User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Service Disconnects - Common GEC Connection Location (250.64)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xguard View Post
    These unprotected conductors exit the panel and go outside to the chiller disconnect.

    Not completely related to your question. Do these unprotected conductors fall under the outside taps of unlimited length rule?

    I realize this isn't a feeder. I'm just trying to understand which rule allowed the original installers to make that tap on the service conductors in the interior panel.

    Is the reason that panel does not have an exterior disconnect due to the age, or location of the building?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,930
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrMann View Post
    Not completely related to your question. Do these unprotected conductors fall under the outside taps of unlimited length rule?

    I realize this isn't a feeder. I'm just trying to understand which rule allowed the original installers to make that tap on the service conductors in the interior panel.

    Is the reason that panel does not have an exterior disconnect due to the age, or location of the building?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    "Tap rules" for service conductors are basically in 230.40. Other rules that may come into play are grouping of disconects, and length of SEC inside allowed by AHJ.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    "Tap rules" for service conductors are basically in 230.40. Other rules that may come into play are grouping of disconects, and length of SEC inside allowed by AHJ.
    How does 230.40, or any of 230 allow us to tap an unprotected service conductor with a smaller conductor (I'm assuming here) inside a panel that's inside a building. Then run that tapped, unprotected conductor back outside the building to what could be an indefinite length?

    I don't mean to argue if that's how it sounds. Im thrown off by this one. Is this something you have seen often?

    In this situation couldn't the problem be solved by taking the chiller wires and putting them in a breaker? Then we're not even talking service disconnects. Just a disconnect


    Then the ground would just be out into the panels ground bar
    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by WarrMann; 12-07-18 at 11:47 PM. Reason: Add clarification

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrMann View Post
    How does 230.40, or any of 230 allow us to tap an unprotected service conductor with a smaller conductor (I'm assuming here) inside a panel that's inside a building. Then run that tapped, unprotected conductor back outside the building to what could be an indefinite length?

    I don't mean to argue if that's how it sounds. Im thrown off by this one. Is this something you have seen often?

    In this situation couldn't the problem be solved by taking the chiller wires and putting them in a breaker? Then we're not even talking service disconnects. Just a disconnect


    Then the ground would just be out into the panels ground bar
    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    This chiller was installed in 2000. It needed a 700 amp ocpd. The largest the panels could accept was 350. I'm not saying they did it right but from what I can tell based on old plans and looking at it that was the reasoning.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    38,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    Hmmm ok, that is a tricky one. If you look at 230.40, I dont see the situation covered by any of the exceptions. What we would need is something like exception #3 but without the "single family dwelling" qualifier. One could take the philsophical stance that the NEC has no business telling us how many services can be supplied by one drop or lateral, since whats ahead of the service point is theoretically invisible to the NEC......
    "Each service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors"

    It includes more than just what is on the supply side of the service point. May need a little work on wording but I think the intent was to mean one utility supply conductor method is to supply one set of service entrance conductors. I believe this wording is still same or nearly the same as it was before they introduced the "service point" definition.

    I see no problem with this section if a separate lateral/underground service conductor were run from utility to the chiller though.

    Quote Originally Posted by xguard View Post
    This chiller was installed in 2000. It needed a 700 amp ocpd. The largest the panels could accept was 350. I'm not saying they did it right but from what I can tell based on old plans and looking at it that was the reasoning.
    Does the service conductors have sufficient ampacity for everything they currently supply?
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    "Each service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors"

    It includes more than just what is on the supply side of the service point. May need a little work on wording but I think the intent was to mean one utility supply conductor method is to supply one set of service entrance conductors. I believe this wording is still same or nearly the same as it was before they introduced the "service point" definition.

    I see no problem with this section if a separate lateral/underground service conductor were run from utility to the chiller though.

    Does the service conductors have sufficient ampacity for everything they currently supply?
    Yea. The one large chiller replaced two smaller chillers that were each on their own breaker. The total load is the same.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,930
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrMann View Post
    How does 230.40, or any of 230 allow us to tap an unprotected service conductor with a smaller conductor (I'm assuming here) inside a panel that's inside a building....
    230.33 and 230.40 exceptions.


    .....Then run that tapped, unprotected conductor back outside the building to what could be an indefinite length?

    I don't mean to argue if that's how it sounds. Im thrown off by this one. Is this something you have seen often?

    In this situation couldn't the problem be solved by taking the chiller wires and putting them in a breaker? Then we're not even talking service disconnects. Just a disconnect
    That is not allowed because of 230.72.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •