Six throws maybe more

Status
Not open for further replies.
ritelec

ritelec

Senior Member
Location
Jersey
If a main lug panelboard was installed with intentions of no more than six throws. If there are more spaces in that panel that could possibly be used and put you over the six throws, would that be a violation ?

Thank you.
 
IMHO, yes. Why ? Because some unsuspecting soul (probably a HO) will most definitely install more circuits not knowing what the Code states. The way around this would be to install a main breaker (if the panel accepts it) or a plug-in breaker and relocate the feeder so as to back-feed the panel. If done that way you will have to install a hold-down clamp for that back-fed breaker. But, then again, we're back to the unsuspecting soul - would he/she really have enough knowledge to know to do that ?:?
 
As long as the panel is rated for use as service equipment I know of NO NEC violation until the number of breakers exceeds six.
There may well be local ordinances such as one that TN has stating any dwelling unit panelboard rated 225 amps or less shall have only (1) main.
 
no. it is only a violation if it is a violation. someone can always come in at a later date and do something in violation of the code. the potential to violate the code is not a violation.
 
Ok. I see all your points and I respect your opinions. However, why would you leave someone (usually a HO or a novice) the opportunity to easily create a Code violation? We all know what HO's are like. They think if there's spare breaker spaces, then whomever installed the panel originally must have figured on leaving me the ability to add more circuits. So, while it may not officially be a Code violation I still think it's wrong. Just my opinion (which probably counts for beans):cool:
 
goldstar said:
Ok. I see all your points and I respect your opinions. However, why would you leave someone (usually a HO or a novice) the opportunity to easily create a Code violation? We all know what HO's are like. They think if there's spare breaker spaces, then whomever installed the panel originally must have figured on leaving me the ability to add more circuits. So, while it may not officially be a Code violation I still think it's wrong. Just my opinion (which probably counts for beans):cool:
Click to expand...

Gold, with a service set up this way no one should be adding load at all without doing a load calculation. For services like this the only thing that protects the service conductors from overload are the load calculations.

The NEC is written to expect compliance.
 
augie47 said:
As long as the panel is rated for use as service equipment I know of NO NEC violation until the number of breakers exceeds six.
There may well be local ordinances such as one that TN has stating any dwelling unit panelboard rated 225 amps or less shall have only (1) main.
Click to expand...

Thank you all.

Please let me see if I have this correct as I think I learned here a couple weeks back.

The panel does not need to be service rated if the grounding and grounded conductors are separate conductors. If grounded and grounding conductor was the same a service rated panel would be needed.
 
More to the point, the panel needs to be service rated when the NEC requires such.
(When used as a 'service" (first means of disconnect, or in '08 Code when used as the 1st panel in a detached building).
If the panel is supplied by service conductors the grounded and grounding conductors are not electrically separated. Any panel beyond the service would require the grounded and grounding to be separated.
A panel that is listed as "suitable for service (SUSE) can be used as a service panel (with the grounded and grounding connected) or as a sub panel downstream from the service with the two separated.
There are panels on the market that are "suitable ONLY as service" where you can not physically separate grounded and grounding.
I hope that does not confuse things more for you.
I was trying to clarify the use of the panel comes first (is it service or not). The number of conductors then complies. Not the other way around.
 
ritelec said:
Thank you all.

Please let me see if I have this correct as I think I learned here a couple weeks back.

The panel does not need to be service rated if the grounding and grounded conductors are separate conductors. If grounded and grounding conductor was the same a service rated panel would be needed.
Click to expand...

I agree with this if you are under the 2014 NEC. Before that the panel needed to be service rated in either case.

And as stated by Don in other threads the MLO panel is generally suitable as service equipment only when a main breaker kit or breaker with a tie down is installed
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I agree with this if you are under the 2014 NEC. Before that the panel needed to be service rated in either case.

And as stated by Don in other threads the MLO panel is generally suitable as service equipment only when a main breaker kit or breaker with a tie down is installed
Click to expand...

??
 
(I missed the word "generally"... thought you were confirming an "always" oh well, back to my ole man nap!)
 
iwire said:
Gold, with a service set up this way no one should be adding load at all without doing a load calculation. For services like this the only thing that protects the service conductors from overload are the load calculations.

The NEC is written to expect compliance.
Click to expand...
I see your point and I agree with all of this if it's someone like one of us doing the work. Most HO's couldn't care less or don't even know about the NEC. If there's six breaker spaces taken up in an 8 circuit panel they will surely and easily find a way to use the other two if provided. But you are correct - it's not a violation until it actually is a violation and it's only a violation if it gets inspected
 
Gold, how easy is it to plug in a splitter on a single receptacle? That could produce a code violation even quicker and cause a real problem faster than something as minor as adding a seventh handle on a service.

Also, what the general public views as a service could be several services per the NEC. You could have hundreds of handles to kill a building under the right circumstances, when you get down to it.

Therefore, I don't bat an eye at the possibility of someone adding a breaker to a panel. Most of the rules surrounding this are senseless anyway.
 
George Stolz said:
Gold, how easy is it to plug in a splitter on a single receptacle? That could produce a code violation even quicker and cause a real problem faster than something as minor as adding a seventh handle on a service.

Also, what the general public views as a service could be several services per the NEC. You could have hundreds of handles to kill a building under the right circumstances, when you get down to it.

Therefore, I don't bat an eye at the possibility of someone adding a breaker to a panel. Most of the rules surrounding this are senseless anyway.
Click to expand...
I agree George, there are any number of ways someone with even a limited amount of electrical knowledge could create a Code violation. Some Code violations could be more dangerous than others. The point I was trying to make was why make it easy or convenient for someone to add a seventh throw.
 
I was curious to know why I was seeing some of the responses I saw so I just went back and re-read the OP. It looks like I need to go back to school and take some reading lessons. The Op stated the following :
If a main lug panelboard was installed with intentions of no more than six throws. If there are more spaces in that panel that could possibly be used and put you over the six throws, would that be a violation ?
Click to expand...
If it's a main lug panelboard wouldn't there be a feeder disconnect for that panelboard at the main breaker panel ? In that case I don't see how or why the six switch rule would even apply.

I'll take that recipe for crow now.:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top