Service Question

[Dennis Alwon]

Correct me if I am wrong. We are installing an office building in a strip mall. One service with 5 different office building connected in a row. There is an underground pvc conduit run to each section from the service.

I was thinking of installing a meter and a disconnect outside where the discos will all be grouped. If I use a non fused disconnect aren't the wires between the outside non fused disconnect and the breaker panel inside the office building still service conductors? or do I have to use a fused disconnect?

 

[electrofelon]

Correct me if I am wrong. We are installing an office building in a strip mall. One service with 5 different office building connected in a row. There is an underground pvc conduit run to each section from the service.

I was thinking of installing a meter and a disconnect outside where the discos will all be grouped. If I use a non fused disconnect aren't the wires between the outside non fused disconnect and the breaker panel inside the office building still service conductors? or do I have to use a fused disconnect?

I dont think you can have a disconnect without an OCPD "immediately adjacent thereto" (230.91)

You could also use 230.40 exception #1 perhaps and not have a main disco.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Thank you-- I thought I couldn't do it but didn't see a reason why not.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Around here, that would typically just have the meters outside, with underground conduit to the service equipment in each occupancy.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Around here, that would typically just have the meters outside, with underground conduit to the service equipment in each occupancy.

So the service disconnects don't have to be grouped?

 

[electrofelon]

So the service disconnects don't have to be grouped?

230.40 exception 1, along with 230.71 & 72.

 

[romex jockey]

How woud one provide 5 serv ent runs out of one larger serv ent w/o fusing it down?


~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

230.40 exception 1, along with 230.71 & 72.

There is only one service and the 230.71 and 230.72 seem to state they must be grouped. I suppose if there were a fire wall between the sections then they may be considered separate buildings but I thought that would have to extend above the roof. I don't believe these do.

 

[electrofelon]

How woud one provide 5 serv ent runs out of one larger serv ent w/o fusing it down?


~RJ~

You won't find a code section prohibiting it.
Besides service conductors aren't fused in the first place so why would it matter?

 

[packersparky]

There is only one service and the 230.71 and 230.72 seem to state they must be grouped. I suppose if there were a fire wall between the sections then they may be considered separate buildings but I thought that would have to extend above the roof. I don't believe these do.

230.71 says each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40 Exc. No. 1 shall have not more than 6 switches.....

230.72 says the two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped.

 

[electrofelon]

There is only one service and the 230.71 and 230.72 seem to state they must be grouped. I suppose if there were a fire wall between the sections then they may be considered separate buildings but I thought that would have to extend above the roof. I don't believe these do.

IMO 230.40 E1 is a bit sticky because the nec doesn't define "occupancy" here it's pretty lax and basically a unit/tenant is considered a different occupancy. However in other areas that may be a building dept term that requires certain fire seperation and potentially even zoning issues.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So the service disconnects don't have to be grouped?

The service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for a different set of service entrance conductors.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for a different set of service entrance conductors.

I was under the impression that all the disconnects for one service needed to be grouped. What you are saying is that since there are 3 meters for 3 sets of service entrance conductors then they don't need to be grouped.

 

[electrofelon]

I was under the impression that all the disconnects for one service needed to be grouped. What you are saying is that since there are 3 meters for 3 sets of service entrance conductors then they don't need to be grouped.

Right, there is no such rule that all service disconnects per service be grouped - well there is, but then it continues: "....or for each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230.40..." Once
you go onto 230.72, you see that the rule is that the disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors be grouped.