service entrance on the 2nd floor

[mshields]

I have a client who has rejected all of my proposed locations for a main electrical room on the first floor of an existing building (for a new service to the building); old location will not work.

So he asked me if we could run conduit up the building, entering into a room on the second floor and put the disconnect there.

I don't like the idea and am now trying to persuade him to put the service disconnect on outside wall of the building. Still I'm always interested in the letter of the code and I'd be curious to know, is there any reason why we couldn't do what he suggested. The disconnect would most definitely be near the point of entrance.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[drktmplr12]

I have a client who has rejected all of my proposed locations for a main electrical room on the first floor of an existing building (for a new service to the building); old location will not work.

So he asked me if we could run conduit up the building, entering into a room on the second floor and put the disconnect there.

I don't like the idea and am now trying to persuade him to put the service disconnect on outside wall of the building. Still I'm always interested in the letter of the code and I'd be curious to know, is there any reason why we couldn't do what he suggested. The disconnect would most definitely be near the point of entrance.

Thanks,

Mike

Read 230.70(A). There is no reason it must be on the first floor. But your disconnect should be as close as practical to the point of entrance of the service conductors. Also the cables must be protected according to 230.50(B)(1): RMC, IMC, Schedule 80, EMT, RTRC, or "Other approved means"

230.70 General. Means shall be provided to disconnect all
conductors in a building or other structure from the serviceentrance
conductors.

(A) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed
in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).


(1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting
means shall be installed at a readily accessible location
either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the
point of entrance of the service conductors.


(2) Bathrooms. Service disconnecting means shall not be
installed in bathrooms.


(3) Remote Control. Where a remote control device(s) is
used to actuate the service disconnecting means, the service
disconnecting means shall be located in accordance with
230.70(A)(1).


(B) Marking. Each service disconnect shall be permanently
marked to identify it as a service disconnect.


(C) Suitable for Use. Each service disconnecting means
shall be suitable for the prevailing conditions. Service
equipment installed in hazardous (classified) locations shall
comply with the requirements of Articles 500 through 517.

Article 100

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of beingreached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections
without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite
to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable
ladders, and so forth.

 

[Jraef]

I once had an AHJ red tag a project where the SE disconnect was not on the first floor. The project was a WWTP, the bottom floor was technically a flood zone. It was all done by a PE and fully permitted prior to construction, but the AHJ rejected it after it was built. Lots of hand wringing, arguing, threats and whatnot, but he would not back down, his position being that if a fire fighter had to enter a fire door and climb stairs to get to the SE disconnect, it was not "readily accessible". Ultimately his boss backed him up and we had to add a 1200A SUSE labeled main disconnect on the wall outside of that fire door. I'm not saying that's right, I was on the side that the Code was not explicitly clear on that and a second floor was OK, I just bring it up as a cautionary tale regarding the fact that AHJs can interpret things differently, even from each other, and be the final authority.

 

[infinity]

Can you encase the conduit in 2" of concrete up to the second floor?

 

[mshields]

good input all

good input all

With regard to the second story story. Yeah - that's what I'm afraid of; the idea that the fireman might have difficulty getting to it, as an argument, is not hard to imagine. In your case, it sounds particularly unreasonable of the AHJ given the flooding concerns and a lack of explicit direction in the code. In my case, it's more a case of multiple VIP's not wanting to give up a part of their offices; a little less compelling to the FD were they to object.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If you run the service conductors on the outside of the building then the service disconnect can be almost anywhere as long as the disconnect is as near as possible to the point of entry

 

[infinity]

There are a few code compliant ways to do this. I would pick one and give the customer what he wants. If you can keep the SEC's on the outside as Dennis suggested and poke in on the second floor that would be code compliant. Or if you need to run inside of the building just encase the SEC's in 2" of concrete which is considered outside the building.

 

[kwired]

I know some places it is somewhat uncommon to have basements.

Here they are pretty common, and services are placed in them all the time. Difficulty level for firefighters to access this isn't much different then if it were on a second story.

AFAICT NEC is fine with putting service on 100th floor if you wanted to, supply conductors need to be outside or in 2" concrete on the way to the 100th floor though.

 

[ggunn]

I once had an AHJ red tag a project where the SE disconnect was not on the first floor. The project was a WWTP, the bottom floor was technically a flood zone. It was all done by a PE and fully permitted prior to construction, but the AHJ rejected it after it was built. Lots of hand wringing, arguing, threats and whatnot, but he would not back down, his position being that if a fire fighter had to enter a fire door and climb stairs to get to the SE disconnect, it was not "readily accessible". Ultimately his boss backed him up and we had to add a 1200A SUSE labeled main disconnect on the wall outside of that fire door. I'm not saying that's right, I was on the side that the Code was not explicitly clear on that and a second floor was OK, I just bring it up as a cautionary tale regarding the fact that AHJs can interpret things differently, even from each other, and be the final authority.

<Comment redacted until after our customer's system passes inspection>

 

[ggunn]

I once had an AHJ red tag a project where the SE disconnect was not on the first floor. The project was a WWTP, the bottom floor was technically a flood zone. It was all done by a PE and fully permitted prior to construction, but the AHJ rejected it after it was built. Lots of hand wringing, arguing, threats and whatnot, but he would not back down, his position being that if a fire fighter had to enter a fire door and climb stairs to get to the SE disconnect, it was not "readily accessible". Ultimately his boss backed him up and we had to add a 1200A SUSE labeled main disconnect on the wall outside of that fire door. I'm not saying that's right, I was on the side that the Code was not explicitly clear on that and a second floor was OK, I just bring it up as a cautionary tale regarding the fact that AHJs can interpret things differently, even from each other, and be the final authority.

I feel your pain. A solar inspector in a jurisdiction I won't name inserted his "checklist" into the AHJ's distributed energy interconnection guide. The AHJ's PE sealed the guide without reading the inspector's contribution (he admitted it to me), and the document was subsequently adopted by the local government. The inspector slipped a requirement into his checklist whereby he essentially wrote code that superseded the NEC, and the from the way he wrote it it is obvious that he doesn't understand The Way Electricity Works; any first year EE student would see this immediately. He is not qualified to write code, his work has not been subjected to technical review, and since he is the inspector it is his interpretation of the NEC and the interconnection guide (his own horribly written and ambiguous addition hidden in one line of text on page 63 of a 100+ page document included) that carries the day.

I tried to fight it when this inspector failed us for this (non)issue on an installation that was totally NEC compliant, but none of the utility engineers would stand with me. Although the three of them I consulted all told me privately that they agreed with me, none of them would give it to me in writing.

Heavy sigh.

 

[Tony S]

I don’t know if this would be acceptable in the US.

I installed a 1.5MVA switchboard on the third floor of a chemical processing plant. The transformers were remote to the plant and on the ground floor. A fireman’s switch was placed at each entrance to the plant which would open the transformer MV breakers via shunt trips.

https://library.e.abb.com/public/d201a5400aa23001c1257a52004a72d9/2CMC341001L0201.pdf

 

[kwired]

I don’t know if this would be acceptable in the US.

I installed a 1.5MVA switchboard on the third floor of a chemical processing plant. The transformers were remote to the plant and on the ground floor. A fireman’s switch was placed at each entrance to the plant which would open the transformer MV breakers via shunt trips.

https://library.e.abb.com/public/d201a5400aa23001c1257a52004a72d9/2CMC341001L0201.pdf

Would depend on arrangement of things. Shunt trip or other remote operator of some sort is used sometimes, even if the gear is on the ground floor level. NEC has no general rule for such a "firemen's switch" though. If they are to be required would be by some other code.