(2) Apartments and (1) Retail Space

[M. D.]

Here is another ROP the issue is a bit different but they fully understand the exception and what it allows

4-43 Log #3384 NEC-P04

Final Action: Reject​

(230.40 Exception No. 1)
​

​

______________________________________________________________​

Submitter: ​

​

Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc.​

Recommendation: ​

Revise text to read:​

If the number of service disconnect locations for any given classification of

service is not more than six, the requirements of 230.2(E) shall apply at each
location. If the number of service disconnect locations is more than six for any
given supply classification, all service disconnect locations for all supply
characteristics shall be clearly described using suitable graphics or text or both
on one or more plaque(s) located in an approved, readily accessible location(s)
on the building or structure served and as near as practicable to the point(s) of
attachment or entry(ies) for each service drop or lateral.​

​

Substantiation: ​

​

Some control over the potential proliferation of service​

disconnects at widely dispersed locations is needed by the inspection

community, preferably without resort to 90.4. In the comment period for the
2005 NEC the panel seemed to be moving in this direction, having accepted
part of this concept. However, that action was set aside by the TCC, giving
CMP 4 a fresh opportunity to consider these questions. This proposal responds
to concerns in the voting on 2005 NEC Proposal 4-71 that when the exception
is applied to allow a large number of remote service entrance conductor sets
and their disconnects, it may become unwieldy to provide full reciprocal
labeling at each location.
The proposal suggests a limit of six disconnecting means, considered for each
classification of supply characteristics. Suppose, for example, there were one
480Y/277V service for large power loads using a single disconnect at the
owner’s mechanical room and one 208Y/120V service with service entrance
conductors run to each of ten occupancies with service disconnects in each.
Assuming each occupancy does not qualify as a separate building, this wording
would result in either one or two plaques (instead of eleven) depending on
whether the two service drops or laterals arrive at the same or at different
locations. The proposed text includes the word “approved” in order to allow the
AHJ to review the proposed locations for suitability.​

​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: ​

​

The permission to use 230.40, Exception No. 1 has been in​

the NEC for the past 60 years in one form or another without a requirement for

location plaques to be installed at each disconnect location. Where there are
more than six disconnect locations, the proposal would require all supply
characteristics to be clearly described using graphics or text or both on a
plaque. Locating this graphic/text plaque on the building in a readily accessible
location that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, usable for any
location identification, and that is as near as practicable to the point of
attachment or service entrance entry into the building would be extremely
difficult on all but the smallest buildings.
A large building or a high-rise building in a city is often on the exact
footprint of the city lot with underground service laterals supplying a utility
company vault. Even smaller buildings are often supplied with underground
service laterals so the entrance into the building is not obvious so a plaque
installed at the point of entrance of the service conductors into the building
would only be of use where someone searched for the plaque. In an emergency
situation, another power disconnection point would most often be used rather
than a search made for the plaque first and then an attempt made to disconnect
power at multiple locations.
The submitter has not provided any substantiation that there is a problem with
not marking these locations for the last 60 years. There does not seem to be a
large number of people submitting proposals to require these plaques for
installations where multiple occupancies exist with multiple disconnect
locations. The suggested recommendation has too many unenforceable
requirements.​

​

Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: ​

​

Affirmative: 10​

______________________________________________________________
​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[volt102]

Hey Guys-

I sat in today on a meeting between (2) different localities and the following came up and man you would have died to be a fly on the wall. Lets see how you all feel.

1.) The service lateral is coming into a 3 gang meter base. There is a main breaker panel in each tenant space.


Here was how it was wired not to the best I can gather....3 gang meter base, the center meter is back to back with the retail space main breaker panel and the meter on the right feeds a service disconnect on the outside of the wall and then on to the panel in the one dwelling space.....the other meter socket on the left has no exterior disconnect and feeds a panel on the second floor up the side of the building...

Here is how I see it.

1.) You only have one service. 230.2 Check!

2.) Each service is only allowed to supply only one set of service entrance conductors unless

230.40 Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets.

Each service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors.

Exception No. 1: A building with more than one occupancy shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as defined in 230.2, run to each occupancy or group of occupancies.

Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate 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.

Exception No. 3: A single-family dwelling unit and a separate structure shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors run to each from a single service drop or lateral.

Exception No. 4: A two-family dwelling or a multifamily dwelling shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors installed to supply the circuits covered in 210.25.

Exception No. 5: One set of service-entrance conductors connected to the supply side of the normal service disconnecting means shall be permitted to supply each or several systems covered by 230.82(5) or 230.82(6).

Exception 1 could have been utilized, but by the description given, they didn't run one set of SE conductors to one of the occupancies as they put that units disconnect out side of an other unit and then ran a feeder to the occupancy. If they could have ran that occupancy's main supply such that it was considered outside of the building and not needing the disconnect, they could have used this exception.

Exception 2 was not satisfied as they did not group the two to six disconnects.

Exception 3,4,5 do not apply to this situation.

My Answer - Since they put one disconnect outside, and they need to be grouped, they all need to be outside.

 

[M. D.]

....1.) The service latteral is coming into a 3 gang meter base. There is a main breaker panel in each tenent space......

sounded like service entrance conductors all around to me..:-?

 

[radiopet]

My Answer - Since they put one disconnect outside, and they need to be grouped, they all need to be outside.

So are you saying that if they had the (3) gang meter setup and were able to run lets say service conductors directly to each occupancy( without an exterior service disconnect ) then no disconnects are required except at each unit.

 

[radiopet]

Ironically enough.....The reason I wanted to post this is because as it was in the meeting....their are different views on it everywhere. Just seems to me it could be written in easier and more user friendly language.

 

[M. D.]

I'm not sure that a disconnect mounted on an outside location on a given occupancy is a deal breaker .

Paul , given those two ROPs , what the 230.40 exception 1 says ,.. what the handbook graphic shows along with the ever unenforceable commentary ...while it may not be not crystal it is see through.

I think it is hard to employ Charlie's rule sometimes,... hard to except something we thought was the way it is ,is not that way at all ,.. and that this building could have 18 disconnects in very different locations. as long as each set is grouped.

 

[volt102]

well I never gave you my stance. I also believe they should be grouped. However, I was told point blank by a chief electrical inspector from somewhere i dont know that I was wrong and each space is treated like an individual building and the meter does not determine a service so he said that no grouping was required....so i just listened and the first post i made was what transpired.

In order to have separate buildings they will need fire walls. Note that I did not say fire barrier nor fire partitions.

FIRE WALL. A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously from the foundation to or through the roof, with sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall.

Ever seen these? Vary few three unit buildings, especially ones that have two of them as dwellings, could justify the expense of this type of construction.

Any ways here is the code that states that they will be separate building after you build the fire walls.

705.1 General. Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be considered a separate building. The extent and location of such fife walls shall provide a complete separation. Where a fire wall also separates occupancies that are required to be separated by a fire barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements of each separation shall apply.
705.1.1 Party walls. Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with Section 705. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings.

Now for a question for chief inspector that said that they are separate buildings in the first place.

If they are separate structures, how would you be able to have two feeders in one of the occupancies. That is one to serve the ocuupancy and one to feed through to the next occupancy. Think of larger multi-occupant buildings. Wouldn't it violate 225.30?

Radiopet. Yes exactly!
M.D. I do think that it is the deal breaker. If you do not comply with the exception, can you use it?

 

[M. D.]

All the building needs to have is multiple occupancies and service entrance conductors run to each.

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.

 

[radiopet]

so basically what the NEC is saying is this:

Multiple-occupancy buildings (residential or other than
residential) can be provided with one main service disconnect or up to six main disconnects for each set of service-entrance conductors.

which is probably the most used option above in the example marc gave earlier in regards to the 20 stack unit example...it would not be able to meet the six rule anyway so changes are you see something like a 800A or larger single disconnect and then feeders to the stacks and so on.

so.....with that said:

Multiple-occupancy buildings may have service-entrance conductors run to each occupancy, and each such set of service-entrance conductors may have from one to six disconnects (see 230.40, Exception No. 1).

 

[radiopet]

All the building needs to have is multiple occupancies and service entrance conductors run to each.

So if they happen to hit a disconnect outside on one of the occupancies because it has a sub-panel located too far into the unit itself...that it makes no difference in the intent...

.......Marc....are you there???......any thoughts?

 

[M. D.]

M.D. I do think that it is the deal breaker. If you do not comply with the exception, can you use it?

I'm not sure that the service entrance condutors in question are not run to the occupancy ,..perhaps paul can clear that up.

 

[M. D.]

I think if the oocupant owns the ouside wall it can decide if that is where they want a set of disconnects. they then can run feeders inside .

 

[volt102]

All the building needs to have is multiple occupancies and service entrance conductors run to each.

I agree. But in order to comply with

230.40 Exception No. 1: A building with more than one occupancy shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as defined in 230.2, run to each occupancy or group of occupancies.

meter on the right feeds a service disconnect on the outside of the wall and then on to the panel in the one dwelling space

If I don't run service entrance conductors(not feeders) to each occupancy, I haven't met the exception. Since the service entrance conductors stop at the disconnect and turn into feeders from there, I do think that it is the deal breaker.

 

[M. D.]

I agree. But in order to comply with

If I don't run service entrance conductors(not feeders) to each occupancy, I haven't met the exception. Since the service entrance conductors stop at the disconnect and turn into feeders from there, I do think that it is the deal breaker.

debateable ,if I,. as the occupant own the wall in question ,...or does "run to" mean " run to the inside of "

 

[radiopet]

remember guys...I am not even sure this senerio exists as it was bought up in a meeting of chief inspectors and so on that I attended. I believe what they had was this....

a 3 gang meter enclosure and had a building with (2) apartments on the second floor and on the ground level a commercial retail location. In the meter setup...The retail spaces panel is back to back with the 3 gang meter cabinet....they left out of the meter enclosure and hit a service disconnect on the right side which then becomes a feeder that feeds one of the apartments on the 2nd floor.

lastly out of the far left meter enclosure they go up the wall and right into the back of a panel also on the 2nd floor.....

Is that any clearer.....sorry I am trying to remember it...I got bored with them after some time of them bashing back and forth....government at its finest you know.

 

[volt102]

debateable ,if I,. as the occupant own the wall in question ,...or does "run to" mean " run to the inside of "

If you are saying that the meters were installed on one of the units and it was that unit that had the disconnect installed under the meters, then yes, I would have to buy that as it does not say that it needs to be on the inside of...besides, how else would one be able to run a set of SE conductors to each group of occupancies?

 

[M. D.]

Is that any clearer.....sorry I am trying to remember it...I got bored with them after some time of them bashing back and forth....government at its finest you know.

I think you have described the issue,.. no one wanted to learn... cuz they knew it all before they sat down .:roll:

and it seems a set of feeders to the upper floor would be a deal breaker.

Thanks for the discussion ,...I learned ,..so I'm happy ,..Good night guys

 

[volt102]

remember guys...I am not even sure this senerio exists as it was bought up in a meeting of chief inspectors and so on that I attended. I believe what they had was this....

a 3 gang meter enclosure and had a building with (2) apartments on the second floor and on the ground level a commercial retail location. In the meter setup...The retail spaces panel is back to back with the 3 gang meter cabinet....they left out of the meter enclosure and hit a service disconnect on the right side which then becomes a feeder that feeds one of the apartments on the 2nd floor.

lastly out of the far left meter enclosure they go up the wall and right into the back of a panel also on the 2nd floor.....

Is that any clearer.....sorry I am trying to remember it...I got bored with them after some time of them bashing back and forth....government at its finest you know.

I stand by my orginal statement....Grouped!

 

[radiopet]

I do believe ( the best i can remember ) the meter cabinet was located on the side of the retail space which is also the same common wall for the 2nd floor dwelling unit. They share a common wall, I do remember someone asking that question but the chief inspector of the meeting was too busy berating his staff......

 

[radiopet]

when I tried to explain the issue of the disconnect and so on.... he got defensive and well......I decided to just let time pass by and get the HECK out of dodge, I wanted it grouped.....now I can say I know ( hopefully ) a little more about 230.40 ex. 1 than I did before.

Thanks Guys.......this was a good one !!!!!

With so many threads going back and forth...maybe this one will help someone....then again...maybe it wont...lol