# Grouping disconnects revisited AGAIN



## jar546 (Mar 4, 2012)

We have a lot of larger single family homes that were converted into 2 units back in 19-who knows when.  No true fire separation.  Some are apartments that were added to the 2nd floor and the interior stairwell was blocked off to create separation. Homes themselves are at or over 100 years old and have had layers upon layers of remodeling and additions over the years in an area that quite frankly, until 8 years ago, had no enforced building codes.

With that being said, I am not sure if we have to go the the IRC for definitions of structure and building, etc.  As a matter of fact, the IRC is silent on the "grouped disconnects" issue so we have to revert to the NEC.

We have a lot of new services installed on these buildings.  Most tear off the old one and replace it where it was, exactly how it was or move it to a new location due to the proximity to the gas meter, propane tanks, etc.

Although each apartment is considered a "dwelling unit", I am not sure that these 2 units are considered one building or one structure or not because there really is no true fire separation between them.

How do you interpret the grouping of disconnects in a situation like this?


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 4, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Most tear off the old one and replace it where it was, exactly how it was or move it to a new location due to the proximity to the gas meter, propane tanks, etc.


Just for clarification, these buildings now have a service disconnect for each dwelling?


----------



## jar546 (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes.  2 dwellings, 2 meters and 2 disconnects


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 4, 2012)

Should your states administrative section be similar or the same as written in the adopted IRC, in existing structures equipment may be replaced in the same location of a similar kind or capacity.

E3601.7 Maximum number of disconnects. The service disconnecting means shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure or in a group of separate enclosures.



As a suggestion to the situation of existing buildings without fire separations and if they don't have a certificate of occupancy, when the permits are obtained for alterations or additions consider issuing a co with the comment that the structure existed before adoption of state building code for a 2 family dwelling . This will provide a record to track improvements made to be maintained.

*R102.7 Existing structures. *

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the _International Property Maintenance Code _or the _International Fire Code,_ or as is deemed necessary by the _building official _for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

*R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. *

_Additions,_ _alterations _or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. _Additions,_ _alterations_ or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building. 



 Could you give the link to the first thread?



Francis


----------



## jar546 (Apr 20, 2012)

OK Dennis,

I would like to resurrect this one again.  Please join in!


----------



## jar546 (Apr 20, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Could you give the link to the first thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Francis


http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?777-230-72-with-a-twist&highlight=grouped


----------



## Dennis (Apr 20, 2012)

My understanding is that this is more of a building issue call.  If there is more than one service then I would say the disconnects can be separated however with the apparent lack of fire walls etc I see this as one structure and I would be the utility has only one drop.  That being the case then the discos must be grouped.  Article 230.2 clearly states that a building or structure must be served by only one service unless permitted in the exceptions which I don't see those units qualifying for.



> 230.2 Number of Services.A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). For the purpose of 230.40, Exception No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and larger, running to the same location and connected together at their supply end but not connected together at their load end shall be considered to be supplying one service.
> 
> (A) Special Conditions. Additional services shall be permitted to supply the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## jar546 (Apr 20, 2012)

Dennis, we are on the same page on this one.  This is my feeling and since I am the building and electrical inspector I make them group them.  The problem is that I get resistance because the electrical inspectors of the past never required it.

Most of our older 3-4 units + have no separation.


----------



## Dennis (Apr 20, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Dennis, we are on the same page on this one.  This is my feeling and since I am the building and electrical inspector I make them group them.  The problem is that I get resistance because the electrical inspectors of the past never required it.Most of our older 3-4 units + have no separation.


I thought inspectors loved punishment.    It is a fact that contractors will moan when told they can't do it that way.   They will get used to it, I hope.


----------



## north star (Apr 20, 2012)

*+ +*

Jeff,

If the contractors whine too loud, ..to the right people, they

"could" cite Article 90.4 - Enforcement [ `08 NEC: "By

special permission, the AHJ may waive specific requirements...

blah, blah, blah" ], thereby, NOT requiring them to comply with

what you are requesting them to do, but rather what is

convenient & profitable for them.

You `ol meany inspector!.....How dare you require something

in the code books.......You're just picking on them, ...again!

*+ +*


----------



## Dennis (Apr 20, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *+ +*Jeff,
> 
> If the contractors whine too loud, ..to the right people, they
> 
> ...


Why would you do that?  That would just encourage more whining.  I also think that a signed affidavit is required for that permission and I surely would not want to be my name on a violation.  Of course it would be good to know why this requirement is there.


----------



## steveray (Apr 20, 2012)

What is the specific problem? I don't think I read the old thread.....two meters, two discos, but they should be immediately upon entrance or nearest practical whatever that wording is....out of meters, into basement, 2 discos next to each other...should be OK.....


----------



## north star (Apr 20, 2012)

*+ +*

Dennis,

I am being facetious!.....Some contractors here have used that Article

to NOT incurr the code compliant costs of updating the various electrical

code requirements.

Don't you know, it's not politically correct to do things according to the

codes that have been adopted as law......Can't have that "actual

enforcement factor" actually working.



*+ +*


----------



## Dennis (Apr 20, 2012)

I guess I miss the subtlety without the emoticons. I guess as I get to know you guys I will catch on-- doh.


----------



## fiddler (Apr 20, 2012)

What do you do about tenant access to the disco?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 20, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *+ +*Dennis,
> 
> I am being facetious!.....Some contractors here have used that Article
> 
> ...


I don't know about you but I am ready for the weekend to start...not that we won't have these same issues next week too, but at least the respite will renew my patience with the people.


----------



## steveray (Apr 20, 2012)

Read the other thread, agree in that situation that the discos would need to be grouped, but it has been some very interesting reading....


----------

