Service disconnect

[hhsting]

I have total 4 service disconnect all of them are not fire pump disconnect. Three of them are in electrical room grouped but the fourth one is new and outside of the electrical room not grouped since there is no room in the electrical room. The service conductors enter inside the electrical room in a trough.

NEC Article 230.72 says two to six service disconnects must be grouped. However, NEC 230.70(A)(3) says if remote control is used to actuate service disconnect then service disconnect can be located in NEC 230.70(A)(1).

So can I place the fourth disconnect outside electrical room and inside the electrical room have remote control device next to three service disconnects to actuate the fourth service disconnect and be code compliant or the fourth one has to be in electrical room grouped?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

I have total 4 service disconnect all of them are not fire pump disconnect. Three of them are in electrical room grouped but the fourth one is new and outside of the electrical room not grouped since there is no room in the electrical room. The service conductors enter inside the electrical room in a trough.

NEC Article 230.72 says two to six service disconnects must be grouped. However, NEC 230.70(A)(3) says if remote control is used to actuate service disconnect then service disconnect can be located in NEC 230.70(A)(1).

So can I place the fourth disconnect outside electrical room and inside the electrical room have remote control device next to three service disconnects to actuate the fourth service disconnect and be code compliant or the fourth one has to be in electrical room grouped?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

All (A)(3) is saying is a remotely controlled disconnecting means must still have the disconnecting means comply with (A)(1) - which only indicates it must be readily accessible and either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance.

It doesn't address multiple disconnecting means. I think they still need grouped together whether there is remote operators or not.

 

[hhsting]

All (A)(3) is saying is a remotely controlled disconnecting means must still have the disconnecting means comply with (A)(1) - which only indicates it must be readily accessible and either outside or inside nearest the point of entrance.

It doesn't address multiple disconnecting means. I think they still need grouped together whether there is remote operators or not.

Ok. I have three service disconnect 800 amps and new service disconnect fourth one is 200 amps. So the total would be 2400 amps with three existing service disco amd with new would be 2600 amps voltage of 120/208V three phase. Nec 230.2(C) I can bring second service to the bulding given capacity requirements are excess of 2000 amps.

So instead of remote operator can I bring new service to the new fourth 200 amps service disco since existing three service disco are excess of 2000 amps per 230.2(C) and I would not need to group the new disco? Would second service be code compliant?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

Ok. I have three service disconnect 800 amps and new service disconnect fourth one is 200 amps. So the total would be 2400 amps with three existing service disco amd with new would be 2600 amps voltage of 120/208V three phase. Nec 230.2(C) I can bring second service to the bulding given capacity requirements are excess of 2000 amps.

So instead of remote operator can I bring new service to the 200 amps service disco since existing three service disco are excess of 2000 amps per 230.2(C) and I would not need to group the new disco?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

230.2(C) does seem to allow this. I would have a talk with any inspector before doing this just to make sure you are both on same understanding.