecting means, installed as part of the listed equipment, shall not be considered a supply disconnecting means.
(B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers capable of individual operation shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with identified handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all ungrounded conductors with no more than six operations of the hand.

 

[iwire]

Hi. I inspected a house built in 1998 and found seven throws in the main panel and wrote that up.

Is there a main breaker at the meter / outside etc?

Seems odd such a new place would have a main panel set up in a way that could have no more than '6 throws'

 

[infinity]

I would add that if the two existing 20 amp circuits are not a MWBC you could make one with a simple splice in the panel. Then you would comply with the 6 throw rule.

 

[68Malibu383]

I would add that if the two existing 20 amp circuits are not a MWBC you could make one with a simple splice in the panel. Then you would comply with the 6 throw rule.

I am pretty sure the circuits are home runs. One receptacle for the central vac and one for the irrigation system. Two separate circuits and breakers that now have their handles tied together to make the 6 throws.

I did not see any splices. Appeared the only change made was to tie breaker handles together.

 

[John120/240]

Agree with Iwire, a house built in 1998 there is more to this situation than we

know. Is this a subpanel ? If they have a irrigation system & central vac

this has to be bigger than a tree house. Fill us in 68Malibu383

 

[iwire]

If they have a irrigation system & central vac this has to be bigger than a tree house.

That was what I was thinking but you put it much better than I did.

 

[68Malibu383]

Yes, there is one sub panel inside of the home. The panel of concern is the main on the outside.

 

[infinity]

Yes, there is one sub panel inside of the home. The panel of concern is the main on the outside.

So you have the panel on the outside which feeds the interior panel, a pretty common installation in certain parts of the country. IMO all that really needs to be done is to make the 2-20 amp circuits a MWBC and your added handle-tie will comply with 250.33(B). A simple splice on the two separate neutrals with a common neutral to the neutral bus will accomplish that.

 

[68Malibu383]

So you have the panel on the outside which feeds the interior panel

Yes

IMO all that really needs to be done is to make the 2-20 amp circuits a MWBC and your added handle-tie will comply with 250.33(B). A simple splice on the two separate neutrals with a common neutral to the neutral bus will accomplish that.

Interesting. Thank you for the information.

 

[infinity]

Yes



Interesting. Thank you for the information.

That's my interpretation of 225.33. Let's see if there are some contrary opinions.

 

[jumper]

Just to be clear.

The main panel does not have a main breaker and there is no disconnect between it and the meter?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't see the handle tie as providing compliance with 225.33(A). It says not more than 6 switches or 6 circuit breakers. The use of a handle tie does provided a means of disconnect, but does not turn two breakers into one breaker.

 

[infinity]

I don't see the handle tie as providing compliance with 225.33(A). It says not more than 6 switches or 6 circuit breakers. The use of a handle tie does provided a means of disconnect, but does not turn two breakers into on breaker.

What about 225.33(B)?

 

[68Malibu383]

Just to be clear.

The main panel does not have a main breaker and there is no disconnect between it and the meter?

That is correct.

 

[jumper]

That is correct.

Okay, then Rob/Infinity seems to have the easiest way to correct it.

 

[68Malibu383]

Great. Thanks for your help. I'd not seen handles from two different circuits tied before.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What about 225.33(B)?

Maybe I should read the whole section before I post

 

[curt swartz]

In 1998 this panel would be considered a lighting an appliance branch circuit panelboard and was required to be protected by not more than 2 overcurrent devices

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

just wanted to add that 225.33(B) does not apply to this installation. Having said that the applicable section, 230.71(B), says the same thing and Infinity has a great solution.