Can a 200A Breaker Be a Service Disconnect

[letgomywago]

Call LNI and correspond with them they'll make this sorted quickly. The one upside to a big inspection AHJ is they take ownership and make consistency.

 

[tortuga]

That is exactly what I was addressing in post 24. If you utilize any of the branch breaker spaces in that, how can the inside panel contain the "service disconnect" and still be aligned with NEC definitions?

I can think of a few situations to ponder with 230.85, its not adopted here so I have never given it much thought.
It basically allows a the multi grounded neutral (MGN) system or (TN-C) to be extended past the first means of disconnect (now called an emergency disconnect).
Those extra breakers could possibly be for
A dwelling on a property with some accessory structures, using 230.40 Exception No. 3 you could normally run a set of service conductors (TN-C / MGN) to each detached structure from a single service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral, I don't read anything stopping you from using those breakers for that, though I probably missed it? You'd essentially be mixing 230.85 & 230.40 Exception No. 3. Thought from the panel you'd still need a 4-wire feeder (TN-C-S)
Another situation to ponder would be using one of those breaker positions as line side connection for PV system, NEC 705.11 vs 705.12

 

[LarryFine]

Thought from the panel you'd still need a 4-wire feeder (TN-C-S)

Do you mean the feeder to the inside panel, to any other outside loads, or to both?

Are you saying that the main breaker in a feed-thru cannot be the emergency disco?

 

[ggunn]

If it's marked as suitable for use only as service equipment it cannot be used as an EM disconnect that is not service equipment.

The way I understand it, that is because "suitable for use only as service equipment" implies that neutral and the enclosure are bonded and cannot be separated.

 

[wwhitney]

The way I understand it, that is because "suitable for use only as service equipment" implies that neutral and the enclosure are bonded and cannot be separated.

Right, but an EM disconnect on the utility side of the service disconnect is required to have its neutral and enclosure bonded. A permanent bond is not a problem.

So the conflict is purely linguistic. If the phrase SOUSE were instead "extra special", there would be no reason to prohibit "extra special" equipment from serving as the EM disconnect.

Fortunately, this will all be moot under the 2026 NEC. [Unless you want to try to use the "meter disconnect" allowance of 230.82.]

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LarryFine]

So the conflict is purely linguistic.

Agreed. While an emergency disconnect may not be "the service disconnect", it is clearly service equipment, so the bonded neutral should not be an issue.

 

[wwhitney]

Agreed. While an emergency disconnect may not be "the service disconnect", it is clearly service equipment, so the bonded neutral should not be an issue.

Part of the lingusitic conflict is the logical contortion that 230.85 does in requiring that the EM disconnect be labeled "not service equipment."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

Do you mean the feeder to the inside panel, to any other outside loads, or to both?

Are you saying that the main breaker in a feed-thru cannot be the emergency disco?

This is what I was thinking might be a possibility if you have a meter center with more than one main breaker like kwired was discussing, one main is the emergency disconnect the other breakers(s) could be service disconnects for a outbuilding or PV system? I dont know.

 

[wwhitney]

This is what I was thinking might be a possibility if you have a meter center with more than one main breaker

What product is that? It looks like it has 3 separate covers, to comply with the separate compartment requirement of 230.71(B)?

Although in the vein of your previous post, I see no language in the 2023 NEC prohibiting a single service disconnect from being in the same compartment as an emergency disconnect. : - )

Cheers, Wayne

 

[letgomywago]

What product is that? It looks like it has 3 separate covers, to comply with the separate compartment requirement of 230.71(B)?

Although in the vein of your previous post, I see no language in the 2023 NEC prohibiting a single service disconnect from being in the same compartment as an emergency disconnect. : - )

Cheers, Wayne

It's the Siemens 320 can they made just for 2020 code changes. Last I saw it was 1600 and in backorder.

 

[kwired]

The way I understand it, that is because "suitable for use only as service equipment" implies that neutral and the enclosure are bonded and cannot be separated.

And if this is the "emergency disconnect" with the "service disconnect" being inside, the enclosure needs bonded to the neutral anyway as it is on the supply side of the service disconnecting means. I see no problem with the neutral being permanently bonded to the cabinet in such a situation.

 

[kwired]

This is what I was thinking might be a possibility if you have a meter center with more than one main breaker like kwired was discussing, one main is the emergency disconnect the other breakers(s) could be service disconnects for a outbuilding or PV system? I dont know. View attachment 2576349

I have to agree that the situation like you mentioned is a little complicated.

I think what I had in mind earlier was different though. I was thinking of a meter main with a 200 amp main breaker, 8 branch circuit spaces and 200 amp subfeed lugs. I don't think you could place anything on the 8 branch spaces other than maybe an outgoing set of "service conductors" to a second code permitted outbuilding and call that 200 amp main the "emergency disconnect" only. I've used those a lot when feeding either a panel too far into the house to run service conductors to it or in the situation of supplying a second structure from the meter location (typical single meter enclosure has no room for extra load conductors let alone termination provisions for them), or even sometimes maybe the AC is near the meter location and is simpler to put the breaker in here instead of coming from the inside panel.

 

[tortuga]

I have to agree that the situation like you mentioned is a little complicated.

I think what I had in mind earlier was different though. I was thinking of a meter main with a 200 amp main breaker, 8 branch circuit spaces and 200 amp subfeed lugs. I don't think you could place anything on the 8 branch spaces other than maybe an outgoing set of "service conductors" to a second code permitted outbuilding and call that 200 amp main the "emergency disconnect" only.

I don't think the outgoing conductors to the outbuilding that is not a dwelling unit would be able to be considered service conductors anymore as your first OCPD is in the panel, so by definition those are feeders.
You apparently can have a service disconnect in the same compartment as an emergency disconnect so no issue with the feeder.
But that would be for only two of the 8 breaker spaces, since your cant have more than one service disconnect in an enclosure under the 2023 NEC.
You could possibly use one or more of the remaining spots for a PV system, or install lug kits and continue with service conductors.

 

[kwired]

I don't think the outgoing conductors to the outbuilding that is not a dwelling unit would be able to be considered service conductors anymore as your first OCPD is in the panel, so by definition those are feeders.
You apparently can have a service disconnect in the same compartment as an emergency disconnect so no issue with the feeder.
But that would be for only two of the 8 breaker spaces, since your cant have more than one service disconnect in an enclosure under the 2023 NEC.
You could possibly use one or more of the remaining spots for a PV system, or install lug kits and continue with service conductors.

This Emergency disconnect thing was stupid IMO, at least only having it apply to dwellings was stupid, and has created other compatibility problems. Sounds like they may straighten some of that out in 2026.

But why is this a problem for dwellings and not other occupancies?

It was supposedly for firefighters. Many cases you get some fair idea where the service disconnect is at dwellings (before these rules came along) as it is often at/near the meter or nearly directly inside behind the meter location.

Firefighters don't need to find the service disconnect(s) at non dwellings? Larger non dwellings may very well have fire sprinklers and maybe that lessens the need for exterior emergency disconnect some, but not all non dwellings have fire sprinklers either.