2 Family Service

[infinity]

I was always under the impression that for a 2 family dwelling the service disconnects needed to be grouped together at one location. Recently I saw a few services where the two meters were outside, single overhead drop to the meter enclosure and the meter feeding the second floor apartment had a disconnect adjacent to the meter while the first floor did not. I'm assuming that the first floor service disconnect was in the panel on the inside of the wall. Isn't this clearly a violation or am I missing something?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I have always been a bit confused on this. I think the same as you but if there is a fire wall between the floors then I believe it is looked at as 2 structures. Think of a condo side by side and each unit has it's own drop and meter. Is that any different?

 

[Cow]

The few services I've done this way, there has always been a firewall between the service disconnects. The inspector never batted an eye.

 

[augie47]

I am with Dennis as to this day I find it a but confusing. When you look at the illustrations in the handbook it appears almost anything is acceptable
Locally, the jurisdictions have never allowed one service disconnect outside and one inside unless you truly had two separate buildings (ie: 4 hour fire-wall.). In the scenario the OP describes, it has been allowable to have a service disconnect IN each unit. That well may be local interpretations but the reasoning has been with one outside disconnect (other inside) it would give a false impression that the one was a total building disconnect.

 

[kwired]

I don't have a problem with separate disconnect locations for a single level duplex, but where one is a second story, even with a 2hr finish between them, I'm not so sure it is a good idea. I guess if they are considered to effectively be separate buildings there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[102 Inspector]

As an inspector, I would require the disconnects to be grouped, typically by outside disconnects. If they want to claim the firewall, then there should be 2 separeate services to the building, not one service split with 2 meters. I am sure there are many other opinions out there.
As a firefighter, we try not to pull meters because of the potential hazard. I want my crews to look for the main disconnecting means, whether inside or outside. If a building is burning, I do not want to look upstairs and down stairs to find all the disconnets to shut down a building. They need to be at one location for each service provided. Sometimes we have to pull meters however if the building is going to the ground, there is still an overhead connection that can only be terminated by the POCO that creates a hazard. That is why we carry safety cones on the truck to prevent any accidental contact.

 

[david]

In your post the service disconnect for the second floor is on the out- side next to the meters. It is not clear from your post how the feeder is routed. If the feeder enters the 1st floor basement or is routed through the structure in any way that that leaves energized conductor in the first floor apartment, exposed or embedded in the walls after the first floor service disconnect is open I would think its in-violation. If the basement is common to both the first floor and the second floor then the service disconnects would be grouped at one location

 

[infinity]

In your post the service disconnect for the second floor is on the out- side next to the meters. It is not clear from your post how the feeder is routed. If the feeder enters the 1st floor basement or is routed through the structure in any way that that leaves energized conductor in the first floor apartment, exposed or embedded in the walls after the first floor service disconnect is open I would think its in-violation. If the basement is common to both the first floor and the second floor then the service disconnects would be grouped at one location

What I've described is a typical NJ two family house, one apartment on the first floor, one on the second. The disconnect for floor two is next to the meter and the feeder conductors are routed through the house in varying ways to the second floor sub-panel. The first floor panel/service disconnect in typically in the basement.

 

[GerryB]

What I've described is a typical NJ two family house, one apartment on the first floor, one on the second. The disconnect for floor two is next to the meter and the feeder conductors are routed through the house in varying ways to the second floor sub-panel. The first floor panel/service disconnect in typically in the basement.

So are those separate meters? Or a separate disconnect? If they are running the wire to the second floor inside why not put the disconnect inside. Around here usually the basement is common area and you need a house meter also. So this is maybe no basement no common area at all. As for the disco's being together wouldn't it be code to pipe up the side of the house and put a Main Breaker panel in the 2nd floor apt? They wouldn't be together that way either.

 

[kwired]

As an inspector, I would require the disconnects to be grouped, typically by outside disconnects. If they want to claim the firewall, then there should be 2 separeate services to the building, not one service split with 2 meters. I am sure there are many other opinions out there.

I like that approach. One service can serve multiple disconnects, but they must be grouped together. Here we have one service but the disconnects are not grouped together.

But there is also the problem of the fact that both portions of the building are considered separate buildings because of fire walls. So each occupancy is technically independent of the other when applying the NEC. If these were separate buildings that were not adjoined there is no violation of running service conductors from utility to one building, having a junction point, and continuing on to the other building. Without local amendments or other regulation I think the situation in OP is allowed by NEC, if there is two separate buildings because of fire breaks. I don't like it myself,but I don't think it can be rejected either, I myself would have grouped the disconnects, likely at the meter location.

 

[david]

What I've described is a typical NJ two family house, one apartment on the first floor, one on the second. The disconnect for floor two is next to the meter and the feeder conductors are routed through the house in varying ways to the second floor sub-panel. The first floor panel/service disconnect in typically in the basement.

When you go to the service disconnect location for the first floor apartment and open the service disconnect it must open all energized conductors that pass through that tenant space. If you go to that location and open the disconnect and you still have energized conductors that are associated with that tenant space or pass through that tenant space then you would be in violation. If they do not group the service disconnect for the 1st floor and 2nd floor apartments, then the second floor apartments feeder must stay on the outside and not enter the first floor structure.

From what I seen in this post we are talking about the rules evolving service entrances and out- side feeders. Not rules evolving the allowance for separate services.

 

[infinity]

The issue is two service disconnecting means in two separate locations for a two family house, one outside at the meter the other inside. No firewall separation, one apartment on the first floor one on the second.

 

[david]

You have one building supplied by one service from the utility. 230-40 allows a building with more then one occupancy to have one set of service entrance conductors run independently to each occupancy. You have one service disconnect for the first floor occupancy in the basement. You have one service disconnect for the 2nd floor occupancy on the out ?side next to the meters.

230.70 states the service disconnect has to have a disconnect when opened disconnect the utility from the occupancy. So the only way you can have the second floor feeder run through the ist floor occupancy would have to group both service disconnects in one location. You cannot have a situation whereby going to the service disconnect location and opening the disconnect still leaves energized conductors in that ocupanncy after the service disconnect is open.


So I agree with you that the way they are doing it is in violation. If they run the feeder to the 2nd floor apartment out -side then they can do it 230.40 exception no. 1