Is this service correct?





No mains at meter, no mains at panels, 24 throws of the hand to kill the whole building.


[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 05-23-2004).]

Not around here!

Violation...Art 230.70

Frank

Is this another trick question Bob?

I say yes, it is correct, as long as the panels contain less than 6 breakers each.

More than that, and the panels need to be changed to main breakers. With all those new wires hanging there, that looks like what you are going to do.

Peter

It is Legal. Frank look at 230.71 and take note of the wording "six sets of circuit breakers"

Roger

I realize that the discussion is about the number of service disconnects but……..
What size are the circuit breakers in the panels? It looks like most of them are single pole so these would be lighting and appliance panels 408.14(B). If so they wouldn’t comply with 408.16(A). Exception 2 does permit this for existing installations but these services don’t look very old.

So you'll telling me that each panel doesn't need a main disconnecting means. I'm finding this very hard to accept.

What about Art. 230.79 (D) All other installations (multi-family) shall have a service disconnecting means rating of not less than 60 amperes.

Frank

I second the motion...

[ghettoEC] WHERE MY MAINS AT!!!! YOU DOWN WITH OCP? YOU GO, EC![/ghettoEC]

I don't see how the term "sets" applies to this example. It's been my understanding that the term "sets" was added to allow multiple single pole brekers to be handle tied into one switch. (ROP 4-117, 4-118 and ROC 4-69)

As far as the original question goes, I don't see how this installation is permitted. I only see one service. There may be 4 service entrance conductors supplying 4 separate service enclosures, but I don't think the additional service entrances meet any of the exceptions to section 230.40 permitted by 230.71(A). Exception #2 could be used for the the multiple sets of service entrances, but is not allowed to be used for the purposes of 230.71(A) requirments. I feel its a violation unless someone can show otherwise.

Frank,

230.71 permits more than one service disconnect. 230.80 permits the combined rating of multiple disconnects to be used to comply with 230.79.

Curt

It is my opinion that Exception #1 to 230.40 permits a single service to supply a set of service entrance cables for each occupancy and that 230.71(A) permits each set of service entrance cables to have up to six disconnects. However, in this case, the panels themselves require a maximum of 2 disconnects because of 408.16(A).
Don

I don't understand how Exception #1 applies. There is still only one service, not 4 services of different characteristics? Please explain.

I really don't feel strong enough about my stance to argue the point on this issue.

I do agree with Curt and Don in 406.16(A) making it a moot point anyway.

Bryan, after all is said and done, I think you would agree that the ROP's and ROC you mention have no real meaning if the wording in the NEC does not reflect the intent.

With no effort at defining "sets" the literary meaning would be used.

Roger

In my opinion each occupancy is permitted to have one set of service entrance conductors for each different characteristic that is required by that occupancy. In this case each occupancy only requires one characteristic and each occupancy is permited to have one set of service entrance conductors. However, in this case all of the disconnects are in a single location that that would be a violation of the following part of 240.71(A): "There shall be no more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location."
If the service equipment for each occupancy was not grouped then each set of service entrance cables would be permitted to have up to six disconnects.
Don

Thank you everyone, I am glad this was not a slam dunk.

I looked at this service and read the sections in the code and could not make up my mind if this was permitted or not.

I was wondering if this exception would allow this.


Isn't one "service disconnecting means" one to six disconnects?

Look at how they refer to it in

In that section when they say service disconnecting means they certainly mean any number of switches between 1 and 6 even though they do not say that.

I do not work on thing's like this, my friend is changing this service and I went over to see him.

I did not think of 408.16(A) I thought the fact that this was a service rated "service panel" that it could not also be a lighting and appliance panel.

All very confusing to me, mostly we have 'one service disconnect.

Anymore comments are more than welcome, this service will be removed no matter what we say here, the new service will have 5 tenant panels and a house panel.

Bob

408.16

O.K.! This is an old topic...

But, reguardless of any Code, we all know breakers fail! They are imperfect devices. But the best we have for the purpose, other than fuses, for the protection of having the full available current of the utilities transformer at my bed side alarm clock. I would rather have a Main for the Service, one for each unit, and a breaker for each circuit.

-------------------

If these were FPE breakers, I wouldn't think of living there!

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 06-23-2004).]

Before an inspector fails this installation they should look at 230.40 exception #2

There is only one riser, and that is only one set of Service entrance conductors!

FAIL!

"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 Nos. 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. There shall be no more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location. For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means used solely for power monitoring equipment, or the control circuit of the ground-fault protection system or power-operable service disconnecting means, installed as part of the listed equipment, shall not be considered a service disconnecting means.


Section 230.71(A) covers the maximum number of disconnects permitted as the disconnecting means for the service conductors that supply the building or structure. One set of service-entrance conductors, either overhead or underground, is permitted to supply two to six service disconnecting means in lieu of a single main disconnect. A single-occupancy building can have up to six disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors. Multiple-occupancy buildings (residential or other than residential) can be provided with one main service disconnect or up to six main disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors."

Bob:
A little late....but.
What I see would get a red sticker, basically as E57 eloquently stated above.

One set of service conductors, six switch rule. Multiple service drops on structures, six switch rule again. It's been that way as long as I can remember.

John

Alright - despite my earlier post - I don't think I'd feel right without one of the following, whether "required" by Code or not:

1) A single disconnecting means for the entire building

OR

2) A single disconnect for each of the occupancies, whether on the meters or at each individual panel

OR (preferably, although more expensive)

3)Both of the above.

Where we are reaching a sticking point is the definition of "service" - whether Code intends to address the structure (yes) or the individual dwelling occupancy (the single apartments)(yes).

If I were the AHJ, I think that the lack of at least #2 above (a main on each panel for each unit) would be grounds for a "recommendation" to bring it into compliance. If it was for a =>50% remodel, I'd insist on it.

Glad it's getting reworked, no matter how "legal" it is.

Nods to E57 for 230.71(A)

As for my eloquance..... I can't, take credit, My Fiance wrote that! No, I cut and pasted it out of the handbook version of the code. Which my opinion is that they skip printing the regular version all together, and print all of the commentary from the handbook as the code itself. It has diagrams of what they want in most code sections, and it really clears things up.

E57:
Another honest man surfaces, OK I'll still say you presented the point(s) eloquently.

As to the 'handbook', I have to agree with you 100%, it's well worth the cost also. I tell that to my students.

Over the years, I (as an EC) have come upon many service installs that used the famous 'six switch rule' on the original, and the owners got the kick in the pants during renovation/remodel projects. Most of the time, economics play a role in the "no main" services, but the piper gets his due sooner or later. I came on one this week..
A 200/3 phase 'main' for a diner, and 4-60 amp 'mains' for the 4 apts. THe service conductors (250 RHW) are litterly 'baked' from overload, along with the 200/3 fused disc. It's time for an upgrade. Lack of a 'main' allowed overloading over the years, and prolonged a dangerous condition. Lack of doing load calcs, as new equipment was added over the years is a major contributor,
The old 'nothing tripped/blew' theory strikes again.

John