residential generator installations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Submitter: Mark R. Hilbert, State of New Hampshire
Recommendation: Revise text to read:
702.11 Outdoor Generator Sets. Where an outdoor housed generator set is
equipped with a readily accessible disconnecting means located within sight of
the building or structure supplied, an additional disconnecting means shall not
be required where ungrounded conductors serve or pass through the building or
structure.
Add a new fine print note to read as follows:
FPN: Section 225.36 provides additional requirements for the suitability of
the disconnecting means.
Substantiation: The recommendation for this fine print note is an attempt
to identify the requirements of 225.36 for the building disconnecting means,
which in this case will be located at the generator, to be ?suitable for use
as service equipment.? Additionally, this FPN will help identify an often
overlooked requirement, clarify that even though it is remote to the building,
the disconnecting means must be suitable for use as service equipment and that
the requirement in 225.36 is not amended by 702.11.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action statement on Proposal 13-131.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Ballot Not Returned: 1 Gustafson, R.

this is the panel statement refered to

(6) Outdoor Generator Sets. Where an outdoor housed generator set is
equipped with a readily accessible disconnecting means located within sight of
the building or structure supplied, an additional disconnecting means shall not
be required where ungrounded conductors serve or pass through the building or
structure.
Add a new fine print note to read as follows:
FPN: Section 225.36 provides additional requirements for the suitability of
the disconnecting means.
Substantiation: The recommendation for this fine print note is an attempt to
identify the requirements of 225.36 for the building disconnecting means,
which in this case will be located at the generator, to be ?suitable for use as
service equipment.? Additionally, this FPN will help identify an often
overlooked requirement, clarify that even though it is remote to the building,
the disconnecting means must be suitable for use as service equipment and that
the requirement in 225.36 is not amended by 700.12(B)(6).
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The disconnect required in 700.12(B)(6) is not intended to
be a service disconnect.

____________________________________________________________
 
Mike ,Bob and all others reading, I don't know if I'm in the woods looking at a tree , in the forest , above the forest or up a tree, but I find it amazing that words, when connected together, can have so many meanings to so many people.
 
jwelectric said:
It might be to superman but not to the average Joe. How can something that is under a locked lid be in sight or for that matter readily accessible?
Click to expand...

Mike go to Article 100, "Accessible" can not be locked, "Readily Accessible" can be locked.

If that is not the case almost every service disconnect is in violation as in this area most dwelling unit service disconnects and almost all non-dwelling service disconnects are in fact behind locked doors.




Here is the proper way to make the installation as outlined in the original post.
gen225.jpg
Click to expand...

That is one way of doing it, it is not the only way to do it.
 
iwire said:
That is one way of doing it, it is not the only way to do it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This looks like a case where using a service-rated T/S would have more than paid for itself.

The original meter could have remained, and the generator disconnect would not have been necessary.

Let's not even bring up the labor savings.
 
M. D. said:
Mike ,Bob and all others reading, I don't know if I'm in the woods looking at a tree , in the forest , above the forest or up a tree, but I find it amazing that words, when connected together, can have so many meanings to so many people.
Click to expand...

In general, people tend to hear what the expect to hear, see what they expect to see, and read what they expect to read.

I try not to have expectations (but, since I'm human, I tend to have these same problems).
 
I'm glad Mike raised the question about 225.36 because it asked me to look at this issue from another angle it made me search for information pertaining to it , but I think the above panel actions and statements are clear ,though not code, it appears the answer to the question Mike asked about 225.36 is, the disconnect refered to in 702.11 is not intended to be a service disconnect and the fact that it is behind a door or under a lid does not mean that it isn't readily accessible and within sight .IMO.
 
iwire said:
Mike go to Article 100, "Accessible" can not be locked, "Readily Accessible" can be locked. If that is not the case almost every service disconnect is in violation as in this area most dwelling unit service disconnects and almost all non-dwelling service disconnects are in fact behind locked doors.
Click to expand...
Bob I will have to relinquish my claim to 225.36 as it relates to 702.11 but I do believe that you are looking at the term ?Readily Accessible? from a wrong angle.

To compare the service disconnect to the requirement in 702.11 could not be the same.
230.70(A)(1) allows the service disconnect to be installed inside and 230.92 requires that when the service disconnect is not readily accessible to the occupant, then branch-circuit overcurrent devices shall be installed in a readily accessible location to the occupant.

You will find the same to be true about overcurrent protection outlined in 240. Each time the disconnecting means is required to be readily accessible it is also allowed to be either inside or outside. See 240.21(B)(5), 240.21(C)(4), 240.24 where it address overcurrent for outside feeders and services and also 240.92(C)(5) for Supervised Industrial Installations.

Readily accessible is more restrictive than accessible when it comes to equipment.

Looking at 210.52(C)(5) where something as simple as an appliance garage can render a receptacle not readily accessible or 210.60 where furniture can do the same to receptacles I would tend to believe that a pad lock would render a disconnect not readily accessible.

The term ?readily accessible? is found in 40 Articles through out the code and in none of these articles can I find where being locked is allowed except through stringent exceptions.

To address this disconnect from the point of view of a fireman responding to a house fire. The first thing that the fireman does is pulls the meter. How would this affect the standby generator?
Now the fireman is looking for a set of bolt cutters to get to the disconnect of the generator while all the time precious seconds are ticking away.

The very definition of readily accessible states that ?without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to remove obstacles.? I would think that the removal of a pad lock would violate that requirement.
 
iwire said:
Again we disagree. :)
Click to expand...

Show me foundation.

Edited to add

230.70(A) (1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.

230.92 Locked Service Overcurrent Devices.
Where the service overcurrent devices are locked or sealed or are not readily accessible to the occupant, branch-circuit overcurrent devices shall be installed on the load side, shall be mounted in a readily accessible location, and shall be of lower ampere rating than the service overcurrent device.

Here the code recognizes that devices that are locked are not readily accessible.

240.21(B)(5) (4) The disconnecting means for the conductors is installed at a readily accessible location complying with one of the following:
a. Outside of a building or structure
b. Inside, nearest the point of entrance of the conductor

This list goes on as mentioned in my last post. As can clearly be seen when the main disconnect is behind locked doors permission is given to do so in the section mandating the disconnect be Readily Accessible.

Based on your statement the disconnect required by 430.107 could be in a room with a locked door as long as it could be seen through a window.

The disconnect required by 440.14 can be in a panel that can be seen through the glass of a locked door allowing access to the panel? Do you think that this would pass inspection?

As much as I love to debate with you (and most of the time you are correct) on this issue I will not even attempt a debate due to the fact that in my opinion you are way off base.
If you choose to believe that a disconnect is readily accessible when in a locked cabinet then go for it.
 
Last edited:
From Mike Holt EC&M
Q15. I have a panel that contains a circuit breaker for air-conditioning equipment. If the circuit breaker in the panel is within sight of the equipment, am I required to install another disconnect near the air-conditioning equipment?

A15. No if you comply with 440.14. This rule states that the disconnecting means for air-conditioning or refrigerating equipment must be located within sight from and readily accessible from the equipment [440.14]. "Within sight" means is visible and not more than 50 ft from each other [Article 100].

Note: The disconnecting means can be on or within the equipment, but it must not be located on panels that are designed to allow access to the equipment. Oh yea, it would also be a good idea not to mount the disconnecting means over machine data tags.
Click to expand...
 
I don?t see anything that Mike said in his answer that would allow the disconnect to be visible through a locked door.
I agree that the disconnect can be located on or within the piece of equipment that is controls such as the AC unit
but the disconnect in debate is required to be,
Where an outdoor housed generator set is equipped with a readily accessible disconnecting means located within sight of the building or structure supplied,

With the AC unit that has a disconnect located within itself, both the unit and disconnect are located in the same spot.
With this disconnect for this generator the disconnect has to be readily accessible and located within sight of the building or structure supplied.
 
Mike ,the "within sight" point is your strongest arguement as I see it, I'm not convinced That a lockable door precludes readily accessible though.
 
accessible vs. readily accessible

accessible vs. readily accessible

Please help me understand what is said here.

As I understand it Accessible means the removal of an access panel or similar removable obstruction. In this case a locked panel box is accessible, but not readily accessible, right?

Readily accessible; mean access without the necessity for removing a panel or similar obstruction. A locked cabinet requires removal of that panel.
 
jwelectric said:
Where the service overcurrent devices are locked or sealed or are not readily accessible to the occupant...
Click to expand...


Here the code recognizes that devices that are locked are not readily accessible.
Click to expand...

Mike, if I told you that the car that crashed into a building was a Saab or a BMW or a Mercedes, does this mean that a Saab is a Mercedes is a BMW?

No, it is three potential types of car that could have crashed into the building.

Turning that analogy to this section, there is no inherent relationship among the three conditions listed in this sentence. In fact, the sentence structure suppports the preconception that there is no relationship among the terms at all. Aside from redundant reinforcement, what linguistic purpose would it serve to say "locked" and "not readily accessible" if they meant the same thing?

jwelectric said:
As can clearly be seen <by a section quoted> when the main disconnect is behind locked doors permission is given to do so in the section mandating the disconnect be Readily Accessible.
Click to expand...
What doors? Not the locked panel doors, but by the entrance door to the room containing the panel.

I agree with Bob, you are making this way too complicated.

The definitions for "Accessible" are in Article 100; they support his statements.

The sections after 225.31 are clearly referring to the disconnecting means referred to in 225.31, which has been eliminated in Chapter 7 according to the basic layout of the NEC, with Chapters 5-7 modifying the basic requirements of 1-4. (90.3)
 
Last edited:
Well, my brain has certainly be exercised, I don't know about yours.Take a peek at this .It supports what Mike is saying about "within sight" or at least I think it does??:roll:
May 2004
13-123 Log #1017 NEC-P13
(700-12(B)(6))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Lawrence A. Bey, Cummins Power Generation
Recommendation:
Revise text to read as follows:
Where an outdoor housed generator set located within sight of the building or structure is equipped with a readily accesible
disconnecting means, an additional disconnecting means shall not be required where ungrounded conductors pass through the building
or structure.
Substantiation:
The generator set disconnecting means is within the generator outdoor enclosure, typically mounted on the alternator frame.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The disconnect is the subject of the requirement for visibility not the generator.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
ELKINS: Generators are commonly supplied with accessory compartments containing the generator breaker. None of these disconnects
are visible unless the accessory cover or door is opened. Exposing the breaker to the elements to make it always visible would lower the
reliability of the installation in most environments. Even for a generator located three ft from a building, the disconnect would not be
visible unless the door or cover on the accessory compartment faced the breaker and faced the building. The purpose of the "in sight of"
provision is satisfied if the disconnect on a generator in sight of a building (50 ft or less by definition) can be readily reached to confirm
its position.
1658
Click to expand...
 
So then George you would agree that the disconnect required in 440.14 could be in the house and the house locked as long as it was within sight through a window.
 
Just my two cents and a little late.

I am with Mike Whitt on this one.

The rejected proposal by Mark Hilbert(13-123) has gained a lot of ground during the commit stage. We will probably be seeing exactly what Mike is talking about, in writing for the 08. Oh, and the fpn may have been upgraded to the general text of the code.

What substantiation would this CMP have to change the CMP4's requirement that it is to be suitable for use as service equipment?

Jim
 
volt102 said:
I am with Mike Whitt on this one.

The rejected proposal by Mark Hilbert(13-123) has gained a lot of ground during the commit stage. We will probably be seeing exactly what Mike is talking about, in writing for the 08. Oh, and the fpn may have been upgraded to the general text of the code.

What substantiation would this CMP have to change the CMP4's requirement that it is to be suitable for use as service equipment?

Jim
Click to expand...

Well Jim you have me confused as you agree with Mike but believe a change is coming.

It sounds like your saying 'Mike's right, but a change is coming to make him more right' :-?

As far as I am concerned under the 2005 Mike was mistaken.

I ask anyone this.

What is the safety reason a disconect for a feeder needs to be service rated?

What is the safety reason this only applies to outside feeders supplying separate buildings or structures?

It seems to me with the elimination of 250.32(B) that there will be no need for a service rated disconect.

IMO I think we are likely to see 225.36 eliminated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top