240.81

Status
Not open for further replies.

tshea

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
240.81 refers to the indicating position of the breaker handle--UP is ON down is OFF.

When was 240.81 brought into the Code?
My reason for asking is a home inspector is identifying an "upside down" main breaker as a potential safety hazard in an older home. The panel is a Murray by Arrow Hart original to the house per the owner. She was unaware if it had ever been changed.

There is a bright orange sticker next to the main. It has off and on inthe correct position to correspond to the breaker:

OFF
MAIN
ON

I told her I don't see any violation because the panel would be grandfathered.

Thakns for your help.


BTW is there a website where I could find when the various additions and deletions to the NEC are listed?
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
tshea said:
240.81 refers to the indicating position of the breaker handle--UP is ON down is OFF.

When was 240.81 brought into the Code?
It is in the 1975 NEC. That is as far back as I have here at home.


BTW is there a website where I could find when the various additions and deletions to the NEC are listed?

Sorry I do not know where you could find this information. The new NEC Plus website MIGHT be worth the 30 bucks a month fee IF it included this type of information. So far it does not.
 

barbeer

Senior Member
I am not sure when the requirement came in, but that does not even mean the NEC was adopted in your area then. I can't see forcing the repair without substantial alterations being done.
 

lpelectric

Senior Member
I wonder if this installation would qualify under the heading "Pre-existing, non-conforming" and be able to remain in place since it would be a change so slight as to not warrant the additional hardships, if any. :smile:
 

barbeer

Senior Member
I have the 59 and 68 NEC and they are whole different animal! They were not NFPA but NECA at that point. I found no reference to breaker orientation, maybe breakers were not mainstream yet? I wasn't here!:D
 

barbeer

Senior Member
lpelectric said:
I wonder if this installation would qualify under the heading "Pre-existing, non-conforming" and be able to remain in place since it would be a change so slight as to not warrant the additional hardships, if any. :smile:

Thats kinda what I was saying.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
1975 was the first year the 'up/on' requirement shows up. Prior to that, breakers were only required to indicate 'open/closed.' In the 1971 NEC, this is Article 240.25(c).
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
huh???

huh???

barbeer said:
I have the 59 and 68 NEC and they are whole different animal! They were not NFPA but NECA at that point. I found no reference to breaker orientation, maybe breakers were not mainstream yet? I wasn't here!:D


Not sure where you got that information, but the first page of the NEC, first sentence under the heading "History and Development of the National Electrical Code" , it states:

The National Fire Protection Association has acted as sponsor of the National Electrical Code since 1911.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
barbeer said:
I have the 59 and 68 NEC and they are whole different animal! They were not NFPA but NECA at that point. I found no reference to breaker orientation, maybe breakers were not mainstream yet? I wasn't here!:D

I have a nearly-complete set back to 1940, and every one of them have "National Fire Protection Association" printed on the front cover as well as the first page.

There are, however, many copies that were distributed with various covers that were added to the book. Maybe your copy was simply one that was distributed by NECA at the time. I have several Compsons, two from Greybar, several from IAEI, and a couple from the IBEW.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I have two issues. One is the first part of 240.81, which says circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open "off" or closed "on" position. Yes I know what the rest says.

The second is, this should be a UL listed panel and if it was installed per it's listing and labeling then it should be ok.
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
cowboyjwc said:
I have two issues. One is the first part of 240.81, which says circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open "off" or closed "on" position. Yes I know what the rest says.

Not sure I understand. How is this an issue? "The rest says" is pretty clear, isn't it? Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather than rotationally or horizontally, the "up" position of the handle shall be the "on" position. What is your issue?

The second is, this should be a UL listed panel and if it was installed per it's listing and labeling then it should be ok.

The person who started this did not state if it was a UL listed panel nor did he state if it was installed per its listing or labeling.

So are you saying it was installed upside down?

Just needing some clarification as to what your issues are.

Tnx
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Energize said:
Not sure I understand. How is this an issue? "The rest says" is pretty clear, isn't it? Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather than rotationally or horizontally, the "up" position of the handle shall be the "on" position. What is your issue?



The person who started this did not state if it was a UL listed panel nor did he state if it was installed per its listing or labeling.

So are you saying it was installed upside down?

Just needing some clarification as to what your issues are.

Tnx


What I'm saying is if this breaker was factory installed and the label indidcating ON and OFF were factroy installed and it was listed as it was installed, then it should be considered a compliant installation.

Now you may be right and it could just be some jerry rigged installation and then we have a whole different problem.

As I tell people when I answer the phone, you get the answer to the question you asked, the way you asked it. Since I can't see it, I have nothing to go by other than my gut feelings.
 
Last edited:

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
cowboyjwc said:
What I'm saying is if this breaker was factory installed and the label indidcating ON and OFF were factroy installed and it was listed as it was installed, then it should be considered a compliant installation.

Now you may be right and it could just be some jerry rigged installation and then we have a whole different problem.

As I tell people when I answer the phone, you get the answer to the question you asked, the way you asked it. Since I can't see it, I have nothing to go by other than my gut feelings.

Gotcha

Thanks for clearing it up for me
 

tshea

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
cowboyjwc said:
I have two issues. One is the first part of 240.81, which says circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open "off" or closed "on" position. Yes I know what the rest says.

The second is, this should be a UL listed panel and if it was installed per it's listing and labeling then it should be ok.

The panel is an original installation to the house. It is a factory installed main breaker. The panel is a Murray made by Arrow-Hart.

The branch breakers are originals, no add-ons!!

The sticker next to the main is bright orange, but you can see some age on it, so I believe it is an original by the manufacturer.

I guess the whole thing that ticks me off is, everyone takes a stinking home inspector's report as gospel but then questions the electrician!
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Don't even get me started on home inspectors. Some are very good, but I think most have a brother that is a contractor.

I get at least a call and week and if I get one I can figure that there are 5 more coming for some reason.

I checked my 1978 code book and 240.81 said the exact same thing then. The problem with home inspectors is that they never check to see when the house was buit or find out what the code said at that time.

I would call the AHJ and let him handle it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top