Panelboard as A/C condensing unit disconnect

[Johnhall30]

Homeowner has 5 A/C condensing units located outside at ground level. There is a panelboard directly adjacent to all of the units. All units are within sight of the panelboard.

All of the unit nameplates call for "Max Fuse / Max C.B.", so a fuse is not mandatory per the manufacturer nameplate. The breaker ratings match the MOCP.

Do the circuit breakers in the panelboard qualify as the local disconnect for the unit?

Is this code compliant, or is an additional local disconnect required for each unit?

 

[Elect117]

Do the circuit breakers in the panelboard qualify as the local disconnect for the unit?

Yes. HACR rated.


Within sight (per NEC definition) or lockable. Locking provisions are easy to install on breakers to meet the code.

 

[infinity]

Do the circuit breakers in the panelboard qualify as the local disconnect for the unit?

As long as there within sight and no more than 50' from the units they're code compliant.

 

[electrofelon]

Yes. HACR rated.


Within sight (per NEC definition) or lockable. Locking provisions are easy to install on breakers to meet the code.

I dont think lockable but not within sight is acceptable in this case.

 

[infinity]

I dont think lockable but not within sight is acceptable in this case.

Correct. Lockable is not required but within sight is.

 

[Little Bill]

Yes. HACR rated.

All circuit breakers are HACR rated now, and have been for a few years.

 

[Elect117]

I dont think lockable but not within sight is acceptable in this case.

Correct. Lockable is not required but within sight is.

You both are right. I was mixed up with motors.

All circuit breakers are HACR rated now, and have been for a few years.

Ya. Just added it because it is still required to be true.

 

[infinity]

Just added it because it is still required to be true

Are breakers still required to be labeled HACR by the manufacturer?

 

[tom baker]

And it’s easy to install a GFCI receptacle at the panel,

 

[jim dungar]

All circuit breakers are HACR rated now, and have been for a few years.

May be 30 years.
I believe they have all have been HACR since the mid 90s when the UL489 testing was changed.

 

[Fred B]

Are breakers still required to be labeled HACR by the manufacturer?

Might be part of the UL requirement but the only references to "HACR Type" on the breakers label found in the NEC in past three cycles are within the enhanced content of 440.21 and it mentions UL and labeled as "Listed HACR Type". (Searched on NFPA Link for 2014-2026 cycles)

 

[jim dungar]

Are breakers still required to be labeled HACR by the manufacturer?

Not by UL.
But many inspectors don't keep up with UL so they still ask for a label.

For Schneider Electric you used to need a special order for an HACR label, but I have noticed HACR on some standard breaker.

 

[Elect117]

Are breakers still required to be labeled HACR by the manufacturer?

I thought they were but maybe not.

I still see it printed on AC unit breakers so I thought it was required.

Not by UL.
But many inspectors don't keep up with UL so they still ask for a label.

For Schneider Electric you used to need a special order for an HACR label, but I have noticed HACR on some standard breaker.

Do AC manufacturers still put HACR rated breaker on their install instructions / nameplates?

I always thought that was a part of it also.


Could it also be that breakers could be listed by another recognized laboratory and not necessarily to UL 489?

 

[jim dungar]

Could it also be that breakers could be listed by another recognized laboratory and not necessarily to UL 489?

No.

All testing labs test to UL standards for the US market.
UL 489 is the standard for branch/feeder breakers and the NEC. There are other standards like UL1077 but those are not for branch circuits.

 

[Jraef]

Could it also be that breakers could be listed by another recognized laboratory and not necessarily to UL 489?

Even if it were done by another lab, they would use the same UL standards. But also, the testing of breakers requires destructive high current testing, which can only be done at specific labs around the world, all of which cost a boatload of money. So the difference in what it would cost for UL vs ETL or MET for examples is insignificant compared to that destructive testing, so most just work directly with UL. I have seen some cheap Chinese breakers recently that have used ETL though.