Occupancy

[electrofelon]

YES. See 230.72(A). It references 230.71 which says "for each service....", Then note 230.2 specifically says multiple sets are one service.

PLUS 230.2 also says " to same location" sounds grouped to me

 

[hhsting]

YES. See 230.72(A). It references 230.71 which says "for each service....", Then note 230.2 specifically says multiple sets are one service.

PLUS 230.2 also says " to same location" sounds grouped to me

Let’s see don_resqcapt19 response. According to don_resqcapt19 post #38 response grouping is not req

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Let’s see don_resqcapt19 response. According to don_resqcapt19 post #38 response grouping is not req

The disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors. You see this all the time on strip malls where the meters are all together on the outside of the building and the service entrance conductors for each meter are run to the service disconnects in the individual stores.

If any set of service entrance conductors has more then one disconnect, then all of the disconnects associated with that set of service entrance conductors must be grouped together.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ok so if you see 230.2 first paragraph second sentence from top for the purpose of 230.40 exception no.2 in below attached image... let’s say I use that

Ok so I am using 230.2 first paragraph...now
Are you saying service discos from each of the sets of service entrance conductors are not req to be grouped? Following exhibit references 230.4 exception no.2 and shows each service entrance conductor service disco grouped

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The disconnects show below the meters are not required to be at that location. They are permitted to be in the individual occupancies, assuming you can comply with 230.6 to get the service entrance conductors to the service disconnects located in each occupancy.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

YES. See 230.72(A). It references 230.71 which says "for each service....", Then note 230.2 specifically says multiple sets are one service.

PLUS 230.2 also says " to same location" sounds grouped to me

230.72(A) says the two to six service disconnects permitted by 230.71 must be grouped. The two to six grouping applies individually to each set of service entrance conductors that is permitted to have two to six service disconnects.

 

[hhsting]

The disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors. You see this all the time on strip malls where the meters are all together on the outside of the building and the service entrance conductors for each meter are run to the service disconnects in the individual stores.

If any set of service entrance conductors has more then one disconnect, then all of the disconnects associated with that set of service entrance conductors must be grouped together.

In post #60 attached NEC Exhibit What if I want to put three of service disco where they are at as shown in the exhibit and the other three on the opposite side of the building? Can that be allowed?

 

[hhsting]

230.72(A) says the two to six service disconnects permitted by 230.71 must be grouped. The two to six grouping applies individually to each set of service entrance conductors that is permitted to have two to six service disconnects.

230.71(A) says for service Or each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40 exception no.1,3,4,5. Note 230.71(A) Does Not say anything about 230.40 Exception No. 2

 

[don_resqcapt19]

230.71(A) says for service Or each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40 exception no.1,3,4,5. Note 230.71(A) Does Not say anything about 230.40 Exception No. 2

As I said before Exception #2 has nothing to do with these questions as Exception #2 does not permit additional service disconnects.

All Exception #2 does is permit a single set of service entrance conductors to be tapped or split to feed the two to six permitted service disconnects where those disconnects are in separate enclosures. Without the exception, the only way you would be able to have two to six service disconnects would be to have them in a single panelboard or switchboard or switchgear. This simply provides a provision to permit the two to six service disconnects to be in individual enclosures.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In post #60 attached NEC Exhibit What if I want to put three of service disco where they are at as shown in the exhibit and the other three on the opposite side of the building? Can that be allowed?

Yes that is permitted buy the code, assuming that each disconnect has its own set of service entrance conductors. If all six disconnects are associated with a single set of service entrance conductors, all six disconnects must be grouped together.

 

[hhsting]

As I said before Exception #2 has nothing to do with these questions as Exception #2 does not permit additional service disconnects.

All Exception #2 does is permit a single set of service entrance conductors to be tapped or split to feed the two to six permitted service disconnects where those disconnects are in separate enclosures. Without the exception, the only way you would be able to have two to six service disconnects would be to have them in a single panelboard or switchboard or switchgear. This simply provides a provision to permit the two to six service disconnects to be in individual enclosures.

Exception no.2 by itself no it does not produce Additional service discos but in combination with NEC 2014 section 230.2 first paragraph if you involve sets of conductors for 230.40 exception no.2 then it would produce multiple service discos and then it would be one service so then those sets of conductors service disco would need to be grouped. No?

 

[electrofelon]

The disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors. You see this all the time on strip malls where the meters are all together on the outside of the building and the service entrance conductors for each meter are run to the service disconnects in the individual stores.

If any set of service entrance conductors has more then one disconnect, then all of the disconnects associated with that set of service entrance conductors must be grouped together.

Yes that is permitted buy the code, assuming that each disconnect has its own set of service entrance conductors. If all six disconnects are associated with a single set of service entrance conductors, all six disconnects must be grouped together.

I do not agree Don. I agree you can have multiple sets of non grouped disconnects, per all the other 230.40 exceptions, but not #2.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I do not agree Don. I agree you can have multiple sets of non grouped disconnects, per all the other 230.40 exceptions, but not #2.

I don't see exception #2 as having to do with multiple sets of service disconnects. This exception simply lets you split one set of service entrance conductors so that one set of service entrance conductors can supply the permitted two to six service disconnects that are installed in individual enclosures. It has nothing to do with service disconnects that are supplied by other sets of service entrance conductors.

 

[electrofelon]

I don't see exception #2 as having to do with multiple sets of service disconnects. This exception simply lets you split one set of service entrance conductors so that one set of service entrance conductors can supply the permitted two to six service disconnects that are installed in individual enclosures. It has nothing to do with service disconnects that are supplied by other sets of service entrance conductors.

Here is the text of exception #2:

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, set of
overhead service conductors, set of underground service
conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance
conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several
such service equipment enclosures.

I am reading that as the disconnects must be grouped. I am NOT reading the "or several such" part as meaning I can have 2-6 for each set and the only the 2-6 within each set need to be grouped.

Furthermore, Look at 230.72:

230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.
(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in
230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked
to indicate the load served.

Ok what are the disconnects permitted in 230.71? Lets look at that:

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service entrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1,
3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets
of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six
switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard or in switchgear. There shall be not more than
six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.

If we have an exception #2 install, that is clearly not specifically listed in 230.71, so the only thing that is left is the part in red (and 230.2 confirms exception #2 is one service). Thus if we combing the wording from 71 and 72 specifically for an exception #2 install we get something like "the 2-6 disconnects for a service shall be grouped

As if that weren't enough, 2302 reads:

For the purpose of 230.40,
Exception No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors,
1/0 AWG and larger, running to the same location and connected
together at their supply end but not connected together
at their load end shall be considered to be supplying
one service.

I admit the wording and structure of all this is rather convoluted, but I have never seen (nor even heard of it being acceptable) to use 230.40 #2 without grouping, and FWIW there are no examples showing this in the handbook.

 

[augie47]

They could do a lot better in wording these Sections, but I agree with electrofelon in that the service disconnects have to be grouped fir each service allowed by 230.2. The exception #2 in 230.40 actually defines the tow sets of laterals as one service thus requires grouping.

I have seen service disconnects at opposite ends of the building as noted in post #66 but only when it was promoted by some exception in 230.2 such as power company capability,

 

[electrofelon]

They could do a lot better in wording these Sections, but I agree with electrofelon in that the service disconnects have to be grouped fir each service allowed by 230.2. The exception #2 in 230.40 actually defines the tow sets of laterals as one service thus requires grouping.

I have seen service disconnects at opposite ends of the building as noted in post #66 but only when it was promoted by some exception in 230.2 such as power company capability,

There are many examples in the handbook of non grouped sets of disconnects installed under 230.40 ex #1 ( one service), but you've got to have different occupancies for that. That "or group of occupancies" phrase in #1 seem to open up a lot of options where those disconnects can be.

 

[hhsting]

There are many examples in the handbook of non grouped sets of disconnects installed under 230.40 ex #1 ( one service), but you've got to have different occupancies for that. That "or group of occupancies" phrase in #1 seem to open up a lot of options where those disconnects can be.

Speaking of exception no. 1 can you have multiple sets of service entrance conductors going to same groups of occupancies and each service entrance conductors main service disconnect not be grouped?

 

[electrofelon]

Speaking of exception no. 1 can you have multiple sets of service entrance conductors going to same groups of occupancies and each service entrance conductors main service disconnect not be grouped?

I don't think what you wrote makes any sense.

 

[hhsting]

I don't think what you wrote makes any sense.

Let’s rephrase it 230.40 exception no. 1: You have multiple sets of service entrance conductors running to same groups of occupancies in separate enclosures. Multiple sets of service entrance can it run to same group of occupancies in separate enclosure or only one set is allowed? Each set of service entrance conductor service disconnect enclosure need to be grouped or not?

 

[electrofelon]

Let’s rephrase it 230.40 exception no. 1: You have multiple sets of service entrance conductors running to same groups of occupancies in separate enclosures. Multiple sets of service entrance can it run to same group of occupancies in separate enclosure or only one set is allowed? Each set of service entrance conductor service disconnect enclosure need to be grouped or not?

The wording is vague. You will just have to make a decision if what is proposed is compliant. I would personally require some order and logic to the location of a group of disconnects serving a group of occupancies. Look at the handbook examples, there are many of exception #1.

 

[hhsting]

The wording is vague. You will just have to make a decision if what is proposed is compliant. I would personally require some order and logic to the location of a group of disconnects serving a group of occupancies. Look at the handbook examples, there are many of exception #1.

Ok but in handbook examples it’s not clear if multiple sets of service entrance conductors serve same groups of occupancies or different group of occupancies.