Thread: Service Equipment Panel Question (Main Disconnect)

I know that if the panel has 6 throws or less, no main disconnect required. One hand swipe shuts off the breakers. Okay. Fine. Now I may be overthinking this but........in the panel I inspected yesterday, to me it would take two swipes of the hand to shut off all the breakers due to the orientation of the breakers. The left breaker has the off position opposite of the other breakers on the right side of the panel. So.....it would take two hand swipes to shut down the panel, thus , um, requiring, um, a main disconnect? Or should I shut up and stop thinking so much!

b

Tha panel pictured has 6 throws.

Okay. I'm overthinking again. thanks.

Each single, double or three pole breaker is one throw. It is not one throw if you flip off 4 breakers with one movement of the hand.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Each single, double or three pole breaker is one throw. It is not one throw if you flip off 4 breakers with one movement of the hand.

now , I'm a little confused....are then saying , in the situation I have, because you would need to swipes of the hand to shut off the breakers that a main disconnect would be required?

Swipes of the hand has nothing to do with it. It's just six breakers. More than six requires a disconnect, less does not.

JR has it. You could have any combination of single, double or three pole breakers, up to 6, and not need a main.

Originally Posted by brianmiller

I know that if the panel has 6 throws or less, no main disconnect required. One hand swipe shuts off the breakers. Okay. Fine. Now I may be overthinking this but........in the panel I inspected yesterday, to me it would take two swipes of the hand to shut off all the breakers due to the orientation of the breakers. The left breaker has the off position opposite of the other breakers on the right side of the panel. So.....it would take two hand swipes to shut down the panel, thus , um, requiring, um, a main disconnect? Or should I shut up and stop thinking so much!

b

I'm going to disagree with the "electricans" (big surprise!).

They're looking at this with blinders on - its NOT legitimately an application of or a question of premises or building service disconnect "rule of six" THIS panelboard application requires mains or rule of 2 (not SIX) because - THIS is a Lighting and Appliance Panel Board in 2005 NEC and prior application and installation first and foremost, and additionally is applied as service equipment - THIS panelboard application requires a mains disconnect and current limited series protection configuration.

Six circuits, four of which are equal to or less than 30 amps, (2, 2-P 50 amp, 1, 2-P 30 amp, and three single-pole 20 amp circuits.

I see nine poles, four of which are 50 amp, and most importantly five of which are equal to or less than 30 amps; 3 of which are 20 Amp single pole circuits (3/9ths or 33%). Point being: Lighting and Appliance Panel Board (2005 NEC and prior panel mfg and application).

Therefore, since its a pre NEC 2008 manufactured panelboard with pre 2008 NEC applications (*), its a pre 2008 NEC Lighting and appliance panel board, and requires no more than two breakers for main control. It requires a main, or a maximum of two circuit breakers as mains, whether or not it is the service equipment because it is a pre-2008 NEC manufactured and applied use as a (Lighting and Appliance Panel Board)L&APB. 5/9ths is greater than 3/10ths. 3/9 (33%) are 20 amp single pole breakers (120VAC circuits) 33%.

Unless marked as 10,000 and dually rated 75C & 60C ratings older single pole CBs must be presumed to be less than that (generally 5) and likely not suitable for use as service disconnect anyway. The L&A PB needs a mains type configuration by its listing, use/application & code vintage of its date of manufacture & listing and its code vintage application as indicated by the photo you posted with this discussion, and as further evidenced by the two photos of the same panel you posted on yet another topic you created at the same time about the same panel.

(*) Before "the electricians" get their shorts in a bundle, we know it "must" be a pre 2008 NEC application from the two photos you posted of the same panel on yet another topic post inquiring about bare stranded neutrals for those two, 2-pole 240V circuits (second picture I reposted below), or else those "bare neutrals" would NOT be llowed (and if allowed only under exceptions for electric range or oven and/or electric drier.

Finally, am curious about the 2-Ps (as 50s) marked "A/C": is it really A/C or packaged HP with electric heats, or if just split hp or A/C is there more appropriately sized protection downstream (feeder A/C disco), or multiple compressors?

See your UL White Book Appendix, panel board marking guides and the 2005 and prior NEC rules and the Standards for safety pertaining to panelboards manufactured and applied for 2005 NEC and prior. The Listing and markings, and subsequent use are limited by date of manufacture and applictions limited thereto. The answer to the instant topic quesion was or should have been clearly indicted in the listed labeled instructions and wiring diagram information in the panel enclosure.

Breaking up multiple posts with different pictures of different areas of the same panel board, neither complete, and neither post presenting a complete description, seems to draw incorrect and short-sighted responses from others.

Even the 2013 White Book and panelboard marking guides include the pre-2008 distinctions with a difference regarding the use and applications of pre-2008 equipment, and the listing requirements/labeling restrictions for the application/use of same.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Wouldn't this exception is from the 2005 (and earlier versions) of the NEC apply?

408.36 Exception No. 2: For existing installations, individual protection for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards shall not be required where such panelboards are used as service equipment in supplying an individual residential occupancy.
​

Yes it would.

Again it appears that much ado about nothing has been raised in an attempt at one-upmanship or "I know more than you do".

Just a side note, the post 2005 NEC has dropped the term lighting and appliance panelboard and now just calls them panelboards.

One might say the "distinctions with a difference" wasn't the issue some make it out to be.

Originally Posted by brianmiller

I know that if the panel has 6 throws or less, no main disconnect required. One hand swipe shuts off the breakers. Okay. Fine. Now I may be overthinking this but........in the panel I inspected yesterday, to me it would take two swipes of the hand to shut off all the breakers due to the orientation of the breakers. The left breaker has the off position opposite of the other breakers on the right side of the panel. So.....it would take two hand swipes to shut down the panel, thus , um, requiring, um, a main disconnect? Or should I shut up and stop thinking so much!

b

This doesn't look like a service panel application to me. Is it a remote panel (subfed)? Whats on the upstream side of this panel?

I wonder if the intent was to require a main if the panel or feeder were to be replaced. However, that would go against 230.71.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

This doesn't look like a service panel application to me. Is it a remote panel (subfed)? Whats on the upstream side of this panel?

It does appear to have too few breakers to be a service panel.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Brian stated that is is a Service Equipment Panel, and if Watson used the correct photo's from another thread then it appears to be one. The GEC and bonding jumper are clearly visible in the photo.

It will make a difference on whether it would need a single disconnect/overcurrent device or 6 throws if it is a remote panel.. It should be noted that the number of "throws" and overcurrent protection for a service and feeder is a separate issue on whether the panelboard would need a main breaker at its rated ampacity. The same is true for tap conductors--separate issues...

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Brian stated that is is a Service Equipment Panel, and if Watson used the correct photo's from another thread then it appears to be one. The GEC and bonding jumper are clearly visible in the photo.

Yes, this is the service equipment panel; the other panel that I had a question about regarding the stranded conductors is a downstream, distribution panel in the garage.

Originally Posted by brianmiller

Yes, this is the service equipment panel; the other panel that I had a question about regarding the stranded conductors is a downstream, distribution panel in the garage.

Better not be.

Interesting that both panels have the exact same breaker configuration, wiring, etc. Doubting.

Anyway thats not true regarding the clipped, incomplete references.

The labeling, listing are contrary to the claimed, stated configuration.

A lighting and appliance panelboard marked as suitable for use as service equipment is limited to two main disconnects. To prevent overloading, the current rating of such panelboards shall equal the combined current ratings of the two disconnects as required by Section 408.26(A) of the NEC (2005 Edition) or Section 408.36, Exception 2 (2011 Edition). Where main disconnects are not provided with the panelboard, the NEC requires that main overcurrent protection be provided in the feeder circuit supplying the panelboard.


Lighting and Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard - A lighting and appliance branch circuit pnelboard is one hving more than 10 percent of its overcurrent devices protecting lighting and appliance branch circuits. Such circuits have connection to the neutral of the panelboard and overcurrent protection of 30 A or less in one or more conductors.

Mains (Main Terminals) - The terminals, or main device, provided for the connection of the main incoming line conductors.

Overcurrent Protective Device - An individual fuse or circuit breaker pole.

It WASN"T an "existing installation" when the equipment was first installed. When the equipment was modified, or its application was modified, it was NO LONGER an "existing installation" as the installation, use, etc. was modified.

The equipment is LIMITED as to its conditional employment under circumstances to which it may have been used as it was listed, labeled, and restricted AT THE TIME IT WAS MANUFACTURED.

If, as I said before, the equipment photographed in the OP are actually being employed as SERVICE EQUIPMENT, it REQUIRES a maximum of two CBs as Mains, IT IS a L&ABP it was mfg'd prior to 2008 NEC and has more than 10 percent of its poles at 30 or fewer amperes, and more than 10 percent of its overcurrent devices (each pole counts) at 30 A or less AND is employing a neutral. It is obviously not =/> 150 V to G.

Without reading the label in this particular panelboard, HG is just shotgunning a simple post. That is where the answer will be found because the listing and labeling requirement has exceptions that will be spelled out on the label. IE-―"Suitable for use as
service equipment when not more than six main disconnecting means are provided‖"

The Exception was posted in post #8.

Originally Posted by brianmiller

Yes, this is the service equipment panel; the other panel that I had a question about regarding the stranded conductors is a downstream, distribution panel in the garage.

oops...my bad....sorry for the confusion and that HG is correct on this point that all the photos are from the same panel, the service equipment panel....sorry. ....I was thinking of a different house I did the same day and I was real tired when I responded....

Why not just write up in the report that no main disconnect was noted and be done with it? Its really that simple.

Originally Posted by Jim Starkey

Why not just write up in the report that no main disconnect was noted and be done with it? Its really that simple.

would you, Jim?

Originally Posted by Jim Starkey

Why not just write up in the report that no main disconnect was noted and be done with it? Its really that simple.

Curious as to why you would do this. Is it simply that a single main is not installed despite the apparent fact that the 6 or less throws are compliant or is there another reason?

The listing labeling requirement & various editions of the Standards did not permit a panelboard of THIS vintage to be employed AS SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND be outfitted/employed as a Lighting & Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard WITHOUT a maximum of two main circuit breakers.

If there was nothing but 2P CBs in there, THAT panelboard could hold MORE than Six 2P breakers.

I refered to the labeling and required diagram inside the panel right off. The rule of six only worked on split bus loadcenters or power panels, it did NOT apply to L&ABPs employed AS SERVICE EQUIPMENT. (of the vintage (circa mfg) panelboard pictured by and in the OP and the 'other' OP).


Was pretty obvious they were pictures of the same panel, its why I reposted them before you deleted them (as usual) in a few weeks.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The listing labeling requirement & various editions of the Standards did not permit a panelboard of THIS vintage to be employed AS SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND be outfitted/employed as a Lighting & Appliance Branch Circuit Panelboard WITHOUT a maximum of two main circuit breakers.

If there was nothing but 2P CBs in there, THAT panelboard could hold MORE than Six 2P breakers.

I refered to the labeling and required diagram inside the panel right off. The rule of six only worked on split bus loadcenters or power panels, it did NOT apply to L&ABPs employed AS SERVICE EQUIPMENT. (of the vintage (circa mfg) panelboard pictured by and in the OP and the 'other' OP).


Was pretty obvious they were pictures of the same panel, its why I reposted them before you deleted them (as usual) in a few weeks.

Still having trouble reading?

408.36 Exception No. 2: For existing installations, individual protection for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards shall not be required where such panelboards are used as service equipment in supplying an individual residential occupancy.

Also,

If there was nothing but 2P CBs in there, THAT panelboard could hold MORE than Six 2P breakers.

It doesn't matter whether more than 6 can be installed. It is a matter of how many are installed at the time of inspection.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Curious as to why you would do this. Is it simply that a single main is not installed despite the apparent fact that the 6 or less throws are compliant or is there another reason?

Here in Texas we are required to write up any panel without a main disconnect regardless of how many throws. Having said that if its a sub panel and feeds off of a breaker in the main panel that is your main disconnect. Besides just because you mention there is no main disconnect is that a bad thing? Note: no main disconnect was noted in the main panel. why would that be a problem?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by brianmiller

would you, Jim?

I would assuming its the main panel which I do not think in this case it is.

JS, thank you for expanding. I was just not sure of the intent of what you wrote, whether it was simply that a single main was not installed or there was something else that was not apparent.

Good job H.G. I'm not going to assume intent here... good info.

Originally Posted by bob smit

Good job H.G. I'm not going to assume intent here... good info.

Thanks Bob.Its a shame "the electricians" especially JP who accuses ME of not being "able to read" still cannot distinguish an exception for having a SINGULAR circuit breaker (multi pole) as "individual" protection not being the same as TWO circuit breakers for the mains protection - does NOT except the requirement for such a vintage, listed, labeled (and standards requiring) NO MORE THAN TWO circuit breakers providing panelboard protection for the L&ABP being REQUIRED when Employed as SERVICE equipment.The exception does NOT say or mean what Jim P. and others represent or think it means. It DOES NOT override Article 110 LIMITATIONS by mfg, listing, & labeling). It mearly means it is not required to have ONE (individual), but does not NEGATE the panel labeling required WHEN listed or that it must be protected line side or on the panelboard by no more than TWO (such as was ever so common with GE resi panels - two 100s side by side mains breakers.It must have one or TWO, the exception means it may have more than one (individual), i.e. TWO, but must have the protection when manufactured, tested, and listed to standards editions prior to 2008 NEC.The number of 2-P positions IS relevant - it tells you that there IS the required labeling for the LIMITATION within the panelboard when used as SERVICE Equipment.Won't hold my breath, this fella still doesn't read or comprehend expressed, diagramed, labeled stab rating limitations either.

More BS from HG I see....

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Thanks Bob.Its a shame "the electricians" especially JP who accuses ME of not being "able to read" still cannot distinguish an exception for having a SINGULAR circuit breaker (multi pole) as "individual" protection not being the same as TWO circuit breakers for the mains protection - does NOT except the requirement for such a vintage, listed, labeled (and standards requiring) NO MORE THAN TWO circuit breakers providing panelboard protection for the L&ABP being REQUIRED when Employed as SERVICE equipment.The exception does NOT say or mean what Jim P. and others represent or think it means. It DOES NOT override Article 110 LIMITATIONS by mfg, listing, & labeling). It mearly means it is not required to have ONE (individual), but does not NEGATE the panel labeling required WHEN listed or that it must be protected line side or on the panelboard by no more than TWO (such as was ever so common with GE resi panels - two 100s side by side mains breakers.It must have one or TWO, the exception means it may have more than one (individual), i.e. TWO, but must have the protection when manufactured, tested, and listed to standards editions prior to 2008 NEC.The number of 2-P positions IS relevant - it tells you that there IS the required labeling for the LIMITATION within the panelboard when used as SERVICE Equipment.Won't hold my breath, this fella still doesn't read or comprehend expressed, diagramed, labeled stab rating limitations either.

Ya, us sparkky's and AHJ's alike were pleased when we were rid of the 'L&Apb' classification.. just added more confusion.