NEC 514.11(A) Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilties

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

codequestion

Banned
Location
MD, USA
Attached pdf has two figures which both show how to configure controls for Emergency Stop as stated in NEC 514.11(A). Gas station is unattended. My question is which of the two figures #1 or #2 is code compliant per NEC 2014 article 514.11(A)?
 

Attachments

  • NEC 514.11(A) Figures #1 or #2.pdf
    36.2 KB · Views: 30
I'm assuming you mean Section 514.11(A) and (C)

514.11 Circuit Disconnects.
(A) General. Each circuit leading to or through dispensing
equipment, including all associated power, communications,
data, and video circuits, and equipment for remote
pumping systems, shall be provided with a clearly identified
and readily accessible switch or other approved means,
located remote from the dispensing devices, to disconnect
simultaneously from the source of supply, all conductors of
the circuits, including the grounded conductor, if any.
Single-pole breakers utilizing handle ties shall not be
permitted.
...
(C) Unattended Self-Service Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities.
Emergency controls as specified in 514.11 (A) shall
be installed at a location acceptable to the authority having
jurisdiction, but the control shall be more than 6 m (20 ft)
but less than 30 m (100 ft) from the dispensers. Additional
emergency controls shall be installed on each group of dispensers
or the outdoor equipment used to control the dispensers.
Emergency controls shall shut off all power to all
dispensing equipment at the station. Controls shall be
manually reset only in a manner approved by the authority
having jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

The key term is approved means; i.e. whatever does the job AND is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". If the AHJ buys it, either one is fine.
 
rbalex said:
I'm assuming you mean Section 514.11(A) and (C)



The key term is approved means; i.e. whatever does the job AND is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". If the AHJ buys it, either one is fine.
Click to expand...
Code 514.11 (A) says circuits leading to or through dispensing equipment. The first figure circuit leads to panelboard. Second one circuir leads to siapenaing equipment. Which one is the correct way and per code 514.11 (A)?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
codequestion said:
Code 514.11 (A) says circuits leading to or through dispensing equipment. The first figure circuit leads to panelboard. Second one circuir leads to siapenaing equipment. Which one is the correct way and per code 514.11 (A)?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Both diagrams indicate ... circuit leading to or through dispensing equipment, [that are (hopefully)] provided with a clearly identified and readily accessible switch or other approved means located remote from the dispensing devices, [that]disconnect simultaneously from the source of supply, all conductors of the circuits, including the grounded conductor, if any [to or through the dispensing equipment].

If you can't accept my previous answer (if the AHJ buys it, either one is fine although I'm not sure what "siapenaing equipment" is), I'll let someone else attempt to explain it to you.
 
rbalex said:
Both diagrams indicate ... circuit leading to or through dispensing equipment, [that are (hopefully)] provided with a clearly identified and readily accessible switch or other approved means located remote from the dispensing devices, [that]disconnect simultaneously from the source of supply, all conductors of the circuits, including the grounded conductor, if any [to or through the dispensing equipment].

If you can't accept my previous answer (if the AHJ buys it, either one is fine although I'm not sure what "siapenaing equipment" is), I'll let someone else attempt to explain it to you.
Click to expand...
AHJ is questioning. First diagram where contactors circuits are lead to panelboard not dispensing equipment. Second diagram where contactors are circuit lead to dispensing equipment. So thats why asked which is code complaint.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
In either case, the conductors that do lead to the dispenser have a means to be simultaneously disconnected. Maybe I should have said a knowledgeable AHJ should accept either one.

EDIT ADD: In truth, I prefer Figure 1 as the more reliable since there are fewer things to fail, but both are Code compliant.
 
Last edited:
codequestion said:
See attached link which says figure 2 would be code compliant and figure 1 would not be:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...09-06-23.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0dC8dfbqT6qi6T-16tVgIs


Any thoughts still would consider figure 1 code complaint?
Click to expand...
No.

Your source is unidentified and their credentials unknown. My credentials are available in my profile.

The only open question would be whether the single contactor (in either your's or the "googled" diagram) actually disconnects the grounded conductors. Neither set of diagrams indicated either way,

As I mentioned, a single disconnect is more reliable, but that does NOT say multiple disconnects are unreliable.

The fact that an unknown author disagrees with me is fine and if you wish to follow their recommendations is also fine; but why did you come here if you already believe you had your answer?
 
rbalex said:
No.

Your source is unidentified and their credentials unknown. My credentials are available in my profile.

The only open question would be whether the single contactor (in either your's or the "googled" diagram) actually disconnects the grounded conductors. Neither set of diagrams indicated either way,

As I mentioned, a single disconnect is more reliable, but that does NOT say multiple disconnects are unreliable.

The fact that an unknown author disagrees with me is fine and if you wish to follow their recommendations is also fine; but why did you come here if you already believe you had your answer?
Click to expand...

I found the link after I posted question and found it after you answered. I did not have answer just trying to find out what 511.11 means

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
I agree with Bob, both are code compliant but #1 is preferable due to simplicity. #1 is basically what I use for fueling stations, and I've never had an inspector question it.

I read through the guide you found via Google, and my impression is that the author is misinterpreting the phrase “disconnect simultaneously from the source of supply, all conductors of the circuits." They're implying that it means you have to open the branch circuit conductors, but I would say if the branch panel is dead because you've opened an upstream disconnect, then you have indeed disconnected all the circuits "from the source of supply," which is the service. The only way you might need a downstream disconnect is if something downstream of the panel has a battery in it - in that case the battery would also be a source of supply and need to be disconnected. If you look at the end of the article, you will notice that the guide is published by a company that would like to sell you a complex emergency stop system.

The bottom line is: if you hit the E-stop button and it kills all power to everything in the fueling station, including disconnecting the grounded conductor (neutral), then you've met the E-stop requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top