# Main Circuit Breaker in Sub-Panel (Again)



## swimmer (Mar 19, 2011)

An electrician, I periodically work with, is under the assumption that sub-panels require a main circuit breaker. He claims this requirement was implemented sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s. 

I don't see this requirement in the 2014 NEC

Here is how I support my position:
1. Use 408.36 when the sub-panel is fed by another panel in the same building:

*408.36* Overcurrent Protection[/B]. In addition to the requirement
of 408.30, a panelboard shall be protected by an
overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater
than that of the panelboard. This overcurrent protective device
shall be located within or at any point on the supply
side of the panelboard.

2. Use 225.32 when the sub-panel is fed by another panel in a different building:

*225.32 Location*. The disconnecting means shall be installed
either inside or outside of the building or structure
served or where the conductors pass through the building or
structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily
accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.
For the purposes of this section, the requirements
in 230.6 shall be utilized.

I interpret 225.32 as saying I can either have a main disconnect in the sub-panel in the outbuilding or I can install it upstream of this panel where the feeders enter the building.

So the easiest practice would be:
For both panels in the same building: Do not install a main in the sub-panel 
For panels in different buildings: Install a main in the sub-panel. It is easier than installing a disconnect between the sub-panel and where the feeders enter the building.

Am I understanding this stuff correctly?
Am I citing the right codes?


----------



## active1 (Dec 29, 2009)

Your right Swimmer, the other electrician's wrong.

The hardest thing to find in the code book is something that's not there.
Don't think you will find anything to support the other electrician, except like you said a separate structure or maybe other special condition. Maybe if the main was also used as a equipment disconnect, and the panel was for a certain piece of equipment.

In larger buildings you wont see many main breakers in the downstream panels.
If you do, you kinda wonder why. Could have been an order mistake, a typo on the plans calling for a MCB, or the electrical engineer working on raising the job costs.

For 1P resi panels it may be an availability thing, or just some strange glitch in pricing where the the MCB panel is less expensive because of volume.

For maintenance safety it's nice to have. Such as changing out a breaker, if they let you shut down. But depending on the cover design you still could have energized conductors going to the main breaker if you have the cover open. If that's the case you still should suit up per OSHA, or lock it out at the source. Little bit safer, but not safe enough for OSHA.

The other problem you can have with a same size breaker on both sides of the feeder is a race to see which one trips 1st or both. On longer runs the supply side seems to win. My guess is because of the extra resistance of the feeder draws a few more amps when overloaded.

Last I looked sub-panel is just not a NEC term.
I would say you got your service, feeder, or branch circuits.
If you get the 3 mixed up, then the NEC can be interpenetrated wrong.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Chicken Steve once told me that a main breaker was required in a subpanel. I asked him why but he wouldn't answer.

Swimmer, I am guessing that the electrician who told you that can't give a code article either. Therefore, it's not required.

As for your other questions, a main breaker is a good idea in a separate structure, but the 6 throws rules will suffice. As for subpanels in the same house, installing one with a main breaker can't hurt, but isn't necessary.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Main breakers are merely convenient with daughter panels.

If cost is an issue, they are always to be omitted.

BTW, the only fellas using the term sub-panels work the Residential beat.

For everyone else, it's panels, panels, panels... no matter how many exist in the chain.

BTW, in Commercial practice it's common for a daughter panel to sit right beside its 'mother.'

They are _always_ strictly a MLO affair.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

telsa said:


> Main breakers are merely convenient with daughter panels.
> 
> If cost is an issue, they are always to be omitted.
> 
> ...


oh how some speak for the entire trade across this vast country or ours..........
It all depends on where you are as to what the terminology is. I hear ( and use) the term sub panel all the time in Commercial. 
I have never heard the term Daughter panel in the 30 plus years in the trade
But then again you are in California and we all know how F-ed up that place is...........


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

manchestersparky said:


> oh how some speak for the entire trade across this vast country or ours..........
> It all depends on where you are as to what the terminology is. I hear ( and use) the term sub panel all the time in Commercial.
> I have never heard the term Daughter panel in the 30 plus years in the trade
> But then again you are in California and we all know how F-ed up that place is...........


I'm sure telsa would be happy to fax - or telex - you a copy of his list of "terms of art". 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

manchestersparky said:


> oh how some speak for the entire trade across this vast country or ours..........
> It all depends on where you are as to what the terminology is. I hear ( and use) the term sub panel all the time in Commercial.
> I have never heard the term Daughter panel in the 30 plus years in the trade
> But then again you are in California and we all know how F-ed up that place is...........


I 'm sorry Telsa , but i gotta go against you on this one and agree with
Manchestersparky. I have never heard "sister or daughter" lingo here
either and yes I do also engage in commercial projects.

On a job a couple years ago , one main lug panel panel was for some odd reason being difficult to work with. Could that have been a mother-in-law 
panel?:thumbsup:


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

The only sub I'm thinking about on the job is the one in my lunch box


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

telsa said:


> Main breakers are merely convenient with daughter panels.
> 
> If cost is an issue, they are always to be omitted.
> 
> ...



So Residential guys are whack for saying sub panel , but you (being a commercial master and all.....) can call them "mother" and "daughter" panels and that's ok. 

Beyond Futarted Telsa, beyond futarted....... Just like when "electricians start saying main breakers are required in "sub" panels.


----------



## btharmy2 (Mar 11, 2017)

The term "sub panel" (the most common term in the industry for a panel fed from another panel) is somehow not appropriate, but the term "daughter panel" is somehow universally accepted? Who even says "daughter panel"?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

_oh please_ btharmy , lets not drag gender in this , lest the manufacturers start producing pink and blue panels and rainbow for the LGBT crowd.....:no:~CS~


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm, writing you in for CMP-2 Flyboy .....:thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup:


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Mother-daughter comes from the digital world.

Sorry about that.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I'm, writing you in for CMP-2 Flyboy .....:thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup:


I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a steak knife then be on that panel.


----------



## MikeFL (Apr 16, 2016)

telsa said:


> Mother-daughter comes from the digital world.
> 
> Sorry about that.


Motherboard & daughter board. They're printed circuit boards.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a steak knife then be on that panel.



well methinks that's a prerequisite .....~CS~:no:


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> _oh please_ btharmy , lets not drag gender in this , lest the manufacturers start producing pink and blue panels and rainbow for the LGBT crowd.....:no:~CS~


What no color for the Gender Confused ? Are you trying to offend someone ?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Ok,_ polka dot_ , i'm nothing if not a subservient lib Manchester :shifty:~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

But Hax _vexes_ me yet again
:jester:
Can U think of a good reason to have a main breaker _vs._ MLO panel?
:001_unsure:
I can , but you _may / may not_ read it into the NEC
:shifty:
*110.25* is the closest i come to validation (_hint, you get blown outta the book) _
:shifty:
what say the crew here this a.m.?

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> But Hax _vexes_ me yet again
> :jester:
> Can U think of a good reason to have a main breaker _vs._ MLO panel?
> :001_unsure:
> ...


You are trying to say that this somehow requires a subpanel to have a main breaker???



> 110.25 Lockable Disconnecting Means. Where a disconnecting
> means is required to be lockable open elsewhere in
> this Code, it shall be capable of being locked in the open
> position. The provisions for locking shall remain in place
> ...


You will notice how yet again you haven't given a single bit of substantiation to backup your assertion that subpanels require a main breaker, and that's why "Hax _vexes_ you".


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> You are trying to say that this somehow requires a subpanel to have a main breaker???
> 
> 
> 
> You will notice how yet again you haven't given a single bit of substantiation to backup your assertion that subpanels require a main breaker, and that's why "Hax _vexes_ you".


He won't be able to. Simple as that. But he can install several hundred twelve inch sections of unistrut and clamp it all down in order to make it look. as completely re-tarded as only steve can accomplish.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> You are trying to say that this somehow requires a subpanel to have a main breaker???
> 
> 
> 
> You will notice how yet again you haven't given a single bit of substantiation to backup your assertion that subpanels require a main breaker, and that's why "Hax _vexes_ you".


I forgot 430.102 Hax, another hint!

~CS~


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> But Hax _vexes_ me yet again
> :jester:
> Can U think of a good reason to have a main breaker _vs._ MLO panel?
> :001_unsure:
> ...


Are you even an electrician?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> I forgot 430.102 Hax, another hint!
> 
> ~CS~


So instead of backing up your statement saying that all subpanels require a main breaker (something we all know isn't true), you can only give "hints" that lead nowhere?

BTW, 430.102 is under "ARTICLE 430— MOTORS, MOTOR CIRCUITS, AND CONTROLLERS" Nothing in it applies to a residential subpanel.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong for once in your life?




> *ARTICLE 430— MOTORS, MOTOR CIRCUITS, AND CONTROLLERS*
> 
> *430.102* Location.
> (A) Controller. An individual disconnecting means shall
> ...


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

No need for a main but if I put in a 20 space sub I usually use a main breaker panel. Only because they are generally about $30 cheaper.


----------



## active1 (Dec 29, 2009)

Talking about main breakers required in a panel and CS is in 430 motors?
Keep looking Steve, maybe it's in Chapter 8.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Does a resi kitchen have fixed motorized equipment fellas?

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Does a resi kitchen have fixed motorized equipment fellas?
> 
> ~CS~


There is nothing in a kitchen that requires a main breaker in a sub panel.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Does a resi kitchen _require_ lotto?
:shifty:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Does a resi kitchen _require_ lotto?
> :shifty:
> ~CS~


There is nothing in a kitchen that requires a main breaker in a sub panel.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

How would one apply lotto to this ?>>>>










~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Even if there was some requirement for a main breaker in a sub panel due to a residential kitchen, which there isn't, that still wouldn't mean that all sub panels are required to have main breakers like you said, since not all sub panels have kitchen circuits on them.

You are messing with people's livelihoods here by posting wrong code information.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

or this?>>>










~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> How would one apply lotto to this ?>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you even an electrician?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Basically you are just throwing sh1t at a wall and seeing what sticks.

Unfortunately for you, nothing ever does.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Quick question - do you guys think Steve is doing this on purpose? Or is his brain really that scrambled?


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

MTW said:


> Quick question - do you guys think Steve is doing this on purpose? *Or is his brain really that scrambled*?


Asked and answered.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> How would one apply lotto to this ?>>>>


I mean this in all sincerity - are you re tarded? :blink:

The NEC doesn't required "lotto." It requires a disconnect. We use cords to accomplish this. You can use a breaker lock if you wish, but nobody does that I know of. 

You must be trolling because you cannot possibly be that stupid.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> How would one apply lotto to this ?>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We don't apply LOTO. We use Article 422 to locate and install the disconnect.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

So Steve threw out a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and then disappeared. Typical for him.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

MTW said:


> I mean this in all sincerity - are you re tarded? :blink:
> 
> The NEC doesn't required "lotto." It requires a disconnect. We use cords to accomplish this. You can use a breaker lock if you wish, but nobody does that I know of.
> 
> You must be trolling because you cannot possibly be that stupid.


Don't underestimate the power of meth. :001_unsure:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Bravo Mulder...>>>
:thumbup:


> 422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.


care to opine further?

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Knowingly posted wrong code advice should be a bannable offense.

Steve clearly knows that subpanels are not required to have main breakers but keeps posting bologna because he won't just admit to it.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Knowingly posted wrong code advice should be a bannable offense.
> 
> .


*prove it *

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> *prove it *
> 
> ~CS~


You made the assertion that subpanels require a main breaker, it's up to you to prove it.

I gave you many chances, and every attempt you made was just plain stupid. You can't come up with anything to substantiate your claim. 

You are wrong, and knowingly giving bad code advice. That can hurt people's businesses and livelihood. You are truly a bad person.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Bravo Mulder...>>>
> :thumbup:
> 
> 
> ...


Did you really use a completely irrelevant code article to justify a main in a sub panel? 

I'm still teetering between you being a troll and and abject moron.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> You made the assertion that subpanels require a main breaker, it's up to you to prove it.
> 
> I gave you many chances, and every attempt you made was just plain stupid. You can't come up with anything to substantiate your claim.
> 
> You are wrong, and knowingly giving bad code advice. That can hurt people's businesses and livelihood. You are truly a bad person.


I can't say it much better than that. He literally knows nothing about electrical work.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I can put in a toggle switch rated for the amperage for any of the 120 volt appliances I want to , to serve as the disconnecting means, and further a double pole switch for any of the 240 volt appliances as well, providing the amperage rating of the switch is sufficient and it is listed for the use which means just about all the commercial grade ones on the shelves at the market. Or...... I can put in a cord to disconnect permanently installed appliances per the applicable code section. 


Steve seems to have proven my original thesis, which he was never trained as an electrician but rather just took up the pretending of it, and loosed himself upon the public, at least in my humble opinion that is probably what happened. 

I could be wrong , but all along I never doubted it for a moment. All conjecture, not based on personal witness or any event. So far the Constitution allows me to conject............


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Bravo Mulder...>>>
> :thumbup:
> 
> 
> ...


No. It's all in 422.31, 422.33, 430.109, and 430.110 if you care to read it. I really don't know what this has to do with a main breaker for a panelboard.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

And by the way , steve's sub panel with a main breaker installed , does not serve a kitchen as a disconnecting means unless it is located within direct line of sight of the appliances, and is not greater than 50 foot away , or has a permanently mounted breaker locking device installed.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> And by the way , steve's sub panel with a main breaker installed , does not serve a kitchen as a disconnecting means unless it is located within direct line of sight of the appliances, and is not greater than 50 foot away , or has a permanently mounted breaker locking device installed.


The main breaker could not serve as the disconnecting means in any case, 422.31 states that the "branch circuit" switch or OCPD can serve as the disconnect. The main breaker in a panel is not the branch circuit OCPD.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Mulder said:


> The main breaker could not serve as the disconnecting means in any case, 422.31 states that the "branch circuit" switch or OCPD can serve as the disconnect. The main breaker in a panel is not the branch circuit OCPD.



So, taken literally, I cannot go outside and hit the main breaker to a house in cases where I have panels that are not marked at all in the circuit directory and I want to work on something but I'm not sure another panel is around somewhere and the customer doesn't even know about it ...................


Happens more often than I care to count.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> So, taken literally, I cannot go outside and hit the main breaker to a house in cases where I have panels that are not marked at all in the circuit directory and I want to work on something but I'm not sure another panel is around somewhere and the customer doesn't even know about it ...................
> 
> 
> Happens more often than I care to count.


Sure you can....That's just not the appliance disconnect required by 422.31 for new installations.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

MTW said:


> I can't say it much better than that. He literally knows nothing about electrical work.


Have you actually seen photos of his 'work' ?

:laughing::laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> No. It's all in 422.31, 422.33, 430.109, and 430.110 if you care to read it. I really don't know what this has to do with a main breaker for a panelboard.


'17 change in red>>>

*Part III. Disconnecting Means*
*422.30 General*. A means shall be provided to simultaneously
disconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors in
accordance with the following sections of Part III. If an appli‐
ance is supplied by more than one branch circuit or feeder,
these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified as
being the multiple disconnecting means for the appliance.
Each disconnecting means shall simultaneously disconnect all
ungrounded conductors that it controls.

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> The main breaker could not serve as the disconnecting means in any case, 422.31 states that the "branch circuit" switch or OCPD can serve as the disconnect. The main breaker in a panel is not the branch circuit OCPD.


*422.34 Unit Switch(es) as Disconnecting Means.* 

references '_the other_' means

so you are correct _re:_ the serving ocpd 

but, 110.25 requires the lock, and it has to be something on the unit, not introduced

_like>>_










~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> I can put in a toggle switch rated for the amperage for any of the 120 volt appliances I want to , to serve as the disconnecting means, and further a double pole switch for any of the 240 volt appliances as well, providing the amperage rating of the switch is sufficient and it is listed for the use which means just about all the commercial grade ones on the shelves at the market. Or...... I can put in a cord to disconnect permanently installed appliances per the applicable code section.
> 
> 
> ...


yes you can, assuming '_readily accessible_' is met.

That would be>>>*29 CFR 1910.399, Readily accessible*

now if an AHJ doesn't accept a male cord cap under the sink, and mama pajama doesn't want redundant counter top switches*, what will you do?

~CS~

* with these on them>>>>


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> And by the way , steve's sub panel with a main breaker installed , does not serve a kitchen as a disconnecting means unless it is located within direct line of sight of the appliances, and is not greater than 50 foot away , or has a permanently mounted breaker locking device installed.



and......?:blink:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Knowingly posted wrong code advice should be a bannable offense.
> 
> .


Still waiting for that axe to fall here Hax.....:shifty:~CS~


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

HackWork said:


> a main breaker is a good idea in a separate structure, but the 6 throws rules will suffice.


Can you explain or post that rule #? Curious about the differences between the NEC and CEC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> Can you explain or post that rule #? Curious about the differences between the NEC and CEC.


225.33 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The disconnecting means for each supply
permitted by 225.30 shall consist of not more than six
switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure,
in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard
or switchgear. There shall be no more than six disconnects
per supply grouped in any one location.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I honestly can't believe the lengths Steve is going to try to justify his false assertion that subpanels are required to have a main breaker. Not a single thing he has posted substantiates that statement in any way. 

People have pointed out where I was wrong in statements about code and my reply was always "you're right". Digging in and falsely "sticking to your guns" about code is dangerous and just plain wrong.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

For a chicken farmer, he's quacked...........


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I honestly can't believe the lengths Steve is going to try to justify his false assertion that *subpanels are required to have a main breaker*. Not a single thing he has posted substantiates that statement in any way.
> 
> .


That's because i never said they were '_required_' Hax. 
:no:
Obviously , no MLO would be _manufactured_ if they were

Now that we've established you've nothing but _hubris_, perhaps we could move on to those who could opine on the _real_ requirements 

*Disco w/in sight

Disco has locking means that stays on it

Disco is readily accessible*

Keep in mind EC's like _economical_ remedies.....:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> That's because i never said they were '_required_' Hax.


 Yes, you did.


> Now that we've established you've nothing but _hubris_, perhaps we could move on to those who could opine on the _real_ requirements
> 
> *Disco w/in sight
> 
> ...


 This thread isn't about kitchen appliance requirements. No one cares about that, we all know what a cord&plug is as well as a permanently installed breaker lockout.

This thread is about whether or not a subpanel has to have a main breaker, in which you said that it did yet can't substantiate.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The usual dodge when cornered then .....~CS~:no:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> The usual dodge when cornered then .....~CS~:no:


What dodge? I answer any and every thing that you post and I backup what I say with code.

We are all still waiting for you to substantiate why you said a sub panel has to have a main breaker. None of the nonsense says anything.

As usual, someone is repeating themselves over and over trying to get you to account for your own words, while you remain in fantasyland, blinded by your delusions of grandeur, actually believing that other people are the ones dodging questions.

How many more times do I have to ask you to either show us the code saying that a sub panel requires a main breaker or admit that you made a mistake?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I've quoted all the codes needed Hax

All you need do is read them

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> I've quoted all the codes needed Hax
> 
> All you need do is read them
> 
> ~CS~


You posted article numbers.

I looked them up, posted the actual code, and refuted your assertions that they require a main breaker in a sub panel.

You have nothing. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this knows it. It's only in your mind that you think you don't look like a disingenuous doosh that is knowingly posting bad code requirements.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Sensory deprivation leads to an out-of-body experience.

CS operates from fact deprivation -- which leads to an out-of-mind view point.

Nonsense, in a word.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Is this a discussion they are having at MH that Steve decided to carry over here? I need to go check....


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I've quoted all the codes needed Hax
> 
> All you need do is read them
> 
> ~CS~



You have not quoted a single code that requires that a sub panel have a main. All you have quoted are codes that we already know in regard to appliance disconnects. How you can make that leap is beyond anyone's capacity to understand. Well, perhaps you're hitting the bottle a lot harder these days.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Less drama , more code focus would be appreciated...~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Less drama , more code focus would be appreciated...~CS~


From the guy who refuses to post a single bit of code to support his statement :laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Less drama , more code focus would be appreciated...~CS~


Can you summarize what you actually believe? That a main breaker somehow satisfies the rules for appliance disconnects?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Has _anyone_ here wired a high end resi and/or commercial kitchen?

Inasmuch as unit switching is acceptable disconnect , they are usually _not _110.25 lotto compliant .....


*422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.*
(A) Rated at Not over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1 ∕ 8 Horsepower.
For permanently connected appliances rated at not over
300 volt-amperes or 1 ∕ 8 hp, the branch-circuit overcurrent
device shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means
where the switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the
appliance or is lockable in accordance with 110.25.

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Steve, can you post the code that says all sub panels have to have a main breaker?

As I have explained to you multiple times now, even if what you are saying about kitchens was true, which it is not, then only sub panels with those kitchen circuits would require the main breaker, not all sub panels like you stated.

But even that part about the kitchen appliances does not require a main in a sub panel. We explained the acceptable disconnecting means and how a main breaker doesn't help in any way.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

BTW Steve, I want you to stop embarrassing yourself even if it's just for a small part of it, so I am going to explain to you that it isn't lotto, it's LOTO. Lock Out Tag Out is NOT in the code book.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Let's all stop feeding this stupid troll.

For everyone else who might be reading this, a sub panel does not require a main breaker unless it's in an outbuilding. In that case, it might be exempt from one under the 6-throw rule.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Has _anyone_ here wired a high end resi and/or commercial kitchen?


 This thread isn't about high end resi or commercial kitchens. If what you are saying only applies to them, then it is clearly wrong for you to state that all sub panels need a main breaker. 



> Inasmuch as unit switching is acceptable disconnect , they are usually _not _110.25 lotto compliant .....


 Here is the article:

*110.25 Lockable Disconnecting Means. *Where a disconnecting
means is required to be lockable open elsewhere in
this Code, it shall be capable of being locked in the open
position. The provisions for locking shall remain in place
with or without the lock installed.
Exception: Cord-and-plug connection locking provisions
shall not be required to remain in place without the lock
installed.

It is very clear. You have multiple options, so a main breaker in a sub panel is not required. Hell, I don't see how that would work at all. Why would you shut down what could be the entire place to work on one piece of equipment? 



> *422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.*
> (A) Rated at Not over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1 ∕ 8 Horsepower.
> For permanently connected appliances rated at not over
> 300 volt-amperes or 1 ∕ 8 hp, the branch-circuit overcurrent
> ...


Again, this specifically says "branch circuit". Nowhere does it talk about a main breaker.

So PLEASE show us the code requiring a main breaker in a sub panel.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Branch circuits simply do not comply with 110.25 Hax

now please keep in mind the parameters here>>>>



> Disco w/in sight
> 
> Disco has locking means that stays on it
> 
> Disco is readily accessible


~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Branch circuits simply do not comply with 110.25 Hax


 Prove it. Here is 110.25 yet again:

*110.25 Lockable Disconnecting Means.* Where a disconnecting
means is required to be lockable open elsewhere in
this Code, it shall be capable of being locked in the open
position. The provisions for locking shall remain in place
with or without the lock installed.
Exception: Cord-and-plug connection locking provisions
shall not be required to remain in place without the lock
installed.



> now please keep in mind the parameters here>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of that has to do with a subpanel. Nothing you said requires a main breaker in a subpanel.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Branch circuits simply do not comply with 110.25 Hax
> 
> now please keep in mind the parameters here>>>>
> 
> ...


If you use something like this it would be compliant with 110.25.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Insisting that "lotto" is part of the NEC is where one loses all credibility.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Yup Mulder, I posted this the last time Steve said that sub panels require main breakers, but he just ignores it and continues to tell lies:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Branch circuits simply do not comply with 110.25 Hax
> 
> ~CS~


I still want to know how "branch circuits don't comply with 110.25"?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

You guys do realize how badly you're getting trolled right now, right?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

So a real chit show if you hardwire the DW


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

emtnut said:


> So a real chit show if you hardwire the DW


A breaker lock like posted above will be all you need.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Branch circuits simply do not comply with 110.25 Hax
> 
> now please keep in mind the parameters here>>>>
> 
> ...


The 2017 NEC does not require the appliance disconnecting means to be in sight of the appliance.

(C) Motor-Operated Appliances Rated over 1∕8 Horsepower.
The disconnecting means shall comply with 430.109 and
430.110. For permanently connected motor-operated appliances
with motors rated over 1∕8 hp, the disconnecting means shall
be within sight from the appliance or be capable of being
locked in the open position in compliance with 110.25.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> The 2017 NEC does not require the appliance disconnecting means to be in sight of the appliance.
> 
> (C) Motor-Operated Appliances Rated over 1∕8 Horsepower.
> The disconnecting means shall comply with 430.109 and
> ...



Wouldn't the key term be '*or*' there Mulder?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> If you use something like this it would be compliant with 110.25.


As a matter of fact it would.....:thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

emtnut said:


> So a real chit show if you hardwire the DW


A lot of the commercial kitchen equipment is just that....~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Now that we are back at the very beginning, can you please show us the code that requires a subpanel to have a main breaker like you say it does, Steve?


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Wouldn't the key term be '*or*' there Mulder?
> 
> ~CS~



Um....Yes. It is one or the other......not both.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> Insisting that "lotto" is part of the NEC is where one loses all credibility.


Osha regs have, for a number of cycles now, crept in the NEC back door

re> 29 CFR 1910.399, Readily accessible

As i stated early on .....:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> Um....Yes. It is one or the other......not both.


Agreed. However i think you'll find (as i did) a few ahj's are quite happy having accessibility _as well as _lockability addressed.

So many times we install a dedicated panel w/in sight of a commercial kitchen, larger higher end resi kitchens , we'll even position smaller condo's w/main breaker w/in kitchen sight

As it's easier to simply slap your hasp on a main, *vs*. a number of branch circuits ,the concept becomes all inclusive ,addressing _over and above_ requirements. 

No cord caps, no redundant switches......

Everyone happy, for pennies....:thumbup:~CS~:thumbup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Ok, so Steve saying that subpanels require main breakers is not based on code, it is based on his local inspectors requiring their own extras? In addition to that, it's not all subpanels, it's just subpanels near kitchens? And they don't require main breakers, it's just easier for him to put a lock on the main instead of the branch circuits?

Do I have that correct? Is that why Steve is saying that all subpanels require a main breaker?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm not obligated to address what i _did not say_ Hax.....:no:~CS~:no:


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Osha regs have, for a number of cycles now, crept in the NEC back door
> 
> re> 29 CFR 1910.399, Readily accessible
> 
> ...


The breaker is already required to be readily accessible by 240.24(A).

OSHA regs do not apply to dwellings, except when they are under construction.

Dear Mr. Sherwood:

Your letter to Senator Connie Mack requesting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that apply to residential properties has been forwarded to us for response.

Please be advised that OSHA does not have any regulations that apply to residential properties, however, OSHA does have regulations that apply to the safety and health of employees while engaged in construction operations. A copy of those regulations--the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations for the Construction Industry (29 CFR 1926) -- is enclosed. These regulations apply to all construction operations, including residential construction. They require employers to protect employees exposed to various hazards during construction activities. The regulations are reprinted once a year and available through the Government Printing Office (GPO). Information on how to order OSHA regulations and standards from GPO is also enclosed.

We hope this information is helpful. If we can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Greg Watchman
Acting Assistant Secretary


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> I'm not obligated to address what i _did not say_ Hax.....:no:~CS~:no:


You said that all sub panels needed a main breaker.

You were lying and you know it. And you spent the last few hours typing out bologna to try and justify it. But you fell short, like usual.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Agreed. However i think you'll find (as i did) a few ahj's are quite happy having accessibility _as well as _lockability addressed.
> 
> So many times we install a dedicated panel w/in sight of a commercial kitchen, larger higher end resi kitchens , we'll even position smaller condo's w/main breaker w/in kitchen sight
> 
> ...


No provisions for locking are needed if the breakers are in sight of the appliance.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> > The breaker is already required to be readily accessible by 240.24(A).
> >
> > OSHA regs do not apply to dwellings, except when they are under construction
> 
> ...


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> A breaker lock like posted above will be all you need.


I figured. We recently went thru all this in the Canuck section ... over a friggin fart fan :blink:

:laughing:


I carry an assortment of breaker locks everywhere I go :no:
:jester:


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Mulder said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

emtnut said:


> I figured. We recently went thru all this in the Canuck section ... over a friggin fart fan :blink:
> 
> :laughing:


You guys looking for any help ? ~CS~:thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding the OSHA regs apply to employers and employees, not to tenants of apartments. Just because and OCPD is in the basement does not preclude it from being readily accessible. The tenant could have access to the basement.
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Further, placing a panel in the basement may not violate accessibility, but it would w/in sight, which is where your breaker lock WOULD be required


 NO, your breaker lock WOULD NOT be required to be in sight, as we discussed only a few posts ago. Remember the whole thing in which Mulder had to explain to you what "or" meant?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> So, what's easier?
> 
> Separate Dish, Disp, Range, Trash Compactor, Vent hood locks?
> 
> ...


We use cords and receptacles like normal human beings.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Mulder said:
> 
> 
> > I think you'll find many safety regs universal Mulder, be them ADA, OSHA or that which is applicable to the public
> ...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

At the very least, his chicken should be banned from dancing around on his posts, simply because of his being shamed by Hax.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> Mulder said:
> 
> 
> > I think you'll find many safety regs universal Mulder, be them ADA, OSHA or that which is applicable to the public
> ...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

MTW said:


> We use cords and receptacles like normal human beings.


Now you can shame me for not being a normal human being ....... because I have found thru my own personal experience..... A switch mounted in the wall beats the cost of a receptacle outlet and a cord hands down. Let's lay this out....

Receptacle outlet: $.66- $3.75 range depending on your mood.
Nail on outlet box: $.66
1/2" romex connector: $.25
Appliance duty rated cord- $9
*total- $10.57*


Switch: $.66- $3.75 depending on how utterly cool you are
Nail on outlet box: $.66
*Total- $1.32*

I left the faceplates out because the painter was drunk last night again and hasn't shown up for work again three days in a row.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Mac, two things.

Installing an outlet under the sink and a cord&plug on the dishwasher means that you can do both at your leisure instead of having to coordinate with the plumber or lay on the floor to wire the dishwasher.

Having a switch on the counter to shut off the dishwasher is gay.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Mac, two things.
> 
> Installing an outlet under the sink and a cord&plug on the dishwasher means that you can do both at your leisure instead of having to coordinate with the plumber or lay on the floor to wire the dishwasher.
> 
> Having a switch on the counter to shut off the dishwasher is gay.


One outlet under the sink and a switch for the D.W. in a two gang box. I put a cord on the disposal grudgingly because a hard wired nm cable will get me a protection from physical damage lecture. The DW I always hard wire, f' the fricking plumber, I left my switch in the down position with some tape on it when I finished wiring the dish washer, somebody else must have turned it on.....


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Maybe things are different there.

Here, the plumber installs the dishwasher. We put the cord on while the DW is sitting somewhere out in the open with the other appliances.

The plumber could then come whenever he wants and cut the cabinet to run the hoses and cord, then installs the dishwasher and plugs it in.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

It was more fun when we were beating up on Steve. Anyway, the plumbers are a drunken lot, and I also try to avoid them as often as I can because the smell of them is really offensive.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

HackWork said:


> Maybe things are different there.
> 
> Here, the plumber installs the dishwasher. We put the cord on while the DW is sitting somewhere out in the open with the other appliances.
> 
> The plumber could then come whenever he wants and cut the cabinet to run the hoses and cord, then installs the dishwasher and plugs it in.


Do you not have to AF that circuit as soon as you put a plug on it? I'd like to do that (and I'm seeing some DWs starting to come with a cord already attached) but 50 bucks is 50 bucks.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

When you herd turds, you're way past sheep dogs.

It's like running a Chicken Ranch.


----------



## sprky69 (Sep 15, 2010)

*I agree and concur MB are NOT required in sub panels Per the NEC. *​
Now with that said I had a Maintenance Director that required a MB in any sub panel we replaced or installed. I went back and forth round and round with him on this issue. His reasoning was the 6 handle rule he herd about at some seminar, and was easier then going to boiler room.. Showed him in the code books where it wasn't required. He was dead set on it. Some people are dead set on what *THEY* think is right even though u show them otherwise.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I think you'll find i've agreed with that _all along_. What you folks are missing is the _economical convenience_ of meeting the parameters required. 

There is little difference in the $$$ of an MLO *vs.* a Main

One lockout (_either proprietary or introduced_) , and who cares how a kitchen is wired, or what appliance disco is accessible. 

Another good argument for _multiple mains_ would be 110.24 ,assuming a larger proximal Xformer 

~CS~


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

sprky69 said:


> *I agree and concur MB are NOT required in sub panels Per the NEC. *​
> Now with that said I had a Maintenance Director that required a MB in any sub panel we replaced or installed. I went back and forth round and round with him on this issue. His reasoning was the 6 handle rule he herd about at some seminar, and was easier then going to boiler room.. *Showed him in the code books where it wasn't required. *He was dead set on it. Some people are dead set on what *THEY* think is right even though u show them otherwise.


What reference in the code did you show him?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

You won't find a direct NEC code, it doesn't exist and i _never_ claimed it did

I only advocate it for _reasons_ i've detailed here.

One of the biggest is lotto/accessibility 

*Why?*

Because VOSHA (_VT's state OSHA sidearm_) recently hired a few new men , who are actively hitting resi sites , subsequently fining the _easiest_ thing they can 

*LOTTO*

Mulder's OSHA post is spot on, and OSHA reaches out past _initial_ construction right on down to _service_ work, if they see your_ employee_ parked outside

So.....








:yes:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> You won't find a direct NEC code, it doesn't exist and i _never_ claimed it did
> 
> ~CS~


So now you are going to say that you didn't say, and then maintain for the last year, that resi sub panels needed a main breaker?

So after a long thread of you not being able to prove your statement, you are just going to outright and openly lie about it?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> You won't find a direct NEC code, it doesn't exist and i _never_ claimed it did
> 
> I only advocate it for _reasons_ i've detailed here.
> 
> ...


Ok, so going by the words that you just posted, in order for your company to do service work you first have to rewire the kitchen to a subpanel in sight with a main breaker and lockout in order to avoid OSHA from coming into a private residence and seeing your guy work on an appliance and fine them?

I mean, that's what you just said... That's the lengths you are going to in order to defend the absolutely stupid statement you made saying that sub panels require main breakers.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Agreed. However i think you'll find (as i did) a few ahj's are quite happy having accessibility _as well as _lockability addressed.
> 
> So many times we install a dedicated panel w/in sight of a commercial kitchen, larger higher end resi kitchens , we'll even position smaller condo's w/main breaker w/in kitchen sight
> 
> ...


I remember seeing older/ low end apartments with the panel in the kitchen, but in a new one? They still do that?

Not sure how things are done there but any "high end" customers I had did not want to see panels in the kitchen or even close to it. Kitchens are now the center of most homes.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

MTW said:


> Let's all stop feeding this stupid troll.
> 
> For everyone else who might be reading this, a sub panel does not require a main breaker unless it's in an outbuilding. In that case, it might be exempt from one under the 6-throw rule.


So let me get this straight. Hack posted the code for me earlier.

Separate buildings must have a main in the sub-panel unless there are no more than 6 circuits being supplied from it?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> I remember seeing older/ low end apartments with the panel in the kitchen, but in a new one? They still do that?


 No, especially not in a high end kitchen.



> Not sure how things are done there but any "high end" customers I had did not want to see panels in the kitchen or even close to it. Kitchens are now the center of most homes.


Exactly.

Let's just be clear here. Steve is saying that during construction a sub panel is required to be put into the kitchen with a main breaker and lockout so that a service technician can come in and shutdown the whole kitchen (receptacles and all) to do his work so that OSHA doesn't come into the private house (without a warrant) and fine that dishwasher repairman or whatever for not performing proper LOTO.

It's literally insane.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> So let me get this straight. Hack posted the code for me earlier.
> 
> Separate buildings must have a main in the sub-panel unless there are no more than 6 circuits being supplied from it?


Yes, and services. 

Essentially, you have to have "6 throws" or less to completely shutdown the power to a structure. 

If you have ever seen the older split bus panels, they were to get around that rule. You would have 6 breakers, 5 of them powering the large electrical appliances and 1 powering the smaller branch circuits in the second part of the panel.


----------



## active1 (Dec 29, 2009)

Is it too late to submit a change to the 2020 NEC so CS is right?

Proposed new article:

231 SUB-PANELS

231.1 Scope. Every fuse panel or circuit breaker panel that's downstream of the first service panel.

231.2 Definition
Sub-Panel. You know, not the service panel, da other ones.

231.10 Main Circuit Breaker. Every sub-panel shall be have a main circuit breaker in the same enclosure that disconnects all underground feeder conductors simultaneously from the panel bus.

231.20 Split Bus Panels. Split buss panel boards shall have only 1 main breaker throw that disconnects all underground bus.

231.30 Fuse Panels. All fuse panels shall have a main circuit breaker.

231.40 Labeling. All sub panels must have a printed warning sticker with 1" tall lettering to provide a warning about working on sub panels. The sticker must be durably printed for the environment 231.40(A) - 231.40(B)

231.40(A) On the dead front or panel door marked "Sub Panel Warning - Turn off main circuit breaker first".

231.40(B) Next to the main circuit breaker an arrow that reads "MAIN".

231.50 Existing sub-panels. Must be retrofitted with main circuit breakers if not equipped or replaced or replaced with new main circuit breaker panel.

231.60 Required Location. Every residential occupancy and guest room sweet beginning 1/1/2020 must be equipped with a sub panel for all kitchen circuits in sight of the farthest point in the kitchen.

231.70 Main Breaker Ampacity. Sub panel main breakers shall be sized as the same as the feeder overcurrent protection creating a redundancy of OCP. 

Informational Note No. 1: Turning off the main circuit breaker in a sub panel does not completely eliminate the electrical hazards inside an electrical panel.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

That’s awesome active1. 

The substantiation for this Code change can be “OSHA Lotto”.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eddy current said:


> > I remember seeing older/ low end apartments with the panel in the kitchen, but in a new one? They still do that?
> 
> 
> sometimes...
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Out of sight is fine too, but the lotto has to be _somewhere_. So assuming you've a kitchen subpanel (_all my commercial kitchens did_) , what would one like to lock out, it,or the _entire _building at the meter main?
> 
> What is an easier install _initially_?
> 
> ...


Why is it that you are the only person on this planet who is having this problem?

No one else in the world installs a sub panel with a main breaker and a lockout on the main for a residential kitchen to appease future OSHA inspectors on the lookout for dishwasher repairmen not using proper LOTO in private residences.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> So now you are going to say that you didn't say, and then maintain for the last year, that resi sub panels needed a main breaker?
> 
> So after a long thread of you not being able to prove your statement, you are just going to outright and openly lie about it?


I've never said '_required by NEC_' Hax, you are the one chasing me about putting words in my beak

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> I've never said '_required by NEC_' Hax, you are the one chasing me about putting words in my beak
> 
> ~CS~


Yes, you did. You even said the 2017 *NEC*. 

It's funny that after almost a year of asking you to show the code for your statement and after this entire thread, now you are going to say that you never said it


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Why is it that you are the only person on this planet who is having this problem?
> 
> No one else in the world installs a sub panel with a main breaker and a lockout on the main for a residential kitchen to appease future OSHA inspectors on the lookout for dishwasher repairmen not using proper LOTO in private residences.


We are to construct for accessibility & safety Hax , these are in the NEC due to OSHA influence , you can find who sits on what CMP in the front of the book

The accessibility code upgrades _alone_ for '14 & '17 are becoming harder to meet. For ex, many ahj's no longer accept a gfci under the sink , and certainly not behind a refer ,dish , or whatever other appliance 

This is why those redundant countertop disco's appear , which folks want to see even less than a panel in the liv rm facing the kitchen

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> We are to construct for accessibility & safety Hax , these are in the NEC due to OSHA influence


 OSHA has nothing to do with this. Nothing.

The NEC is very clear, and you can't come up with a single stitch of code to support it.

Just admit it. It's your own idea, you like to do it. The same was as you like to use 4 sticks of unistrut to attach a service riser to a house and leave 17 feet of conductors hanging out of the service head. We all have certain ways that we like to do things, but it's wrong to try and say that they are required.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This has got to be the only pro forum that allows posters to *lie * about another & chase him around with it to be _repeated_ and _repeated _and_ repeated_ despite all efforts of sanity and civility

oh how the mighty have fallen....:no:

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> This has got to be the only pro forum that allows posters to *lie * about another & chase him around with it to be _repeated_ and _repeated _and_ repeated_ despite all efforts of sanity and civility
> 
> oh how the mighty have fallen....:no:
> 
> ~CS~


This is amazing. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

HackWork said:


> OSHA has nothing to do with this. Nothing.
> 
> The NEC is very clear, and you can't come up with a single stitch of code to support it.
> 
> Just admit it. It's your own idea, you like to do it. *The same was as you like to use 4 sticks of unistrut to attach a service riser to a house and leave 17 feet of conductors hanging out of the service head.* We all have certain ways that we like to do things, but it's wrong to try and say that they are required.


You do remember that ! 

That was brutal.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> This is amazing. :laughing::laughing::laughing:



No, it was _expected_. 

This site can not compartmentalize chaos to one unmoderated section 
:no::no::no:
~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> It's literally insane.


:thumbsup:

He is literally over complicating something extremely simple. This is a new low for him.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> eddy current said:
> 
> 
> > sometimes...
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Mulder said:


> A lockout on the main would not be compliant with 422.31(A) and (B) which permit the branch circuit breaker to serve as the disconnecting means, but do not permit the feeder breaker to serve as the disconnecting means.


Oh snap. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


Now let's watch Steve worm his way out of this :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Oh snap. :laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> 
> Now let's watch Steve worm his way out of this :thumbup::thumbup:


Expect 5 more pages of irrelevant, unrelated nonsense.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MTW said:


> Expect 5 more pages of irrelevant, unrelated nonsense.


I see


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

......


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Oh snap. :laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> 
> Now let's watch Steve worm his way out of this :thumbup::thumbup:


I at least liked it when Mulder hit me with that same piece of code...... I never payed any attention to that one yet, mostly because I never put main breakers in sub panels unless it's a commercial job and the one line diagram specifies there be one ......... And then it's only because the supply houses build em exactly how the plans called for when I get all my apparatus quoted and supplied as a package........


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> chicken steve said:
> 
> 
> > A lockout on the main would not be compliant with 422.31(A) and (B) which permits the branch circuit breaker to serve as the disconnecting means, but does not permit the feeder breaker to serve as the disconnecting means.
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> means the main can be used
> 
> thx
> 
> ~CS~


No, the main breaker in a sub panel that you installed for a kitchen is NOT "service disconnecting means" of a 1-family dwelling and *you know it*. 

Just like I said, you won't admit you are wrong and you will go another 10 pages lying your way thru it.


----------



## trentonmakes (Mar 21, 2017)

chicken steve said:


> Mulder said:
> 
> 
> > 430.110. For permanently connected motor-operated applian‐
> ...


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Mulder said:
> 
> 
> > means w/in sight AND lockable Mr Mulder
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> I did not reference 422.31(C). I referenced 422.31(A) and (B). If the appliances are covered by 422.31(A) or (B) a lock out on the feeder breaker would not be compliant.


No, i was the one who referenced *C*, which adresses appliances over 1/8 HP. Lets read it again please>>>



> (C) Motor-Operated Appliances Rated over 1 ∕ 8 Horsepower.
> The disconnecting means shall comply with 430.109 and
> 430.110. For permanently connected motor-operated applian‐
> ces with motors rated over 1 ∕ 8 hp, the disconnecting means shall be within sight from the appliance or be capable of being locked in the open position in compliance with 110.25.


Note the '17 change (underlined) 

Also please note the exception>>>



> 422.33 Disconnection of Cord-and-Plug-Connected or Attachment Fitting–Connected Appliances.
> (A) Separable Connector or an Attachment Plug (or Attach‐
> ment Fitting) and Receptacle. For cord-and-plug-(or attach‐
> ment fi tting–) connected appliances, an accessible separable
> ...


Basically the change is addressing the _accessibility_ of a male cord cap , or whatever corded means of disconnect, if not it knocks you back to 422.31.....A,B & C all stating>>>


> switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance or is lockable in accordance with 110.25.


Accessibility is up to the AHJ , the days of a micro receptacle in the upper cab's or dish/pig under the sink have been in question since the '14 _tightening _up.

And there's just no saving those trash compactors ,vent hoods, larger fixed mixers, or fancy ranges w/o a lower drawer with male cord caps.
According to *430.42(C)* we're not using anything over 15A for the receptacle /male cord cap fix anyways

So that leaves us with *2* options, redundant switching _or_ ocpd's in sight, or lockable ones out of sight >>>

All roads leading back to *422.34(A) through (D).*

lets review>>>



> *(A) Multifamily Dwellings.* In multifamily dwellings, the other disconnecting means shall be within the dwelling unit, or on the same floor as the dwelling unit in which the appliance isinstalled, and shall be permitted to control lamps and other appliances.


I'm reading IN the unit on the same floor as the appliances , not outside, so positioning w/in sight of a kitchen may not necessarily be required, but we won't be required to have anything lockable in it if we do so. Note they're not caring what OCPD it may be



> *(B) Two-Family Dwellings.* In two-family dwellings, the other disconnecting means shall be permitted either inside or outside of the dwelling unit in which the appliance is installed.In this case, an individual switch or circuit breaker for the dwelling unit shall be permitted and shall also be permitted to control lamps and other appliances.


As i seriously doubt an individual dedicated branch ciruit OCPD outside, i'll go out on a limb and suggest they mean the main , as in the common meter/main.



> *(C) One-Family Dwellings.* In one-family dwellings, the service disconnecting means shall be permitted to be the other disconnecting means.


My take on *service* is the only usually installed OCPD in a single fam residence, the 'main' either in meter/main form , and/or main breaker panel OCPD, most being manufactured lockable. Note that 'permitting' said service mains use does not exclude all other means. The code is merely stating '_it's ok if that's all you got'_. 



> *(D) Other Occupancies*. In other occupancies, the branch-circuit switch or circuit breaker, where readily accessible forservicing of the appliance, shall be permitted as the other disconnecting means.


Again, 'Branch circuit, Switch, or Circuit breaker are referring to three separate entities pursuant to 'other' here. They can either be lockable out of sight, or not and in sight.





> For appliances covered under 422.31(C) as has been said multiple times, the disconnect has to be within sight OR capable of being locked open. Not both. I suppose you could use a lock on the feeder breaker and be compliant with 422.31(C), but it could not be used as the required disconnect for appliances covered under 422.31(A) and (B) as it is not the branch circuit breaker.


You have me on the OR as opposed to AND here Mulder, too much _caffeineated _speed reading, and kudo's to you keeping up in the NEC section *with* the NEC......:thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Mulder proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Steve's idea of locking a main breaker on a sub panel located in the kitchen was not code compliant.

Steve just put on a huge show to get around admitting he was wrong.

Nevermind the fact that he was also wrong from the beginning when he said all sub panels require a main breaker. He spent the whole thread and multiple other threads trying to justify that, just to finally change it to "It's easier to lock out stuff in the kitchen by having main in a sub panel there". But again, that is not code compliant to lock out that main breaker, as Mulder posted and Steve keeps ignoring.


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

Steve, All roads do not lead us back to 422.34. 422.34 is only for appliances that have unit switches.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

As opposed to _'the clapper_' dishwashers , or i guess _wifi _ovens Mulder....? ~CS~:blink:


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> As opposed to _'the clapper_' dishwashers , or i guess _wifi _ovens Mulder....? ~CS~:blink:


An on/off button on an appliance does not meet the conditions in red below. 

422.34 Unit Switch(es) as Disconnecting Means. A unit
switch(es) with a marked-off position that is a part of an
appliance and disconnects all ungrounded conductors shall
be permitted as the disconnecting means required by this
article where other means for disconnection are provided in
occupancies specified in 422.34(A) through (D).


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> As opposed to _'the clapper_' dishwashers , or i guess _wifi _ovens Mulder....? ~CS~:blink:


Steve, everyone of these silly posts you make without admitting you're wrong is just digging your hole deeper into a pit that you can't get out of.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mulder said:


> An on/off button on an appliance does not meet the conditions in red below.
> 
> 422.34 Unit Switch(es) as Disconnecting Means. A unit
> switch(es) with a marked-off position that is a part of an
> ...


Because they do not open _all _ungrounded conductors? ~CS~


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Because they do not open _all _ungrounded conductors? ~CS~


Yes. You would still have ungrounded conductors in the appliance that are not disconnected. Some might also say the a pushbutton does not have a "marked-off position".


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Good one , hadn't thought of that Mulder
:thumbsup:
So i'll ask you to put your AHJ _hat_ on , and pass judgement here

How would this implicate any given _appliance_ install?


As an aside,(_wearing my hat_) we stock MLO's up to 6 circuits, anything over has a main. This allows for _less _stock to be utilized in multiple scenarios. 
We've done a world of condos and apartments that have a panel w/in sight of (_but not in_) the kitchen. 

You see I'm being a real skinflint EC doing so , can't even pitch for a breaker lock.....:laughing:~CS~:no:


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Good one , hadn't thought of that Mulder
> :thumbsup:
> So i'll ask you to put your AHJ _hat_ on , and pass judgement here
> 
> ...


I don't think the disconnects have to be in the same room as the appliance, just within sight of the appliance.

If the appliance falls under 422.31(A) or (B) the disconnect has to be:
1) branch circuit breaker within sight of the appliance, or
2) branch circuit breaker capable of being locked open

If the appliance falls under 422.31(C) the disconnect has to be:
1)a disconnect of one of the types in 430.109 within sight of the appliance, or
2)a disconnect of one of the types in 430.109 capable of being locked open

For appliances with unit switches another disconnect of the types listed in 422.34(A) through (D) depending on the occupancy. 

The nickels and dimes add up after awhile. :thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree Mulder

so now that you've sent me off reading ,i'm thinking _all _of *430 Part IX. Disconnecting Means* applies

of interest was (_last part of_) *430.109 F*



> Horsepower-rated attachment plugs, flanged surface
> inlets, receptacles, or cord connectors shall not be required for
> cord-and-plug-connected appliances in accordance with 422.33,
> room air conditioners in accordance with 440.63, or portable
> motors rated * 1 ∕ 3 hp* or less.


So we've this narrow window of 1/8-1/3 HP before '_details_' pile up

'eff it & hardwire 'em all insight of the ocpd's .....:thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> I agree Mulder
> 
> so now that you've sent me off reading ,i'm thinking _all _of *430 Part IX. Disconnecting Means* applies
> 
> ...


430.109 says that the disconnecting means shall be one of the types listed in 430.109(A) unless otherwise permitted by 430.109(B) through (G). 

Since a typical circuit breaker complies with 430.109(A)(2) that is all that is needed. 

You can always use a molded case circuit breaker regardless of the horsepower.

It is permitted to use 430.109(F), but not required.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I agree Mulder
> 
> so now that you've sent me off reading ,i'm thinking _all _of *430 Part IX. Disconnecting Means* applies
> 
> ...


A) Appliances are not portable motors, they are appliances, so the 1/3 hp is irrelevant.

B)Garbage disposals are about the only horsepower rated appliances I can think of. Range hoods, dishwashers, etc are rated in current, thus fall under 422.33(A) or (B), not C. Thus, the main being lockable does NOT qualify is the lockable disconnecting means, as it is NOT the branch circuit breaker, so unless your kitchen sub panel is within sight of the appliance, you are not compliant. 

C)You keep throwing around OSHA regulations, but the code book defines what readily accessible and accessible mean. A GFI in the back of a cabinet is not considered readily accessible. However, the cord and plug connected dishwasher receptacle is only required to be ACCESSIBLE. Opening a cabinet and reaching to the back meets the definition of accessible. Thus, using a dual function breaker and a cord and plug connection is perfectly code compliant for disconnecting means. 



> Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close
> approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other
> effective means.





> Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
> being removed or exposed without damaging the building
> structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure
> or finish of the building.


You are purposefully throwing random code articles around that have practically nothing to do with your argument to try and confuse others so they stop telling you that you are incorrect.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

We won't be confuse, oh no, we *won't* be confused!


----------



## OD Electric (Jul 7, 2013)

I’m new to this site i have a customer who has a who has a 100 amp panel with 4 twin breakers. The house has gas oven, heat, boiler and dryer. I understand all the wiring requirements for a sub panel. My question is can I put in a 100 amp sub with 30 locations for future circuits. They may install central air in the future. He just wants the twins changed to full size breakers that’s the main reason for the sub panel. I’m just concerned if there is any restrictions on the number of locations. As of now there is no load issues on the 100 amp main panel. Thanks for any input . Jim.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Old thread but raises questions. Are the people commenting here saying a main breaker is not required in a "sub panel "? if they are, then they might be wrong. If the occupant with the "sub panel" does not have access 24-7-365, to the panel OCP then the panel needs a main breaker sized under the OCP protecting the feeder. At least that is what I learned.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

As for the OD question, are you saying you have a 4 circuit 100 amp panel now with 4 twin breakers? A total of 8 circuits?


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

telsa said:


> Main breakers are merely convenient with daughter panels.
> 
> If cost is an issue, they are always to be omitted.
> 
> ...


Holy crap. I do 95% commercial and I have NEVER heard panels referred to as mother and daughter panels. I know this is an older thread.

Funny thing, with the current political views "Please don't use Gendered Language" would not allow this terminology only a few years after they were trying to change it to be politically correct. Hahahah


----------



## joe-nwt (Mar 28, 2019)

Mother/daughter are electronic tech terms. ie. Motherboard, daughterboard.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

I prefer master/slave.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

LGLS said:


> I prefer master/slave.


You are really pushing it. You are going to get banned from everything.


----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

MotoGP1199 said:


> Holy crap. I do 95% commercial and I have NEVER heard panels referred to as mother and daughter panels. I know this is an older thread.
> 
> Funny thing, with the current political views "Please don't use Gendered Language" would not allow this terminology only a few years after they were trying to change it to be politically correct. Hahahah


Ok genius how can you explain make and female connectors? I guess gender neutral means the gay connector plugs into the lesbian connector?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

kb1jb1 said:


> You are really pushing it. You are going to get banned from everything.


Multiple inverters are always referred to as master/slave.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

backstay said:


> Multiple inverters are always referred to as master/slave.


I bet that expression is eliminated from newer equipment. I haven't seen that term used on dimmer switches for a while.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

kb1jb1 said:


> I bet that expression is eliminated from newer equipment. I haven't seen that term used on dimmer switches for a while.


Here is the most up to date manual. Section is on stacking.


Figure 22 OutBack Communications Manager and System Display
Each inverter must be assigned a stacking mode, “master” or “slave” of some type depending on the configuration.
 The master inverter provides the primary output phase, L1 (or Phase A in a three-phase system).
Other inverters in the system base their phase on that of the master inverter. If the master shuts off, all other inverters also shut off. The master must sense and connect to an AC source before other inverters can connect.
~ In a parallel-stacked system, the master tends to be the most heavily used unit.
~ “Subphase master” inverters are used to control other phases in series or three-phase systems.
A subphase master inverter operates semi-independently of the master inverter. Although the master inverter sets the phase relationship, the subphase master creates an output independent of the master.
~ The master on the L1 (or A phase) output cannot measure loads and voltages on any other output. The subphase masters for each of the other outputs perform monitoring and regulation for the phase they control.
~ In a series or series/parallel-stacked system, a subphase master is required for the L2 output.
~ In a three-phase system, subphase masters are required for both the B and C phases.
 A slave inverter does not create an independent output. It simply assists the master or subphase master
by adding power to the output as needed.
~ The Power Save function can place slave inverters in “Silent” mode when not in use. They are activated by the master or subphase master when required.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

I think LGLS was making a politically incorrect joke. But nowadays we cannot joke anymore.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

kb1jb1 said:


> I think LGLS was making a politically incorrect joke. But nowadays we cannot joke anymore.


I’d be surprised he didn’t, but he seems immune to any type of supervisory interjection.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> You are really pushing it. You are going to get banned from everything.


???

How’s that?


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

LGLS said:


> ???
> 
> How’s that?


I was being facetious.


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

paulengr said:


> Ok genius how can you explain make and female connectors? I guess gender neutral means the gay connector plugs into the lesbian connector?


If you didn't catch it i was being somewhat facetious. I don't understand anything going on with all these new terms and the need for them. It's absolutely ridiculous now. And impossible to be politically correct for more than a week.


LGLS said:


> I prefer master/slave.


I just ran electrical to some new boilers and they come with LEADER and FOLLOWER stickers. In 2 months leader and follower will be offensive to snowflakes.


----------



## Almost Retired (Sep 14, 2021)

LGLS said:


> I prefer master/slave.


you would .. being the socialist for this site


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

I just recently got an exterior light fixture/camera combo and another light that does not have the camera, but works together wirelessly with the main one.
They called it a “companion” fixture


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Almost Retired said:


> you would .. being the socialist for this site


Would he be the master?


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

MotoGP1199 said:


> If you didn't catch it i was being somewhat facetious. I don't understand anything going on with all these new terms and the need for them. It's absolutely ridiculous now. And impossible to be politically correct for more than a week.
> 
> I just ran electrical to some new boilers and they come with LEADER and FOLLOWER stickers. In 2 months leader and follower will be offensive to snowflakes.


2 months? I’m offended now.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

eddy current said:


> I just recently got an exterior light fixture/camera combo and another light that does not have the camera, but works together wirelessly with the main one.
> They called it a “companion” fixture


Geez we’re going back to the days when people used to refer to gay people or lesbian women or transsexuals under their breath By using dog whistles in nicknames… Is this what some people really want? You know like they wouldn’t call her a lesbian they’d be polite and say she’s the outdoorsy type or you know she just likes flannel me an hour and Subaru outbacks and jeeps


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

LGLS said:


> Geez we’re going back to the days when people used to refer to gay people or lesbian women or transsexuals under their breath By using dog whistles in nicknames… Is this what some people really want? You know like they wouldn’t call her a lesbian they’d be polite and say she’s the outdoorsy type or you know she just likes flannel me an hour and Subaru outbacks and jeeps


I was talking with customer the other day who works for the court system and she was telling me about the diversity and other HR training they had to take. It was the mandatory state requirement. She said, if outside of work she says something questionably offensive in a setting where others can hear, someone who is offended can call her job and report her. Who defines what is offensive? So much for free speach.


----------

