6 breaker exceeded

[Brian E. Kelly]

Proffesionals know the proper way to lockout equipment, in all trades.
If they do not know how to lockout something, I'll bet they do not have a code book either.

All exterior panels here have a provision to be locked. And many home owners have them locked durring the HI.

[Greg Fretwell]

Mike, if a breaker is listed SWD it is suitable for a disconnect, we use them in AC disconnects every day. You still haven't told me why a panel, labeled "suitable for service equipment" with six of fewer breakers is not OK.

What does this mean otherwise

(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.

[rmaday]

Just curious, why 6?
Why not 5 or 7 or 4 or 10?

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

Mike, if a breaker is listed SWD it is suitable for a disconnect, we use them in AC disconnects every day. You still haven't told me why a panel, labeled "suitable for service equipment" with six of fewer breakers is not OK.

What does this mean otherwise

It could have something to do with the manufacturer's listing and labeling such as outlined below



Notice that this main lug panel clearly states that it is suitable as service equipment when a main breaker is installed not when there are six single pole breakers. As shown just beside the "suitable as service equipment" is an outline showing that this is a main lug panel.
Every manufacturer out there has simular language in all their main lug panels.
The six single pole breaker rule is still in the codes for the same reason that knob and tube is still in the codes.

[Rollie Meyers]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

Mike, if a breaker is listed SWD it is suitable for a disconnect, we use them in AC disconnects every day. You still haven't told me why a panel, labeled "suitable for service equipment" with six of fewer breakers is not OK.

What does this mean otherwise

"SWD" means switching duty see 2002 NEC 240.83(D)

[Greg Fretwell]

The six single pole breaker rule is still in the codes for the same reason that knob and tube is still in the codes.

Mike, that is certainly one opinion.
By that definition you can't put a "backfed" breaker in as a main either so I guess we can lose that hold down clip language too.

Rollie, I am familiar with what SWD is, I was just trying to avoid Mike saying the breaker was not meant to be used as a disconnect (switching it off and on)

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

[/u]
Mike, that is certainly one opinion.
By that definition you can't put a "backfed" breaker in as a main either so I guess we can lose that hold down clip language too.

I don't understand what you are saying here Greg. Any breaker that is used as a main is backfed. If a breaker is backfed for any reason be it a main disconnecting means or as a generator transfrer switch then that breaker must be secured in place by an additional fastener that requires other than a pull to release, see 408.36(F)

Section 225-8, what is now 225.33 was added between the 1985 and the 1993 cycles. There is no 225 in the 1968 code cycle and 230-70(g), today is 230.71(B), was a new section.

No I don't think that it is my opinion at all but instead I think that it is a fact.

[Greg Fretwell]

I am talking about a MLO panel where you put in a breaker on the rails with a retaining clip. That would not be what I could call an "integral main breaker".
If I am to read this label as written it is saying no MLO panel can be suitable as service equipment. Interesting, I have just never heard this before. I agree that is what is says. I have just never heard of it being enforced this way. I guess I need to read more panel labels.
I suppose you are also one of those guys who fails "classified breakers" too since virtually all panel labels say "use <our> breakers only". I know that is a question that can start a fist fight at an IAEI meeting

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

I suppose you are also one of those guys who fails "classified breakers" too since virtually all panel labels say "use <our> breakers only". I know that is a question that can start a fist fight at an IAEI meeting

I'd love to hear comments about this (without the fisticuffs, of course) and if you call it out, how do you write it.

[Greg Fretwell]

This makes interesting reading. A GE panel.
That seems to be making a grazing reference to 408.16 but that is met by the breaker protecting the feeder. Perhaps that is also the intent of the label you posted.
This is one reason why I hate manufacturers second guessing the code in their labelling. Somehow they don't translate from Chinese that well.

[Greg Fretwell]

Rick, I don't have a problem with classified breakers. If they are evaluated by a NRTL in a particular panel and they pass they are OK by me. I look at the panel label in this case the same way I do when it says on the Jif peanut butter jar that it is best on Pepperidge Farm bread.
If Square D made wire they would say the panel must be connected to their wire too.
I think some labels go beyond the purpose of 110.3(B) in their language and even when the code changes, the labels don't.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

I am talking about a MLO panel where you put in a breaker on the rails with a retaining clip. That would not be what I could call an "integral main breaker".

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

If I am to read this label as written it is saying no MLO panel can be suitable as service equipment. Interesting, I have just never heard this before. I agree that is what is says. I have just never heard of it being enforced this way. I guess I need to read more panel labels.
I suppose you are also one of those guys who fails "classified breakers" too since virtually all panel labels say "use <our> breakers only". I know that is a question that can start a fist fight at an IAEI meeting

The use of the term "integral main breaker" can not be found in the NEC or any other code that I am aware of. All main breakers that I have ever seen had a screw or a clip of some sort that held them. This is the same verbiage found in 408 that any back fed device is to be secured to the panel enclosure and this rule includes the main breaker.

There are many rules in the NEC that are not enforced just because neither the installer nor the code enforcement official knows of the section in violation. This is why education is so important. On the same token we find code officials that try to enforce rules that are not nor have ever been in the codes again due to the lack of education. The lack of education can sometimes be a pure case of “bull headedness” of the person instead of the lack of someone trying to explain something. I am guilty of this disease myself sometimes.

If a panel states on its labeling that only certain breakers are allowed to be installed in their panel then this would overrule any other rule. Yes if the panel makes the statement that only their breaker are to be installed then only their breakers can be installed. What I see on a lot of panels is the word “recommend” not “required”. If the panel label states that they “recommend” the use of their breakers then one of the universal breakers could be used. Several years ago most panels had the verbiage that only their breakers can be installed but in the past few years this rule has changed.
Also it is important to understand that when a company owns another company such as Murray and Siemens then either breaker will work in the other.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

This makes interesting reading. A GE panel.
That seems to be making a grazing reference to 408.16 but that is met by the breaker protecting the feeder. Perhaps that is also the intent of the label you posted.
This is one reason why I hate manufacturers second guessing the code in their labelling. Somehow they don't translate from Chinese that well.

Well Greg I think that you just put the last nail in this thread.

Could go on a little more and explain what a "lighting and appliance panel board" is for the rest of us?

It is a panelboard that has more than 10% of its overcurrent devices protecting circuits rated 30 amps or less and also uses the neutral or grounded conductor.

Therefore six single pole breakers would not fulfill this requirement unless the six single pole breakers are greater than 30 amps.
Is this what you have been seeing in detached garages?
If so then we have a problem with 210.21 through 23.

[Joe Farsetta]

And this is precisely why inspectors have no business quoting the electrical code.

Here in NY, no main panel disconnect is required in a panel for a swimming pool. Only rules that aply have to do with proximity of the pook to the filter, and the use of twist locks and liquidtight.

As to separate structures, and subpanels requiring main disconnects, what would you consider a row of condos, on the ground floor, all with individual demizing walls, with unprotected entry cables, passing through individual private attic spaces to be.

No main breakers on sub panels seen, even where more than 6 breakers are installed. main disco at the meter pan. Period.

[Greg Fretwell]

Mike, where is the code violation in a L&A board with 6 breakers and no main disconnect?
That is just a label trying to make code. BTW if I read your sticker the way you do that panel can't legally be used as a sub panel because in the same sentence where they say you need a main breaker they say you need to label it "service disconnect" so clearly that is not talking about sub panels.
I don't think poorly worded labels trump the NEC.
I also reject the idea that this has anything to do with your K&T reference or any other ancient history wiring method since the word "existing" is not there. When the code "grandfathers" stuff they say existing.

I knew you were one of those people who said panel labels trump U/L classification. That is pretty silly too. Just because SqD didn't pay to have Challenger breakers evaluated doesn't mean CH didn't and it was the same lab and the same test regimine but you are welcome to an opinion.