I just think code or not a subpanal or remote distrubution panel should have a main breaker as precaution Jeff.
I will not write it up , just opinion
Greg there is nothing said about the labeling of the breaker. What is said is that if the breaker is used as the disconnecting means that it has to be suitable for that purpose.
To be suitable for that purpose there are several things that it will be required to accomplish such as the requirement in 408.36(F) and 230.74 to mention a couple.
What you are thinking about when you say panel or enclosure you are talking about the bonding aspects. Even a fused disconnect has a means to open all ungrounded conductor that has nothing to do with the enclosure.
So pool subpanel on an exterior wall near the pool needs a seperate disconnect even though there is a main disconnect on the house?
Yes. If the pool has a panel that is remote from the main dwelling unit it is required to have a disconnect that is rated as service equipment and also an equipment grounding conductor supplied with the feeders.
Not enforced here then.
So I go back to my original response of required in the main panel. 
I believe the main concern here is the fire department access to deenergize the house and everything else in one shot. Turn off the main breaker and all is good.
This has nothing to do with the fire department. It has to do with maintenance.
As mentioned before, it is so that if someone kills power to the panel there is no risk of anyone back in the basement of the house turning it back on.
If you are clever they have locks for that situation.
Since my last post, I have spoken to the lead inspector at the state capitol who agrees with speedy and Whitt, if the subpanel is more than 30 amp. However the state inspector that covers my area disagrees. Now I’m really corn-fused.:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Every see one on a residential panel?
Most do not have provisins for locks.
Also, how many homeowners (and plumbers, HVAC guys, etc) have lock out-tag out kits???
Speedy, I understand your logic, but if the main is in the garage and the sub is on the third floor, doesn’t the same problem exist?
Proffesionals know the proper way to lockout equipment, in all trades.
If they do not know how to lockout something, I’ll bet they do not have a code book either.
All exterior panels here have a provision to be locked. And many home owners have them locked durring the HI.
Mike, if a breaker is listed SWD it is suitable for a disconnect, we use them in AC disconnects every day. You still haven’t told me why a panel, labeled “suitable for service equipment” with six of fewer breakers is not OK.
What does this mean otherwise
Just curious, why 6?
Why not 5 or 7 or 4 or 10?
It could have something to do with the manufacturer’s listing and labeling such as outlined below
Notice that this main lug panel clearly states that it is suitable as service equipment when a main breaker is installed not when there are six single pole breakers. As shown just beside the “suitable as service equipment” is an outline showing that this is a main lug panel.
Every manufacturer out there has simular language in all their main lug panels.
The six single pole breaker rule is still in the codes for the same reason that knob and tube is still in the codes.
“SWD” means switching duty see 2002 NEC 240.83(D)
Mike, that is certainly one opinion.
By that definition you can’t put a “backfed” breaker in as a main either so I guess we can lose that hold down clip language too.
Rollie, I am familiar with what SWD is, I was just trying to avoid Mike saying the breaker was not meant to be used as a disconnect (switching it off and on)
I don’t understand what you are saying here Greg. Any breaker that is used as a main is backfed. If a breaker is backfed for any reason be it a main disconnecting means or as a generator transfrer switch then that breaker must be secured in place by an additional fastener that requires other than a pull to release, see 408.36(F)
Section 225-8, what is now 225.33 was added between the 1985 and the 1993 cycles. There is no 225 in the 1968 code cycle and 230-70(g), today is 230.71(B), was a new section.
No I don’t think that it is my opinion at all but instead I think that it is a fact.
I am talking about a MLO panel where you put in a breaker on the rails with a retaining clip. That would not be what I could call an “integral main breaker”.
If I am to read this label as written it is saying no MLO panel can be suitable as service equipment. Interesting, I have just never heard this before. I agree that is what is says. I have just never heard of it being enforced this way. I guess I need to read more panel labels.
I suppose you are also one of those guys who fails “classified breakers” too since virtually all panel labels say “use <our> breakers only”. I know that is a question that can start a fist fight at an IAEI meeting
I’d love to hear comments about this (without the fisticuffs, of course) and if you call it out, how do you write it.
This makes interesting reading. A GE panel.
That seems to be making a grazing reference to 408.16 but that is met by the breaker protecting the feeder. Perhaps that is also the intent of the label you posted.
This is one reason why I hate manufacturers second guessing the code in their labelling. Somehow they don’t translate from Chinese that well.
