This is how I understand a res service is done. If the MBJ in the main panel is removed, I’d have to isolate grounds and neutrals correct?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ActionDave said:
It depends on where you grew up and where you broke into the electrical trade. It is a totally emotional decision.

I'm from the west and you always see a an outside service disconnect. Start moving to the east and outside disconnects freak electricians out so much that given the choice between putting a service disconnect outside and chopping off a leg most would choose chopping off a leg.
Click to expand...
That's the feeling around here. If forced to install one on the outside of my house I would probably weld it in the closed position after the inspection.
 
infinity said:
It certainly could be applied that the wording in the listing "suitable only for use as service equipment" cannot be used for non-service equipment.
Click to expand...
OK, I checked UL 67 and UL 896A and they both have definitions of "service equipment" that match the NEC definition. So my terminological sleight of mind doesn't fly.

2020 230.85 created the problem by choosing the language of "Not Service Equipment" instead of something else like "Not Service Disconnect". I think the definition of "Service Equipment" is broad enough to encompass both service disconnects and emergency disconnects that are not service disconnects. But 230.85 takes the opposite point of view.

The 2023 First Draft Report has doubled down on the existing language, and to resolve the above conflict has chosen to explicitly exclude equipment marked "suitable only for use as service equipment" for an emergency disconnect that is not the service disconnect. Apparently the CMP feels field installers are not to be trusted to remove or cover a factory installed "Service Disconnect" label (which I understand the UL standards require when equipment is marked as "suitable only for used as service equipment.")

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
OK, I checked UL 67 and UL 896A and they both have definitions of "service equipment" that match the NEC definition. So my terminological sleight of mind doesn't fly.

2020 230.85 created the problem by choosing the language of "Not Service Equipment" instead of something else like "Not Service Disconnect". I think the definition of "Service Equipment" is broad enough to encompass both service disconnects and emergency disconnects that are not service disconnects. But 230.85 takes the opposite point of view.

The 2023 First Draft Report has doubled down on the existing language, and to resolve the above conflict has chosen to explicitly exclude equipment marked "suitable only for use as service equipment" for an emergency disconnect that is not the service disconnect. Apparently the CMP feels field installers are not to be trusted to remove or cover a factory installed "Service Disconnect" label (which I understand the UL standards require when equipment is marked as "suitable only for used as service equipment.")

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Thanks for the research. As I stated earlier this needs to be revisited by all parties involved to harmonize and simplify the 2020 code change. When something as simple as a label can muck up the entire process something needs to change.
 
infinity said:
It certainly could be applied that the wording in the listing "suitable only for use as service equipment" cannot be used for non-service equipment.
Click to expand...
What I would argue is that being on the unfused POCO feed and in a location where there is no Grounding Conductor separate from the Grounded Conductor it is service equipment. I have no problem with that. But it still does not have to be the service *disconnect*.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
 
ActionDave said:
It depends on where you grew up and where you broke into the electrical trade. It is a totally emotional decision.

I'm from the west and you always see a an outside service disconnect. Start moving to the east and outside disconnects freak electricians out so much that given the choice between putting a service disconnect outside and chopping off a leg most would choose chopping off a leg.
Click to expand...
I would gladly give up a leg to avoid having an outside disconnect :mad: :mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad: Not now, not never.
 
seriously though. I think what I find most frustrating is how they botched this whole thing - yet another thing the NEC/NFPA/CMP's totally botched. This organization just cant seem to come up with anything that is clear, concise, unambiguous and makes sense. They need to hire some English majors or something......
 
SomeRandomPerson said:
Hahaha. Yes, Grounding electrode conductor from the water main.
I think if that terminated in the main panel, the ground rods terminated in the meter main outside and the main bonding jumper was installed in the panel then you wouldn’t have to separate grounds and neutrals in the main panel ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Where is your service disconnect? You need to do the marking.
 
electrofelon said:
seriously though. I think what I find most frustrating is how they botched this whole thing - yet another thing the NEC/NFPA/CMP's totally botched. This organization just cant seem to come up with anything that is clear, concise, unambiguous and makes sense. They need to hire some English majors or something......
Click to expand...
I think we need a five year code cycle. I won't question the motives of those that sit on the CMP because I think they are good people, ironically that's part of the problem. You've got a bunch of do gooder volunteers with the time and the money to pursue their agenda to make the world better; they are not just going to sit on their hands, they are going to vote on something before they go home and feel like they have done their job.
 
ptonsparky said:
Where is your service disconnect? You need to do the marking.
Click to expand...

That’s part of my problem. Can’t I label the meter main as a service or emergency disconnect? If it’s emergency then does the MBJ originate there and the main panel is delegate grounds and neutrals with the water meter GEC coming back to it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SomeRandomPerson said:
That’s part of my problem. Can’t I label the meter main as a service or emergency disconnect? If it’s emergency then does the MBJ originate there and the main panel is delegate grounds and neutrals with the water meter GEC coming back to it?
Click to expand...
Yes you can. The simplest way to do this is the way meter mains have been used for 100 years, they are the service disconnect. The 2020 NEC requires them to be labeled properly as to their function. I see no reason why on a new installation to do it another way.
 
infinity said:
Yes you can. The simplest way to do this is the way meter mains have been used for 100 years, they are the service disconnect. The 2020 NEC requires them to be labeled properly as to their function. I see no reason why on a new installation to do it another way.
Click to expand...
I Agree, but YOU still need to mark it.

The OP situation will require 4 wire. Isolated N & EG at the second panel. GEC to water pipes from MM.
More cost.
 
McLintock said:
Why are y’all so against an outside disconnect?


“ shoot low boys their riding shetland ponies”
Click to expand...
I think most of the time I hear variations on the two following reasons:

- "It might get covered with snow."
- "Some rascal kid may turn it off."

I will add a third: In some areas, the extra expense and hassle will cause people to upgrade service equipment off-permit, or leave obsolete service equipment in place. For example in some neighborhoods in San Francisco there are still bunches of 100A FPE service panels on underground services. 230.85 effectively prohibits replacing the FPE equipment with modern like-for-like under permit (by requiring unaffordable new service laterals that no one will pay for). I'm glad I'm not working in SF anymore. The rascal kid scenario applies in many areas, too. And a sizeable percentage of houses there also simply don't have physical space for an outside service disconnect without changing the architecture, especially when you add PG&E's required clearances from the gas riser. It will be interesting to see if they decide to delete 230.85 from their local code. All their local ammendments are more restrictive than the NEC, not less.
 
jaggedben said:
I think most of the time I hear variations on the two following reasons:

- "It might get covered with snow."
- "Some rascal kid may turn it off."

I will add a third: In some areas, the extra expense and hassle will cause people to upgrade service equipment off-permit, or leave obsolete service equipment in place. For example in some neighborhoods in San Francisco there are still bunches of 100A FPE service panels on underground services. 230.85 effectively prohibits replacing the FPE equipment with modern like-for-like under permit (by requiring unaffordable new service laterals that no one will pay for). I'm glad I'm not working in SF anymore. The rascal kid scenario applies in many areas, too. And a sizeable percentage of houses there also simply don't have physical space for an outside service disconnect without changing the architecture, especially when you add PG&E's required clearances from the gas riser. It will be interesting to see if they decide to delete 230.85 from their local code. All their local ammendments are more restrictive than the NEC, not less.
Click to expand...
In addition: basically its a significant added expense (resulting from more labor and materials), aesthetically more obtrusive and accomplishes nothing.
 
One of the befits of the new 'emergency disconnect' provision is that you can keep the same install methodology (3 wire from meter to main panel, grounds and neutrals shared on main panel, GEC landed at main panel or meter location) when that outside breaker/disconnect is added in. This reduces the cost adder of an external disconnect.

-Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top