service disconnects not grouped together

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shade23

Member
I am working on an athletic facility that will have a batting cage installed outside of the main building. The building now has a 400 amp, 120/208, three phase indoor panel with main. There is no space left in the panel for the outside batting cage. The electrical utility company said I can install a service disconnect outside on their meter-can because it has dual lugs. The city inspection department said they have no problem with this if I install a sign stating there are two service disconnects.
If all requirements (sizing, load, ect.) are met can I install the second service disconnect to the meter-can to feed a small panel to operate the batting cage. I looked all over section 230 and could not find what I needed. This was common practice in the years past. Thank You.
 
230.72(A) requires them to be grouped.

It seems you've asked everyone with any authority on the subject and they've all given you the green light despite it being a pretty black and white code violation.

Me personally, I would have a hard time doing this install as stated even with the others approval. I can only think if you wanted to move forward you better get it in writing saying they will approve the grouping this way knowing it's a code violation. You don't want to find out someone talked out of turn and the only thing you have in your defense is something said verbally.
 
Cow said:
230.72(A) requires them to be grouped.

It seems you've asked everyone with any authority on the subject and they've all given you the green light despite it being a pretty black and white code violation.

Me personally, I would have a hard time doing this install as stated even with the others approval. I can only think if you wanted to move forward you better get it in writing saying they will approve the grouping this way knowing it's a code violation. You don't want to find out someone talked out of turn and the only thing you have in your defense is something said verbally.
Click to expand...

I don't see a violation. NEC does not define "group" in Article 100. Article 230.71(A) mentions service disconnecting means "in a group of separate enclosures". The same wording appears in Article 225.33(A) for feeder and branch circuit supply disconnects, so it seems reasonable that grouped enclosures meet the intent of "grouping". If shade23 installs the second disconnect immediately adjacent the original disconnect, they would be "a group of separate enclosures". He will need to label each for what is served.
 
I see no violation. I think this tells the story:
shade23 said:
I am working on an athletic facility that will have a batting cage installed outside of the main building.
Click to expand...
It's a separate structure. The disconnect for the main building is not related in any way to the disconnect for the outdoor batting cage. In order to deenergize the main building, I only have to turn off one item (the panel's main breaker). I can leave the batting cage in operation while the fire fighters deal with whatever is happening at the main building.

 
Craigv said:
I don't see a violation. NEC does not define "group" in Article 100. Article 230.71(A) mentions service disconnecting means "in a group of separate enclosures". The same wording appears in Article 225.33(A) for feeder and branch circuit supply disconnects, so it seems reasonable that grouped enclosures meet the intent of "grouping". If shade23 installs the second disconnect immediately adjacent the original disconnect, they would be "a group of separate enclosures". He will need to label each for what is served.
Click to expand...

Read his post more carefully. He said the existing disconnect is inside and he wants to put the new one outside. I don't think that meets any commonly agreed meaning of 'grouped' or 'immediately adjacent.'
 
charlie b said:
I see no violation. I think this tells the story: It's a separate structure. The disconnect for the main building is not related in any way to the disconnect for the outdoor batting cage. In order to deenergize the main building, I only have to turn off one item (the panel's main breaker). I can leave the batting cage in operation while the fire fighters deal with whatever is happening at the main building.

Click to expand...

I do not agree charlie. There is no allowance for this situation. If it was a dwelling unit and an "accessory structure" then it would be different, but there is no analogous allowance for non dwellings.

I have run into this several times where the AHJ allows non grouped disconnects with a plaque. I'm not sure if they are modifying the NEC or actually think the plaque gets you around the grouping.
 
Ethan, we are definitely seeing this differently. I see no need for an "allowance for this situation." 230.70 tells it all. It requires the ability to disconnect all conductors in a building (or structure) from the service conductors. We have that. The rule does not require the ability to disconnect all buildings (or structures) on a property at the same time, or from the same (i.e., grouped) location. If you have six disconnect switches (and no panel with a main breaker) feeding six panels, then the six need to be grouped together. But whatever means are available to turn off power to the building, it has nothing to do with the means being used to turn off power to the structure. The two are next-door neighbors. One can be dealing with a fire while the other is serving dinner to guests. The fire department only has to turn off power to the one with the fire.
 
charlie b said:
Ethan, we are definitely seeing this differently. I see no need for an "allowance for this situation." 230.70 tells it all. It requires the ability to disconnect all conductors in a building (or structure) from the service conductors. We have that. The rule does not require the ability to disconnect all buildings (or structures) on a property at the same time, or from the same (i.e., grouped) location. If you have six disconnect switches (and no panel with a main breaker) feeding six panels, then the six need to be grouped together. But whatever means are available to turn off power to the building, it has nothing to do with the means being used to turn off power to the structure. The two are next-door neighbors. One can be dealing with a fire while the other is serving dinner to guests. The fire department only has to turn off power to the one with the fire.
Click to expand...

He said the existing service disconnect is a main breaker inside of the building and they would be adding another service disconnect outside of the building. The two disconnects are not grouped.
 
I would argue that it is a separate service and the disconnects do not have to be grouped, many facilities have multiple services and the disconnects are not grouped
 
packersparky said:
He said the existing service disconnect is a main breaker inside of the building and they would be adding another service disconnect outside of the building. The two disconnects are not grouped.
Click to expand...
They don't need to be. This is not a case of two disconnects that collectively provide power to one building, both of which need to be turned off in order to remove all power from that building.
  • If you turn off the main breaker on the panel inside the building, the building itself will go dark, and the batting cage still has power. That is OK.
  • If you turn off the disconnect that serves the batting cage, the batting cage will go dark, and the building still has power. That too is OK.
  • The two devices are not disconnecting power from the same building.

Look at it (briefly) in this (admittedly absurd) way: Does the NEC require that the disconnecting means for my house be grouped with the disconnecting means for my neighbor's house, given that we get power from the same pole-mounted transformer? Answer: no. Reason: they are different buildings.

 
charlie b said:
Ethan, we are definitely seeing this differently. I see no need for an "allowance for this situation." 230.70 tells it all. It requires the ability to disconnect all conductors in a building (or structure) from the service conductors. We have that. The rule does not require the ability to disconnect all buildings (or structures) on a property at the same time, or from the same (i.e., grouped) location. If you have six disconnect switches (and no panel with a main breaker) feeding six panels, then the six need to be grouped together. But whatever means are available to turn off power to the building, it has nothing to do with the means being used to turn off power to the structure. The two are next-door neighbors. One can be dealing with a fire while the other is serving dinner to guests. The fire department only has to turn off power to the one with the fire.
Click to expand...

I will have to get back to you when I have the code book in front of me to respond to your position. But for now ok say there is nothing in 230.70. How do you get around 230.40?
 
electrofelon said:
I do not think it is two services. It is one service supplying two sets of service entrance conductors.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Surely there's a way to feed a batting cage somehow out of the existing 400 amp panelboard without having to do all of this.

JAP>
 
charlie b said:
They don't need to be. This is not a case of two disconnects that collectively provide power to one building, both of which need to be turned off in order to remove all power from that building.
  • If you turn off the main breaker on the panel inside the building, the building itself will go dark, and the batting cage still has power. That is OK.
  • If you turn off the disconnect that serves the batting cage, the batting cage will go dark, and the building still has power. That too is OK.
  • The two devices are not disconnecting power from the same building.

Look at it (briefly) in this (admittedly absurd) way: Does the NEC require that the disconnecting means for my house be grouped with the disconnecting means for my neighbor's house, given that we get power from the same pole-mounted transformer? Answer: no. Reason: they are different buildings.
Click to expand...

And each building has its own service.

230.71 says you can have up to six disconnecting means for a service. No mention of what each disconnecting means supplies.


230.72 says the two to six disconnecting means allowed in 230.71 have to be grouped.
 
jaggedben said:
Read his post more carefully. He said the existing disconnect is inside and he wants to put the new one outside. I don't think that meets any commonly agreed meaning of 'grouped' or 'immediately adjacent.'
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that the existing was inside. I mistakenly thought he would install a pair of disconnects outside.

That would be compliant and certainly wouldn't be difficult. He could also install a second disconnect inside and adjacent...even easier. I agree that there's absolutely no way two service disconnects *not grouped* would be compliant.
 
jap said:
I'm not so sure about that.

JAP>
Click to expand...

I'm listening.

See Article 230.40 Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location and supply separate loads from one service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several such service equipment enclosures.


In my opinion this is the OP's intended solution. There's no expressed prohibition from having multiple service disconnects supplied by one service, and this exception fits what he could do....one set of service entrance conductors into a dual-lug meter base, to two grouped service disconnects, supplying separate loads.

What are your thoughts?
 
Craigv said:
I'm listening.

See Article 230.40 Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location and supply separate loads from one service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several such service equipment enclosures.


In my opinion this is the OP's intended solution. There's no expressed prohibition from having multiple service disconnects supplied by one service, and this exception fits what he could do....one set of service entrance conductors into a dual-lug meter base, to two grouped service disconnects, supplying separate loads.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking about the code aspect of it, I was thinking about the ease of installing an
additional service disconnect inside next to the existing then getting back outside with a feeder.

Without knowing the situation, that could be a real PITA.

JAP>
 
charlie b said:
Ethan, we are definitely seeing this differently. I see no need for an "allowance for this situation." 230.70 tells it all. ...
Click to expand...

230.70 hardly tells all. The grouping rule is 230.72. It requires grouping of the multiple disconnects permitted by 270.71. 230.71 refers back to 230.2. There is nowhere that 230.70 (general requirements for discos) clearly has input into what 230.72 (grouping) applies to.

charlie b said:
...Does the NEC require that the disconnecting means for my house be grouped with the disconnecting means for my neighbor's house, given that we get power from the same pole-mounted transformer? Answer: no. Reason: they are different buildings.
Click to expand...

They are different services. The OP's situation is one service and it does not qualify for 230.40 Exception 3 because it is not a dwelling.


packersparky said:
And each building has its own service.

...
Click to expand...

Unless there are multiple sets of conductors coming from the utility, there is only one service.

Craigv said:
I'm listening.

See Article 230.40 Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location and supply separate loads from one service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several such service equipment enclosures.


In my opinion this is the OP's intended solution. There's no expressed prohibition from having multiple service disconnects supplied by one service, and this exception fits what he could do....one set of service entrance conductors into a dual-lug meter base, to two grouped service disconnects, supplying separate loads.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Note that this particular exception to 230.40 is left out of list in 230.71. In other words, you cannot have two-six service disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors if the only reason you have multiple sets of service entrance conductors is to have multiple disconnects. Since 230.72 requires those two-six discos to be grouped, you cannot use 230.40 Exception No. 2 to get out of the grouping requirement. You can use any of the other exceptions, but not that one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top