Occupancy

[hhsting]

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

What I meant was something like below each set of service entrance conductors service discos are not grouped

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[electrofelon]

Apparently you have chosen heart disease.....wouldn't have been my choice but to each their own....

 

[hhsting]

Apparently you have chosen heart disease.....wouldn't have been my choice but to each their own....

it’s not me that’s what we get in plans. Try to tell them to group and they are like where is it in code it complies per 230.40 exception no. 1 and I sort of disagree with that. But not sure what to make sure it does or doesnt

 

[electrofelon]

What I meant was something like below each set of service entrance conductors service discos are not grouped

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks ok to me

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I guess we are not going to agree on this one. It remains my opinion that the code language clearly permits the one to six service disconnects on one set service entrance conductors to be located remotely from the one to sis service disconnects for any other set of service entrance conductors.
Around here the most common application for a strip mall was a set of outside meters with the service entrance conductors running from each meter to the service disconnects inside the respective stores. None of the disconnects from one set of service entrance conductors are grouped with those of any other.

 

[electrofelon]

I guess we are not going to agree on this one. It remains my opinion that the code language clearly permits the one to six service disconnects on one set service entrance conductors to be located remotely from the one to sis service disconnects for any other set of service entrance conductors.
Around here the most common application for a strip mall was a set of outside meters with the service entrance conductors running from each meter to the service disconnects inside the respective stores. None of the disconnects from one set of service entrance conductors are grouped with those of any other.

I would consider that most likely utilization of 230.40 exception number one, not number two

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This panel statement from proposal 4-43 for the 2008 code, indicates that CMP 4 has no issue with the disconnects for different sets of service entrance conductors not being grouped. If the panel expected the disconnects to be grouped, they would have not made this statement.

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.
...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would consider that most likely utilization of 230.40 exception number one, not number two

I just don't see where Exception 2 places any restrictions on the number of locations of the sets of service disconnects. I just see it a permission to split or tap a single set of service entrance conductors so that single set of service entrance conductors can supply two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures.

 

[hhsting]

This panel statement from proposal 4-43 for the 2008 code, indicates that CMP 4 has no issue with the disconnects for different sets of service entrance conductors not being grouped. If the panel expected the disconnects to be grouped, they would have not made this statement.

Did you see post#81 attachment? Service entrance conductor #1 has Tenant A service disco, Tenant B service disco

Service entrance conductor #2 also has Tenant A service disco, Tenant B service disco

Exception no. 1 allow service discos of service entrance conductor #1 not be grouped with service disco of service entrance conductor #2? Isn’t that a problem if they are in separate rooms as shown in post #81 attachment fire fighter or someone else would think their is only one service discos serving tenant A and B?

 

[electrofelon]

I just don't see where Exception 2 places any restrictions on the number of locations of the sets of service disconnects. I just see it a permission to split or tap a single set of service entrance conductors so that single set of service entrance conductors can supply two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures.

Yeah I'm just not reading it that way. I assume you are seeing multiple locations allowed by the "or several such" phrase in exception 2. I read that is referring to the 2-6, not several different groups of 2-6. But even without that, as I said, I believe grouping is required by the other sections I mentioned.

That CMP comment is referring to exception #1 and I see multiple occupancy vs single occupancy buildings as being different enough that it is not unreasonable to require the grouping for #2/single occupancy, but not for #1/multi occupancy.

Like you said we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, the language seems quite clear to me, even though the overall structure is not real logical.

 

[kwired]

I guess we are not going to agree on this one. It remains my opinion that the code language clearly permits the one to six service disconnects on one set service entrance conductors to be located remotely from the one to sis service disconnects for any other set of service entrance conductors.
Around here the most common application for a strip mall was a set of outside meters with the service entrance conductors running from each meter to the service disconnects inside the respective stores. None of the disconnects from one set of service entrance conductors are grouped with those of any other.

If you have no disconnect (or breaker) associated with the meter assembly I don't see much of a problem here, presuming the service disconnect in each occupancy is "nearest the point of entry" of the service conductors.

Most modular type meter center assemblies will have disconnect/breaker for each meter and that becomes your service disconnect or if more than six are to be grouped you need a main section that becomes the service disconnect and those disconnects with individual meters all end up being a feeder disconnect for each occupancy.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If you have no disconnect (or breaker) associated with the meter assembly I don't see much of a problem here, presuming the service disconnect in each occupancy is "nearest the point of entry" of the service conductors.

That is the example I am talking about.

Most modular type meter center assemblies will have disconnect/breaker for each meter and that becomes your service disconnect or if more than six are to be grouped you need a main section that becomes the service disconnect and those disconnects with individual meters all end up being a feeder disconnect for each occupancy.

Now we get into the issue of what is grouping and how much separation is required for one set of six service disconnects to no longer be grouped with other sets of six service disconnects?

 

[kwired]

That is the example I am talking about.

Now we get into the issue of what is grouping and how much separation is required for one set of six service disconnects to no longer be grouped with other sets of six service disconnects?

If supplied from same source and disconnects are all in the same location that is one service.

If supplied from same source and disconnects are all at each occupancy location that is permissible by 230.2(B)(1) Note that is does say where there is no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants. I kind of take that to mean it is not automatic that you can have separate service for each occupancy in any instance, however if constructed so that each occupancy can be considered a separate building because of finish ratings you still should be able to do so. Many cases that will required by building codes anyway, especially with new construction.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If supplied from same source and disconnects are all in the same location that is one service.

But each set of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six service disconnects.

You are not permitted to group more than six service disconnects.

There is no definition of what "grouped" means.

Where I have multiple sets of service entrance conductors, how much distance is required between those sets of service disconnects so they are not grouped? 1', 10', not within sight? This is a very subjective rule and up to the local inspection authority.

 

[kwired]

But each set of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six service disconnects.

You are not permitted to group more than six service disconnects.

There is no definition of what "grouped" means.

Where I have multiple sets of service entrance conductors, how much distance is required between those sets of service disconnects so they are not grouped? 1', 10', not within sight? This is a very subjective rule and up to the local inspection authority.

I agree there is no definition of grouped and have seen some questionable installs regarding this.