230.85 flaw?

electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
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?
 
electrofelon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course.
electrofelon said:
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".
Click to expand...
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
 
electrofelon said:
Wayne, I think you are not understanding my situation. Could you reread it and let me know if you stand by your post?
Click to expand...
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
 
electrofelon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Would that not require bonding in the Emergency disconnect and require a 4 wire to the Service disconnect?
 
wwhitney said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
electrofelon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
wwhitney said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
electrofelon said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
wwhitney said:
And for existing work, the interior service panel should already be "nearest the point of entry," so it is moot.
Click to expand...
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?
 
wwhitney said:
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
Click to expand...
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 😉
 
electrofelon said:
Yes, sorry for being imprecise with the wording. I am aware 230.85 is only for one and two family dwellings.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top