Thread: Panel Shut Off Requirement

Does anybody know what the shut-off requirement is for a panel in a condo that is wired as (excuse my terminology Jerry) a subpanel? I inspected a condo today that had no main shut-off and required well more than 6 throws of the hand to deenergize. No other main shut-off was inside the unit I inspected or close by to my knowledge.

Does the "no more than 6 throws of the hand" rule still apply?

Similar Threads:

• gas shut off valve
• Receptacle-cook top clearence requirement.
• Height requirement for exterior box
• Secondary drain overflow shut-off
• Gas shut off valve location

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

...

Does the "no more than 6 throws of the hand" rule still apply?

Nope. On account of that panel ain't the service equipment. I see the same thing in many condos.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Does anybody know what the shut-off requirement is for a panel in a condo that is wired as (excuse my terminology Jerry) a subpanel? I inspected a condo today that had no main shut-off and required well more than 6 throws of the hand to deenergize. No other main shut-off was inside the unit I inspected or close by to my knowledge.

Does the "no more than 6 throws of the hand" rule still apply?

There should be one at the bank of meters outside which is all that is required..... I believe.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Does anybody know what the shut-off requirement is for a panel in a condo that is wired as (excuse my terminology Jerry) a subpanel?

I am at a loss as to why, with that being THE ONLY "panel" you would feel any need or reason to call that a "subpanel".

What "panel" do you think it is a "subpanel" of?

That just simply boggles my mind as to why you would even consider the term "subpanel" for THE ONLY PANEL????

Be that as it may ...

I inspected a condo today that had no main shut-off and required well more than 6 throws of the hand to deenergize. No other main shut-off was inside the unit I inspected or close by to my knowledge.

Does the "no more than 6 throws of the hand" rule still apply?

As the others have said, no, that only applies to "service equipment" and not to "non-service equipment" "panels".

Typically, depending on the size of the building, you will have all of the meters grouped together in one location and the buildings "service equipment" will be THE ONLY "service equipment" there, each "main" for each condo *will not be* "service equipment".

While there is nothing wrong with having a main at the panel located in each condo (my preference and does not cost much more, but is in my opinion MUCH safer), that is not a requirement.

In larger condominium buildings you will find electrical panels on each floor, every other floor, maybe every third floor, all depends on the electrical engineering and design for the building.

Thanks for the info guys.

Jerry, I didn't call it a subpanel. I called it a panel that was wired as a subpanel. Lighten up.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

I called it a panel that was wired as a subpanel.

That was my point.

Describe how a "subpanel" is wired differently from a "panel".

Jerry, I got the answer I was looking for and am moving on from this. If you want to continue dissecting my verbiage, have at it. I'm too busy to get into a keyboard jousting match about verbiage and terminology that will accomplish nothing.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

I'm too busy to get into a keyboard jousting match about verbiage and terminology that will accomplish nothing.

It accomplishes education, and if you like skipping out on education, so be it.

Cheers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski
I'm too busy to get into a keyboard jousting match about verbiage and terminology that will accomplish nothing.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It accomplishes education, and if you like skipping out on education, so be it.

Cheers.

The simple facts are that the term "subpanel" is a trade description, and no amount of tantrums by some folks is going to change a thing.

As far as the term "subpanel" goes for a secondary panel, I've always preferred the term "remote panelboard." The meaning that most closely describes "remote" is the sense of the definition of "not primary". a "remote" panelboard is derived from the "primary" panelboard. Rules for "remote" panelboard wiring, to me at least, tend to be more adequately clarified as to their intent and meaning by use of the term "remote".
The term "sub" has become a meme ( a permanent pattern of information produced by an act of human intentionality ) over the years and as such is not likely to leave the trade language, even though it is slowly being replaced with more precise and descriptive terminology.

Describe how a "subpanel" is wired differently from a "panel".

Its very simple really, a panel is wired directly from the meter which does not have a disconnecting means other than removing the meter and the grounds and neutrals can be terminated in the same buss. A subpanel is wired from another disconnecting means such as a disconnect or breaker in another panel and the grounds and neutrals must be separated in the subpanel. There Jerry, don't you feel like you just gained a wealth of knowledge. The only difference between me and you is, I write what people understand, Not just to show people how smart I' are.

Just for fun....

"Hey, helper. Go get me the quarter-inch paint, and while you're in the shop, pick up a couple of gump wedges. And hurry back!" "Oh and one more thing, get the left-handed railroad car jack and don't forget the handle."

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Describe how a "subpanel" is wired differently from a "panel".

Its very simple really, a panel is wired directly from the meter which does not have a disconnecting means other than removing the meter and the grounds and neutrals can be terminated in the same buss. A subpanel is wired from another disconnecting means such as a disconnect or breaker in another panel and the grounds and neutrals must be separated in the subpanel. There Jerry, don't you feel like you just gained a wealth of knowledge. The only difference between me and you is, I write what people understand, Not just to show people how smart I' are.

Tony,

"The only difference between me and you is, I write what people understand,"

The difference between you and I is that I write what is correct, not what is made up in your mind.

Other than that, there are also those HUGE differences in ETHICS and ETHICAL standards, and ... (the list would be endless).

Tony
That panel better have a disconnecting means.
Required by the 2008 NEC article 230.70

Ken, I don't have a code book, But I think your wrong, If your saying that there has to be a way to turn off the load wires in a panel box.

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Its very simple really, a panel is wired directly from the meter which does not have a disconnecting means other than removing the meter and the grounds and neutrals can be terminated in the same buss.

Originally Posted by ken horak

Tony
That panel better have a disconnecting means.
Required by the 2008 NEC article 230.70

Ken,

Do you now see why I stress not using the term subpanel/sub-panel and instead stress using "service equipment", "not service equipment" (for identification that it is "not" "service equipment"), and "panel"?

I don't refer to "panels" as "not service equipment", only as "panels", and to "service equipment" as "service equipment". That is because whether or not there is a "panel" as part of the "service equipment" it is, after all, still "service equipment".

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Ken, I don't have a code book, But I think your wrong, If your saying that there has to be a way to turn off the load wires in a panel box.

Tony,

Ken is referring to your post quoted above.

That "panel" is really "service equipment" and, as "service equipment" it is required to have a disconnect or a maximum of 6 disconnects, and that "panel" as more than 6 disconnects and, as such, is not allowed to be used as "service equipment".

This is a clear example of why calling things what they are is VERY IMPORTANT and would lead you to less confusion. I know YOU will never change, but if YOU did, YOU would understand better and more easily what is needed where.

From the 2008 NEC. I've also added 230.71 which shows the maximum allowed number of disconnects.

- 230.70 General.
- - Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.
- - - (A) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
- - - - (1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.
- - - - (2) Bathrooms. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms.
- - - - (3) Remote Control. Where a remote control device(s) is used to actuate the service disconnecting means, the service disconnecting means shall be located in accordance with 230.70(A)(1).
- - - (B) Marking. Each service disconnect shall be permanently marked to identify it as a service disconnect.
- - - (C) Suitable for Use. Each service disconnecting means shall be suitable for the prevailing conditions. Service equipment installed in hazardous (classified) locations shall comply with the requirements of Articles 500 through 517.
- 230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
- - (A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.
- - - For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed as part of listed equipment and used solely for the following shall not be considered a service disconnecting means:
- - - - (1) Power monitoring equipment
- - - - (2) Surge-protective device(s)
- - - - (3) Control circuit of the ground-fault protection system
- - - - (4) Power-operable service disconnecting means
- - (B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers, capable of individual operation, shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with identified handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all conductors of the service with no more than six operations of the hand.
- - - FPN: See 408.36, Exception No. 1 and Exception No. 3, for service equipment in certain panelboards, and see 430.95 for service equipment in motor control centers.

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Ken, I don't have a code book, But I think your wrong, If your saying that there has to be a way to turn off the load wires in a panel box.

Load wires?

How about: "branch circuit conductors", "feeder conductors" or "service conductors"?

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Describe how a "subpanel" is wired differently from a "panel".

Its very simple really, a panel is wired directly from the meter which does not have a disconnecting means other than removing the meter .

This sentence is what I was referring to. If it comes from a meter it needs to have a disconnecting means.

I do believe that you can access the NEC on the NFPA website.
I will have to look the site up and I'll post it

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

Load wires?

How about: "branch circuit conductors", "feeder conductors" or "service conductors"?

How about main disconnecting means that disconnects the panel. The service conductors would still be energized.

Originally Posted by ken horak

How about main disconnecting means that disconnects the panel.

The main disconnecting means disconnects the service (everything on the line side of the main disconnecting means) from the service equipment(everything on the load side of the main disconnecting means).

It does not necessarily disconnect the panel, although the panel would be one of the things disconnected, as would everything else in the structure.

If you're going to fuss about terminology,

The main disconnecting means disconnects the service (everything on the line side of the main disconnecting means) from the service equipment(everything on the load side of the main disconnecting means).

The disconnecting means described above is the "SERVICE DISCONNECT" and is required to be labeled as such by the NEC. 230.70(B)

A SERVICE DISCONNECT can be a main disconnect. A main disconnect can't be a service disconnect (because it then has to be labeled as a service disconnect and then is no longer just a main disconnect). The service disconnect can be a switch or circuit breaker.

Note that some utilities require services over a certain size to have a disconnect before the meter. This disconnect is refered to as a meter disconnect and it does NOT take the place of the code required service disconnect AFTER the meter.

Many people in the trade and all manufacturers I'm aware of refer to residential grade panels as "loadcenters". Panel usually implies a commercial/industrial grade unit that has bolt-in breakers. The NEC makes no distinction but the manufacturers do.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

If you're going to fuss about terminology, ...

Bill,

First ... I've got to get the horse to the water ... second I've got to get the horse to take a sip of that refreshingly cool pure water ... only then ...

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

If you're going to fuss about terminology,The disconnecting means described above is the "SERVICE DISCONNECT" and is required to be labeled as such by the NEC. 230.70(B).

Bill,

Wanted to post this on a separate post, but, if you read the NEC you will find that it is REFERRED TO AS "disconnecting mean", "service disconnecting means" (with "service disconnecting means" being the most prevalent), "service disconnect".

Also let me point out that NEC 230.70(B) DOES NOT require that to be labeled as the "SERVICE DISCONNECT", that section only requires that it be labeled "AS A" service disconnect, and, in fact, in that section, the only reference to "service disconnect" is there, the others state "service disconnecting means".

So, to get your terminology CORRECT, they are addressed in the NEC as "SERVICE DISCONNECTING MEANS", but are not required to be labeled as such, only labeled "as a service disconnect".

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.
(A) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.
(2) Bathrooms. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms.
(3) Remote Control. Where a remote control device(s) is used to actuate the service disconnecting means, the service disconnecting means shall be located in accordance with 230.70(A)(1).
(B) Marking. Each service disconnect shall be permanently marked to identify it as a service disconnect.
(C) Suitable for Use. Each service disconnecting means shall be suitable for the prevailing conditions. Service equipment installed in hazardous (classified) locations shall comply with the requirements of Articles 500 through 517.

What "service disconnecting means" is referring to is this definition:
- Disconnecting Means. A device, or group of devices, or other means by which the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their source of supply.

With "service" specifying "what" the "disconnecting means" is for. I.e., a "service" "disconnecting means" is, obviously, to disconnect "the service". That does not mean it is to be labeled as such, only that that a "disconnecting means" which disconnects the service is to be labeled as a "service" disconnecting means.

For more on this you can get into:
230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.
(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.
Exception: One of the two to six service disconnecting means permitted in 230.71, where used only for a water pump also intended to provide fire protection, shall be permitted to be located remote from the other disconnecting means.
(B) Additional Service Disconnecting Means. The one or more additional service disconnecting means for fire pumps, emergency systems, legally required standby, or optional standby services permitted by 230.2 shall be installed remote from the one to six service disconnecting means for normal service to minimize the possibility of simultaneous interruption of supply.
(C) Access to Occupants. In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant shall have access to the occupant’s service disconnecting means.
Exception: In a multiple-occupancy building where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the service disconnecting means supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted to be accessible to authorized management personnel only.

In a word Jerry, bull**it.

It doesn't matter how the NEC refers to a service disconnect anywhere else, 230.70(B) says how you will LABEL the service disconnecting means, and THAT is as a SERVICE DISCONNECT.

Quote all the code you want. When the NEC says a service disconnect must be identified as a SERVICE DISCONNECT you have violated the code if you call it anything else. I've never found an electrical inspector that allowed any other language.

90.1`(C) applies to you too, apparently contrary to your opinion. Just because YOU say something is, or isn't, a certain way doesn't magically make it so. Some more of that Jerry's rules VS common sense and plain English, evidently

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

The disconnecting means described above is the "SERVICE DISCONNECT" and is required to be labeled as such by the NEC. 230.70(B)

A SERVICE DISCONNECT can be a main disconnect. A main disconnect can't be a service disconnect (because it then has to be labeled as a service disconnect and then is no longer just a main disconnect). The service disconnect can be a switch or circuit breaker.

I pointed out that you were quite incorrect.

You responded with: (I see I must have hit the truth directly by your response)

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

In a word Jerry, bull**it.

It doesn't matter how the NEC refers to a service disconnect anywhere else, 230.70(B) says how you will LABEL the service disconnecting means, and THAT is as a SERVICE DISCONNECT.

Again, the NEC DOES NOT STATE that that has to be labeled "SERVICE DISCONNECT" which is what you are stating, you are incorrect.

The NEC states that it is to be labeled "AS A" service disconnect, which means it could be labeled with any wording which indicates it is a service disconnect.

In a word, Bill, it is not what YOU say, it is what the NEC says, that matters.

Yes, being able to read and understand English is essential, so, maybe you need some more learnin' in English?

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

90.1`(C) applies to you too, apparently contrary to your opinion.

90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

Sure sounds like you have a problem with being able to read the code, as you are apparently an untrained person - is that what you are admitting to?

Talking about people making up their own rules while making up your own rules ... I believe we went through this exact same thing on another thread a short while back - where you were making up your rules and did not like others, including me, telling you that you were wrong.

Sure sounds like you have a problem, maybe your cohorts Harpo, Zeppo, and Chico can help you with it.

I see no reason to argue the point when you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I present my case and let people without your obviously puckered backside make their own determination.

If you're attempting to insult me, at least get the cast right. You forgot Julius Henry. On the other hand, you put me in the company of people who had no equal in how good they were at what they did. So what is the point you're trying to make? Evidently your command of English isn't what YOU think it is. Neither is your command of the NEC.

Nick,

I would call it a breaker panel. No problem!

These are the kinds of posts that degrade the the use of forums for disseminating information. Jerry Peck, your first reply to to the question asked came across as condescending and rude. You may have intended not to be but with out context clues, body language, facial expressions, etc. it is impossible to determine if one is joking or being a jerk when these kinds of answers are posted. Use the emoticons if you don't intend to offend, it makes it more pleasant for all of us readers.

But if you were trying to offend and to be a jerk -- nice going, it worked.

Hey, new poster Bob whoever from Maine, had you been around here a while, and being as that is your first or second post (all it shows in '2'), you would have been up to speed on the reason for that post, considered that entire discussion had just gone on in another thread, but you would not have know that, would you?

If you had, you would have understood the reason for it.

Other than that ... Welcome to THE inspectors board ... I think ...

If you had wanted to come off as an initial poster with bad taste, you were successful in that too. and it too worked.

Guess that makes us about the same, huh?

Lots of info in this thread. Thanks.

"branch circuit conductors", "feeder conductors" or "service conductors"?

I like train conductor.........cho ch0ooooooooo