Disconnecting Means - More than 6 Breakers

[jhsugg]

I am dealing with an existing utility owned/maintained combo meter socket and panel installed in the late sixties or early seventies. The house is being sold and a home inspector noted on his report there were 9 breakers in the panel without a main breaker which violated the 6 breaker limit. The panel originally feed 2 sub panels, a water heater, dryer, a cook top, and a wall oven. One of sub panels served the 220 volt baseboard heat throughout the house and the other panel served the home's 120 volt circuits. Due to remodeling and other modifications over the years, the 220 volt sub panel for the old baseboard heat was abandoned and disconnected and a single unit heat pump was added along with other changes etc. Due to the current configuration, it would be very cost prohibitive for the seller to have to incur the cost of rewiring etc in order to get the number of breakers down to 6 just so they can sell the home.

Section 408.36 in the new 2011 NEC states ?In addition to the requirement of 408.30, a panelboard 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. 3 states: ?For existing panelboards, individual protection shall not be required for a panelboard used as service equipment for an individual residential occupancy.

My question is this, can Section 408.36, exception #3 be interpreted to mean an existing residential panel (the one I'm dealing with) have more than 6 breakers without an overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater than that of the panelboard (main breaker)?

 

[roger]

Well until the 2011 is adopted it doesn't exist and 408 is not the article at hand. The issue at hand is (if I understand your scenario correctly) would be 230.71 which has been a requirment farther back than the 60's, so the HI is correct in flagging this.

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

IMHO this is a building code issue not an NEC issue.

Does your state allow existing installation to continue to be used if compliant at the time of the install?

 

[roger]

IMHO this is a building code issue not an NEC issue.

Does your state allow existing installation to continue to be used if compliant at the time of the install?

Mike, the problem is that ciruits have been added since the original install and would be a violation then as well as now.

Roger

 

[cowboyjwc]

Go to 230.71 and look at the FPN after (B) which sends you too 408.36(A). G0 to 408.36(A) Exception No. 2. For existing installations, individual protection for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards shall not be requierd where such panelboards are used as service equipment in supplying an individual residential occupancy.


I fight with HI's over this one all the time.

 

[Cavie]

To my knowledge it's always been "6 throws of the hand". Your panel was remoled and caused a code violation. A new service is in order or at the very least a disconnect in front of the panel. I'm guessing a new service is easyer.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

IMHO this is a building code issue not an NEC issue.

Does your state allow existing installation to continue to be used if compliant at the time of the install?

I doubt this was ever compliant. I believe the code went from main breaker to allowing 6 breaker max.

 

[jhsugg]

The panel was originally designed to allow for a total of six double-pole breakers. When the 240 volt sub-panel was abandoned (no neutral) four 120 volt circuits were added in the one available double pole breaker position. This is how the panel ended up with a total of 9 circuits. In other words, the one available double pole breaker position was replaced by two single-pole doubles.

Is there a code exception that would allow this situation to meet 230.71 if the handles of the two single-pole doubles where to operate as one breaker or a replacement breaker double pole quad were used with a handle tie to operate as one?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The panel was originally designed to allow for a total of six double-pole breakers. When the 240 volt sub-panel was abandoned (no neutral) four 120 volt circuits were added in the one available double pole breaker position. This is how the panel ended up with a total of 9 circuits. In other words, the one available double pole breaker position was replaced by two single-pole doubles.

Is there a code exception that would allow this situation to meet 230.71 if the handles of the two single-pole doubles where to operate as one breaker or a replacement breaker double pole quad were used with a handle tie to operate as one?

You could do that as long as the handle throws don't exceed six. That is a good idea.

 

[dkidd]

You might want to look at the thread:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=67215

This has been discussed in detail before.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike, the problem is that ciruits have been added since the original install and would be a violation then as well as now.

Roger

I doubt this was ever compliant. I believe the code went from main breaker to allowing 6 breaker max.

If it was signed off that makes it compliant.

Both of you are correct as to the NEC. Not allowed.

We have to stepped out of the current NEC; and are giving opinions on what may or may not be safe/code compliant.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

If it was signed off that makes it compliant.

Both of you are correct as to the NEC. Not allowed.

We have to stepped out of the current NEC; and are giving opinions on what may or may not be safe/code compliant.

Was there ever a time we were allowed more than 6 throws ?

 

[iwire]

Was there ever a time we were allowed more than 6 throws ?

Right now and for many cycles previous.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Right now and for many cycles previous.

Someone has to ask, so let it be me.

 

[hurk27]

Any extra circuits that does not enter a building, remember disconnects are only for conductors that enter a building:

230.70 General. Means shall be provided to disconnect all
conductors in a building

so if this panel is outside and feeds an AC unit or heat pump outside, this disconnect is not a required disconnect as far as disconnects go. so does it count towards the 6 disconnect rule??? my opinion says no.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Any extra circuits that does not enter a building, remember disconnects are only for conductors that enter a building:



so if this panel is outside and feeds an AC unit or heat pump outside, this disconnect is not a required disconnect as far as disconnects go. so does it count towards the 6 disconnect rule??? my opinion says no.

I think your reading it wrong. Are you suggesting I could feed more than 6 apartments without a main breaker just because they are on outside of building ?

 

[growler]

The house is being sold and a home inspector noted on his report there were 9 breakers in the panel without a main breaker which violated the 6 breaker limit. Due to the current configuration, it would be very cost prohibitive for the seller to have to incur the cost of rewiring etc in order to get the number of breakers down.

Home inspections are not code inspections so there is nothing ( in most areas ) to keep the owner from selling the property as is.

Now that this has been listed on the inspection report there is nothing other than a repair that will keep this from having an effect on the price of the home.

Even if you were to call the local authorities and they are OK with the existing service the potential buyer may have doubts about the quality of the electrical service.

Now it's up to the owner if he wants to negotiate with the buyer or pay to have repairs.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Home inspections are not code inspections so there is nothing ( in most areas ) to keep the owner from selling the property as is.

Now that this has been listed on the inspection report there is nothing other than a repair that will keep this from having an effect on the price of the home.

Even if you were to call the local authorities and they are OK with the existing service the potential buyer may have doubts about the quality of the electrical service.

Now it's up to the owner if he wants to negotiate with the buyer or pay to have repairs.

Often it's used as a tool to lower the price but unless lender objects it likely will not be fixed
I do question how the number 6 was ever picked. I do agree we need a number and 40 is way too high.

 

[iwire]

someone has to ask, so let it be me.

230.71(b) ......................

(b) additional service disconnecting means. The one or
more additional service disconnecting means for fire
pumps, emergency systems, legally required standby, or optional
standby services permitted by 230.2 shall be installed
remote from the one to six service disconnecting means for
normal service to minimize the possibility of simultaneous
interruption of supply.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

230.71(b) ......................

Do we agree that in the OP case it has always been a violation ?