Main breakers off in UP position-- violation?

[Brandon Whitmore]

Is this installation a code violation (see pic). Even if it is, I don't see it as an issue after reading this article: Electrical Contractor: Panelboard Orientation (http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=7650)

Anyone that is in a hurry to cut power off only has one choice-- turn the breaker the opposite direction.

The panels are both 200 amp panels, and are service equipment (not sub- panels Jerry:D )

[Speedy Petey]

That most certainly IS a violation in today's world.

This is a really hard call unless you know the installation date and code cycle in place at the time.

[Jerry Peck]

That panel does not look to pre-date the requirement for up being "on".

What probably happened is the enclosure can be installed with either end up, and the interior can usually be installed with either end up (so they did), however, when the main is in that configuration, then the interior is only allowed to be installed as configured for the listing - with up being "on".

Even with real old panels installed before that requirement, they should be written up for safety reasons. Just because a code did not required electricians to use common sense and install "on" as up, does not make it safe when it is installed with "on" being down.

And before Peter jumps on me, I stated the electrician this time as it was the electrician who installed it that way. Way back when, FPE (YIKES!) made panel with horizontal rows of breakers where one row had "on" down - that was not an electrician problem (other than their use of FPE), that was a manufacturer goofy action (and we all know that FPE panels are certainly goofy, so that is not news to anyone).

[Speedy Petey]

And before Peter jumps on me, ....No way Jerry. I know exactly what you mean.

[Brandon Whitmore]

Wow, now I know how Speedy Petey got his name--- he beats Jerry to the punch.

The home was built in 2005, so it is a code violation. I just thought there may be some allowance for the "main" breakers to be either way since it was signed off by the electrical inspector, installed by an electrician, etc. The odd thing is that electrical codes are typically followed just about to the letter in this area-- there are some picky electrical inspectors.

As always, THANKS

[Rollie Meyers]

See NEC article 240.81 here is a copy & paste from the 2008 NEC which is unchanged from 2002,2005.


240.81 Indicating. Circuit breakers shall clearly indicate
whether they are in the open “off” or closed “on” position.
Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically
rather than rotationally or horizontally, the “up” position of
the handle shall be the “on” position.

Most manufacturers have gone to a horz. operating handle so a loadcenter can be inverted w/o any issues w/ section 240.81.

[John Kogel]

This Commander panel from this AM, installed in '94, can be mounted upside down and even horizontally, although that wouldn't necessarily make it right. :) Or would it? :)

Can we have 2 neutrals under one screw here? There's provision for a wire under either side of the screw, and to be honest, I think the pressure from the screw head bears more evenly on 2 wires in this panel.

[Jerry Peck]

can be mounted upside down and even horizontally,

Many things "can be" done which are not allowed. :D

In fact, it CAN BE mounted horizontally on a ceiling, but that is not allowed either.

[A.D. Miller]

That panel does not look to pre-date the requirement for up being "on".


JP: Preface required: I am not questioning the correctness of your call. What is the citation for the installation and the date when it was enacted?:confused:

[Rollie Meyers]

Many things "can be" done which are not allowed. :D

In fact, it CAN BE mounted horizontally on a ceiling, but that is not allowed either.


In Canada it is quite common to have horz. mounted panels, the reason I was given is because of the Canadian rule of a separate compartment for the main breaker & that branch circuit cables cannot be run through the compartment. Canada = OK for horz. panels :p, USA = not allowed = hack work:eek:.

[Jim Port]

This rule dates back to at least the 1987 edition of the NEC.

[Jerry Peck]

JP: Preface required: I am not questioning the correctness of your call. What is the citation for the installation and the date when it was enacted?:confused:


This rule dates back to at least the 1987 edition of the NEC.

Aaron,

That was new to the NEC with the 1975 edition. The 1975 edition added a lot at the end of 240, basically from 240.80 on was new, which included 204.81 Indicating.

[A.D. Miller]

Aaron,

That was new to the NEC with the 1975 edition. The 1975 edition added a lot at the end of 240, basically from 240.80 on was new, which included 204.81 Indicating.

JP: Thanks!

[Brandon Whitmore]

Aaron,

You may find the link I posted along with the original question informative.

[John Kogel]

In Canada it is quite common to have horz. mounted panels, the reason I was given is because of the Canadian rule of a separate compartment for the main breaker & that branch circuit cables cannot be run through the compartment. Canada = OK for horz. panels :p, USA = not allowed = hack work:eek:.Thank you , Rollie. In my area, I wouldn't say it is common in new construction, but I have seen it. I suspect it is frowned upon locally. In the basements of older houses, yeah, that's the world of the sideways panel and the suicide cabinet door. :(

[A.D. Miller]

Aaron,

You may find the link I posted along with the original question informative.

BW: Yep, I did.