ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area What would it hurt?

I have trouble accepting that there's lots of remaining room for wires- especially if the neutral bus is also the ground bus, and romex is used.
Tracing circuits, and identifying wires, is always an issue, especially when a neutral is part of a multi-wire branch circuit.
It may be more of a design matter, but there is a real benefit to having circuits grouped logically, and a panel readily accessible to the area it serves. Today's kitchen alone sensibly calls for at least eight circuits- doesn't a subpanel begin to make sense?
I'm tired of seeing people spend $$$$ to get appliances in exactly the right shade of off-white, then begrudge the $40 a subpanel costs. I'm also tires of tracing circuits that meander through a house like a drunken spider, and are tapped into in seemingly random intervals.

I see no reason to limit lighting and appliance branch circuit panels to 42 poles. This limit does not apply to power panels and I would think that if there was a real safety issue the same hazard would exist in both types of panels. As long as the main bus in the panel is protected at or below its rating and as long as no single bus tap is overloaded, I don't see a safety problem. Yes, it is a violation of the current code to install more than 42 poles in a lighting and appliance branch circuit panel, but maybe it is time that the code be changed.
Don

Homeowner called us to fix his panel. When I asked what the problem was, he said the home inspector told him there were too many circuit breakers in the panel.
We found 4 tandem installed, told the owner that it was a violation. His respond was Ya I know, after the home inspector told me I checked with the town inspector and he told me it was a violation, and I should call an electrician. The homeowner wanted to know if all the electricians around here know what they are doing.
So you can see this type of just one more breaker can harm the whole basket of apples.

ALthough some rules seem arbitrary, I think many are instituted in order to formally "draw the line" somewhere.
As mentioned earlier, if we leave it up to individuals to make field judgments regarding certain situations, there is an infinite range of interpretations, and rationalization.
Just for fun...
Of the guys who see no problem with installing minis in a 40 ckt. panel, how many would you be willing to install?
(No condescension, or patronization intended, just a social experiment. )

Redsy,

I think 2 circuits over should be allowed. This is what would be required to add a sub panel without moving circuits to the new panel. Although I can see an arguement for 4 circuits.

Like I said earlier, if a 20/40 panel is half the size of a 40/40 panel, why should both be limited to 40? Just because?

You must have a limit and I think for new work the limit should be the manufacturers rating. I think there should be an exception for alterations.

John, You install a sub panel for $40? That may be what the panel cost, but what about the 100 amp breaker, the feeder wire, the labor involved? We charge a minimum of $350 to our best contractors and it goes up from there depending on the brand and distance from the original panel. So a $12 tandem breaker looks a lot better.

Not to be a buster, but something to think about.
One guy would say adding 2 circuits is fine, another guy says, hey 4 is okay I have done this plenty of times before.
Today I was at a residence and there were 68 circuits in the 200 amp panel (200amp service). This guy thought this was okay. The reason for the 42 ckt limitation is as was posted earlier - Waldorf fire- and that has been the position since. If we don't draw the line and follow the 'minimums', then we see installation like this 64 circuit panel (this job was inspected, maybe the inspector believes it is okay too). There was so much 'stuff' in this panel I didn't know where to start.
I will say that I do not always believe some parts of the code is necessary, but I follow them because I believe that it is what separates 'US' from THEM THAT DON'T CARE.

Pierre

I think I recently saw a Cutler-Hammer 200-amp residential panel with 42 spaces.
(Not the ones with 42 twist-outs and 40 spaces...oops , but a full 42 spaces)

[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 07-10-2003).]

Why does this so called safety hazard only exist in lighting and appliance branch circuit panels? There is no limit on the number of poles that can be installed in a power panel. See 408.15.
Don

I imagine the tandem breakers you're talking about are the twin style type. 2-15, or 20A type. The panel has to be designed to accept them. The diagram (on the panel door) will let you know. Another give away would be the bus would be notched at these locations. If not, the full size must be used. I'm refering to Murray,
and some Croise Hinds. I may be wrong in the spelling. I would hate to be the guy that worked in the panel last and created a Fire Hazard.

What happened to the second paragaraph of 408.15? "A lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard shall be provided with physical means to prevent the installation of more overcurrent devices than that number for which the panelboard was designed, rated, and approved."
Are you guys finding ways to beat this requirement, or are the manufacturers not reading the Code?
Another feature UL tests for is wire bending space, and any circuits beyond what the panelboard is rated for is going to also violate the wire bending space.
Creighton