nec 2020 code requirment ?

[shortcircuit2]

That doesn't work.

First, if it's 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT' then it shouldn't have the neutral-ground bond that comes standard on meter mains, which are often labeled 'suitable for use only as service equipment'. So you can't go taking something labeled as such by the manufacturer and stick a label on it that says 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT.' That's either the wrong equipment or the wrong label.

Bingo. That's the big issue here in Massachusetts. The Code Gurus here are saying that a standard 200-amp meter-main CAN be used as the ED for option #3 in 230.85...Just put the label on it NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT, pop a 3-wire SEU inside to a Main Breaker panel which will be your so called Service Disconnect.

Sound familiar jaggedben ... same as the PV Disconnect label on a piece of service equipment. Throw a label on it and it aint what it is anymore.

Good point though on the... 'suitable for use only as service equipment'...I will look for that labeling. SUOSE vs SUSE

 

[shortcircuit2]

What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*

Square D...Seimens...Eaton (and most likely GE) do make 200-amp non-fused 3R switches that are SUSE rated if a neutral kit is installed. With the neutral kit, the metal housing of the disconnect switch can be bonded with a MAIN BONDING JUMPER per 250.24(B) or green screw as will come with most of these neutral kits rated at 100 & 200-amp.

 

[shortcircuit2]

New section 230.85 requiring an Emergency Disconnect has been the most discussed new Code rule here in MA. Along with the new Code section 230.71 requiring sectionalizing of Main Breakers in Service Equipment...it will be most difficult to do some services as we used to do.

For example...for a dwelling 400-amp service, we would normally put a 320-meter can outside and pop inside to two 200-amp main breaker panels. Now we need an Emergency Disconnect (ED) outside. They do not make a 320-meter main with the two 200-amp main breakers in separate compartments. Manufacturers do not make them like this, yet. There has been discussion they may make them...but no manufacturer is rushing to the drawing board, and UL for just 1 State that has adopted the 2020 Code. Maybe they will make a accessory kit to sectionalize equipment in normal supply chains. We do not know right now.

So the only way to do the "400-amp" Code compliant dwelling service is to use a 400-amp meter-main breaker piece of equipment OR put in a 320 meter can with two 200-amp knife switches SUSE rated of course.

What are we going to do on the mansion dwelling's with larger than 400-amp services for compliance with 230.85??? Say 600, 800, 1200 or even 1600 amp rated services??? That is a serious large ED issue. These large services are normally piped in underground to an electric room inside the dwelling.

 

[shortcircuit2]

For what it's worth, that was my position way back in like, 2011, when I first learned enough about the code to have an opinion. Subsequent arguments discussions on this forum led me to the conclusion that it was arrogant to insist that the code was clear on that point. But now 3 code cycles or so later we're finally getting clarity, except none of it is in 705. For example, they (finally!) added language to 230.82(6) that requires the equipment for such connections to be suitable for use as service equipment. The only thing that remains somewhat unclear is when/if a solar supply side connection is subject to the grouping and six-handle limits. (230.71 and such). They changed the definition of a service so that that argument is no longer explicit. However we still have all these sections - and now one more with 250.25 - that refer indirectly to disconnecting means connected on the the supply side of the service disconnecting means as if they are something 'other than' the service disconnecting means. To me it would make more sense to say that power production sources and fire pump systems shall be permitted to be connected directly to the service with their own separate service disconnecting means, and excise those items from 230.82. In other words, leave 230.82 with only stuff that is connected in series, which is really a different animal. But that would require too much editing, wouldn't it?

No argument here. Just call it a SERVICE DISCONNECT and be done with this Code writing crap around it.

I would say 230.2(5) allows the separate service to get by the 230.71 six-handle rule.

 

[kwired]

That doesn't work.

First, if it's 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT' then it shouldn't have the neutral-ground bond that comes standard on meter mains, which are often labeled 'suitable for use only as service equipment'. So you can't go taking something labeled as such by the manufacturer and stick a label on it that says 'NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT.' That's either the wrong equipment or the wrong label.

Second, if you do the thing of reconfiguring the inside panel to a main lug panel then your meter main outside becomes Option 1, not Option 3.

What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*

...
*Begin rant:

The whole new requirement was a poorly thought out and unnecessary. There should have been an exception for replacing service equipment in an existing location. There are places (dense urban locations) in this country where the requirement will make it cost prohibitive for people to replace old FPE and Zinsco junk probably creates more of a hazard of starting a fire than is offset by not making a firefighter work a few seconds with an axe to get inside. Hopefully AHJs will enforce this new requirement in a manner that reasonably suits the circumstances and not make situations worse by driving people to avoid doing permitted work.

End rant.

"NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT" probably wrong choice of wording. "NOT SERVICE DISCONNECT" makes more sense - to NEC users, but to general public don't really make sense since throwing that switch does interrupt service. And since this switch is put there more for general public than for NEC users, I don't have an alternate wording solution.

A few other places in NEC some labeling requirements are meaningless to users but makes sense to NEC users as well, IMO.

I don't know how many times I have seen in past those "service disconnect" labels that come with loadcenters and safety switches improperly applied, but if looked at from a non electrician perspective some of them actually made some sense - you turn this switch off when servicing the supplied equipment.

 

[kwired]

See my previous post, I don't believe short circuit was referring to emergency disconnects in the post you quoted.

Nobody said anything about multiple grounding electrode systems. Just multiple GECs or GEC taps, as in 250.64(D).

Before 2020 confusion, GEC taps pretty much only applied to service disconnects in multiple enclosures, but you still could have omitted them completely by connecting GEC to any available point ahead of the service disconnects and up to the service drop/lateral, though if you had six sets of underground service conductors going straight to six service disconnecting means you had little choice but to make taps to the GEC.

This emergency disconnect, if not also the service disconnecting means, I see no reason for different requirements than in the past the requirements for meter socket, junction boxes or other allowed items in the service conductors. They must be bonded to the grounded conductor, and it is permissible to land the GEC there but can land it anywhere between end of service drop/lateral and the service disconnecting means. It was that simple why mess it up? If you are adding PV to supply side, you are already connecting to one of those points mentioned.

 

[hornetd]

Not sure what 250.25 is all about just yet. 250.24 (A)(1) I think is unchanged and has always let you land the GEC at any point between service drop/lateral and the service disconnecting means, which commonly allowed us to land it in a meter socket (where POCO will allow it). Emergency disconnect that is not the service disconnecting means would still be allowed to be a place where you can run the GEC as it is between the service drop/lateral and the service disconnecting means.

Maybe there is more to it than what I am seeing so far?

Many of the Electrical Cooperatives still require that the Grounding Electrode Conductor be connected to the Neutral; er Grounded Current Carrying Conductor; at the drip loops of overhead service entry conductors. That is a legacy of the rules promulgated by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). The intent was to minimize the amount of energy that would actually pass through the Meter and the Service Equipment because of a power cross or a lightning strike to the low lines. Even were that is still part of the Coop's Service Standard the original reason is not part of the execution in the case of metallic service masts. It is common to see the GEC run up to it's connection point at the drip loop INSIDE the mast. The original practice was based on the use of SEC cable were the GEC would come down the wall directly to the Grounding Electrode. Since that connection was made on the side of the drip loop closest to the demarcation point splice the GEC presented the shortest and straightest pathway for lightning current to get to the earth. As research has shown that lightning will not make a turn when it can go straight it is thought that most of the strike current will use the GEC to make it's trip from and to the earth.

What makes me wonder about that theory is the size of the GEC. When I was doing rural work I would use a #4 AWG conductor because it did not require any additional protection. I strongly suspect that considering the relative size of the #2/0 Aluminum Neutral and the #4 AWG Copper GEC that some portion of the discharge current, which could be large enough to be destructive would travel on the Neutral.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

And easier for unqualified people to not pull a permit! LOL!

Is it likely that the utilities will except the installation of a disconnect of any description ahead of the meter? Regardless of the answer would the absence of the emergency disconnect have any real affect on the amount of non permitted work? I've seen trunk slammers take angle grinders to locked meter rings.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

SNIP
What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*
SNIP

 

[hornetd]

Snip

What you might do for Option 3 is just put in a standard 200A switch. But I don't recall seeing too many unfused switches marked suitable for use a service equipment, so that might be a problem that leads people to put in fused switches instead.*

Snip

Let me try this again!

In imagining having to plan such jobs I'm guessing that a lot of equipment choices will be based on both pricing and availability. If the fused switch and listed fuse shunts are less expensive than an unfused switch I think a fair number of fused switches will get installed.

I wonder how the Inspectors would react to a transfer switch which is not listed as service equipment being used as the Emergency Disconnect. Those would give the occupants a safe place to plug in a portable generator. The ones I have installed cannot be changed from one supply to another without stopping at the off position in between. Can anyone tell me if any of the manufacturers build them so that you can pull them from one supply to the other without stopping at center off?

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

New section 230.85 requiring an Emergency Disconnect has been the most discussed new Code rule here in MA. Along with the new Code section 230.71 requiring sectionalizing of Main Breakers in Service Equipment...it will be most difficult to do some services as we used to do.

For example...for a dwelling 400-amp service, we would normally put a 320-meter can outside and pop inside to two 200-amp main breaker panels. Now we need an Emergency Disconnect (ED) outside. They do not make a 320-meter main with the two 200-amp main breakers in separate compartments. Manufacturers do not make them like this, yet. There has been discussion they may make them...but no manufacturer is rushing to the drawing board, and UL for just 1 State that has adopted the 2020 Code. Maybe they will make a accessory kit to sectionalize equipment in normal supply chains. We do not know right now.

So the only way to do the "400-amp" Code compliant dwelling service is to use a 400-amp meter-main breaker piece of equipment OR put in a 320 meter can with two 200-amp knife switches SUSE rated of course.

What are we going to do on the mansion dwelling's with larger than 400-amp services for compliance with 230.85??? Say 600, 800, 1200 or even 1600 amp rated services??? That is a serious large ED issue. These large services are normally piped in underground to an electric room inside the dwelling.

Please help me out please since I do not have a 2020 NEC to refer to. Does the 2020 actually require that this new Emergency Disconnect be a completely separate enclosed switch even if the disconnects are all for the same building? You said knife switches. Do you mean that literally. Would the SUSE NEMA 3R Main Breaker enclosures fail inspection? I'll bet you a dollar to the hole in a doughnut that the separate breaker enclosure is less than SUSE Switch.

Please explain what you mean by "sectionalizing of Main Breakers in Service Equipment." Is this anything like the separate dead front that is required over the exposed terminals of the main beaker in Canadian practice and has been for some time.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

"NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT" probably wrong choice of wording. "NOT SERVICE DISCONNECT" makes more sense - to NEC users, but to general public don't really make sense since throwing that switch does interrupt service. And since this switch is put there more for general public than for NEC users, I don't have an alternate wording solution.

A few other places in NEC some labeling requirements are meaningless to users but makes sense to NEC users as well, IMO.

I don't know how many times I have seen in past those "service disconnect" labels that come with loadcenters and safety switches improperly applied, but if looked at from a non electrician perspective some of them actually made some sense - you turn this switch off when servicing the supplied equipment.

Just talking about the language rather than what the writers of the 2020 NEC actually meant. Why is this "Not Service Disconnect" language needed at all? It seems to me to be a bold faced lie. If I open the Emergency Disconnect will the premise still have electrical power? If it would then what is the point of installing it in the first place? What is the effect on an Automatic Transfer Switch for an Optional Standby Power System of opening the Emergency Disconnect going to be. I'm not talking code requirement when I ask if I should not then install an auxiliary terminals set on the emergency disconnect with a control run to the Generator which will trigger a starting battery powered shunt trip of the generator's main breaker? I served 45 Years as an active front line volunteer firefighter. I'm not seeing how this new requirement is going to make firefighters safer if it is the way many of you are describing it.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hillbilly1]

Is it likely that the utilities will except the installation of a disconnect of any description ahead of the meter? Regardless of the answer would the absence of the emergency disconnect have any real affect on the amount of non permitted work? I've seen trunk slammers take angle grinders to locked meter rings.

--
Tom Horne

Doesn't need to be ahead of a meter, transferswitches and generators could easily be added without permitting along with panel changeouts.

 

[hornetd]

Doesn't need to be ahead of a meter, transfer switches and generators could easily be added without permitting along with panel changeouts.

Yes but would it actually be any easier than pulling the meter?

--
Tom Horne

 

[hillbilly1]

Yes but would it actually be any easier than pulling the meter?

--
Tom Horne

If you pull the meter, you break the seal, federal offense. If you have the utility pull it, they will not put it back until the ahj okay’s it. I’ve had the same power company in two different districts tell me different things. One, I called in, they said could I pull it? The other cussed me out saying “you electricians better quit pulling our meters.”

 

[Coppersmith]

If you pull the meter, you break the seal, federal offense.

Please give a reference to prove this.

 

[kwired]

If you pull the meter, you break the seal, federal offense.

Yes why is that a federal offense? They like to act like it is in similar category, but you are usually looking at potential theft of service, vandalism, or similar charges being only realistic thing that can happen. That don't mean they can't discover you updated things and didn't report/file inspections with the AHJ and inform them of it.

 

[kwired]

Just talking about the language rather than what the writers of the 2020 NEC actually meant. Why is this "Not Service Disconnect" language needed at all? It seems to me to be a bold faced lie. If I open the Emergency Disconnect will the premise still have electrical power? If it would then what is the point of installing it in the first place? What is the effect on an Automatic Transfer Switch for an Optional Standby Power System of opening the Emergency Disconnect going to be. I'm not talking code requirement when I ask if I should not then install an auxiliary terminals set on the emergency disconnect with a control run to the Generator which will trigger a starting battery powered shunt trip of the generator's main breaker? I served 45 Years as an active front line volunteer firefighter. I'm not seeing how this new requirement is going to make firefighters safer if it is the way many of you are describing it.

--
Tom Horne

Been a little bit of a problem with me for some time is some the language used in NEC. Not so much language for NEC users, but requirements for labeling in some situations only makes sense to NEC users but not to the user who the label was usually required for their benefit.

Labeling I have seen (that was not NEC required) that makes sense is some POCO's will put a label on a CT meter to indicate that pulling that meter will not disconnect power from the facility.

But "Not Service Disconnect" on an emergency disconnect only has meaning to electricians and inspectors. Simply marking it Emergency Disconnecting means should be sufficient, and maybe additional label that says "Service Disconnect" when it actually is the service disconnecting means per NEC.

 

[Epalmateer]

In reading the 2020 Code, if an installer selects 230.85(3) for the Emergency Disconnect, 250.25 directs the installation to comply with 250.24(A)-(D)...which will require a GEC connected to the GES

The 230.85(3) Emergency Disconnect labeled NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT now requires a Service Disconnect after either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance...which also requires a GEC connected to the GES according to article 250

Why will contractors select 230.85(3)??? Well, if it involves a service upgrade on an older dwelling with 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits, option 3 allows the installation to have a 3-wire between the Emergency Disconnect and the Service Equipment, thereby allowing the 3-wire dryer and range branch circuits to stay.

There does not seem to be any hazard associated with the installation. But the language does appear to require a GEC to the GES at both switches.

This is the same way I see this. So many people are convinced that you have to run 4 wire between the ED and SD no matter what. Anyway, so would the bond in the ED be considered a system bonding jumper, and the bond in the SD would be a main bonding jumper?

 

[jaggedben]

This is the same way I see this. So many people are convinced that you have to run 4 wire between the ED and SD no matter what.

Which is weird. Because the entire point of the new section was to avoid requiring that. Otherwise they would have just updated the requirements for service disconnecting means in 230.70.

Anyway, so would the bond in the ED be considered a system bonding jumper, and the bond in the SD would be a main bonding jumper?

If you use a wire it would be a supply-side bonding jumper. But the ED can just be bonded directly to the neutral per 250.92. Just like a typical stand-alone meter socket.