ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#112406 06/15/01 11:37 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
>I believe the service point is at the landing lugs in the utility pullsection.
A lot hinges on whether that is true.

How do you know that SE cable lands in the pull box?

Why do you believe that the service point is other than at the meter?

#112407 06/16/01 09:52 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
Don,
Yes each occupancy can have its own set of service conductors (but doesn't necessarily have to) This particular one has 2 parallel 750 Al from the load side of the landing lugs to a modular type bus which isn't visible in the pic (sorry), not individual sets of conductors to each meter location.
DSpark,
You're right the whole enchilada hinges on what point we consider the SE conductors to begin. Is it possible that this interpretation varies geographically? Our utility (SCE) and inspectors do require a main disco ahead of any more than 6 meters.
At the landing lugs, the utility's engineering, responsibility, and conductor sizing stops. The conductors beyond this point must be sized per NEC.Is there a reason for this other than their being the SE conductors?
Unless part of a listed assembly, each service requires its own GEC. This assembly was designed for 6 meters, not 7 or 8, and has only 1 GEC. (Is this not a violation?)
This discussion has gotten me to thinking, though, that if we were to remove the added meter from the module(probably a violation in itself), pipe it as well as the new 400 to the pull section, provide them with their own SE conductors from the landing lugs and their own GECs then a main switch wouldn't be required, unless by Edison. Thanks, guys!
(Gee, and to think this all started from my humoring at seeing where the competition drew a circle with a pencil on the pull section. I'm still laughing, but I want out of this industrial complex real bad)






[This message has been edited by electure (edited 06-16-2001).]

#112408 06/16/01 03:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
some of my handbook pix shows the utility drop or lateral divided by 4, then each ends in 6 meters.
a firewall is mentioned, but there could be, if i'm reading this right, 20 or 30 meters fairly close to each other, no disco's ..
i find this confusing



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 06-16-2001).]

#112409 06/17/01 11:54 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
I'll try to explain that if I can.(If you've got a few extra hours) I realize that I've been rambling in the last posts. (Caps are just for emphasis, I'm not yelling).
From the utility to the point of attachment
will be considered as the service DROP. This will be then connected to the service ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS. You can have UP TO as many SETS of service entrance conductors as you have occupancies (per 230-40 ex1) This is why there are 4 SETS OF SE CONDUCTORS connected to 1 service DROP in your pic. It's more practical to divide the metering and service disconnects into GROUPS of 6 rather than run 24 sets of SE conductors with 24 weatherheads (although technically you could do this). 6 is the maximum # of discos allowed PER SET of SE conductors, so 24 is the max for your 4 SETS. If, instead, one was to use a main switch (or up to 6) between the drop and the meter/disco, one set of SE conductors would be allowed to feed as many meters/discos as needed, because there would be a maximum of 6 operations needed to deenergize all of them.
In my particular case, 1 set of SE conductors was tapped from the LATERAL at the TERMINAL BOX (pull section), and 7 meters/discos were then put on this 1 set of SE conductors. This is a violation. If the 7th, however, is removed from this set of SE conductors, and is provided with a new set of SE conductors,tapped at the TERMINAL box, it (and up to 5 more on the new set) will be compliant. This very simple fix didn't occur to me until this discussion, I intended to install a main switch to cover all 7. The 8th meter could be installed on the same set of SE conductors as #7, but the unit is located the other direction from the TERMINAL BOX, so would be provided with another set of SE conductors of its own, tapped at the TERMINAL BOX, just to simplify things (5 more meters/discos could also be put on this set of SE conductors). I'm sure not gonna cut a hole in the front of the darn TERMINAL BOX for another meter ring, though (where was he gonna put the CT's and disco?)... and I'm STILL laughing..Thanks again, guys.

#112410 06/17/01 05:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Electure,
Thank you for the details here. somewhere back in my apprenticeship i was told of the 'six switch' rule.
Where this # came from is debatable, however it was passingly accepted that six would be the max # in an emergency, say the building is on fire and the fire department has responded.
Would'nt the exceptions trash this theory?

[Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 06-17-2001).]

#112411 06/17/01 10:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
Why 6? Why not 4, 5, 7?? I've wondered this myself, and was told, like you were, that it was for the FD. And yes, you're sure right 230-40 ex1 does seem to undo any good that was ever intended.

#112412 06/21/01 07:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9
A
Member
Well the first thing they could do is to CUT DOWN THOSE POLES.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5