This is what the AHJ is pushing back to me.
I have yet to get to meet him in person, he wants to do this by email. Very One Sided.
He wants a letter from the ICC stating there position. I think this is not even an option for me?
Thanks for all the response, I am going to visit his office Tues, and hope he will see me.
Tony
230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.
The problem many have is most of 230 is addressing one building and or a single location, we can see above in red, that the requirements of grouping disconnects only applies to "one location" so each location is a separate requirement.
Simply it would be impossible to ever use the exception #3 to 230.40 if it did not allow separate disconnects at the house and garage as you would not have service entrance conductors if you put a disconnect at the house.
First the code does not require a disconnect if conductors do not enter a building or structure:
230.70 General. Means shall be provided to disconnect all
conductors in a building or other structure from the service entrance
conductors.
So many do not read the two letter word "IN" that is in the requirements for a disconnect in 230.70
If the SEC's do not enter a building then no disconnect is required for that building, like was said by many you can run SEC's around the building all you want but you do not require a disconnect until the point they enter the building, in the case of 230.40 exception #3 the conductors that run from the meters second set of lugs back into the ground or over head do not enter the building that they are on, so no disconnect is required for these conductors as they do not enter this building.
Grouping of disconnects only apply at each structure, there is no requirement to group a disconnect for the garage at the house when 230.40 exception 3 is used because there is no requirement for a disconnect at the house for the garage when using 230.40 Exception 3.
Exhibit 230.14 on page 158 in the handbook clearly shows one disconnect on building 1 and one disconnect on building 2 that supports that if the service conductors do not enter building 1 then there is no requirement for another disconnect at building 1 for building 2, along with the commentary to 230.40 Exception #3:
Exception No. 3: A single-family dwelling unit and its accessory
structures shall be permitted to have one set of
service-entrance conductors run to each from a single service
drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground
service conductors, or service lateral.
Exception No. 3 to 230.40 permits a second set of service entrance
conductors supplied by a single service drop or lateral
at a single-family dwelling unit to also supply another
building on the premises, such as a garage or storage shed.
The utility meters may be grouped at one location but in this
application, the service disconnecting means are not required
to be grouped at one location. A service disconnecting
means at the dwelling and at the other building is
acceptable where this exception is used.
We can see clearly the code allows such an installation and always has.
Do you have a copy of the 2011 handbook? or can you borrow one before you meet with them?
They might even have a copy if you call them and ask, show them these two examples I have posted above and remind them that the hand book is written and edited by the same CMP's who sit on the board that writes the NEC.
Points to ponder:
1 if you put a disconnect at building 1 you no longer have service entrance conductors feeding building 2 as you now have feeders covered in article 225, if the code required a disconnect at building 1 for building 2 then the 230.40 exception 3 would not be allowed as it pertains to service entrance conductors not feeders you could never use it.
2 if we are required to group all disconnects from one service then how would you comply because each separate building requires a disconnect even if you install one at building 1, when you go to install a disconnect at building 2 it would not be grouped with the one at building 1
Have you tried to contact the state to see if they can give you an official interpretation that would over ride the local one?
Does anyone know of any ROP's that might help if this was ever challenged? I know its been allowed for a long time but I can't remember if there were any attempts to change it over the years? an ROP might help in clearing up the intent, I try to do some searches.
