Subject:

24-meters & no exterior disconnect
Date:

Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:17:13 -0800
From:

mike_stoianoff@dot.state.ak.us
Organization:

Dear Sir:

When I was in Guam in 1990, I saw an installation that looked like it should have been a violation of the NEC but had been approved by the electrical
inspector.

Installation Description:

Building type: 24 unit, three story residential apartment buildsing reinforced concrete block construction.

Applicable Electrical Code: NEC - 1988

Local Amendments to NEC: None

Utility: Guam Power Authority

AHJ: Guam Public Works

Service Voltage; 120/208-volt three-phase four-wire, 60 Hz.
Service amps - 600 consisting of two sets of 350kcmil conductors.
Service type: Aerial to building
Utility: transformers: three 50kVA pole mount with single fused primary disconnects (Not Ganged)

Grounding: Consisted of one 3/4-inch 10-foot ground rod connected to a #2/0 ground conductor in the wireway with a #6 AWG bare copper conductor. The
domestic water system was plastic so the grounding electrode system consisted only of the ground rod. Ground conductors toeach of the 24 panels #8 AWG.

Conductors: Copper, THW insulation.

The conductors were fed from the weather head down to a 12"x12" NEMA-3R wireway. Below the wireway were mounted 24 100-amp single-phase
three-wire five-jaw, meter sockets without disconnects. From each meter socket an 1 1/4 inch IMC conduit, with three #4 AWG and one #8 AWG ground
conductors ran down to the ground and under the building where it rose into a load center electric panel with an 100-amp main circuit breaker. The panel and
conduit were installed within the concrete block walls of the building.

Each meter socket were connected to two ungrounded and the neutral of one of the two sets of 350kcmil conductors and the ground conductor with tape and
insulating compound insulated split-bolt connectors so that the the load was evenly distributed (12 meters per set of 350kcmil conductors) and the 2/0 ground
conductor. The #8 to 2/0 ground connections were not insuated All tap connectors were less tha 10-feet long

The only way to kill power to the building was to open the fused cutouts on the primary side of the three 50kVA pole mounted transformers, enter each of the
24- apartments and turn off each panel, or as suggested by a fireman to pull each of the 24 meters one at a time.

The electrical inspector said the installation was not a violation because all conductors were outside of the building or encased in 2-inches of concrete, and no
the #6 AWG ground conductor from the ground rod was correct per the NEC even if it was tied to the 2/0 conductor in the wireway.

Question: Is there a code violation here?

Note: From an installation aspect the wiring was neatly laid out with all associated conductors secured with nylon straps. Each meter connection to the
350kcmil was labeled with nylon tie markers. Each meter was marked with an engraved apartment number. The #4 to 350kcmil taps appeared to be well
made and insulated. The contractor could afford to because at that time an electrician in Guam was paid about $8.00 / hour and if the worker was an H2
(foreign) worker many were lucky to be making $2.00 / hr after their expenses [food, housing, transportation, and miscellaneous fees] were deducted. Metal
conduits between the meter and the panels were grounded to the #8 on both ends.

Note: All conduits within the apartment were PVC and contained a ground conductor based on the largest circuit breaker trip rating, and all wiring devices
including switches were bonded.

Michael L. Stoianoff, P.E.
Stoianoff Technical Services
2901 Kimberlie Court
Anchorage, AK 99508
Tel: (907) 269-0653 (w)

PS sorry no photos of this apartment house. Except for the electrical service it looks very nice and well constructed.

Michael Stoianoff
Utility Engineer - Central Region
MIKE_STOIANOFF@DOT.STATE.AK.US
State of Alaska
P.O. Box 196900, MS 2525, 4111 Aviation Avenue ;Anchorage;AK;99519-6900;USA

Fax
907-269-0654
Work
907-269-0653

Sounds like a bunch of violations unless the service entrance conductors were considered by the AHJ to end at the main breakers in the units.(230 -40, -71, -72, etc).
'88 NEC?

Joe,
I'd like to see a main disconnet here, but I don't think that the NEC requires one. We have one sevice with multiple sets of service entrance conductors as permitted by 230-40 Exception #1. This exception permits each occupancy to have its own set of service entrance conductors. I would think that each apartment is an occupancy. 230-71(a) says that each set of service entrance conductors permitted by 230-40 Ex#1 is permitted to have not more than 6 switches to serve as the service disconnecting means.
The #6 ground is ok for size based on 250-66(a), but is required to be spliced only by irreversible means by 250-64(c). The #8 GECs to each appartment would be taps as permited by 250-64(d).
Don(resqcapt19)

Isn't this a case of 2 sets of Service Entrance Conductors,(the 350s) each feeding 12 switches?
By definition in Article 100, "Service Entrance Conductor Overhead System", the SE conductors are tapped from or spliced to the drop. They extend to the terminals of the service equipment (Aren't those the terminals where these meters are tapped?)
None of the tap conductors to these meters are tapped or spliced to the drop, but are tapped to SE conductors. Although they are Service Conductors,I honestly don't think they qualify as SE connectors.
Somebody PLEASE try & explain to me what I'm might be missing here.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 06-29-2001).]

The way I read 230-40 Ex. #1 is that each apartment can have its own set of service entrance conductors and that they end at the apartment main breaker or breaker(s)
Don

Aren't you confusing Service Conductors with SE Conductors? Article 100. (I'm not trying to be difficult, honest) I also edited my last post while you were writing yours, so we're criss-crossed here.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 06-29-2001).]

The main rule in 230-40 says that each service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of service-entrance conductors. Exception #1 says that when a building has multiple occupancies, each occupancy is permitted to have a set of service-entrance conductors. The service-entrnace conductors are the conductors between the service drop or lateral and the service equipment. ( in looking at Article 100 I don't really see a difference between the definitions of "service conductors" and "service-entrance conductors") The service equipment is the apartment panel where the disconnect is. 230-71(a) says that each set service entrance conductors permitted by 230-40 Exception #1 shall have a disconnecting means. This disconnecting means is permitted to have up to 6 switches.
Don(resqcapt19)

I see your point re. SE vs Service conductors. Do you consider the tap conductors to the meters to be tapped or spliced to the drop? (I really haven't seen any multimeter installations done this way, w/ more than 6 per set of conductors that were tapped directly to the drop,other than the one we discussed in a different thread.)
Then again, I've never worked outside of So Ca.

My own words are (like this)
Article 100-Service Conductors
(All of)"The conductors from the service point (drop) to the service disconnecting means"(including the SE conductors).
(The conductors from the meters to the panels are not SE conductors. They do not tap or splice to the service drop as they must to be SE conductors.. They are service conductors. 230-40 (1) uses the term "service-entrance conductors". This installation would require not 1 but 2 main disconnects, as there are 2 sets of SE conductors, each with more than 6 disconnects)
Grounding. The #6 to the ground rod is no good, as 250-66 calls for a 2/0 for the combined equivalent of 700 MCM for the 2 sets of 350 SE Conductors.
Agree or disagree??

The service entrance conductors end at the service equipment per the definition. The service equipment is the service disconnecting means. The conductors from the taps to the 350's to the service equipment are the service entrance conductors. The six disconencts are permitted at the end of each set of service entrance conductors. There is nothing that says the SE conductors have to be continious between the 350s and the service disconnect. In this case they pass through the meter.
As far as the #6 GEC, 250-66(a) never requires a GEC larger than #6 to a ground rod no matter how big the service is.
Don(resqcapt19)

. You are absolutely correct about the #6 connection to the ground rod. 250-94 (a), previous to the '99 code, when it was moved to 250-66. BTW, there is no such thing as the '88 NEC, but the '99 doesn't apply here.
. By the definition, SE conductors must be tapped from or spliced to the DROP. No conductors except the 350s are installed in such a manner. The conductors to the meters are tapped from the 350s, not the drop.

Does anybody else have any input about this 24 meter deal, or should I just go get that lobotomy that everyone keeps saying I need? Don & I could probably go on ad infinitum on this without resolve.




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 07-02-2001).]

I think the intent of 230-40 Exception 1, is to allow for different types of services, e.g., 120/208 3phase, 120/240 1 phase, for building with one or more occupancies. But I do admit it can be read many ways. I wonder what the purpose of saying ...to each occupancy or group of occupancies.

I think the building should have a main outside. After all the reason for the main is to let the firemen go into the building, in the event of a fire, without a risk of electrocution.

A building with common areas does not allow this without a main outside.

Does someone have a definition of occupancy as the NEC uses it?

Maybe 230-70 could be used. It says a means shall be provided to disconnect all the conductors in a BUILDING (sorry don't mean to yell) from the SE conductors. It doesn't say occupancy, it says building. I think this Section doesn't allow the situation you described.

Also in reading 230-72(c), I think that maybe this should say ...each occupant shall have access to the occupant's FEEDER disconnecting means.

Is there a way to accent a word without YELLING?

>Is there a way to accent a word without YELLING?

Yes. You may use italics or bold by inserting the UBB codes around your text as I have done.

DSpark,
Thank you, I've been wondering myself how to add emphasis to particular wording without yelling. Any of my caps have been for the purpose of emphasis only, and I hope nobody has been offended. italics?

For the conductors to be considered outside the building per 230-6(2), it must be encased in concrete or brick not less than 2" thick.
I notice that this building is reinforced block.
Our AHJs will not accept this, as the rebar should be centered in the block's cell, which puts the conduit less than 2" away from the block's face. There also is no way to guarantee the position of the conduit in the cell.
We happen to have an electrician in our co. that was born & raised on Guam. When I asked him about this install he mentioned that the difference in price between a main disco and an inspector was substantial enough to forego the disco. He said that some of their building officials are already in prison.

electure,
The service conduits run under the building and turn up in the wall with the service dicconnect. Under the building should be outside if the building has a concrete floor and up a wall to the service equipment would be "neareast the point of entrance".
Don

Don, I agree with you 100% about the nearest point of entrance. I was only referring to the inspector's comment that all of the conductors were outside the building.
I've really been looking hard for an example of more than 6 meters per weatherhead w/o a main. We have literally tens of thousands of overhead multimeter installations in my area, and as of yet I can't find any, honest.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 07-08-2001).]

Don,
Please provide us with an example of 230-40's exception as you interpret it. Maybe it's only regional?
Show us an example, please.