Three Service Disconnects

[al hildenbrand]

This is a wood framed two story dwelling with a full basement that was duplexed, electrically, some number of years ago. The first floor dwelling has a load center in the first floor, and the second floor dwelling has a load center in the second floor. The service disconnects for these two load centers are in the duplex meter pack in the photo below.

In the last two years, a house service was added for a laundry in the common area of the basement, as well as the common area lighting and receptacles. The service disconnect is in the load center (not the meter), which is in the basement, in the first floor unit's lockable storage room.

The house service (on the right side of the photo), was inspected and approved.

Can anyone tell me how 230.72 doesn't apply?

 

[Ruff-N]

Those would be cosidered 2 seperate services on one building NEC 2005 230.2 (A)-(D) But I would question the placement of the first point of disconnect. Also the OH services, how close are these to the second floor balcony.

 

[jbelectric777]

They only have to be grouped together, the inspector must have saw it that way, I would have had them put a disconnect in next to the 2 gang and identified, for the fire dept. Keep in mind some fire departments dont belly ache about it because they have no problem pulling meters. The violation would be if the POCO put a seperate drop in otherwise so long as they are grouped together and do not exceed a total of 6 its ok, Your photo doesnt show the drop, and Im sure there is only one. The occupant needs readily access to his/her OCP devices thats all the code says I dont think it says "all" OCP devices need be grouped together just the service disconnecting means for obvious reasons. My codebook is in storage so this is off the top of my head I cant cite the article but pretty sure its 230 (services)

 

[jbelectric777]

I think a building inspector would have a problem with the deck and steps. Any builders in here ?

 

[al hildenbrand]

They only have to be grouped together, the inspector must have saw it that way, . . .

The two meter pack on the left (in the photo) has a pair of 100 A service disconnects built in.

The single meter on on the right doesn't have a service disco in the meter enclosure. That service disco for the right hand service is inside the basement.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I think a building inspector would have a problem with the deck and steps. Any builders in here ?

That's a seperate issue called out on another trade's report on this property. . .

The grouping of the service disconnects (230.72) is NOT on the electrical report, and, as far as I can see, there was an electrical inspector release of the right hand service (the "house" power for common areas) to the power company for connection not quite three years ago.

I'm having a hard time understanding this "new" house service being accepted as a NEC assembly.

 

[jbelectric777]

I'm not dis agreeing, I agree and said I would have had em put a service disconnect (non fusible) so its not for OCP its for disconnection only, also they are not identified (apt 1, 2 and house) If it was just a disconnect its not a feeder and stays like it is just add a disconnecting means. Your right, that picture shows a direct violation of the grouping requirement.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Also the OH services, how close are these to the second floor balcony.

There is a single point of attachment at the peak of the gable end, just under the two weatherheads. The roof is 12x12. I don't have a snap, at the moment, that shows it.

 

[Ruff-N]

I'm not dis agreeing, I agree and said I would have had em put a service disconnect (non fusible) so its not for OCP its for disconnection only, also they are not identified (apt 1, 2 and house) If it was just a disconnect its not a feeder and stays like it is just add a disconnecting means. Your right, that picture shows a direct violation of the grouping requirement.

Can you change your fonts its really hard to read your posts, especially for us 40+ in years.

 

[jbelectric777]

sure, hows this

 

[david luchini]

I agree with Ruff-N. This is two separate services. The grouping of disconnects per 230.72 is a requirement for each service. So service #1 has two disconnects grouped together. Service #2 has one disconnect. Each service meets the requirements of 230.72, so it would be fine.

The question I would ask is how was a second service allowed per 230.2.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So the question arises as to what is a separate service. What makes this install 2 services?

 

[elohr46]

This is a wood framed two story dwelling with a full basement that was duplexed, electrically, some number of years ago. The first floor dwelling has a load center in the first floor, and the second floor dwelling has a load center in the second floor. The service disconnects for these two load centers are in the duplex meter pack in the photo below.

In the last two years, a house service was added for a laundry in the common area of the basement, as well as the common area lighting and receptacles. The service disconnect is in the load center (not the meter), which is in the basement, in the first floor unit's lockable storage room.

The house service (on the right side of the photo), was inspected and approved.

Can anyone tell me how 230.72 doesn't apply?

230.72 does apply, but in this case I think 230.40 ex.#4 applies first. Which means you can have two groups from one service drop with a max of 6 at each location. I say it passes as is. If you have 2008HB it's exhibit 230.4 on page 146.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I really think this is a case of understanding how a service is defined. Quite frankly I am confused.

I read the definition of a service

Service. The conductors and equipment for delivering electric energy from the serving utility to the wiring system of the premises served.

This does not tell me anything. If I go to 230.40. It appears that 2 risers would constitute 2 services however how is that any different then one riser to a trough and then down to 2 meters. You still have 2 sets of service conductors from the trough down. It really isn't different then the 2 riser scenario.

230.40 Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets.
Each service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors.

Still puzzled

 

[Hendrix]

230.72 does apply, but in this case I think 230.40 ex.#4 applies first. Which means you can have two groups from one service drop with a max of 6 at each location. I say it passes as is. If you have 2008HB it's exhibit 230.4 on page 146.

I believe that 230.2 is speaking to commercial buildings, not residential dwellings.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe that 230.2 is speaking to commercial buildings, not residential dwellings.

I totally disagree. If that was what it meant, then it would say other than dwellings. There is nothing in 230.2 that suggests what you said.

 

[david luchini]

I totally disagree. If that was what it meant, then it would say other than dwellings. There is nothing in 230.2 that suggests what you said.

I agree with Dennis. 230.2 applies to all types of buildings/structures, not just commercial.

I really think this is a case of understanding how a service is defined. Quite frankly I am confused.

If I understand your question point correctly, you are wondering if a "service" includes one set of service lateral/drop and one set of service entrance conductors. Or if one service lateral/drop serving multiple sets of service entrance conductors would comprise multiple services.

The way I read the second sentence of 230.2 ("For the purpose of 230.40 Ex No. 2....) it would suggest that one service lateral connecting to multiple sets of service entrance conductors would constitute multiple services, except as provide in the second sentence of 230.2.

So your description of a single riser to two meters, or two separate riser would both describe two "services" as I read the code.

 

[david luchini]

I totally disagree. If that was what it meant, then it would say other than dwellings. There is nothing in 230.2 that suggests what you said.

I agree with Dennis. 230.2 applies to all types of buildings/structures, not just commercial.

I really think this is a case of understanding how a service is defined. Quite frankly I am confused.

If I understand your question point correctly, you are wondering if a "service" includes one set of service lateral/drop and one set of service entrance conductors. Or if one service lateral/drop serving multiple sets of service entrance conductors would comprise multiple services.

The way I read the second sentence of 230.2 ("For the purpose of 230.40 Ex No. 2....) it would suggest that one service lateral connecting to multiple sets of service entrance conductors would constitute multiple services, except as provide in the second sentence of 230.2.

So your description of a single riser to two meters, or two separate riser would both describe two "services" as I read the code.

 

[petersonra]

I don't get the issue from the pictures.

Are you saying that there is a single set of wires coming the the utility that splits in two, with one connection to the single meter and another connection to the dual meter?

I would buy that as two services, which would seem to be a code violation.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Are you saying that there is a single set of wires coming the the utility that splits in two, with one connection to the single meter and another connection to the dual meter?

Yes.

The photo below is of the Point of Attachment for the overhead drop. Both weatherheads are at the gable peak, the single meter on the right and the double meter on the left.