230.85 flaw?

[electrofelon]

Say I have a emergency disconnect which is a breaker so it has OCPD also, and elect to use option #3 calling it just an emergency disconnect and NOT service equipment. I continue from that disconnect with 3 wire to the service disconnect which is inside. Does that service disconnect have to be nearest point of entry per 230.70? I am not seeing the wording providing a way to get around that requirement, even though we know the intent of that rule and the emergency disconnect has ocpd in it so those service conductors are no longer "unfused". Thoughts? Do we need some revised wording here?

 

[wwhitney]

Say I have a emergency disconnect which is a breaker so it has OCPD also, and elect to use option #3 calling it just an emergency disconnect and NOT service equipment. I continue from that disconnect with 3 wire to the service disconnect which is inside. Does that service disconnect have to be nearest point of entry per 230.70?

Yes, of course.

I am not seeing the wording providing a way to get around that requirement, even though we know the intent of that rule and the emergency disconnect has ocpd in it so those service conductors are no longer "unfused".

That is not the intent of 230.85. The intent of 230.85 is to provide a way to kill power to the house from outside the house. The 230.85 disconnect need not have OCPD.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

(Isn't the entirety of 230.85 a flaw? )

 

[electrofelon]

Yes, of course.

That is not the intent of 230.85. The intent of 230.85 is to provide a way to kill power to the house from outside the house. The 230.85 disconnect need not have OCPD.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne, I think you are not understanding my situation. Could you reread it and let me know if you stand by your post?

 

[wwhitney]

Wayne, I think you are not understanding my situation. Could you reread it and let me know if you stand by your post?

Yes, I do. What's not to understand? If you want the flexibility to move your interior panel to other than "neareast the point of entry", you need to choose 230.85(1) and provide a feeder with EGC to the interior panel.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LarryFine]

As far as you want to continue with 3 wires, they still need to land in a qualifying service disconnect.

 

[xformer]

Say I have a emergency disconnect which is a breaker so it has OCPD also, and elect to use option #3 calling it just an emergency disconnect and NOT service equipment. I continue from that disconnect with 3 wire to the service disconnect which is inside. Does that service disconnect have to be nearest point of entry per 230.70? I am not seeing the wording providing a way to get around that requirement, even though we know the intent of that rule and the emergency disconnect has ocpd in it so those service conductors are no longer "unfused". Thoughts? Do we need some revised wording here?

Would that not require bonding in the Emergency disconnect and require a 4 wire to the Service disconnect?

 

[electrofelon]

Yes, I do. What's not to understand? If you want the flexibility to move your interior panel to other than "neareast the point of entry", you need to choose 230.85(1) and provide a feeder with EGC to the interior panel.

Cheers, Wayne

What does nearest the point of entry accomplish in my case??

 

[electrofelon]

Would that not require bonding in the Emergency disconnect and require a 4 wire to the Service disconnect?

No, the emergency disconnect is not service equipment, nor a service disconnect. The service disconnect is inside. Everything before the service disconnect is bonded to the neutral.

 

[electrofelon]

Yes, I do. What's not to understand? If you want the flexibility to move your interior panel to other than "neareast the point of entry", you need to choose 230.85(1) and provide a feeder with EGC to the interior panel.

Cheers, Wayne

I'm still very confused by your response, I think I am not explaining the situation correctly. I have a 230.85 emergency disconnect on the exterior of the building.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm still very confused by your response, I think I am not explaining the situation correctly. I have a 230.85 emergency disconnect on the exterior of the building.

Yes, and a 230.85 Emergency Disconnect may not provide OCPD. It could be an unfused bladed disconnect. In which case the conductors going into the building would still be unfused, and the "nearest the point of entry" for the service OCPD is important.

Now if your 230.85 Emergency Disconnect does actually provide OCPD, you have two choices. You can recognize that it provides OCPD, and make it your service disconnect. Then it needs to have the MBJ, so your supply to the interior needs to be a feeder with an EGC, and you are free from the "nearest the point of entry" restriction. Any GECs/jumpers from the GES also have to go to the outside panel (unless your EGC also qualifies as a GEC).

Or you can ignore that your 230.85 Emergency Disconnect provides OCPD, and pretend it doesn't. That puts you back in the case of the first paragraph.

Basically, if you want the liberty of not running an EGC to the interior, and not moving the MBJ/GECs to the exterior, then you have to comply with the "nearest the point of entry" requirement.

This whole situation arose because the 2020 NEC wanted to require an exterior disconnect, but for ease of retrofit on existing installations, did not want to force the service disconnect itself to be outside, with the associated requirements mentioned in the second paragraph above. So you get to add this extra exterior disconnect but have the option to basically ignore it as far as the service rules go, just like you ignore the location of the meter.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[electrofelon]

Or you can ignore that your 230.85 Emergency Disconnect provides OCPD, and pretend it doesn't. That puts you back in the case of the first paragraph.

Ok well that is my point about the flaw. If the emergency disconnect has OCPD, then why not be exempt from the "nearest the point of entry " requirement as it serves no purpose? Perhaps 230.85 and 230.70 could be combined into more simple and logical language that doesn't result in meaningless requirements.

 

[wwhitney]

Ok well that is my point about the flaw. If the emergency disconnect has OCPD, then why not be exempt from the "nearest the point of entry " requirement as it serves no purpose?

My understanding is that for new work, the outside disconnect should just be made the service disconnect, which exempts you from the "nearest the point of entry" for the supply to the interior panel.

And for existing work, the interior service panel should already be "nearest the point of entry," so it is moot.

Basically, there's a number of distinctions between services and feeders. The CMPs aren't wanting to weaken that dichotomy and apply the distinctions piecemeal as you propose. They are just giving you an option to duplicate one of them (the OCPD) but ignore the duplication, to avoid the consequences previously discussed.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[shortcircuit2]

Do they even make a "bladed" disco without OCPD that is SUSE rated?

 

[david luchini]

Do they even make a "bladed" disco without OCPD that is SUSE rated?

Yes. Square D VHU363 for example.

 

[jaggedben]

And for existing work, the interior service panel should already be "nearest the point of entry," so it is moot.

But what if it isn't? We all know that plenty of older installations aren't compliant with the latest code for whatever reasons.

Let's also say for the sake of argument that the service entrance cable or conduit is inaccessible without demolition and refinish, or it's too small to pull an EGC into, or something like that.

For the sake of incentivizing implementation of 230.85, should there not be some kind of exception?

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

I'm still very confused by your response, I think I am not explaining the situation correctly. I have a 230.85 emergency disconnect on the exterior of the building.

You say building. Did you mean a one or two family dwelling.

 

[electrofelon]

You say building. Did you mean a one or two family dwelling.

Yes, sorry for being imprecise with the wording. I am aware 230.85 is only for one and two family dwellings.

 

[electrofelon]

My understanding is that for new work, the outside disconnect should just be made the service disconnect, which exempts you from the "nearest the point of entry" for the supply to the interior panel.

And for existing work, the interior service panel should already be "nearest the point of entry," so it is moot.

Basically, there's a number of distinctions between services and feeders. The CMPs aren't wanting to weaken that dichotomy and apply the distinctions piecemeal as you propose. They are just giving you an option to duplicate one of them (the OCPD) but ignore the duplication, to avoid the consequences previously discussed.

Cheers, Wayne

Existing and non-existing may have been the impetus for some specific aspects of this requirement, but there is no mention of existing installations in the wording so whether it is existing or not will not be part of my decision making process. Nor do I care about "shoulds". We don't use "should" here on Mike Holt

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

Yes, sorry for being imprecise with the wording. I am aware 230.85 is only for one and two family dwellings.

I was sure it was as I did read house some where. I did not want some one to read building and think now it for building to. I ran into that recently and said what.

I do have a question. Other than commen sense. What code articles covers sizing of the EM disc. other than fault current. If it's not service equipment.
Could that be a flaw?