230.72 and 225.32

[chris kennedy]

I have been asked by the owner of our company to run this past you fine folks.

He has two existing structures on one property. There is a 3 gang meter /main on one structure. Two of the mains serve an apartment and laundry in one structure and the 3rd serves the main house, not attached to the structure with the mains. Not sure of all the details, but the service is new to add meter for laundry.

The underground conduit that goes to the main house slabs up inside the house, therefore there was no existing disco on the house. The EI wants a disco at the main house and a while back I told the gentleman with this question his only out was if he could sell the EI on 225.32 Exception 1 and of coarse for the install the EI didn't buy that.

So it would by my understanding that in addition to the main at the service an additional disco is required at the main house as per 225.32. Is there any out to this I am missing?

Thanks as always and bear in mind I will be E-mailing a link to this thread to the office so please provide code references, your not responding to me.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

I have been asked by the owner of our company to run this past you fine folks.

He has two existing structures on one property. There is a 3 gang meter /main on one structure. Two of the mains serve an apartment and laundry in one structure and the 3rd serves the main house, not attached to the structure with the mains. Not sure of all the details, but the service is new to add meter for laundry.

The underground conduit that goes to the main house slabs up inside the house, therefore there was no existing disco on the house. The EI wants a disco at the main house and a while back I told the gentleman with this question his only out was if he could sell the EI on 225.32 Exception 1 and of coarse for the install the EI didn't buy that.

So it would by my understanding that in addition to the main at the service an additional disco is required at the main house as per 225.32. Is there any out to this I am missing?

Thanks as always and bear in mind I will be E-mailing a link to this thread to the office so please provide code references, your not responding to me.

Chris, I honestly don't see why 225.32 ex 1 doesn't apply here

 

[chris kennedy]

Chris, I honestly don't see why 225.32 ex 1 doesn't apply here

How can you sell this in a residential setting?

Exception No. 1: For installations under single management, where documented safe switching procedures are established and maintained for disconnection, and where the installation is monitored by qualified individuals, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.

 

[raider1]

So it would by my understanding that in addition to the main at the service an additional disco is required at the main house as per 225.32. Is there any out to this I am missing?

Correct, 225.32 would require a disconnecting means at the main house either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance of the feeder. Outside of using Exception #1 I am not aware of anything that would permit you to omit the disconnecting means.

I agree that the Exception #1 would most likely not apply to a residential setting.

Chris

 

[Smart $]

...

The underground conduit that goes to the main house slabs up inside the house, therefore there was no existing disco on the house....

... Is there any out to this I am missing?

...

What does it go to after stubbing up in the house? If it goes to a MCB panel, the MCB serves as the disconnecting means required under 225.32 and subsequently 230.6 (1) and/or (4). That is, the underground portion of the conduit run is considered outside the house and an MCB panel just above where it emerges inside would meet the requirement as inside nearest the point of entry. If the panel is MLO, can it be converted to MCB?

How far is it from meter/main to house foundation? ...to stub up?

 

[chris kennedy]

What does it go to after stubbing up in the house? If it goes to a MCB panel, the MCB serves as the disconnecting means required under 225.32 and subsequently 230.6 (1) and/or (4). That is, the underground portion of the conduit run is considered outside the house and an MCB panel just above where it emerges inside would meet the requirement as inside nearest the point of entry. If the panel is MLO, can it be converted to MCB?

Good point, not sure if there is a main in the existing panel or if one could be installed.

How far is it from meter/main to house foundation? ...to stub up?

I do not have that info nor do I see what difference that would make.

 

[augie47]

I am in agreement that 225.32 applies, the exceptions do not, 225.36 would appy, and perhaps, a bigger issue 250.32 is applicable.

 

[Smart $]

...

I do not have that info nor do I see what difference that would make.

Well, under code, none explicitly. Yet if meter/main is say 5-10' from house periphery, I'd say the EI is being absurd in his interpretation.

 

[cadpoint]

Jmho

Jmho

Well, under code, none explicitly. Yet if meter/main is say 5-10' from house periphery, I'd say the EI is being absurd in his interpretation.

I'll note that you went with 5-10', no lineral distance diminsions where given in the OP; but that really all we get;
25' get into supervized, this is not the case here.

I might may be well wrong, let's assume 400 Amps (also not mentioned in OP)
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't ask for a main disconnect in front all of it then there might not be this requirement... recalling how it's enters the house structure, causes problems.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

How can you sell this in a residential setting?

That's my point Chris,,,,,,qualified individuals,,,,,that's my point. How can your county decide if your boss is qualified to service the equipment safely.

I don't agree that this would not apply to a res. setting. And the reasoning is simple. If it were not possible for this to apply to a res. setting, THEY WOULD HAVE SIMPLY PUT, "OTHER THAN DWELLING UNIT",,,,they did ot put that. They put single owner,,,,,,,qualified individuals,,,,,,it said nothing about res.


I say ex. 1 still applies. The wording does not allow him to prove me wrong,,,,what are they gonna do?,,,give the owner an IQ test?,,,,give the owner an electrical test,,,,,NO. IT doesn't specifically say "other than dwelling unit" ,,,,,,,,so I'm sure it can be applied to a dwelling unit

 

[chris kennedy]

That's my point Chris,,,,,,qualified individuals,,,,,that's my point. How can your county decide if your boss is qualified to service the equipment safely.

I don't agree that this would not apply to a res. setting. And the reasoning is simple. If it were not possible for this to apply to a res. setting, THEY WOULD HAVE SIMPLY PUT, "OTHER THAN DWELLING UNIT",,,,they did ot put that. They put single owner,,,,,,,qualified individuals,,,,,,it said nothing about res.


I say ex. 1 still applies. The wording does not allow him to prove me wrong,,,,what are they gonna do?,,,give the owner an IQ test?,,,,give the owner an electrical test,,,,,NO. IT doesn't specifically say "other than dwelling unit" ,,,,,,,,so I'm sure it can be applied to a dwelling unit

Wow, how much coffee can you drink by 6:03AM?:grin:

 

[jumper]

Wow, how much coffee can you drink by 6:03AM?:grin:

I can go through 1 and 1/2 pots sometimes. Insomnia.

 

[e57]

I can go through 1 and 1/2 pots sometimes. Insomnia.

Glad I'm not alone...

Anyway - can the EI rely on the ownership being 'qualified' - or should he apply the code equally to all HO's?