seperate drops to building (large enough to constitute 2 drops)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobbymari

Senior Member
Location
los angeles ca
Hello all. I have an issue that I am going round and round with local plan check engineer about. (Shocker I know). Here's the issue. I have an apartment building 24 meter total but with (4) different 6 gang meter sections in a subterranian garage. 2 seperate sections on each side of garage. 400 amp single fase setup for each. The service entry for setup is fed from two seperate poles. One drop hits a vault and splits feeders to 2 sections. Same setup on other side of garage. City planner is stating I can't replace this equiptment which is falling apart by the way in the same fashion. He states I can only have one drop for the building which would turn this into a 24 meter section and would have to refeed all branch disconnect locations not to mention turn this into a 1200 amp night mare rather than 400 per section. Am I correct with my interpretation of 230.2 (c)2 allowing me more than one drop since poco has already spotted equiptment in same location and will not provide 1200 amp feeders from existing pole? I just found this exception after our arguement of course. Also after the drop to the vault 230.40 exception 2 then allows for the feeder splicing to each 6 gang section correct? p.s. pad mounted transformer not an option wpuld hv to redesign whole building
 
oh yeah load calc per 6 gang right around 200 amps each with demands. plan check still says 1200 amp system with 24 gang section
 
Last edited:
Why are you messing with this in the first place?

It kind of sounds like the old equipment is falling apart and has to be replaced so it is not like the owner has much choice in the matter.

IMO, if you replacing the service equipment for the whole building, you have to make it compliant with current code.

I don't see any easy way around the 1 building 1 service rule. The POCO will give you a larger service if you pay for it. I think the owner is out of luck on the larger service.

you can probably get around every thing else, but that is going to be tough.
 
Last edited:
bobbymari said:
oh yeah load calc per 6 gang right around 200 amps each with demands. plan check still says 1200 amp system with 24 gang section
Click to expand...

If I understand what you are saying the total demand is 4X200A or 800A. On what basis is the examiner demanding a 1200A service?

An 800A service for 24 apartments seems pretty light to me. that is just 33A per unit.
 
Last edited:
yea very old equipt rusting off of walls . yes load is light to units, gas everything. the load calcs come to right around 200 per 6 gang. and thats my point the load calcs are what they are yet he still wants 1200.( makes no sense) All I'm trying to get around is the one drop rule so that equipt can just be swapped out rather than redesigning whole system. There has been no electrical problems in building as far as amperage problems. I've found the exceptions to this rule as well as having other systems IN SAME CITY pass inspection with 2 drops. Dont see the problem
 
Kind of sounds like "who did someone anger?" The Building official can waive the one service location per NEC 230.2 (B) or (C). I have seen it done. Regarding the service size, if they won't accept your calculations and you can not obtain demand information as allowed by the code, then I recommend the owner pay an engineer $500 to $1000 to do the load calculations. Stamped by and EE they won't have a leg to stand on.
 
Strathead said:
Kind of sounds like "who did someone anger?" The Building official can waive the one service location per NEC 230.2 (B) or (C). I have seen it done. Regarding the service size, if they won't accept your calculations and you can not obtain demand information as allowed by the code, then I recommend the owner pay an engineer $500 to $1000 to do the load calculations. Stamped by and EE they won't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

unless there is something here the OP is not sharing with us, possibly because he does not know about it. 24 units at 50A = 1200A. It makes me wonder if there is some minimum load calc required by some local amendment.

It might be worth just asking the guy where the 1200 A thing comes from.

I am sort of surprised they would let him do this kind of stuff without PE stamped plans anyway. I thought LA was big on that.
 
thanks for input guys. yea I've already spoken with engineer and they'll supply load calcs but dont want to get into drawing as is system plans before plan check approval which puts me in a catch 22. This is really a repair rather than an upgrade in my opinion but I do understand the "you touch it you own it rule". Just alot of unnecessary brain work in my opinion for this particular setup
 
bobbymari said:
Hello all. I have an issue that I am going round and round with local plan check engineer about. (Shocker I know). Here's the issue. I have an apartment building 24 meter total but with (4) different 6 gang meter sections in a subterranian garage. 2 seperate sections on each side of garage. 400 amp single fase setup for each. The service entry for setup is fed from two seperate poles. One drop hits a vault and splits feeders to 2 sections. Same setup on other side of garage. City planner is stating I can't replace this equiptment which is falling apart by the way in the same fashion. He states I can only have one drop for the building which would turn this into a 24 meter section and would have to refeed all branch disconnect locations not to mention turn this into a 1200 amp night mare rather than 400 per section. Am I correct with my interpretation of 230.2 (c)2 allowing me more than one drop since poco has already spotted equiptment in same location and will not provide 1200 amp feeders from existing pole? I just found this exception after our arguement of course. Also after the drop to the vault 230.40 exception 2 then allows for the feeder splicing to each 6 gang section correct? p.s. pad mounted transformer not an option wpuld hv to redesign whole building
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Forum bobbymari, Just a heads up for long post such as yours it would

make it easier to read if you had a paragraph break or double space.
 
This seems kind of outrageous that this is not seen as a repair, the problem is this is a fight for the owners of the property, and they should go over this planing commissions head all the way to the state, you can not do something that even the POCO wont allow, I would stay out of the legal part and just instruct your client to seek professional help from a layer that deals with this kind of thing.

Point to keep in mind:

A repair is replacement with equipment of similar design and serves the same purpose, no up grading is size or change of occupancy is being made.
 
thank you. we think alike. you want to help someone out with a REPAIR so that the next earth quake doesnt sheer these feeders when equipt falls off of walls and and they want to reinvent the wheel . Im all for an upgrade when necessary but this isn't one of those times. Anywho plan check engineer agreed to meeting to see what we can come up with. well see how it goes . thanks all for all of your input .. this website rocks.. definetly has me back in the code book( which for home owners thats a good thing haha ) jk i take much pride in my work but it does helps to here other takes on things thanks guys
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top