230.72 Grouping of disconnects violation?

[fandi]

Hello All,
The existing switchboard has (5) disconnects feeding the loads of the building that the switchboard is located. The 6th disconnect (service entrance rated) feeding the next building is located 10ft away from the 5-disconnect switchboard (there's one random panel between them). Would that be a violation of 230.72?
Thanks.

 

[Jraef]

Hello All,
The existing switchboard has (5) disconnects feeding the loads of the building that the switchboard is located. The 6th disconnect (service entrance rated) feeding the next building is located 10ft away from the 5-disconnect switchboard (there's one random panel between them). Would that be a violation of 230.72?
Thanks.

As I have experienced it, the AHJ wants "grouped" to mean the same switchboard or panel, or if individual units all right next to each other with nothing in between. The fact that you have "one random panel between them" is something that will likely not fly. But officially, the term "grouped" is not defined, so it's going to be a judgement call by the AHJ.

The purpose BEHIND the rule is so that if a fire fighter enters the building to kill all power, he can do so without having to move his hand more than 6 times. Making him step to one side and figure out that the 6th disconnect on the other side of a panelboard is another service is not in the spirit of that rule IMHO.

 

[fandi]

As I have experienced it, the AHJ wants "grouped" to mean the same switchboard or panel, or if individual units all right next to each other with nothing in between. The fact that you have "one random panel between them" is something that will likely not fly. But officially, the term "grouped" is not defined, so it's going to be a judgement call by the AHJ.

The purpose BEHIND the rule is so that if a fire fighter enters the building to kill all power, he can do so without having to move his hand more than 6 times. Making him step to one side and figure out that the 6th disconnect on the other side of a panelboard is another service is not in the spirit of that rule IMHO.

Thanks Jraef,
I thought about the situation where the fire fighters enter the building before I post the question. But this 6th feeder does not feed any loads of that building. It feeds the next building (non attached).

 

[Jraef]

Thanks Jraef,
I thought about the situation where the fire fighters enter the building before I post the question. But this 6th feeder does not feed any loads of that building. It feeds the next building (non attached).

Still represents electrical energy in THIS building though. When they are swinging their axes into walls to make holes, the final destination of those conductors becomes irrelevant to the guy holding the axe.

 

[fandi]

Still represents electrical energy in THIS building though. When they are swinging their axes into walls to make holes, the final destination of those conductors becomes irrelevant to the guy holding the axe.

Great answer.

 

[jim dungar]

The purpose BEHIND the rule is so that if a fire fighter enters the building to kill all power, he can do so without having to move his hand more than 6 times.

Sounds like an old wives tale.
Our city's firefighters are trained to leave the electrical alone, if they want the power cut they call the utility. Some firefighters would prefer outdoor switches mounted away from the structure. I don't know of any that have a preference in the number of them.

Many fires are fought very differently now than they were 40 years ago, but the electrical service disconnect requirements haven't changed much at all.

 

[Cow]

It's really an inspectors call.

We build a lot of ag services on stanchions. We'll often times have up to 6 service disconnects on one stanchion mounted on one side and the other, not all necessarily side by side on the same side of the stanchion. We haven't had any issues and we've been doing it for years with many different inspectors.

So, I'd ask your inspector before making a decision.