I am planning on calling this installation out. This is installed inside a condo subpanel, Main disconnect is located on the exterior.
Buyers agent sent a picture to some electrician and he say’s it’s ok. Citing code 230.82 Equipment Connected to the Supply Side of Service Disconnect
Which i believe he or she is citing the wrong code.
So just want to be sure this is not the proper installation of the arrester.
Section 230.82 spells out all of the things permitted by the NEC to be connected ahead (on the line side) of the service disconnect.
Here’s the list, as I understand 230.82:
2017 Code Language:
230.82 Equipment Connected to the Supply Side of Service Disconnect.Only the following equipment shall be permitted to be connected to the supply side of the service disconnecting means:
(1) Cable limiters or other current-limiting devices.
(2) Meters and meter sockets nominally rated not in excess of 1000 volts, if all metal housings and service enclosures are grounded in accordance with Part VII and bonded in accordance with Part V of Article 250.
(3) Meter disconnect switches nominally rated not in excess of 1000 V that have a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available short-circuit current, if all metal housings and service enclosures are grounded in accordance with Part VII and bonded in accordance with Part V of Article 250. A meter disconnect switch shall be capable of interrupting the load served. A meter disconnect shall be legibly field marked on its exterior in a manner suitable for the environment as follows: METER DISCONNECT NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT
(4) Instrument transformers (current and voltage), impedance shunts, load management devices, surge arresters, and Type 1 surge-protective devices.
(5) Taps used only to supply load management devices, circuits for standby power systems, fire pump equipment, and fire and sprinkler alarms, if provided with service equipment and installed in accordance with requirements for service-entrance conductors.
(6) Solar photovoltaic systems, fuel cell systems, wind electric systems, energy storage systems, or interconnected electric power production sources.
(7) Control circuits for power-operable service disconnecting means, if suitable overcurrent protection and disconnecting means are provided.
(8) Ground-fault protection systems or Type 2 surge protective devices, where installed as part of listed equipment, if suitable overcurrent protection and disconnecting means are provided.
(9) Connections used only to supply listed communications equipment under the exclusive control of the serving electric utility, if suitable overcurrent protection and disconnecting means are provided. For installations of equipment by the serving electric utility, a disconnecting means is not required if the supply is installed as part of a meter socket, such that access can only be gained with the meter removed.
Otherwise, have him/her put it in writing, on their letterhead with their license number stating it is safe, proper and follows the NEC.
230.82 does not apply because it’s a subpanel. The SPD should be on its own 2-pole breaker in that panel and ideally outside of the enclosure. Those terminals are not rated for 2 conductors, especially of different gauge like that.
The way i am reading ( and Larry i have that language pulled up) it as Only the following equipment shall be permitted to be connected to the supply side of the service disconnecting means: It is not connected on the supply side of the service disconnecting means It’s installed after the disconnect. That is why i am questioning this install.
SPD can be installed on the load side (downstream) of the main disconnect. That’s where they’re usually installed. The only issue is “how” it’s installed, not where. Of course, it’s worth pointing out that any branch circuit breakers (I’m assuming there are none) in the service (main) panel won’t have any surge protection.
Too my knowledge and that of my master electrician, this is wrong #1 where it is installed and #2 there is no appropriate double tap especially on the legs coming into any panel. An additional connection needs to be added. And adding to what Simon advised two different conductors sized is not good. Looking at the wires again, the assertor appears to have copper and the feed lines are aluminum. What could possibly go wrong with that?
I would not go by anything she said he said… if it’s not in writing, it did not happen. You can, if you want, ask the electrician how he thinks 230.82 applies to a subpanel The agents have no say in this, only your report does.
I don’t know for sure if he is, BA said he’s an electrician, again I’m not sure what she sent him as far as pictures or what he saw from the pictures. He should not be saying anything as in anything is fine if he didn’t see it first hand with his own eye’s