Multi Occupancy Building adding 7th meter

[de2]

My thoughts are its still confusing as heck, but on 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) read, I do believe that with the new panel serving loads as described in 210.25, the install would be compliant.
Thank you for the opportunity to reevaluate my thinking.

Installation is compliant with 210.25(B) agreed, but how this installation should be made?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

NEC 230.70 General : Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.
NEC 230.70(A) Location: The service disconnecting means shall be install in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2) and (A)(3).

Based on 230.70 I am saying there should have been a main disconnect already to comply with this rule.

I disagree-- look at 230.71 also. I say the original install is compliant

 

[de2]

230.40 exception no.4

230.40 exception no.4

Two-family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, and multiple occupancy buildings shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors installed to supply the circuits covered in 210.25(B).

I think this is the answer. Clearly describes here that common area power needs must be from a separate panel. This creates a exception to rule "only one service per building" on NEC 230.2 (number of services).

 

[de2]

I disagree-- look at 230.71 also. I say the original install is compliant

Now I am also not sure was existing service is code compliant or not.

230.71(A) say there should be service disconnect.
Right below look at highlighted text;
One set of service-entrance conductors, either overhead or underground is permitted to supply two to six service disconnecting means in lieu os a single main disconnect.
Exhibit 230.25 shows a single enclosure fro grouping service equipment that consist of six circuit breakers or six fused switches. This arrangement does not require a single main service disconnecting means. Six separate enclosures also would be permitted as the service equipment.

 

[infinity]

These look grouped to me. A large service say 4000 amps could have six disconnects grouped together and the switchgear might be 25' long.

 

[roger]

I say the original install is compliant

Absolutely.

Roger

 

[electrofelon]

Installation is compliant with 210.25(B) agreed, but how this installation should be made?

Either of the options you have in your original sketch would work. Note the following:
1) either way, it is still one service. It doesnt matter whether you run the new set all the way to the weather head or tap off further down
2) The new disconnect cannot be grouped with the other 6
3) note that you still have to comply with the service conductors hitting a disconnect outside or nearest the point of entry. This along with #2 could make it a little sticky. You may have to run the conductors along the outside to get to a "new" ungrouped point inside.

I think this is the answer. Clearly describes here that common area power needs must be from a separate panel. This creates a exception to rule "only one service per building" on NEC 230.2 (number of services).

As stated above, note its still one service. The exception allows an additional set of service entrance conductors from one service.

P.S. how about replacing that bulb down there?

 

[de2]

Either of the options you have in your original sketch would work. Note the following:
My sketch Option 1 tapping from existing trough and installing the meter left side of the existing 6 meter set. Again this should violate the 6 rule ,don't you think so?
1) either way, it is still one service. It doesnt matter whether you run the new set all the way to the weather head or tap off further down
2) The new disconnect cannot be grouped with the other 6 Is this means new meter disconnect should be X feet away from the existing ones, so the wont be considered grouped?
3) note that you still have to comply with the service conductors hitting a disconnect outside or nearest the point of entry. This along with #2 could make it a little sticky. You may have to run the conductors along the outside to get to a "new" ungrouped point inside. What disconnect are you saying? New disconnect before the new house meter? because my sketch does not have this disconnect drawn?


As stated above, note its still one service. The exception allows an additional set of service entrance conductors from one service.

P.S. how about replacing that bulb down there? this is why I want house panel. basement light are fed from a tenants panel and tenant turn the breaker off that feeds the basement lights.

.

 

[electrofelon]

My sketch Option 1 tapping from existing trough and installing the meter left side of the existing 6 meter set. Again this should violate the 6 rule ,don't you think so?

yes. The new disconnect installed under the exception cant be grouped with the other 6

The new disconnect cannot be grouped with the other 6 Is this means new meter disconnect should be X feet away from the existing ones, so the wont be considered grouped?

The NEC doesnt define grouping or grouping distance. Talk to you inspector and get his blessing

What disconnect are you saying? New disconnect before the new house meter? because my sketch does not have this disconnect drawn?

the service disconnect for the new house panel. It would generally be after the meter for this setup. IT may not be a "stand alone" disconnect, it could be a main breaker panel.

 

[de2]

yes. The new disconnect installed under the exception cant be grouped with the other 6

The NEC doesnt define grouping or grouping distance. Talk to you inspector and get his blessing

the service disconnect for the new house panel. It would generally be after the meter for this setup. IT may not be a "stand alone" disconnect, it could be a main breaker panel.

I really dont want to take this post to a different direction. However why there is a limitation on grouping? I would think NEC wants to see all disconnects together nice and neat. Why would NEC wants to see 7th disconnect switch lets say on a different floor/ opposite wall/ or different section of the building? Would it not make more sense also for the fire department to see all the disconnects together and easily accessible in case they need to turn all of them off?

 

[electrofelon]

why there is a limitation on grouping? I would think NEC wants to see all disconnects together nice and neat. Why would NEC wants to see 7th disconnect switch lets say on a different floor/ opposite wall/ or different section of the building? Would it not make more sense also for the fire department to see all the disconnects together and easily accessible in case they need to turn all of them off?

Be careful trying to impart too much logical or reason into the NEC

 

[Smart $]

.

With the main service entrance set handling all the house loads already, one assumes it is sized properly, but the only way to be certain is to do a complete Article 220 load calculation.

Separation of house panel is required simply because of the existing grouping (grouping is required per set of service entrance conductors but most AHJ also view grouping regardless of being more than one set of service entrance conductors. Just a little extra separation to make appear to stand alone... perhaps three, four feet rather than two feet of other meters.

 

[de2]

decision made, will submit to AHJ

decision made, will submit to AHJ

I made my decision on this and I will be sending my plan to AHJ for approval once I get my electrician license (hopefully at the end of this month)

1-) Existing building is code compliant without a main service disconnect switch. Because there are only a 6 service disconnect switches. In the event if building power needs to be turned off, 6 hand motion will do the work. Main service disconnect requirements more than 6 disconnect is to make fire departments job easier. Therefore 230.70 does not apply here. (Dennis Alvon you are right)

2-) Based on 210.25(B) I should be able to add my house panel meter to existing trough and tap it off from there with 230.40 Exception No.4 (As Smart $ stated/suggested).

This article I read about 6 rule helped me a lot to understand the NEC and help me to make my decision. If you like you can read it here:
http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/what-constitutes-grouping

Below statement from the article I mentioned;
Each building or structure must be provided with a service disconnecting means. It can be a single switch or circuit breaker or up to six in a single enclosure or in separate enclosures grouped in the same location.

 

[victor.cherkashi]

my proposed solution: 1. to add 1 main switch upstream of wiring through (in basement), so 6 switches/meters rule will go away. 2. add tap #7 from wiring through, install house panel and meter.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[de2]

my proposed solution: 1. to add 1 main switch upstream of wiring through (in basement), so 6 switches/meters rule will go away. 2. add tap #7 from wiring through, install house panel and meter.

Existing service entrance comes in 4inch rmc along side the building and with elbow enters the building trough and taps are made.
My question is in the practicle side, can you cut the existing rmc with cable inside and put a main disconnect where the cable was cut? Can this be done?
Of course running a brand new conduct with new cable is the easiest solution.

 

[electrofelon]

my proposed solution: 1. to add 1 main switch upstream of wiring through (in basement), so 6 switches/meters rule will go away. 2. add tap #7 from wiring through, install house panel and meter.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

That is certainly an option. However assuming utility and AHJ are ok with the 7th house meter and disconnect, I see adding a main disconnect as being more costly, involved, and un-necessary. ITs easy to spend other peoples' money Granted this install would be in the "Advanced code" realm of things and many inspectors would likely say you cant do it - hopefully they are open minded about reading the relevant code sections.

Existing service entrance comes in 4inch rmc along side the building and with elbow enters the building trough and taps are made.
My question is in the practicle side, can you cut the existing rmc with cable inside and put a main disconnect where the cable was cut? Can this be done?
Of course running a brand new conduct with new cable is the easiest solution.

You can do things like that sometimes. Sometimes it is more trouble than it is worth. If the conduit is vertical, you may be able to cut through it and the conductors where the middle of the disconnect would go and get away with having enough conductors, other than the neutral which would probably need to be spliced/extended on one side. Slide a smaller diameter pipe over the conductors but inside the 4" to protect the conductors when you make the final cuts on the 4". Ding this with RMC is problematic because A raintight threadless RMC fitting will be hard to find. IIRC there is only one line of them (eaton SSR series) and unfortunately they do not make them in 4". thus you would have to take the raceway back to a coupling. Note if putting in a main disconnect, you would have to make everything into sub panels, and remove and N-G bonds past the disconnect.

 

[Smart $]

Existing service entrance comes in 4inch rmc along side the building and with elbow enters the building trough and taps are made.
My question is in the practicle side, can you cut the existing rmc with cable inside and put a main disconnect where the cable was cut? Can this be done?
Of course running a brand new conduct with new cable is the easiest solution.

The difficulty is dependent on details... the first mechanical being where an RMC joint is located with respect to desired disconnect location. The first detail regarding compliance is whether the POCO will permit a disconnect on the line side of individual apartment meters. IMO, they will not.

 

[de2]

The difficulty is dependent on details... the first mechanical being where an RMC joint is located with respect to desired disconnect location. The first detail regarding compliance is whether the POCO will permit a disconnect on the line side of individual apartment meters. IMO, they will not.

Why would POCO say no to a main service disconnect? Its is something that makes the building electrical system "more code friendly". I know 230.70 not required but installing main, no one should have a objection AHJ or Poco.
That's my opinion.

 

[GoldDigger]

Why would POCO say no to a main service disconnect? Its is something that makes the building electrical system "more code friendly". I know 230.70 not required but installing main, no one should have a objection AHJ or Poco.
That's my opinion.

Some POCOs would feel that a main service disconnect upstream of the meters is an invitation to bypass the meter(s) and steal power.

 

[kwired]

Why would POCO say no to a main service disconnect? Its is something that makes the building electrical system "more code friendly". I know 230.70 not required but installing main, no one should have a objection AHJ or Poco.
That's my opinion.

Some POCOs would feel that a main service disconnect upstream of the meters is an invitation to bypass the meter(s) and steal power.

And will not allow separate disconnect and metering enclosures because they allow easier access to unmetered power.

But they usually will allow a meter center that has the main disconnecting means as a part of the meter center. Those are designed that it is not so easy to access unmetered conductors.