Conflict between Code sections in different articles

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandsnow

Senior Member
If you feel this is the case, where would you address your proposal.

I don't know if I have time to get this together for this cycle, but I would still like to know what you thoughts are.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
Sections 225.32 and 230.70(A)(1) vs. 700.12(B)(6), 701.11(B)(5), amd 702.11

The distance from the building of the disconnecting means in 225 and 230 is ambiguous and left up to the AHJ

The distance to the disconnecting means in 700, 701 and 702 is not.

A source of power is a source of power. What does it matter the type of power source? It seems to me the rules for disconnection should be the same regardless of the source of power.

I tried to address this last time and was shot down. This was my substantian last time. The deadline snuck up on me and it is doubtful I will get to this for this cycle.

I understand that CMP 4 has had to tackle this problem. It appeared at one point a consesus had been reached, but the proposal was dropped for the 2002 NEC. It seems as though CMP 13 was able to reach a consensus on this issue as it applies to feeders from generators. Please reference 700.12(B)(6), 701.11(B)(5), and 702.11. With these code sections one could install a feeder overcurrent device on the outside of the first building 40 feet and visible from the second building and a generator 40 feet from the same second building. The feeder conductors from the feeder overcurrent device on the outside of the first building would require a disconnecting means in accordance with section 225.32 where the conductors enter the second building but feeder conductors from the generator would not as long as they are installed per sections 700.12(B)(6), 701.11(B)(5), and 702.11 whichever is applicable. There is no difference I am aware of in these feeder conductors (aside from the source), but yet we have different rules for the same types of conductors. While an argument could made regarding the Emergency or Legally Required Systems as being ?special?, one could not make that argument for the Optional Standby Conductors. At the very least this should be forwarded to the TCC as a conflict in the code.
 

hurk27

Senior Member
The problem I have always had is the difference in the wording in 230.70 and 225.32, the difference is that 230.70 only requires a disconnect where conductors "enter" a building, 225.32 adds the words "supply" to the equation and can require a disconnect even if they don't "enter" the building or structure, this has been a conflict that not many are willing to address.

This seems to say that 230 conductors "SEC's" are safer then 225 feeders which will have OCPD's at the feed end.
 
Last edited:

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
If you are simply coordinating a Section with another, you only need to address the Section that needs to be revised but state clearly that your Proposal reconciles the Section with another specific Section.

If you believe two or more Sections are in conflict, and two or more need to be revised, you need to submit a Proposal for each Section stating how your Proposal will reconcile the conflict. Also state you have made a coordinating Proposal for each Section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top