Residential Main Breaker Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is still readily accessible per the definition if it has a standard lock. As far as I know, there is no code restriction on placing a lock on the operating handle of the emergency disconnect.
Click to expand...
The definition of readily accessible does mention keys but then the IN seems to indicate that the intention of a lock wouldn't apply to a residential installation.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being
reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without
requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to take
actions such as to use tools (other than keys), to climb over or
under, to remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders,
and so forth. (CMP-1)
Informational Note: Use of keys is a common practice under
controlled or supervised conditions and a common alternative
to the ready access requirements under such supervised condi‐
tions as provided elsewhere in the NEC.
Click to expand...
 
sparky1118 said:
Leave the breaker in the panel as a service disco. Unless you want the added work of changing it all up.
Click to expand...
If he puts an overcurrent protective device outside, that becomes the service disconnect.
infinity said:
The definition of readily accessible does mention keys but then the IN seems to indicate that the intention of a lock wouldn't apply to a residential installation.
Click to expand...
Note is not code and there is nothing in the code that can be read as prohibiting locks on the required emergency disconnect. I would never install an exterior disconnect without locking it in the on position.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Note is not code and there is nothing in the code that can be read as prohibiting locks on the required emergency disconnect. I would never install an exterior disconnect without locking it in the on position.
Click to expand...

I agree, on my own home I've gone as far as to say I would bolt or weld the door closed and disable the handle mechanism inside. :rolleyes:
 
norcal said:
Firefighters normally carry bolt cutters?
Click to expand...
Pretty good chance there is at least one bolt cutter or other tool that can cut said lock in one of the fire trucks when they show up. They don't each individually carry bolt cutters at all times though.

They do a variety of tools so they can extract people that are trapped in many different situations.
 
norcal said:
Firefighters normally carry bolt cutters?
Click to expand...

Bolt cutters: usually on the truck, yes. If they don't a Halligan Bar will do the trick:

www.firehosedirect.com

36" Halligan Bar

Our "Made in the USA" halligan bar is the perfect design for easy forcible entry, ventilation, or overhaul. It is manufactured with 100% American materials and American craftsmanship. Every halligan bar is drop forged with high carbon steel and...
www.firehosedirect.com www.firehosedirect.com



SceneryDriver
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If he puts an overcurrent protective device outside, that becomes the service disconnect.

He was already planning on doing that. His question was does he have to change the panel to a main lug panel or can he keep the existing panel. He can keep the existing panel and separate the grounds and neutrals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
 
sparky1118 said:
Leave the breaker in the panel as a service disco. Unless you want the added work of changing it all up.
Click to expand...
Sparky, I read your comment as saying the breaker in the panel is still the service disconnect after a breaker has been installed outside. My comment was only saying that the breaker in the panel is no longer a service disconnect.
 
You’re absolutely right it would no longer be a service disco. It would be a disco for the panel if ever needed for some reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
tom baker said:
I would suspect companies will shortly come up with a meter socket with non fused disconnect, with the appropriate labels. If it was not a "service disconnect" then thats a savings for a retrofit (avoids issues with GEC)
Click to expand...
What is the issue with using a meter main. Why would a meter with disco need to be made?
 
Open Neutral said:
Would the PoCo lock be on the switch handle, or on the cabinet access hasp?
I'd assume the latter.
Click to expand...
presuming you are talking about a disconnect ahead of a meter...possibly a lock on both if you can't secure both with a single lock.

They don't want easy customer access to unmetered conductors and they don't want power removed from line side of meter - their system may give them trouble notifications if it gets shut off because the smart meter is no longer sending data that is expected.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If he puts an overcurrent protective device outside, that becomes the service disconnect.
Click to expand...
I'm just getting up to speed on this issue, but I would have to argue that 230.85 (3) clearly and explicitly allows for "...circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect..." as long as equipment is SUSE rated.

Putting a breaker outside does NOT necessarily MAKE IT the Service Disconnect, but maybe I'm dreaming....
 
Jerramundi said:
I'm just getting up to speed on this issue, but I would have to argue that 230.85 (3) clearly and explicitly allows for "...circuit breakers on the supply side of each service disconnect..." as long as equipment is SUSE rated.

Putting a breaker outside does NOT necessarily MAKE IT the Service Disconnect, but maybe I'm dreaming....
Click to expand...

in the past it kind of did, this new emergency disconnect rule however seems to allow it to not somewhat optional in some cases.

They seem to mostly be interested in being able to interrupt service from outdoors even if it is not a service disconnect.

I can see there being local jurisdictions that end up saying if it contains overcurrent protection that they will consider it to be the service disconnect - NEC doesn't really state that though.
 
kwired said:
in the past it kind of did, this new emergency disconnect rule however seems to allow it to not somewhat optional in some cases.

They seem to mostly be interested in being able to interrupt service from outdoors even if it is not a service disconnect.

I can see there being local jurisdictions that end up saying if it contains overcurrent protection that they will consider it to be the service disconnect - NEC doesn't really state that though.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my fear. I'd prefer a non-fusible safety switch so there could be no argument, but the 200A 3R ones get pricey.
 
Jerramundi said:
That's exactly my fear. I'd prefer a non-fusible safety switch so there could be no argument, but the 200A 3R ones get pricey.
Click to expand...
Does that price offset the cost to run the GEC to the new location and/or install an EGC because you are now feeder instead of service conductors?
Maybe somewhat a wash most cases.
 
kwired said:
Does that price offset the cost to run the GEC to the new location and/or install an EGC because you are now feeder instead of service conductors?
Maybe somewhat a wash most cases.
Click to expand...
The cheapest I found a Non-Fusible 200A Gen. Duty Safety Switch for was like $300.00
That's a pretty significant increase from what just a standard 1 position meter socket (no breaker) runs, ~$50-$75

Either way, this new Emergency Disconnect requirement is going to increase the cost.

I suppose you could argue that the need to install an EGC is offset by that.
But I wouldn't have to install a wire type EGC, I could just rely on the RMC conduit.
The big issue would be now having to separate the neutrals and grounds at the previously main panel.
EGCs could still land there... then either run a wire type EGC to the new Service Disco w/ the feeders or rely on the conduit.
 
@kwired Either you are correct. The AHJ could argue that the service disconnect location has been changed, although I think 230.85 (3) makes it clear that you can have CB's on the supply side of the Service Disco without them becoming the new Service Disco. But, as usual, up to the AHJ... and if he/she decides to make that call, I'm SOL.

230.85 (3) clearly references CBs on the supply side... but again, up to the AHJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top