Violation of 230.2 ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TCHernandez

Member
Location
Tampa, FL
www.flickr.com/photos/hershamboy/3174416455/

I have had been told that we are in violation of NEC 230.2 in having more than one service on a single structure servicing 9 tennants and one House. The photograph shows 3 sets of 400 AU feeding a trough supplying 5 200A disconnects. In addition there is one 800A. disconnect supplied by 3 sets of 400 AU feeding a trough with 5 more 200A disconnects. This provides 6 disconnecting means for disconnecting the entire service per 230.71, and are grouped per 230.71. The 5 200A disconnects fed from the trough are to be labled Main 1-5, with the 800A disconnect being labled Main 6. This is fed from the same source transformer that is shown in the picture, which satisifies the one source end per 230.2.

The argument from the inspectional authourity is that the parallel feeds from the source do not terminate in the same trough or cabinet that this results in their being 2 services on the building and thus the violation.

Any insight or answers you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you ,
TC
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TCHernandez said:
This is fed from the same source transformer that is shown in the picture, which satisifies the one source end per 230.2.
Click to expand...
230.2 does not require that there be one "source end." It requires that there be one "service." That word is defined in Article 100 as being the conductors and equipment that deliver energy from the serving utility to the premises wiring system. I infer that the utility owns the transformer in your photo. I therefore see two services, two sets of conductors from the utility equipment (i.e., the transformer) to the building. I agree with the inspection authority. Sorry.
 
I agree that this is two services. Maybe the AHJ would agree to allow it under 230.2(B). Why wasn't something of this magnitude caught before the installation actually happened?
 
Looks to me like you were just trying to get around the six disconnect rule (though I would say those are grouped) and created another problem. Why install one 800 instead of a 1200, other than cost?
 
John,
I don't see where the six disconnect rule applies here. Each of the sets of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six means of disconnect.
 
I don't think there is a 230.2 violation . I agree with Bob there is just more than one set of entrance conductors .
This article provides a look at exception 1 to 230.40...Also There is a discussion somewhere on this site,.. that I pasted a ROP into that pertains,.. I'll try to find it and link to it ,...

http://www.ul.com/regulators/ode/0405.pdf
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I thought this was allowed by 230.40 Exception 1?
Click to expand...
I am not sure I understand what 230.40 is telling us, when it refers to 230.2. It seems to be saying to me that IF AND ONLY IF 230.2 has already allowed more than one service, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you have more than one set of service entrance conductors. But that would not make sense, since you obviously would need more than one set of conductors, if you had more than one service.

So I will change my vote from "violation" to "I abstain." :wink:
 
found it ,..http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=101673

page 3 is where you can read this;


Quote:

Report on Proposals A2007 ? Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70

Substantiation: Exception No.1 to 230.40 is the source of considerable
misunderstanding for installers as well as inspectors. It is in apparent conflict
with 230.70(A)(1) Readily Accessible Location, and with 230.72(A)
Grouping of Disconnects. It is also in apparent conflict with the basic safety
premise of 230.71(A) Maximum Number of Disconnects.

When taken literally, 230.40 Exception No. 1 would seem to allow an
unlimited number of disconnects in an unspecified number of tenant spaces, as
long as there were no more than six at any one location. There is no mention of
area separation requirements that are essential to prevent the spread of fire and
provide for the safety of fire fighters or rescue personnel. In the event of a fire,
earthquake or other disaster, rescue personnel would be severely hampered by
working against energized service, feeder, and branch circuit conductors that
could not be readily disconnected at a common location in such an emergency.
The term ?occupancy? is not defined in the National Electrical Code or in
the generally adopted building codes. The building codes (several words are
unreadable) some which require fire rated or area separation walls, and others
which do not. The result is that ?occupancy? in 230.40, Exception No. 1 is
used to justify running service conductors to a number of tenant spaces. With
the flexible tenant space nature of many commercial buildings, this results in
modified spaces that have no service or panel, or enlarged tenant spaces and
may have two sets of service conductors and disconnects within the single,
enlarged tenant space. This creates additional Code violations, besides the
extremely hazardous situation created by having multiple service locations in
the original building configuration.
The National Electrical Code has continually moved forward to promote
safety for buildings, the occupants, and rescue personnel. 230.40, Exception
No.1 runs counter to those safety concepts. There is no compelling need for
this exception, as other provisions in Article 230 provide ample opportunities
for installations to be made in every conceivable building and to every
occupancy, without the associated hazard of running service conductors to each
of them. It is time to remove this unnecessary exception to an otherwise good
installation standard for electrical services.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: This particular exception has been in the NEC since at
least the 1946 NEC where Section 1807 permitted, by special permission,
more than one set of service drop in a multi-occupancy building where there
was no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants.
This exception permitted the occupant to have access to their own service
disconnecting means. Section 1837 required a multiple occupancy building
having individual occupancies above the second floor to have the service
equipment grouped in a common accessible location and to consist of not
more than six switches or circuit breakers. However, any multiple occupancy
building that did not have any individual occupancy above the second floor
could have the service conductors run to each occupancy and have up to six
switches or circuit breakers at that location.
Since this rule has existed since the early 1940s without a major change to
the intent, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to change this section
of the Code and there was no technical substantiation given in the proposal to
provide a reason to delete this rule. The submitter did not provide any specific
examples of problems that have occurred where service entrance conductors
have been installed in accordance with the current permissive requirements in
this section.
Exception 1 to 230.40 is a necessary and commonly used allowance for
supplying power in multiple occupancy buildings. The building is still only
permitted to have one service riser or lateral that would allow the power to be
removed from all occupancies when necessary by the disconnection of the riser
or lateral conductors.

Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
 
Thank you for the input, We were going by 230.40 exception 2, which appears to be the same from 2005 to 2008. Our AHJ is currently on the 2005 code cycle. Both (2005 and 2008) appear to me to show that the installation is acceptable with no code violations (also the handbook illustration shows this as being acceptable also). I think I have satisified both 6 motions of the hand and grouping criteria, but I definatley could be wrong.

TC
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
John,
I don't see where the six disconnect rule applies here. Each of the sets of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six means of disconnect.
Click to expand...

Well that may be so, but not here as the POCO would never allow this installation. Main switch with a multimeter section(s). One service and the same results.
 
TCHernandez said:
Thank you for the input, We were going by 230.40 exception 2, .......
TC
Click to expand...

I don't think you have the one set of service entrance conductors that exception 2 talks about:-?.

If I understood the O.P. you have more than one set of service entrance conductors ,.. and in that case ,. exception 1 would be more accurate ,.. especially if this is one building,.. I could very well be mistaken though
 
Local codes and utilities withstanding, this is a permitted installation as per the NEC, the sections already provided. When some people see installations they do not recognize, the first thought is usually it is not a compliant installation. I am sometimes guilty of that as well.
 
the exception 2 to 230.40 states that :Where two to six service disconnecting means in seperate enclosures are grouped at one location and supply separate loads from one service drop or lateral, one set of service -entrance conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several such service equipment enclosures.

The illustrations for exception 2 in the handbook further show multiple tubes/laterals from transformer underground to disconnects with the following verbage: Six sets of conductors 1/0 AWG or larger are considered by 230.40 exception 2 to be one service lateral supplying the permitted maximum of six disconnects.

Which in the picture link I attached would be the 3 tubes on the right feeding the trough for the (5) 200A disconnects, and the 3 tubes on the left feeding the 800A disconnect as my 6 disconnects for motions of the hand.
 
TCHernandez said:
the exception 2 to 230.40 states that :Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location
Click to expand...

If your position is that all these disconnects are grouped at one location then you do indeed have a violation of more then 6 disconnects at one location (In my opinion)

It is my opinion your only option is to say that those disconnects are grouped in separate locations allowing you to apply Exception 1
 
I am sorry, I just remembered you have the 800 disconnect in ahead of the others for a total of six. I will be thinking about this more.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Local codes and utilities withstanding, this is a permitted installation as per the NEC, the sections already provided. When some people see installations they do not recognize, the first thought is usually it is not a compliant installation. I am sometimes guilty of that as well.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you Pierre, I also notice that we don't always get all of the information or only one side of it when answering these questions. The reason I brought up the POCO is because that may be the inspection authority that he is talking about and it's not coming from the local building dept. Sometimes I make some of the calls out of the local POCO ESR manuel just as a heads up to the EC.

I actually think that this may comply per the exception he sited.

I have one right now where the meters are to high and I have been telling the contractor ever since they put them on the building. He keeps telling me that they are pouring concrete under them and bringing the grade up. Yesterday he called for a final inspection and he still hadn't poured. I called the local POCO inspector and he said that the meters would not be released until the EC complied.

Just because we approved it, doesn't always mean it's approved.;)
 
Charlie,
As Iwire pointed out, the illustrations show something interesting.
I would appreciate your comment on the illustrations in the Handbook,
since that is what I refer to constantly.

'yea', 'nay', 'abstain', 'interesting', 'requires further study', etc., is OK.

As for me, the more I read these threads,
I think much of the NEC 'Requires Further Study' !
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top