Emergency Disconnects Again

[don_resqcapt19]

In this scenario it would be 6 emergency disconnects, the service disconnects would be elsewhere down stream per say.

The new listing requirements have been changed to match the code rules and 230.85 require that the emergency disconnect "be marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment". The current listing standards will not permit that meter assembly be marked as required by the code rule.
However, because of all of the confusion, 240.85 will probably not be in the 2026 code. The new rule will simply require that the service disconnect for one and two family dwellings be outside.

 

[Joe Villani]

I'm curious what everyone is using when an emergency disconnect is required for a one family dwelling. I see that for less than $200 a 200 amp Square D QO outdoor circuit breaker and enclosure can be purchased instead of a non-fuses disconnect. Can this be used as the EM disconnect keeping the service disconnect as the main in the panel located inside? IMO it complies with 230.85(3).

Just be careful with this

You have to use the QDL22200

The typical one I see around here is the QOM2E2200NRB is no longer listed for service entrance equipment. (No Service entry barrier)

 

[infinity]

Just be careful with this

You have to use the QDL22200

The typical one I see around here is the QOM2E2200NRB is no longer listed for service entrance equipment. (No Service entry barrier)

I ended up going with an Eaton 200 amp circuit breaker which was less expensive than the Square D.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Doubt that is acceptable if there is other breakers installed, presuming you talking about one those with feed thru lugs as well as spaces for other circuit breakers. If you have other circuits involved you essentially made that outside main the service disconnect and the feed through circuit would be a feeder and not service conductors.

What is not acceptable? I said add a feed to the indoor panel so yes that makes it a service disconnect. My point was that I didn't like this change and I probably wouldn't use it. I would do as I have been doing for years. Feed thru main breaker panel to an indoor panel.

 

[electrofelon]

I have the same question and notice it was not answered in this thread. We install service entrance rated transfer switches which come bonded with a bonding jumper wire and contain an OCPD. In our area most of the (existing) homes have a meter outside and main breaker panel (or 2) located inside, sometimes upstairs in a central laundry room and the SEU cable feeding it is nearly impossible to replace. From what I read they can both remain bonded and nothing has to be changed as long as we put a sticker on the outdoor ats calling it an emergency disconnect, not service disconnect. Is this correct? Or more importantly, safe?

Does a transfer switch comply with the wording in (3)?

I circuit breaker in a transfer switch is perfectly acceptable as the emergency disconnect.

 

[infinity]

I circuit breaker in a transfer switch is perfectly acceptable as the emergency disconnect.

Don't many of these outdoor ATS's have screwed on covers? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of them being readily accessible in an emergency?

 

[kwired]

What is not acceptable? I said add a feed to the indoor panel so yes that makes it a service disconnect. My point was that I didn't like this change and I probably wouldn't use it. I would do as I have been doing for years. Feed thru main breaker panel to an indoor panel.

If you have branch circuits or feeders ahead of the actual service disconnect and not grouped with the service disconnect you have 230 part VI complications. Aren't those branches technically service disconnecting means not grouped with what you intended to be the service disconnect?

One thing I don't like about this Emergency disconnect rule is though it seems simple is sort of complicated with what possibilities may be or what people may think they want it to be.

sure you can put in a loadcenter with feed thru lugs and call it the emergency disconnect, but should someone add breakers to it down the road it is no longer in compliance, IMO.

Then there is a possibility that you could feed an accessory building and that might be considered ok since one set of service conductors can supply a dwelling and an accessory building.

I can see some variances in how this is enforced when you go from one jurisdiction to another. We are going to adopt 2023 (going from 2017) Aug 1. They did amend out this emergency disconnect rule for now. I don't know the reasoning, but maybe until the NEC gets a better grip on what they want and get it worded right maybe that is ok? They also reverted most of 210.8(A) back to what 2017 has, I think that might be good thing for similar reasons - lets see how wording changes next cycle or other related factors end up changing before going with some those changes in there.

 

[electrofelon]

Don't many of these outdoor ATS's have screwed on covers? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of them being readily accessible in an emergency?

All the ones I can recall just have a single thumb screw. I am open to seeing a counter example, but I think if you have a service rated transfer switch, it will be acceptable.

 

[infinity]

All the ones I can recall just have a single thumb screw. I am open to seeing a counter example, but I think if you have a service rated transfer switch, it will be acceptable.

You're probably correct. The breaker would need to be readily accessible even if it weren't an EM disconnect so the thumb screw makes sense since it doesn't require tools to gain access to the breaker.

 

[electrofelon]

You're probably correct. The breaker would need to be readily accessible even if it weren't an EM disconnect so the thumb screw makes sense since it doesn't require tools to gain access to the breaker.

Does anyone make a SUSE automatic transfer switch that doesn't have OCPD? That could potentially not comply depending on how it is manually operated, but I think that's academic as I don't think such a thing exists.

 

[tortuga]

The new listing requirements have been changed to match the code rules and 230.85 require that the emergency disconnect "be marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment". The current listing standards will not permit that meter assembly be marked as required by the code rule.

UL 869A 14.1.1 is the only thing I see addressing the "only" and that's just if the neutral is factory bonded to the can.
I don't see any enforceable safety issue with a "suitable only for use as service equipment" disconnect having a neutral factory bonded to the can vs a "emergency disconnect" with a removable neutral bond. I don't see anything else about AFC or otherwise in the standard that differentiates the two disconnects.
On the contrary I think it would be much safer if the emergency disconnect had a factory bonded neutral that could not be inadvertently be removed.
If the alternative is the EC employs six two pole breaker enclosures tapped off a 3R gutter and call all six emergency disconnects I rather the EC use that Siemens meter.
Here is another example of a more typical install:
Say we have a 320A meter on a detached garage and one 200A disconnect for the garage & well pump and one 200A breaker for a feeder the house.
The conductors to the house would then be a feeder.

Now omit the 200A breaker and just continue the 3-wire conductors to the house, then they would be service conductors, still legal.

Now do you agree if we add back the 2nd 200A disconnects at the garage as an 'emergency disconnect' for the house the EC could still run a 3-wire feeder to the house? And it does enhance safety because now if there is a problem at the house the fire dept can kill the house breaker on the garage without pulling the meter and killing the water.

 

[LarryFine]

The new listing requirements have been changed to match the code rules and 230.85 require that the emergency disconnect "be marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment". The current listing standards will not permit that meter assembly be marked as required by the code rule.

This isn't saying that it can't be so marked, only that it isn't required to be, as I read it.

 

[wwhitney]

The new listing requirements have been changed to match the code rules and 230.85 require that the emergency disconnect "be marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment".

This part of 230.85 is purely due to linguistic conflict and has no technical merit. If 230.85 had chosen to use language such as "emergency service disconnect only, not primary service disconnect" there would be no linguistic conflict with SOUSE labeled equipment. Or if the UL listing standard had chosen the language "not suitable for use on the load side of the service disconnect" instead of SOUSE, there would likewise be no linguistic conflict.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

If you have a Power Company Pedestal with a 200a Main Breaker in it, and, it's grounded and bonded there, can you not still run a 4w feeder from that to the structure and hit a Main Breaker Panel just inside at closest point of entry and use the breaker in the pedestal as the Emergency Disconnect?

JAP>

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This isn't saying that it can't be so marked, only that it isn't required to be, as I read it.

What I am saying is that meter assembly with provisions for six disconnects can no longer be marked "suitable for use as service equipment" or "suitable for use only as service equipment". The product standard changed to match the NEC rules that specify only a single service disconnect within an enclosure.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If you have a Power Company Pedestal with a 200a Main Breaker in it, and, it's grounded and bonded there, can you not still run a 4w feeder from that to the structure and hit a Main Breaker Panel just inside at closest point of entry and use the breaker in the pedestal as the Emergency Disconnect?

JAP>

Under the 2023 code you could run 3 service conductors, or a 4 wire feeder from the pedestal to the inside main breaker panel. What you are permitted to install is based only on the label you apply at the pedestal.

 

[jap]

Under the 2023 code you could run 3 service conductors, or a 4 wire feeder from the pedestal to the inside main breaker panel. What you are permitted to install is based only on the label you apply at the pedestal.

So what's the problem?

Does the rule differ under previous code cycles?

Jap>

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So what's the problem?

Does the rule differ under previous code cycles?

Jap>

The only code editions that this applies to are the 2020 and the 2023.
Not sure what probably you are talking about.

 

[tortuga]

Does the rule differ under previous code cycles?

Jap>

For a long time, I think until the 2008 NEC, the NEC permitted 3-wire feeders between detached structures when there were not parallel metallic paths such as cable or phone. Some states like Oregon kept allowing that as a code amendment thru 2017 so I think it ended here a few years ago in 2020. Now the 'emergency disconnect' loophole has seems to have brought it back, but without the parallel metallic paths restriction.

The product standard changed to match the NEC rules that specify only a single service disconnect within an enclosure.

UL 869A changed the wording for 'service disconnects' but not emergency disconnects, UL 869A 6.1.2 (page 13) addresses 2-6 'service disconnects' in one enclosure, then simply allows compliance with the other end product standards for non-service disconnects. So if that was their intent they missed the mark.
Edit: I'd say their intent was just to follow the NEC, and since the NEC allows more than one emergency disconnect in an enclosure the product standard does not prohibit it.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

For a long time, I think until the 2008 NEC, the NEC permitted 3-wire feeders between detached structures when there were not parallel metallic paths such as cable or phone. Some states like Oregon kept allowing that as a code amendment thru 2017 so I think it ended here a few years ago in 2020. Now the 'emergency disconnect' loophole has seems to have brought it back, but without the parallel metallic paths restriction.

UL 869A changed the wording for 'service disconnects' but not emergency disconnects, UL 869A 6.1.2 (page 13) addresses 2-6 'service disconnects' in one enclosure, then simply allows compliance with the other end product standards for non-service disconnects. So if that was their intent they missed the mark.
Edit: I'd say their intent was just to follow the NEC, and since the NEC allows more than one emergency disconnect in an enclosure the product standard does not prohibit it.

UL 67 applies to the meter disconnect assemblies.