320 Amp Service, Two Panels in Separate Structures, Disconnect Question

[Dennis Alwon]

But the second structure is not service supplied, it is feeder supplied. You still have two service disconnecting means on the first structure and they are not grouped in same location.

Not if it is fed directly from the meter

 

[westtx28]

I thought we were clear that the present situation is a violation.

I’m just trying to figure out the specific code violation and is that violation a grouping violation. The original installer is saying it’s not and I’m beginning to see his point.

But the second structure is not service supplied, it is feeder supplied. You still have two service disconnecting means on the first structure and they are not grouped in same location.

Double lug meter with one set of service-entrance conductors going to shop with main breaker disconnect IN the shop. Second set of service-entrance conductors going from meter to disconnect ON the side of the shop. The grouping rules are for the disconnects in each service. In this case there are two services from the meter base. One in the shop for the shop, and one on the shop for the house.

I really appreciate your help on this. I don’t want to get into an argument with the original installer and ultimately be wrong. Done that way too many times.

 

[kwired]

I’m just trying to figure out the specific code violation and is that violation a grouping violation. The original installer is saying it’s not and I’m beginning to see his point.


Double lug meter with one set of service-entrance conductors going to shop with main breaker disconnect IN the shop. Second set of service-entrance conductors going from meter to disconnect ON the side of the shop. The grouping rules are for the disconnects in each service. In this case there are two services from the meter base. One in the shop for the shop, and one on the shop for the house.

I really appreciate your help on this. I don’t want to get into an argument with the original installer and ultimately be wrong. Done that way too many times.

But you have both disconnects on same building or structure, and they are not grouped together. Take away the outside disconnect and just run service conductors to the second building is acceptable and specifically permitted by exception 3 of 230.40.

I can't speak for code making members, but consider a fireman going to the meter location and seeing the disconnect there and turning it off thinking it will kill power inside the building it is on. I'd rather see both disconnects inside, both disconnects outside or just one at/for each building(each one being service conductor supplied) when looking at it from this aspect.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I can't speak for code making members, but consider a fireman going to the meter location and seeing the disconnect there and turning it off thinking it will kill power inside the building it is on. I'd rather see both disconnects inside, both disconnects outside or just one at/for each building(each one being service conductor supplied) when looking at it from this aspect.

That was my thought also but I am not convinced the code states it that way. If that meter and disconnect was on a pedestal 5' from the building would it be compliant???

 

[kwired]

That was my thought also but I am not convinced the code states it that way. If that meter and disconnect was on a pedestal 5' from the building would it be compliant???

I was thinking about the same thing, but don't have a definite answer. The two buildings would be compliant for certain, but I don't know if you can put just one disconnect on that pedestal and also have a second line leave that is still service conductors. I am leaning more toward 230.40 saying each service drop/lateral... shall only feed one set of service entrance conductors and since the two sets here are on separate structures here the exceptions wouldn't apply. Then the exception three does complicate that theory some as well though.

Cost wise - I would have never put the outside disconnect there in the first place, it is compliant and cost less to do it that way. Not sure how to deal with it as is from an inspector's point of view other then to say there are two service disconnects on same structure and they are not grouped together. If I were to put the meter on it's own post, pedestal, etc. and with exception 3, I see no need for any disconnects on the post, pedestal, etc.

If not a dwelling application and the service point were at the meter terminals, I still think you can run multiple underground service conductors from that point, see art 100 definitions of service point and the different "service conductor" definitions.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I was thinking about the same thing, but don't have a definite answer. The two buildings would be compliant for certain, but I don't know if you can put just one disconnect on that pedestal and also have a second line leave that is still service conductors. I am leaning more toward 230.40 saying each service drop/lateral... shall only feed one set of service entrance conductors and since the two sets here are on separate structures here the exceptions wouldn't apply. Then the exception three does complicate that theory some as well though.

Cost wise - I would have never put the outside disconnect there in the first place, it is compliant and cost less to do it that way. Not sure how to deal with it as is from an inspector's point of view other then to say there are two service disconnects on same structure and they are not grouped together. If I were to put the meter on it's own post, pedestal, etc. and with exception 3, I see no need for any disconnects on the post, pedestal, etc.

If not a dwelling application and the service point were at the meter terminals, I still think you can run multiple underground service conductors from that point, see art 100 definitions of service point and the different "service conductor" definitions.

I agree that the second outdoor disconnect is a waste of money and confuses the issue especially for firemen...

 

[westtx28]

Thanks you two. I appreciate you guys thinking about this and responding because as a long time lurker I respect the hell out of your opinions.

Ultimately I plan to remove the disconnect that’s mounted on the shop so this is more of an issue of best practice and common sense vs technical code requirements. I just think I need to walk back my reasoning to the owner and original installer that it’s not due to a violation (which everyone gets defensive about) but for best practice and safety. As I stated earlier in the threads this is way out in the country and there are no inspections. I think he was thinking that when the owner was ready for the house is all good to go with no need to call the power company. You see all kinds of stuff out here but it’s the old “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” that always needs to be reconciled.