# More then 6 no main



## u2slow (Jan 2, 2014)

Is it possible this work was done before there was such a rule?

Perhaps the sub being in the same building or room makes the upstream breaker sufficient


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

A “service” cannot have more than 6 throws without a main. But a sub panel can have as many breakers as you want without a main.

BTW, that 6 throw no-main code got thrown out in the 2020 code cycle. Probably by people who don’t do electrical work for a living.


----------



## Morg12345 (Jan 22, 2016)

MHElectric said:


> A “service” cannot have more than 6 throws without a main. But a sub panel can have as many breakers as you want without a main.
> 
> BTW, that 6 throw no-main code got thrown out in the 2020 code cycle. Probably by people who don’t do electrical work for a living.


Code reference?


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Morg12345 said:


> Code reference?


I’m too lazy to find it for you.

Use the search tool and look up some of SouthEasternPower’s recent threads. He posted a big thread about it not long ago.


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

They didn’t get rid of the six disconnect rule. They just made it so they can’t all be in the same enclosure.
Here’s the 2017.


*230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A)General.*
The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard or in switchgear. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.
For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed as part of listed equipment and used solely for the following shall not be considered a service disconnecting means:
(1)Power monitoring equipment
(2)Surge-protective device(s)
(3)Control circuit of the ground-fault protection system
(4)Power-operable service disconnecting means


Here is 2020


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

MHElectric said:


> A “service” cannot have more than 6 throws without a main. But a sub panel can have as many breakers as you want without a main.





Morg12345 said:


> Code reference?


Are you looking for a code reference that says something like 

*



123.456(ABC) Six Breakers.

Click to expand...

*


> There is no requirement for a main breaker in a subpanel with more than six breakers.


You usually can't find a code reference staing something ISN'T a rule. Imagine how long the code book would be if it had to list everything that ISN'T a rule. 

*Facing North. *There is no requirement that panels be placed on a wall facing north. 
*Sans Serif Font. *There is no requirement that markings on equipment be in a sans serif font. 
*Pencil Sharpener Circuit. *There is no requirement for a pencil sharpener circuit in single family dwellings.


----------



## Morg12345 (Jan 22, 2016)

splatz said:


> Are you looking for a code reference that says something like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow wouldn't that be nice!


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

MHElectric said:


> BTW, that 6 throw no-main code got thrown out in the 2020 code cycle. Probably by people who don’t do electrical work for a living.


Would you care to point out why you believe that the NFPA 90 2020 has eliminated the six disconnect rule. I just read it from the NFPA free access site. Section 230.71(B) says that 2 to 6 disconnects are permitted. What they changed was the nature of the equipment that could be used to make up the six disconnecting means. A single compartment panelboard enclosure with six disconnects in the same compartment is no longer permitted but the new designs required for listing as Suitable For Use As Service Equipment were the panel board cabinet has individual compartments for the load terminals of each of the six disconnecting means are allowed. The intent of the new language is to lessen the number of arc flash and arc blast injuries and deaths. By requiring each set of load terminals to be in a separate compartment the new language assures that the electrician does not have to work in an enclosure that has live terminals accessible to accidental contact. It is still one panel board. The only difference is that the cabinet which encloses the panel must be fitted with dividers to make up six separate compartments with only one disconnecting mean's load terminals in each one. It is still a single panel board and it can still have 6 disconnecting means. Just as before the panel board must not have room for more than six disconnecting means and sets of single pole breakers being used as one or more of the 6 disconnecting means must be fitted with listed handle ties to convert them into a single device for the purpose of the number of throws of the hand that it takes to deenergize all of the loads supplied from that service. 

Please don't tell us that you believe that you have a right to work exposed to unguarded energized conductors. 

Tom Horne


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Every time I open a service panel there are live unguarded service conductors. I’m not sure how that is changed by 2020 NEC.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

S


hornetd said:


> Would you care to point out why you believe that the NFPA 90 2020 has eliminated the six disconnect rule. I just read it from the NFPA free access site. Section 230.71(B) says that 2 to 6 disconnects are permitted. What they changed was the nature of the equipment that could be used to make up the six disconnecting means. A single compartment panelboard enclosure with six disconnects in the same compartment is no longer permitted but the new designs required for listing as Suitable For Use As Service Equipment were the panel board cabinet has individual compartments for the load terminals of each of the six disconnecting means are allowed. The intent of the new language is to lessen the number of arc flash and arc blast injuries and deaths. By requiring each set of load terminals to be in a separate compartment the new language assures that the electrician does not have to work in an enclosure that has live terminals accessible to accidental contact. It is still one panel board. The only difference is that the cabinet which encloses the panel must be fitted with dividers to make up six separate compartments with only one disconnecting mean's load terminals in each one. It is still a single panel board and it can still have 6 disconnecting means. Just as before the panel board must not have room for more than six disconnecting means and sets of single pole breakers being used as one or more of the 6 disconnecting means must be fitted with listed handle ties to convert them into a single device for the purpose of the number of throws of the hand that it takes to deenergize all of the loads supplied from that service.
> 
> Please don't tell us that you believe that you have a right to work exposed to unguarded energized conductors.
> 
> Tom Horne


230.71 is worded now so you can only have one disconnecting means for a service. I’m no code guru, but it sure sounds like their intent with this change is to now have a main breaker at all new services instead of a six throw no main.

Do you read that code differently? 

And what are you asking about with that last statement - _*Please don't tell us that you believe that you have a right to work exposed to unguarded energized conductors. *_


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

hornetd said:


> The intent of the new language is to lessen the number of arc flash and arc blast injuries and deaths.
> 
> Tom Horne


How do you know this?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Are you talking service or do you mean in the sub panel. A sub panel does not need a main.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

MHElectric said:


> S
> 
> 230.71 is worded now so you can only have one disconnecting means for a service. I’m no code guru, but it sure sounds like their intent with this change is to now have a main breaker at all new services instead of a six throw no main.
> 
> ...



This is partially true. You still can have 6 disconnects for a service but each disconnect must be in separate enclosures. I cannot use a main lug panel with 6 breakers any more. The reason is to be able to work in the panel safely. Turn off the main and everything is dead, except the service conductors but they have a cover over the lugs.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> This is partially true. You still can have 6 disconnects for a service but each disconnect must be in separate enclosures. I cannot use a main lug panel with 6 breakers any more. The reason is to be able to work in the panel safely. Turn off the main and everything is dead, except the service conductors but they have a cover over the lugs.


Yes that’s True. You can tap off a trough/meter enclosure/CT cabinet with 6 separate disconnects.

I was referring to a regular service panel with 6 breakers and no main. That is no longer allowed.


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

backstay said:


> Every time I open a service panel there are live unguarded service conductors. I’m not sure how that is changed by 2020 NEC.


 Look at any Service Equipment panel, with a factory installed Main Breaker, now being made. Keep in mind that because of the construction slow down caused by the Pandemic many vendors may have considerable amounts of New old stock panels on the shelf which were made before the change to the standard on listing of panels was adopted. You will find that the line terminals of the main breaker are now guarded against accidental contact. Once you open that Main Breaker; which is also the Service Disconnecting Means; there are no longer any energized parts exposed to accidental contact. 

-- 
Tom Horne


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

MHElectric said:


> 230.71 is worded now so you can only have one disconnecting means for a service. I’m no code guru, but it sure sounds like their intent with this change is to now have a main breaker at all new services instead of a six throw no main.
> 
> Do you read that code differently?


230.71*(A)* does indeed say that. It also reads Unless the requirements of 230.71(B) are met. In paragraph 3 the conditions are that each Service Disconnecting Means must be in a separate compartment.
230.71(B) says that under some conditions the Service Disconnecting Means can consist of up to 6 disconnects. If this discussion is limited to 1 & 2 family homes then I'm off my soundings and quite WRONG!



MHElectric said:


> And what are you asking about with that last statement - _*Please don't tell us that you believe that you have a right to work exposed to unguarded energized conductors. *_


I had been yelled at, in another forum with rants that they should be allowed to do there work as they chose and not saddled with the higher cost of equipment that these changes will cause. And that the Code Making Panels were trying to make it possible to use unqualified help... Since you weren't one of the people that had directed such diatribes at me I had NO RIGHT to throw that on you. It was rude of me and I humbly apologize for doing so. 

Tom Horne


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

backstay said:


> How do you know this?


I should have typed that appears to be the purpose. I guess that I was fowling up all over this forum that day. 

Since some of the new language results in not being allowed to have exposed energized terminals in the same cabinet, compartment, or section that was the conclusion I had come to at that time. That said I cannot claim to have any mind reading ability. So I cannot be sure that was the major driver of the language which seams to be saying that the only way you can have multiple Service Disconnecting Means mounted in the same piece of equipment is when they are in separate compartments or enclosures. I made that conclusion and carelesly worded it as if I was an established fact. 

Tom Horne


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

hornetd said:


> Look at any Service Equipment panel, with a factory installed Main Breaker, now being made. Keep in mind that because of the construction slow down caused by the Pandemic many vendors may have considerable amounts of New old stock panels on the shelf which were made before the change to the standard on listing of panels was adopted. You will find that the line terminals of the main breaker are now guarded against accidental contact. Once you open that Main Breaker; which is also the Service Disconnecting Means; there are no longer any energized parts exposed to accidental contact.
> 
> --
> Tom Horne


Somewhere over 90% of the panels I open are older existing panels. The lugs are exposed, energized even with the main open. As a professional, I feel that I’m capable of working in these panels. The change in the 2020 code language hasn’t changed that.

Now, if the NFPA really wanted to cover up the exposed lugs for safety, they could have made manufacturers supply covers for their existing panels upon request. But we know that would never happen.


----------



## RUSKES (6 mo ago)

backstay said:


> Somewhere over 90% of the panels I open are older existing panels. The lugs are exposed, energized even with the main open. As a professional, I feel that I’m capable of working in these panels. The change in the 2020 code language hasn’t changed that.
> 
> Now, if the NFPA really wanted to cover up the exposed lugs for safety, they could have made manufacturers supply covers for their existing panels upon request. But we know that would never happen.


welcome to the club of not been hysteric about electricity, but respecting it.


----------



## Forge Boyz (Nov 7, 2014)

hornetd said:


> Keep in mind that because of the construction slow down caused by the Pandemic many vendors may have considerable amounts of New old stock panels on the shelf which were made before the change to the standard on listing of panels was adopted.
> 
> --
> Tom Horne


Please tell me where all these panels are. We just went to the '17.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

hornetd said:


> 230.71*(A)* does indeed say that. It also reads Unless the requirements of 230.71(B) are met. In paragraph 3 the conditions are that each Service Disconnecting Means must be in a separate compartment.
> 230.71(B) says that under some conditions the Service Disconnecting Means can consist of up to 6 disconnects. If this discussion is limited to 1 & 2 family homes then I'm off my soundings and quite WRONG!
> 
> I had been yelled at, in another forum with rants that they should be allowed to do there work as they chose and not saddled with the higher cost of equipment that these changes will cause. And that the Code Making Panels were trying to make it possible to use unqualified help... Since you weren't one of the people that had directed such diatribes at me I had NO RIGHT to throw that on you. It was rude of me and I humbly apologize for doing so.
> ...


Its my understanding & interpretation that the only thing that’s changed in the 2020 code is _having a single panel with 6 breakers *as your service*__, is no longer legal._ 

Like a meter combo that doesn’t have a main, just 6 throws. Or a single panel coming out of a CT cabinet/meter enclosure/power company trough that doesn’t have a main, just 6 throws.

Residential subdivisions, older apartments, shopping centers and shared commercial warehouses are the biggest areas that I see this at.

And as far as the other stuff - no problem dude, its all good.


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

MHElectric said:


> Its my understanding & interpretation that the only thing that’s changed in the 2020 code is _having a single panel with 6 breakers *as your service*__, is no longer legal._
> 
> Like a meter combo that doesn’t have a main, just 6 throws. Or a single panel coming out of a CT cabinet/meter enclosure/power company trough that doesn’t have a main, just 6 throws.
> 
> ...


I thought that some posters were arguing that the requirement for a single disconnect was an overarching absolute for all services. I may have misread their intent. [Don't tell me I can't miss it! I'm a very talented fella.] I agree with you completely that


MHElectric said:


> _having a single panel with 6 breakers *as your service*__, is no longer_


code compliant. But even on a single family home I could install 6 Service Disconnecting Means even if some of them were panels. Your point that each panel would be required to have one and only one disconnect to deenergize everything else in that cabinet is not in dispute or at least not with me. 

I guess I emphasize that 6 disconnect rule because I did a lot of farm and ranch work when I started out. It was very common on rural properties to have 3 or more Service Disconnecting Means mounted at a single place but with each disconnect supplying a single building or a single type of load. Examples of load types might include a milking system; milking parlors were not used in that area back then; milk storage refrigeration, the rest of the loads for a dairy barn, the residence, and a well house. It was not uncommon for all of the Service Disconnecting Means to be mounted on the outside of the house although they were more often mounted on a post and plank back board immediately adjacent to a utility's last pole or on a farm owned "yard pole." Part of the reason for that latter was that a tractor driven power take off generator could be connected to the loads the rancher chose at that one place. 

Through those and other unusual home service installations I learned that not all residential services would be the same. That served me well when the 400 Ampere McMansion services came along. I was one of the few electricians in my area that was never ordered to replace the 4/0 feeders to 2 separate 200 ampere panels because I realized that neither feeder could be carrying the entire load of the dwelling as required by the badly written first version of the exception for residential service entry conductor sizing to dwellings. Well before the language was clarified in the following edition of the code I was using a set of 250 MCM feeder conductors to supply each panel. In that type of home the panels which housed the individual Circuit breakers had to be carefully sited in the interior of the building to avoid requiring entirely too much cable to wire the loads. 

Although I made money on those installs I quickly got tired of the endless downward pressure on my pricing and went back to mainly being a service electrician. Each time I took a new home job, even from the same GC, they said "why can't you do better on the price for me?" as if they were doing me a favor by letting me bid on the project. The cash flow was more even in service work. The families I worked for loved my work and raved about it to the neighbors so back to that area I would go. 

Every time I was told "Tradesmen to the back door!" I could, and always did, turn right back to the truck. [One guy glared at me when I dared to come to his front door but when I pulled on shoe covers for the sake of her 2 inch Berber carpet his spouse said "He's hired you work out the details." and he didn't get a chance to use that line. He asked me later why I was turning back toward the door when his spouse spoke up I told him "If I wasn't good enough to enter through his front door I certainly wasn't good enough to work on his house." We got along pretty well after that because he gave me the chance to demonstrate that I wasn't out to rob him blind and that I did quality work. They called me back 2 additional times but not because I was slapdash cheap or a doormat.

I told another possible client "He could have it fast OR reasonably priced because "speed up" would always cost him money in ruined materials and wasted time all of which he would still get to pay for. Quality was never negotiable!

Tom Horne


----------



## hornetd (Oct 30, 2014)

Forge Boyz said:


> Please tell me where all these panels are. We just went to the '17.


 Well in my area I was noticing the new insulating covers over the main breaker supply terminals a couple of years ago but some brands took longer to make the change. Either that or the lower quality stuff was bought up for use on already permitted work before the listing standard was changed. 

Why would you want to avoid panels that have insulated guards over their main breaker supply terminals. The price hasn't risen sharply since the guards began to be installed. What would you gain?

Tom Horne


----------



## Forge Boyz (Nov 7, 2014)

hornetd said:


> Well in my area I was noticing the new insulating covers over the main breaker supply terminals a couple of years ago but some brands took longer to make the change. Either that or the lower quality stuff was bought up for use on already permitted work before the listing standard was changed.
> 
> Why would you want to avoid panels that have insulated guards over their main breaker supply terminals. The price hasn't risen sharply since the guards began to be installed. What would you gain?
> 
> Tom Horne


I'm talking about panels sitting on the shelves not being used. I really doubt that is happening these days.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Who said they tried to avoid them? The only thing I dislike about the new rules, is there are the occasional install with 3 to 6 circuits that the small MLO panels was perfect for.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

I think the new rule actually introduces more hazard than it mitigates. 

When you're working in a MLO service panel, you know it's hot, so you exercise more caution than if it were dead. On the surface, it would appear to be a good idea to be able to easily kill the panel and this has some validity. But there are thousands, maybe millions of MLO service panels in existence. 

If we don't work stuff hot, we'll lose our edge and when we encounter a MLO service panel and we're not not up to speed on working hot.......disaster.......

I honestly wonder how many people have been shocked, blown up, injured and/or killed by working in a hot service panel who would have been completely safe if the panel had a main? 

Further, even if there is a main, how many people will turn it off before working in the panel?

I've worked in FPE main breaker panels hot because when these mains are turned off, there's a fair chance they will not turn back on. If the code is going to require main breakers as a safety item then they need to require that manufacturers make these breakers so they will turn back on.....every time without exception.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Morg12345 said:


> I always was under the assumption that a panel that had more than 6 breakers needed to have a main breaker .can somebody help me and tell me the code reference that would say it's OK to not have a main breaker if you have more than 6 circuit breakers...
> The circuit breaker that feeds the sub panel is in the same room as the sub panel
> Morg


It's not 6 breakers it's 6 throws of any handle rule... they could all be 2 or 3 pole breakers... but that's still actually 6 circuits... usually.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

splatz said:


> ...
> There is no requirement for a pencil sharpener circuit in single family dwellings.



Awwwww FUDGE!!! 

(Only I didn't _say_ fudge... I said _the_ word! The queen mother of all profanity!!!"

NOW YOU TELL ME... Oh for the love a...


----------



## u2slow (Jan 2, 2014)

MHElectric said:


> Its my understanding & interpretation that the only thing that’s changed in the 2020 code is _having a single panel with 6 breakers *as your service*__, i*s no longer legal*._


If it's like anything else in Code, it's for *new* installs going forward. Old work is still legit. Why anyone is still trying to find and install a new panel with a 2-6 handle-throw "main" is beyond me


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

u2slow said:


> If it's like anything else in Code, it's for *new* installs going forward. Old work is still legit. Why anyone is still trying to find and install a new panel with a 2-6 handle-throw "main" is beyond me


TO SAVE THE COST OF 1 MAIN BREAKER AND TIE-DOWN KIT? i DUNNO BUT STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SPLIT-BUSS PANELS EVER WERE A THING, STILL NEEDED A LIGHTING MAIN...


----------



## GladMech (Sep 18, 2020)

But what is everyone going to do for a pencil sharpener circuit?


----------



## GladMech (Sep 18, 2020)

It's all a conspiracy by the Pentel Cartel.


----------



## u2slow (Jan 2, 2014)

GladMech said:


> But what is everyone going to do for a pencil sharpener circuit?


Obsolete by 30 years...









@LGLS I read somewhere that in the early days of household breakers, the high capacity ones (mains) were cost prohibitive. The house I grew up in had fusible links in the drip loop - just a plain mlo 100A GE panel.


----------

