Thread: Are EATON breakers compatible with MURRAY panel?

I'm a home owner and have no background in electronics. We are in a situation where our contractor installed the EATON breakers with MURRAY panel. Now the city inspector is asking for the documentation about their compatibility. I would hate to spend more money to redo everything. Any pointers?

Similar Threads:

• Eaton AFCI - Blinking Red Light
• On my electric panel I have 220 breakers that I do not use
• Bad Eaton AFCI Breaker
• Murray Main Breaker Issue Recall?
• SE panel - breakers

Hi Neeraj and welcome to InspectionNews!

I hope you find everything you are looking for on this site.

If I can help you in any way just let me know.

If you are a business owner please accept this gift for making your first post: Home Inspection Referrals

If you are a home buyer, seller or DIYer, this gift is for you: Thank You!

Originally Posted by Neeraj

I'm a home owner and have no background in electronics. We are in a situation where our contractor installed the EATON breakers with MURRAY panel. Now the city inspector is asking for the documentation about their compatibility. I would hate to spend more money to redo everything. Any pointers?

Yes (maybe).

No.

And ... No.

I will explain:

- Yes (maybe).
- - IF the Eaton breakers are UL "Classified" for use in that exact Murray panel (model numbers matter), then ... yes, maybe* ...

- No.
- - If the Eaton breakers are not listed on the listing label of the Murray panel as Eaton breakers (specific models of breakers) being suitable for use that Murray panel, then no. And I believe the answer will be that the Murray listing and labeling information ONLY specifies Murray breakers (and by model number too).

- And ... No.
- - The AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) has the final say, and if they are looking at the breakers and what the Murray panel label says is approved for use in that panel - the AHJ has likely read that the Murray panel label ONLY specifies Murray breakers in the Murray panel.

Now for the "*" after "yes, maybe*" ...
- The AHJ has the final say, and EVEN IF the Eaton breakers specifically state that they are UL Classified for use in your specific model Murray panel, it is highly unlikely that the listing label on the Murray panel says that it is okay to use Eaton breakers in that Murray panel ... so the AHJ may well say "No." - as in "No, that Murray panel is not listed for use with those Eaton breakers, and that is a violation of NEC 110.(3)(B)." ... and the AHJ would be correct.

A savvy contractor tries to keep on top of what their local AHJ accepts and does not accept so things like this do not happen, and if they are unsure, a savvy contractor will call the AHJ FIRST ... before doing the work ... to find out if what they are about to do will be acceptable to the AHJ.

This is the "Catch 22" in the above:
- First and foremost: Electrical panels are LISTED for use ONLY with specific breakers, and those specific breakers are listed (printed) on the listing label. If a breaker type is not on the label, then it is not okay to use that type of breaker in the panel. Clear cut, no exceptions.

... (okay, a possible "exception" to the "Clear cut, no exceptions.")
- Second and conditional: Some companies make breakers for use in panels manufactured by others, and UL "Classifies" those breakers (those breakers are not LISTED, they are "Classified', a second rate 'okay, maybe' rating). Some AHJ will use what they consider to be "their power and right" and accept Classified breakers in a panel which is not LISTED for use with those breakers ... however, many (most?) AHJ will not accept Classified breakers in a panel unless the panel listing information (the label) specifically states that breaker-so-and-so may be used in this panel.

Look at it this way: If you put Ford brakes on a Chevy and the brakes failed ... who is at fault? Chevy will say that their brakes are not intended to be installed on a Ford, and Ford will say that their Ford is not intended to have Chevy brakes installed ... both are basically saying ' Don't sue us, we had nothing to do with the mismatch of brakes and vehicle and are therefore not responsible for any damages resulting from such mismatch of parts. '

Sooo ... if the house burns down or there is any electrical issue of any kind with those mismatched breakers/panel ... who is the responsible party? Whoever installed the mismatched breakers in that panel.

We will see how many different opinions we get on this. Let the game begin.

Neeraj,
There is more to the story else it is your contractors problem to justify what he used. Ultimately it is the AHJ that the contractor has to please and if it takes replacing everything then it is the contractor error and he eats the cost not you.

Then there is the question to just go ahead and replace the Eaton with Murray. Most of the breakers are about $5 with a range to $40 and $100 for the double poles and GFIs. Not the end of the would financially.

Here is a ditty to look at.
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Here is a ditty to look at.
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Garrry,

I didn't post that because it really depends on what the label on his panel says.

And the final answer is based on what his AHJ says - and they have already spoken. or is it

I read this on another site some time ago: (paraphrasing to my best recollection)
- There are no acceptable breakers for use in Murray panels because there are no acceptable Murray panels.

Originally Posted by Neeraj

.......... I would hate to spend more money to redo everything. Any pointers?

The part that I don't understand is that I would think that it is the contractors problem, to do what the AHJ wants... Contractor argues with AHJ. Contractor looses argument, whether or not contractor is correct and can prove it. Contractor replaces breakers with what AHJ wants and eats the cost because he is (always) wrong if it is different from what the AHJ wants.

So it is still a problem for the contractor to solve not the homeowner.

Now there may be one caveat.
If the contractor is non licensed, non electrician or is just a bum off the street and the home owner knew it , wanting the work done anyway due to a cheap price. Then the pox is on the home owner and the additional costs to correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdL3_83KZZA

Eaton does make a CL series breaker that is UL Listed for some Murray Panels. If the inspector is picky he may not accept that, but assuming they are CL series the link below may be enough to satisfy the inspector.

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Eaton does make a CL series breaker that is UL Listed for some Murray Panels.

Mark,

That's what I was pointing out ... those breakers are not UL "Listed" ... they are UL "Classified" .... and therein lies the difference.

The Murray panel is "Listed" and its "listing and labeling" specifies which breakers are permitted to be used in that panel in order to maintain its "Listing".

On the other hand, those breakers are "classified" as being suitable for use in the panels identified in the "classification".

If the inspector is picky he may not accept that, but assuming they are CL series the link below may be enough to satisfy the inspector.

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

The inspector is not being "picky", the inspector is following the code, and the code says, in NEC 110.3(B) that all listed and labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with its listing and labeling instructions.

Thus, to cover EVERYONE (not just the inspector), the inspector is asking for paperwork (which has to be acceptable to the Building Official) which shows that the breakers are indeed suitable for use in that Murray panel and are not violating the listing and labeling (they are violating the listing and labeling ... that's the issue).

Some AHJ will accept the UL Classification as that documentation, however, many (most?) recognize that the UL Classification for the breakers does not take precedence over the UL Listing of the panel. Some AHJ may ask for an engineering letter from Eaton which basically states that Eaton is accepting responsibility for the panel before allowing those Eaton breakers to be used in that Murray panel - and I doubt that Eaton would accept the responsibility for that panel just to sell a few breakers.

There is nothing "picky" about it - it is meeting code requirements or not, and if not, then it is a code violation.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Mark,

That's what I was pointing out ... those breakers are not UL "Listed" ... they are UL "Classified" .... and therein lies the difference.

The Murray panel is "Listed" and its "listing and labeling" specifies which breakers are permitted to be used in that panel in order to maintain its "Listing".

On the other hand, those breakers are "classified" as being suitable for use in the panels identified in the "classification".



The inspector is not being "picky", the inspector is following the code, and the code says, in NEC 110.3(B) that all listed and labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with its listing and labeling instructions.

Thus, to cover EVERYONE (not just the inspector), the inspector is asking for paperwork (which has to be acceptable to the Building Official) which shows that the breakers are indeed suitable for use in that Murray panel and are not violating the listing and labeling (they are violating the listing and labeling ... that's the issue).

Some AHJ will accept the UL Classification as that documentation, however, many (most?) recognize that the UL Classification for the breakers does not take precedence over the UL Listing of the panel. Some AHJ may ask for an engineering letter from Eaton which basically states that Eaton is accepting responsibility for the panel before allowing those Eaton breakers to be used in that Murray panel - and I doubt that Eaton would accept the responsibility for that panel just to sell a few breakers.

There is nothing "picky" about it - it is meeting code requirements or not, and if not, then it is a code violation.

Jerry,
I understand your point, but I was giving him a practical answer.

I had the same problem this weekend. I have a Crouse Hinds panel from 1991. The label states that Bryant or Westinghouse breakers can be used. I'm not sure if you can get any of those brands, or if those brand names are the same as in 1991, or if some company who bought another company has an acceptable breaker. Siemens has a breaker with a similar model designation. I bought it and am not going to worry about it. Not saying I'm right, but if the breaker fits correctly in the panel, I'm not going to worry about it.

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Jerry,
I understand your point, but I was giving him a practical answer.

The practical answer is whatever the AHJ says. That is not saying that is the "easiest answer", just that is the "most practical" because the work was permitted and inspected - and the contractor needs to do what is required to meet the code and pass the inspection.

I had the same problem this weekend. I have a Crouse Hinds panel from 1991. The label states that Bryant or Westinghouse breakers can be used. I'm not sure if you can get any of those brands, or if those brand names are the same as in 1991, or if some company who bought another company has an acceptable breaker. Siemens has a breaker with a similar model designation. I bought it and am not going to worry about it. Not saying I'm right, but if the breaker fits correctly in the panel, I'm not going to worry about it.

Yes, and you replaced your own breakers, without a permit or inspections, and if anything happens ... you become responsible.

When work is permitted (as required in many places), and that work is inspected, then the "practical" answer is to know what is required to meet the code. That is unless one wants to invest unknown amounts of time, money and effort proving that what they want to use is acceptable to the AHJ, one does what is needed to meet the code ... that's the practical answer (at least to me that seems the most practical thing to do).

Kind of what happens when money is the driving factor instead of what should be, "safety". The premise of the codes.

That is why if I am going to have brain surgery I am not going to shop around for the cheapest price. Or get my neighbor to do it. Or do it myself.

If people only knew the actual number of people who were injured, or killed, in just one year from electrical related deficiencies and fires. Maybe then the price would be less of an issue.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Kind of what happens when money is the driving factor instead of what should be, "safety". The premise of the codes.

That is why if I am going to have brain surgery I am not going to shop around for the cheapest price. Or get my neighbor to do it. Or do it myself.

If people only knew the actual number of people who were injured, or killed, in just one year from electrical related deficiencies and fires. Maybe then the price would be less of an issue.

While that is true, I can not think of a single large Mgf. that has not produced at least one faulty product themselves!

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

While that is true, I can not think of a single large Mgf. that has not produced at least one faulty product themselves!

True. However, at least you have a reasonable amount of certainty that a level of safety exist. Miss matching breakers and having brain surgery performed by you, or your neighbor, has NO reasonable amount of certainty and has NEVER been tested.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

True. However, at least you have a reasonable amount of certainty that a level of safety exist. Miss matching breakers and having brain surgery performed by you, or your neighbor, has NO reasonable amount of certainty and has NEVER been tested.

But Eaton does have testing of there breakers in other panels! "reasonable amount of certainty"

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

But Eaton does have testing of there breakers in other panels! "reasonable amount of certainty"

Nope, because the panels do not have testing with the other breakers.

You are only looking at half the equation. Both have to be met.

It would be like me certifying the do it yourself brain surgery. Just because I believe the technic is ok and meets my testing, does not mean the medical board will have the same opinion, and visa versa.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Nope, because the panels do not have testing with the other breakers.

You are only looking at half the equation. Both have to be met.

That is the key part - "Both have to be met."

Eaton published some pretty convincing sales info stating that there replacement CBs have been tested in other panels and can be used in other panels. Maybe they are wrong, maybe some of you guys (and me) are wrong. It would probably take a few attorneys to determine who is correct, and I would not necessarily believe the results of that argument either.

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Eaton published some pretty convincing sales info stating that there replacement CBs have been tested in other panels and can be used in other panels. Maybe they are wrong, maybe some of you guys (and me) are wrong. It would probably take a few attorneys to determine who is correct, and I would not necessarily believe the results of that argument either.

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Well of course they did. Would you expect anything else?

Just like Elastomeric Roof Covering manufacturers publish some pretty nice convincing sales info that their products are approved "by them" to be placed over shingle roofs. To bad not a single manufacturer of shingles will warrantee their roofing product with elastomeric coating on them.

Does not take an attorney at all. If the panel manufacturer says no, no one cares what the breaker manufacturer says. And the panel manufacturer has UL and the code on its side.

Ever see Chevy warrantee Fords Trucks?

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Eaton published some pretty convincing sales info stating that there replacement CBs have been tested in other panels and can be used in other panels. Maybe they are wrong, maybe some of you guys (and me) are wrong. It would probably take a few attorneys to determine who is correct, and I would not necessarily believe the results of that argument either.

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...a00304001e.pdf

Mark,

Look at it this way: there are Granny Smith apples (the Murray panels); Red Delicious apples (the Murray breakers); and pears (the Eaton breakers).

Mix the Granny Smith apples with the Red Delicious apples and you get apple cobbler, but ... mix in the pears and you get fruit salad ... the recipe for apple cobbler does not include pears as one of the ingredients.

Nothing wrong with pears ... except that they don't go in apple cobbler.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Mark,

Look at it this way: there are Granny Smith apples (the Murray panels); Red Delicious apples (the Murray breakers); and pears (the Eaton breakers).

Mix the Granny Smith apples with the Red Delicious apples and you get apple cobbler, but ... mix in the pears and you get fruit salad ... the recipe for apple cobbler does not include pears as one of the ingredients.

Nothing wrong with pears ... except that they don't go in apple cobbler.

Except in the case of Eaton circuit breakers, the materials and dimensions are the same as the Murray circuit breakers, the only difference is the printing on the label. I know the argument is that that is according to Eaton, but who are we to dispute that claim?

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Except in the case of Eaton circuit breakers, the materials and dimensions are the same as the Murray circuit breakers, the only difference is the printing on the label. I know the argument is that that is according to Eaton, but who are we to dispute that claim?

Oh, we are just the people hired to make a report of anything that could possible be wrong! With that line of thinking, who are we to dispute ANY claim? Maybe our profession should just shut down and go away? This is exactly one of the reasons people hire us.

If Murray says it is not ok, then guess what? NOT OK!

I have contractors and salesman tell me things are ok all the time. That does not make it so. My clients hired me to tell them everything is ok. Question for you. If I as a Licensed General Contractor write a letter stating everything is ok on a house I built, are you going to submit that to your client, and say, well everything is ok per the manufacturer, so pay me my full inspection fee and I am not going to inspect the property? After all, as the GC I am the manufacturer.



Get a letter from Murray and UL stating it is ok, then you are good to go. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

I know the argument is that that is according to Eaton, but who are we to dispute that claim?

We are not disputing the Eaton claim, we are, however, following what the code says (which disputes the Eaton claim for us ) ... NEC 110.3(B) says that listed and labeled equipment (panels) shall ... shall ... be installed and maintained in accordance with their listing and labeling instructions, and the listing and labeling instructions on panels (including Murray panels) state the breakers which are acceptable for use in that panel ... 'n ifn dat Eaton braker taint lis'ed - den it aint okie dokie ta use.

And that thar be from the listing (versus classification) instructions on them thar panels.

It's you using that non-sterile kitchen knife in your DIY brain surgery - it might work, but it ain't what its made fer.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

We are not disputing the Eaton claim, we are, however, following what the code says (which disputes the Eaton claim for us ) ... NEC 110.3(B) says that listed and labeled equipment (panels) shall ... shall ... be installed and maintained in accordance with their listing and labeling instructions, and the listing and labeling instructions on panels (including Murray panels) state the breakers which are acceptable for use in that panel ... 'n ifn dat Eaton braker taint lis'ed - den it aint okie dokie ta use.

And that thar be from the listing (versus classification) instructions on them thar panels.

It's you using that non-sterile kitchen knife in your DIY brain surgery - it might work, but it ain't what its made fer.

The code argument makes is difficult for HI's in NC. As has been discussed before, siteing code in a NC home inspection report is discouraged in the most aggressive way. Without code as a reason to recommend replacement we are left with these questions to answer: 1) Is it functioning as intended? (I would have to answer "yes"). 2) Is it designed for the application? (With Eatons description of the product I would also have to answer "yes"). Difficult, no!

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

The code argument makes is difficult for HI's in NC. As has been discussed before, siteing code in a NC home inspection report is discouraged in the most aggressive way. Without code as a reason to recommend replacement we are left with these questions to answer: 1) Is it functioning as intended? (I would have to answer "yes"). 2) Is it designed for the application? (With Eatons description of the product I would also have to answer "yes"). Difficult, no!

1) Is it functioning as intended? (I would have to answer "NO BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE"). 2) Is it designed for the application? (With Eatons description of the product I would to answer no without Murrays approval"NO BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED BY MURRY OR TESTED BY UL").

You can do Code in NC. You just have to identify which code year was used and perform a complete code inspection, or at least I believe that is what your law states.

Simply wright it up after you research it and state that the breakers by Eaton are not approved by Murray. Potential hazard. No big deal. The only people you are going to piss off are the Seller and the Agents, and who really cares what they think. RIGHT?

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

The code argument makes is difficult for HI's in NC. As has been discussed before, siteing code in a NC home inspection report is discouraged in the most aggressive way. Without code as a reason to recommend replacement we are left with these questions to answer: 1) Is it functioning as intended? (I would have to answer "yes"). 2) Is it designed for the application? (With Eatons description of the product I would also have to answer "yes"). Difficult, no!

Actually, without a code argument you would not be able to support using Eaton breakers in a Murray panel because there is nothing which says overrules the panel which states that breakers blah, blah, blah, and blah may be used. (You would not be able to say anything about the Eaton breakers being UL Classified for use in a Murray panel because ... drum roll ... you cannot mention code. )

Sure, Eaton may say that their breakers are "UL Classified" and may therefore be used in a Murray panel, but the overriding document - the "UL LISTING" of the Murray panel states which breakers may be used in that panel - and Easton is not on that list.