ATS feeder question

Status
Not open for further replies.
twinman said:
Don,

The proposed equipment is a motorized gate. It is to be located at the demarcation between secure and unsecured area in an alternate access point.

As such, I assume that the installation is governed by 702.9 rather than 700.9
Consequentely, emergency and general wiring could occupy the same conduit, etc. Correct?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It would help if you quit using the term "emergency"... use "standby" instead.
 
As I mentioned earlier, this is not a permitted installation. Equipment and personnel are potentially in harms way if this install is completed as shown in the illustration.

P.S.
The illustration is very good...a picture tells a thousand words...
 
Stanby power connection

Stanby power connection

Connection of bldg #2 connection to stanby power is via a PLC that opens the mains and closes two generator feeder breakers. The tie breaker would only close if one of the generator breakers failed.
 
That would leave me questioning if the provisions of 702.5 have been met.
My original concern was 702.6, but your last post addressed that situation.
I would be curious if that would meet POCO's requirememnts for transfer.
Pierre-- any input ?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
As I mentioned earlier, this is not a permitted installation. Equipment and personnel are potentially in harms way if this install is completed as shown in the illustration.

P.S.
The illustration is very good...a picture tells a thousand words...
Click to expand...
I read your words and have no problem understanding what you are intending... but your words lack a citing of specific code which prohibits such installation and you are not explaining exactly how equipment and personnel are potentially in harms way. Please elaborate.... :confused:
 
twinman said:
Connection of bldg #2 connection to stanby power is via a PLC that opens the mains and closes two generator feeder breakers. The tie breaker would only close if one of the generator breakers failed.
Click to expand...

Twinman has been PM,ing me with this situation and I must say it is confusing. But now seeing his drawing and the above statement I am on Pierre and augie side I would be concerned with the POCO's requirement for the utility disconnect in building #2.
 
ceb58 said:
Twinman has been PM,ing me with this situation and I must say it is confusing. But now seeing his drawing and the above statement I am on Pierre and augie side I would be concerned with the POCO's requirement for the utility disconnect in building #2.
Click to expand...
I understand the concern for disconnection from the service-supplied system in Bldg #2.... but wouldn't that be an existing problem regardless of running any generator feeder to Bldg #1?
 
Smart $ said:
I understand the concern for disconnection from the service-supplied system in Bldg #2.... but wouldn't that be an existing problem regardless of running any generator feeder to Bldg #1?
Click to expand...

The fact that it may be an existing problem is the problem. This is one of those situations that seeing it would be better. After all the discussions I wonder if it would not be better and cheaper to re-feed this gate opener from building #2 and forget anything in building #1
 
ceb58 said:
Twinman has been PM,ing me with this situation and I must say it is confusing. But now seeing his drawing and the above statement I am on Pierre and augie side I would be concerned with the POCO's requirement for the utility disconnect in building #2.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why your bringing the POCO into this. The supply from building # 2 is a normal/standby feeder from MDP-2. The power supply from building # 1 (panel PP) is a normal feeder. The ATS has two sources of power supplies. Source 2 happens to be backed up by a generator. One requirement would be the feeder from building # 2 needs a disconnecting means per 225.31 and a seperation of the grounded conductor if ran with the feeder from building # 2 per 250.24(A)5. I don't see any of the feeders and branch circuits being classified as emergency, only option/standby. If they were, there would be addition ATS's in building # 2 and labeled as such.

Rick
 
Maybe, "I am blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other"


1. There are 2 buildings, each with a separately supplied service. Building #1 has service #1. Building #2 has service #2.

2. There is 1 transfer switch (located in bldg #1) wired from the generator.

3. Both buildings are being supplied from the generator, via a single transfer switch.


What happens when the utility supply to building #1 with the transfer switch is interrupted? The transfer switch will operate, the generator will start - power will be transfered to the generator side of the transfer switch, supplying both buildings #1 & #2... EXCEPT, the building #2 still has power supplied from the utility. How will this not be a problem.
As I mentioned earlier, I would cite 225.30 Number of Supplies. - for building #2.





NOTE: sometimes I will cite a section and see what others have to say.
 
Clarification of your statement

Clarification of your statement

Pierre,

I agree with your summary except for item #3. To clarify, building #2 is supplied from the stanby generator via a PLC that opens the mains and closes two generator feeder breakers.

A single non life safety load, not the complete building #1, is voluntarily connected to stanby power which is only available in building #2. via an ATS. Stanby connection is to be at either building #2 distribution or or directly at the stanby generator.

Filipe
 
Alternate consideration

Alternate consideration

All who have replied, thank you.

Let's consider the suggestion made to energize the proposed equipment from building #2 which eliminates the ATS in building #1 and associated normal connection.

The proposed equipment is approximately 1600' away from building #1 and building #2 is 200' North of building #1. Existing ductbanks originate at building #1 and terminate in the vacinity of the proposed equipment. The existing ductbank is not connected to building #2.

The consideration is to utilize the existing ductbank to run power, but the ducts are occupied with feeder and branch circuits from building #1 only. Can a circuit from building #2 (NOTE: SEPARATE SOURCE) share an existing duct with building #1?

If so, then the existing ductbank can be intercepted and extended to building #2 so that the required power originates from building #2 rather than building #1.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
If I understand you correctly, that is still not permitted, as per 225.30.
Click to expand...
225.30 specifically permits this feeder. The only issue is the isolation from the utility at building 2. I am not sure that PLC control of the breakers would meet the rule in 702.6 for transfer equipment.
 
twinman said:
Pierre,

I agree with your summary except for item #3. To clarify, building #2 is supplied from the stanby generator via a PLC that opens the mains and closes two generator feeder breakers.

A single non life safety load, not the complete building #1, is voluntarily connected to stanby power which is only available in building #2. via an ATS. Stanby connection is to be at either building #2 distribution or or directly at the stanby generator.

Filipe
Click to expand...
I believe standby power will have to be directly from the generator to be compliant.

If the standby power comes from a B#2 MDP branch circuit, there will be service #2 power on the standby terminals of the B#1 ATS during the time when service #2 power is not interrupted. This would violate 225.30, as stated by Pierre.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
225.30 specifically permits this feeder. The only issue is the isolation from the utility at building 2. I am not sure that PLC control of the breakers would meet the rule in 702.6 for transfer equipment.
Click to expand...
I am uncertain also, but as I have read and reread it for just this case, I don't see where the means utilized is prohibited. The term transfer equipment does not directly define the equipment as being a single, integral unit.

Equipment (n)

1 a: the set of articles or physical resources serving to equip a person or thing: as (1): the implements used in an operation or activity : apparatus <sports equipment> (2): all the fixed assets other than land and buildings of a business enterprise (3): the rolling stock of a railway b: a piece of such equipment
2 a: the equipping of a person or thing b: the state of being equipped
3: mental or emotional traits or resources : endowment

equipment. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equipment
Click to expand...
 
Smart $ said:
I believe standby power will have to be directly from the generator to be compliant.

If the standby power comes from a B#2 MDP branch circuit, there will be service #2 power on the standby terminals of the B#1 ATS during the time when service #2 power is not interrupted. This would violate 225.30, as stated by Pierre.
Click to expand...
Supporting citation:
702.2 Definition.

Optional Standby Systems. Those systems intended to supply power to public or private facilities or property where life safety does not depend on the performance of the system. Optional standby systems are intended to supply on-site generated power to selected loads either automatically or manually.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top