6 throw rule.

Merry Christmas
D

Daja7

Senior Member
had a discussion with home owner that wants to put a MLO 20 space panel for his main service panel, no main disconnect. He will ron a 100 amp as a main feeder to inside sub panel. Outside panel will have the sub feeder an two 240 volt feeders for ac and well. He insists since the panel only has 3 breakers it is acceptable.
My question is since i have never had this come up is it acceptable since you could conceivably load the panel with other branch circuits well beyond the 6 throws of the hand.
 
infinity said:
What code cycle are you under? The 2020 and 2023 requires an EM disconnect.
Click to expand...
2020. My question actually is, even if before 2020 this can a panel with a capacity of more than 6 be use as service just because you only have 6 or less in it at the time and could later fill it up. I know a bit convoluted.
 
Yes, this was always allowed. However as of the 2020 NEC an MLO panel is no longer allowed because the code requires the disconnects to be in separate enclosures.

Before the latest code updates, you'd see equipment listed as suitable for service equipment (SUSE) this way but you'd need to read labels carefully. Some panels were only SUSE if provided with a main breaker. Some meter mains were provided with up to 12 spaces for six 2-pole breakers, and there was nothing but the label stopping people from installing single poles and too many handles. Others were limited to 6 handles by things like rejection type stabs, if only listed breakers were used. That's mostly all no longer compliant with the latest code and standards. But you can still have up to six disconnects in separate enclosures or compartments.

(Emergency disconnect is not relevant here because at least in the 2020 more than on emergency disconnect is allowed.)
 
Last edited:
Since this a panel in a single enclosure an EM disconnect is required on the outside. A main breaker in the outdoor panel can be used as the EM disconnect.
 
The new (2020) rule sets a distinction between “Emergency Disconnect” and “Service Disconnect”. As I read it, you can technically have a “6 handle rule” Service panel, but that still needs to have an Emergency Disconnect ahead of it outside next to the meter (or as part of the meter can). The thing you CANNOT have any longer is the 6 handle service panel setup direct from a meter can (that does not incorporate the Em. Disconnect).

In addition, that Em . Disconnect must have the same fault duty rating as the available fault current, and cheap non-fused disconnects often are limited to 10kA, so if you needed a 14kA or higher system, you are better off just using an outdoor main service panel with the correct main breaker in it.
 
OP stated that the service panel was outside, so as long as that doesn't change no additional EM disconnect would be needed. But the changes to 230.71 would still stop him from using an MLO service panel.
 
jaggedben said:
No, that is simply incorrect! 230.85 even says 'if more than one disconnecting means is provided, they shall be grouped'. Nothing in 230.85 ever overrode the 6 handle rule.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I interpret that to be referencing the fact that the rule only applies to one and TWO unit dwellings, so if it is a 2 unit dwelling, they have to be in the same place.

N 230.85 Emergency Disconnects.

For one- and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault current, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

(1) Service disconnects marked as follows:

EMERGENCY DISCONNECT,

SERVICE DISCONNECT

(2) Meter disconnects installed per 230.82(3) and marked as follows:

EMERGENCY DISCONNECT,

METER DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

(3) Other listed disconnect switches or circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect that are suitable for use as service equipment and marked as follows:

EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Markings shall comply with 110.21(B).
Click to expand...
 
Jraef said:
I disagree. I interpret that to be referencing the fact that the rule only applies to one and TWO unit dwellings, so if it is a 2 unit dwelling, they have to be in the same place.
Click to expand...
You're just making up a rule that isn't stated in the code. 230.71 still covers the maximum number of disconnects for any service, and always has. Especially in the 2020 and 2026 codes, there is no language that lets you claim otherwise. In the 2023 (not the code the OP is on) you'd be reduced to claiming that use of the singular indefinite article constitutes a clear requirement. But the changes in 2026 indicate that this was not the intent of the emergency disconnect rule.

Jraef said:
More opinions on this expressed here
Click to expand...
Yeah that document really does not address our disagreement here, and in as much as the diagrams fail to illustrate the difference between multiple disconnects and multiple enclosure or compartments, it also gets it wrong. I would imagine at the time that Eaton had (maybe still has) no metering centers with separate compartments and was therefore trying to get across that older metering center products were no longer code compliant. In any case, the code says what the code says, not what a graphic designer at Eaton says it says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top