Disconnect on building 70' away

[Bill Davis]

Hi,
I have engineering notes indicating the service for a new building be built as follows:
1. Install disconnnect for new building beside the meter.
2. Install feeder conductors underground from meter to existing disconnect at building 70' away.
3. Remove existing service from existing disconnect.
My question is does the grouping of disconnects for this application have to be at the meter?

 

[augie47]

My experience has been that this situation is approached differently by jurisdiction. If I read your post correctly, Building 1 has a meter and apparently a disconnect inside. and building 2 is going to be fed from building #1's meter.
Locally, this would not be acceptable for the reason you stated (230.72) but in some jurisdictions I have seen the setup you described accepted.

 

[Bill Davis]

Building 1 is an existing building with an existing service.
Building 2 is a new building with a new service, the disconnect will be installed next to the meter. building 1 will be served by building 2 service and building 1 service disconnect to be refed by underground installed conductors.

 

[augie47]

Sorry, I get lost sometimes...old age
So, Building 2 will have the only utility service. correct ?
Builing 1 will be fed by Building 2
If the only disconnect outside on Building 2 is for Building 1, then it would not be acceptable here due to 230.72.
The service disconnects would have to be grouped.

 

[Bill Davis]

The only disconnect on the new building #2 would be the disconnect for building 2. There would not be any protection for the underground feeder to existing building #1 exiisting disconnect.

 

[augie47]

slowly, I catch on..
so Building #1 would be fed directly from the meter on Building #2 ?

 

[Bill Davis]

Yes,
I am trying to attach a drawing to this.

 

[Bill Davis]

Here is a simple drawing of the job.

 

[dcspector]

The only disconnect on the new building #2 would be the disconnect for building 2. There would not be any protection for the underground feeder to existing building #1 exiisting disconnect.

This makes no sense to me So they are feeding existing from #2? where is the lateral or drop coming in no ocpd back to existing #1?....NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT But I am older than Gus.

 

[augie47]

that would fly here with no problem.

 

[Bill Davis]

I'm sorry I should have thought this through a little more before starting this thread. Building #1 exist with an overhead service to be removed once the lateral from building #2 is installed. The is no indication from the documents for the job to install a disconnect at the new building #2 For Building #1 We are instructed to reuse the existing disconnect from building #1 at building #1 Just refeed as it is mounted now.

 

[dcspector]

I see it now looks like a service lateral to me per your single line drawing.

 

[Bill Davis]

Thank you,
I have added to the first drawing for clarification.

 

[dcspector]

Thanks Bill got it that is a service lateral....That imo is good to go unless I missed something.

 

[augie47]

let me clarify my answer as my "area" covers more than 1 POCO.
What you have drawn has been acceptable is the past by the various AHJs with whom I am familiar, however, 1 of the POCO with which I deal will not accept that arrangement. Not that it makes it "official Code" but Exhibit 230.14 in the '05 NEC handbooks shoes almost the same situation.

 

[Bill Davis]

Perfect example 230.14. Thanks for being there.

 

[dcspector]

Perfect example 230.14. Thanks for being there.

Agreed Bill and Gus. Bill your drawing was the best. Thanks:smile: