408.36 (D)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's throw into arguement another code section that does not stipulate Listed accessory --
210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits
(B) Disconnecting Means. Each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors at the point where the branch circuit originates.
By the comments within this discusion I shoud be able to use a piece of copper, small bolt/nut combo as it does connect single pole breakers together. Now the commentary in the NEC ( don't waste time telling me it is not code) which is inserted by those who write code.

For a single-phase installation, the disconnecting means could be two single-pole circuit breakers with an identified handle tie or a 2-pole circuit breaker, as shown in Exhibit 210.1 (top), or by a 2-pole switch, as shown in Exhibit 210.1 (bottom). For a 3-phase installation, a 3-pole circuit breaker, three single-pole circuit breakers with an identified handle tie,
 
jbuzz said:
I'm not saying any ole zip tie I am talking about the specific zip tie that came in a listed kit.
Click to expand...

As long as it it is used as per manufactures instructions with the other pieces for the purpose it was designed for -- are you referring to a transfer kit as a back fed breaker assembly?
 
at best this is a creative thing but doesn't deserve to count. Besides altering the way the manufacture designed the breakers to be installed, it's not permanent. You're counting on the next guy who works in the panel to have a zip tie and be able to set up the same installation.
 
scrypps said:
at best this is a creative thing but doesn't deserve to count. Besides altering the way the manufacture designed the breakers to be installed, it's not permanent. You're counting on the next guy who works in the panel to have a zip tie and be able to set up the same installation.
Click to expand...
Just like with a screw or bolt for the tie down mechanism, you are depending on the next guy to reinstall the bolt or screw if he had removed it.


The handle tie example a couple posts back is different from the "tie down" requirement from the perspective that in 240.15(B)(1) (which was not referenced before though some of it's content was) it says "with identified handle ties" where the tie down requirement in 408.36(D) doesn't say anything about being "identified".

When it comes to "identified" that is an art 100 defined word, that definition includes, in an informational note, that listing may be one way an item could be "identified". IMO listing is not the only limitation to something being "identified".
 
kwired said:
Just like with a screw or bolt for the tie down mechanism, you are depending on the next guy to reinstall the bolt or screw if he had removed it.


The handle tie example a couple posts back is different from the "tie down" requirement from the perspective that in 240.15(B)(1) (which was not referenced before though some of it's content was) it says "with identified handle ties" where the tie down requirement in 408.36(D) doesn't say anything about being "identified".

When it comes to "identified" that is an art 100 defined word, that definition includes, in an informational note, that listing may be one way an item could be "identified". IMO listing is not the only limitation to something being "identified".
Click to expand...

Both tie down & breaker ties have listed accessories to panelboards that exist and only the commentary referred to the breaker tie as identified. I believe there is a great similarity between both articles as this discussion is progressing.
 
mwm1752 said:
Both tie down & breaker ties have listed accessories to panelboards that exist and only the commentary referred to the breaker tie as identified. I believe there is a great similarity between both articles as this discussion is progressing.
Click to expand...

I understand there are listed accessories for most current production items out there, and that those listed items often are the simplest and most dependable thing to use. However the words listed and identified are not found anywhere in 408.36(D). The absence of those words to me means one can use anything that gets the job done, even a cable tie used as a breaker hold down. I kind of don't like it myself but think I would have to let it go if I were an inspector.
 
I would agree the contents of NEC 90.7 would be the justification if so allowed bt the AHJ. These conversations would be so much simpler if the "sue first ask ? later" wasn't so prevalent form of action these days.
 
mwm1752 said:
I would agree the contents of NEC 90.7 would be the justification if so allowed bt the AHJ. These conversations would be so much simpler if the "sue first ask ? later" wasn't so prevalent form of action these days.
Click to expand...

True, but one could say anytime you drill or punch a hole in an enclosure that is listed - you now need to re-evaluate the listing.

I agree using listed items for their listed intent helps get you off the hook when there is litigation, but not everything is specifically required to be listed either. Some items may even be hard to find a listed item - general purpose motors are a good example - many are not listed. Hazardous locations are about the only place where they are required to be listed - and even then only for the hazardous location portion of the application is what gets the most attention in the listing AFAIK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top