Gas station canopys and disconects.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavie

Cavie

Senior Member
Location
SW Florida
We discussed this a couple of weeks ago and nobody had a difinitive answer so I thought I'd throw it out there again. Does a gas staion canopy need a disconect as seperate structure? Seperate structure needs disconnect even for one circuit. It does not need seperate grounding if one circuit but does need disconect. I say yes it does. My boss agrees but is unwilling to be the first to inforce it. I'm thinking the disconect would go next to the emergancy shut off for the pumps. Any serious thoughts on this even if it is Friday Night?
 
Cavie said:
We discussed this a couple of weeks ago and nobody had a difinitive answer so I thought I'd throw it out there again. Does a gas staion canopy need a disconect as seperate structure? Seperate structure needs disconnect even for one circuit. It does not need seperate grounding if one circuit but does need disconect. I say yes it does. My boss agrees but is unwilling to be the first to inforce it. I'm thinking the disconect would go next to the emergancy shut off for the pumps. Any serious thoughts on this even if it is Friday Night?
Click to expand...



NOPE. no serious ones !!!!
 
Cavie said:
Seperate structure needs disconnect even for one circuit.... boss agrees but is unwilling to be the first to inforce it. I'm thinking the disconect would go next to the emergancy shut off for the pumps. Any serious thoughts on this even if it is Friday Night?
Click to expand...
Where do you have people put their disconnects on parking lot light poles?:wink:
 
cavie -

In a previous life, I built a lot of service stations, never had an AHJ ask for one. But as we all know that doesn't mean they weren't wrong. So carrying this right out:

How about the submersible pumps? Where do you want those disconnects? Usually three products.

How about the control and lighting power to the dispensers? It's usually 120AC. One disconnect per dispenser?

There are low voltage controls to each dispenser. One disconnect per dispenser? Could take a 6 pole disconnect. Or run the power for the main controller out to the canopy, through a disconnect and then back to the kiosk control unit?

Just how far do you think this should go?

carl
 
mdshunk said:
Where do you have people put their disconnects on parking lot light poles?:wink:
Click to expand...

so,... if I intall a light on my detached garage it becomes a light standard and the disconnect can be elsewhere?
Does this work for any ole seperate structure??:smile:

I've got to tell you I have been looking, everytime I enter or drive by a gas station I have yet to see a disconnect. ....I guess they are light standards.
 
coulter said:
Just how far do you think this should go?

carl
Click to expand...

Just far enough to comply with the current NEC wording or a change in the NEC to meet the common practice. :smile:

Other than a few exceptions the current NEC wording definitely prohibits multiple branch circuits to a separate structure.

Other then lighting standards and signs the NEC requires a disconnecting means at separate structures.

And there is no doubt in my mind that a free standing gas station canopy is in fact a separate 'structure' under the NEC definition.

Perhaps an exception to allow an "EPO" button at the canopy that trips a shunt trip breaker that would simultaneously kill all the power to heading out to the canopy?
 
hardworkingstiff said:
The purpose of the canopy is to hold lights and signs.
Click to expand...

I really do not accept that argument, IMO I would say its to keep the customers dry.

But lets say we do, then the requirement for disconnecting the lighting goes away.

The dispensers would still require disconnecting means and the exception for light standards does not have any effect on the limit of one branch circuit per structure.

I am not saying I see some sort of major safety issue here only that common practice and the code seem to be a long way apart here. Maybe some proposals need to be made for 2011.
 
iwire said:
I am not saying I see some sort of major safety issue here only that common practice and the code seem to be a long way apart here.
Click to expand...


I know nothing about gas station wiring but I definitely was thinking the same thing with regard to the whole structure argument. We all know this is not the only case where trade practice and the NEC are in two different worlds.
 
I bet there are a lot of guys , that wire gas stations , that wish we would "shut up already.":D

Many canopies also have the fire suppression equipment installed in them.

I wonder about the little both I see at many stations under the canopy for the attendant?? light standard no doubt
 
Last edited:
M. D. said:
I bet there are a lot of guys , that wire gas stations , that wish we would "shut up already.":D
Click to expand...

:grin:

My vote is...

'It's all connected by one continuous slab it's all one structure including the underground pumps.'
 
Gas me up

Gas me up

OK, I've never wired one either.

I've always pondered what exactly that panic button will do!

My over all thought was why the need to expose Gas and a disconnect ?
They don't even get off their cell phones to gas up now.

I thought that the 500 series comes into play real quickly, thus enabling
a controlled application/environment, meeting the demands that are required from the application there of !

Maybe I'm just totally wrong to think of it as only utilization of equipment that happens to be part of the overall edifice or is it just word play ?

BTW, I hate it when I see the local price of gas is announced on the TV stations... Darn if that don't average up real quick!
 
I'm sure everyone has looked at 225.30.D, and 225.32, Ex 1.

Doesn't that permit multiple feeders and having the canopy lights, dispensers, pumps, disconnects located in another area other than on the canopy?

carl
 
coulter said:
I'm sure everyone has looked at 225.30.D, and 225.32, Ex 1.
Click to expand...

Both are certainly up to the AHJ, IMO applying 225.30(D) as you suggest is a stretch, that would pretty much mean that all installations could have as many branch circuits as one wanted. In this gas station example there is no need for multiple branch circuits it is just more convenient to do it that way it could easily be designed with one feeder and a panel at the separate structure.

As far as 225.32 Ex 1, are you suggesting the minimum wage employee locked in the glass both is a 'qualified individual' knowledgeable in safe switching procedures?

I might have a hard time agreeing with that as an inspector. :grin:
 
iwire said:
Both are certainly up to the AHJ, IMO applying 225.30(D) as you suggest is a stretch, that would pretty much mean that all installations could have as many branch circuits as one wanted. In this gas station example there is no need for multiple branch circuits it is just more convenient to do it that way it could easily be designed with one feeder and a panel at the separate structure.

As far as 225.32 Ex 1, are you suggesting the minimum wage employee locked in the glass both is a 'qualified individual' knowledgeable in safe switching procedures?

I might have a hard time agreeing with that as an inspector. :grin:
Click to expand...

I suggest that 225.30.D is in the code for exactly this type of issue. You suggest the multiple circuits are for "convenience". Okay, design is for convenience as well as safety, maintainability, reliability, operability. Where in the NEC is any of this considered bad? I suggest the AHJ only question if the design meets NEC minimums.

(paraphrase) "Minimum wage people can't be qualified". I'm not sure how to answer that. First, a question: How much do you want them to be paid?

Let's see, owner's rep, makes up a couple of sheets with emergency procedures, walks the employee through the the switching locations and has employee verify switches, disconnects, cb's, and E-stops. Sheets go in the Book of Instructions. I'd say they are qualified.

iwire said:
Both are certainly up to the AHJ,...
...I might have a hard time agreeing with that as an inspector. ...
Click to expand...
It is a problem if an inspector doesn't do their job - enforce the NEC minimums.

carl
 
coulter said:
It is a problem if an inspector doesn't do their job - enforce the NEC minimums.

carl
Click to expand...

Carl in my opinion 225.30 is the basic rule, one building or structure, one feeder or branch circuit.

225.30(D) modifies the basic rule for specific reasons, not one of which is convenience.

Which part of 'D' do you feel addresses this installation?

Different voltages frequencies or phases?

IMO an inspector would be well within the NEC to prohibit the multiple branch circuits supplying a gas station canopy.

As far as the minimum wage person being qualified, sure they can be.

In my experience normally the person locked in the glass booth is barely qualified to tie their shoes. I think an inspector is able to use their real world experience in deciding if qualified people will be on site to meet the requirement.

All this aside, I feel what is common practice and is working fine, but the NEC should be modified to meet this reality.

JMO, Bob
 
M. D. said:
Bob what works fine at this gas station would work fine at many detached structures.
Click to expand...

Well....no kidding.:rolleyes: :grin:

They already have a list of reasons to allow more then one branch circuit or feeder to a building and the same for disconnects under some conditions.

Remember what I am looking for is a change in the code.

A gas station canopy is often within sight of the supplying building, this is much different then many detached structures.

And my earlier suggestion was perhaps an allowance for an EPO button located at the canopy to kill all circuits heading out to it.

I think the real issue is that when the definition of structure was added to the 2002 NEC that not all the ramifications of that have been worked out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top