Is this a violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
FionaZuppa said:
Definitely looks like a service tap and not a feeder tap. I can't make the call on violation or not, but I thought the service-to-feeder needed a single disco......?
Click to expand...

It's not a tap if there are breakers. It's only a tap if the wires are tied together without an OCPD.
 
david luchini said:
Nickelec said he was under the 2008 NEC. No issue with the two breakers. (Unless there is a local amendment.)
Click to expand...
That's not what I mean. There's no single service disconnecting means. OP has two via a bus'd service panel.
 
Coppersmith said:
It's not a tap if there are breakers. It's only a tap if the wires are tied together without an OCPD.
Click to expand...
They are tied together pre OCPD via the panel bus's. Pop the breakers out and the SEC's are basically split via panel bus. The OCPD's sit between service and feeder side. This may be non-violation, but NEC words says "service disconnect means", and I take that as a form of disco, a single disco to disconnect service. I could just be wrong......
 
FionaZuppa said:
They are tied together pre OCPD via the panel bus's. Pop the breakers out and the SEC's are basically split via panel bus. The OCPD's sit between service and feeder side.
Click to expand...

The only way to "tap" the power is through a breaker so not a tap per NEC. If there were multiple feedthrough connectors that would be different.
 
david luchini said:
I'm not sure I understand your point. He has two service disconnecting means...that's fine. A single service disconnecting means isn't required.
Click to expand...
Your verbiage is a bit askew (to me). The two breakers as-is requires both to be flipped off to disco the service. In your words "has two service disconnecting means" to me sounds like two OCPD's in series where either one could disco the service (or like a non-fused disco switch + ocpd in series). As-is, the OCPD's are in fact paralleled onto SEC's via that panel, and to disco the service you need to throw two breakers, not one. Is this valid per NEC?

post #47 perhaps explains my confusion. So with 1 set of SEC's into a bus'd panel that has 6 OCPD's, do the sum of those 6 OCPD amps have to be less than max service amps?
 
Last edited:
Where does it actually say that one single service disconnect is required in 2008 NEC I can't find it

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
I agree. So this definitely code complaint and I believe 2:30. 91a is the only cold I can reference in my email to ahj does anybody else have any references

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
FionaZuppa said:
230.91 suggests a single device.
Click to expand...

230.91 doesn't say anything about quantity of devices.

230.90(A) Ex 3 says "Two to Six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent device to provide overload protection."
 
Last edited:
david luchini said:
230.91 doesn't say anything about quantity of devices.

230.90(A) Ex 3 says "Two to Six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent devices to provide overload protection."
Click to expand...
it says "device" , singular in grammar. I guess I would prefer the bus'd panel ("service equip") to have one inline disco (switch and/or OCPD) prior to the "up to 6" disco's that then feed out.

What about 2008 NEC 230.75? Does the panel meet that requirement?
 
FionaZuppa said:
it says "device" , singular in grammar.

What about 2008 NEC 230.75? Does the panel meet that requirement?
Click to expand...
Yes, and 230.90(A) Ex 3 says that 2-6 breakers or fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent "device", singular in grammar.

The two breakers are both the Service Disconnecting Means and the Overcurrent Device required by 230.70 and 230.90(A).

The panel does meet the requirement of 230.75.
 
What do you gentlemen think of this email?


Good afternoon this is the second time I've had an inspector fail me for this installation and i'm looking for some clarification. The inspector stated I am violating 240.21. Clearly this is not a tap as per the NEC definitions is A conductor, other than a service conductor, that has. overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds. the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as. described elsewhere in 240.4

my argument is article 230. 90 (A)(1) Exp 3, specifically states Two to six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent device to provide the overload protection. The sum of the ratings of the circuit breakers or fuses shall be permitted to exceed the ampacity of the service conductors, provided the calculated load does not exceed the ampacity of the service conductors.


the above exception depicts and clarifies the installation I have below please see attached photos. The conductors in the picture that land directly on the bus in the service switch that is rated for use as service equipment are directly coming from the utility size number 2 copper conductors




Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
david luchini said:
The panel does meet the requirement of 230.75.
Click to expand...
How does the Neutral get disco'd in the service disconnect panel box?

230.75 Disconnection of Grounded Conductor. Where
the service disconnecting means does not disconnect the
grounded conductor from the premises wiring, other means
shall be provided for this purpose in the service equipment.
A terminal or bus to which all grounded conductors can be
attached by means of pressure connectors shall be permitted
for this purpose. In a multisection switchboard, disconnects
for the grounded conductor shall be permitted to be in
any section of the switchboard, provided any such switchboard
section is marked.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top