service disconnects not grouped together

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
If the local inspector and the local power company have both given their permission as long as the sign is posted, then is it not now allowed as an exception to the NEC code, because all of our work is subject to inspectors?
 
jaggedben said:
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.



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.




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



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!
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Just got to my code book to respond, but you pretty much took care of it.....
 
grouped dissconects

grouped dissconects

jap said:
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>
Click to expand...
The inside panel is in a metal building and the wall is finished with high dollar material. The panel is a CH 42 circuit and is full and there is no way to tie to it.
If I have to supply a separate power source for the batting cages I will have to install a new meter, 35' power pole, and new panel, plus overhead wiring. I only need a 70 amp service. This will not add to the appearance of a completely restored building.
 
shade23 said:
The inside panel is in a metal building and the wall is finished with high dollar material. The panel is a CH 42 circuit and is full and there is no way to tie to it.
If I have to supply a separate power source for the batting cages I will have to install a new meter, 35' power pole, and new panel, plus overhead wiring. I only need a 70 amp service. This will not add to the appearance of a completely restored building.
Click to expand...

how is the existing panel fed though? If it is in conduit then you should be able to get an equipment grounding conductor in the conduit. If so, you can intercept the feeders and relocate the service disconnect to the outside of the building. then you r disconnects can be grouped. The fire marshal is the most important AHJ in this case, in my opinion.
 
Adamjamma said:
If the local inspector and the local power company have both given their permission as long as the sign is posted, then is it not now allowed as an exception to the NEC code, because all of our work is subject to inspectors?
Click to expand...

Yes, but as noted very early in the thread, these permissions need to be in writing if they do not agree with whatever code is the law in this AHJ. Sorry if the following is old news to you: each jurisdiction in the US....city, township, state, county, etc. that is responsible for the construction code in a given location passes a law that states what their building code is. The electrical code could be a handwritten document, or it could be a "model" code text such as a certain year of NEC. Or it could be a combination of such a model code plus particular changes, subtract ions or additions to that model code.

So an AHJ could enact NEC 2017, but state that Article 680 does not apply at all, or that (just being cheeky here) only blue houses require GFCI protection in basement receptacles.

For the OP's situation, NEC says no. But his building authority says "go ahead", but verbally (as far as we know). If the worst should happen, especially at a commercial public facility, the lawyers will be lined up down the block fighting for a better place in line....

...get it in writing....
 
Craigv said:
...and he said the utility approved the work because the meter base has dual lugs.


Hmm.....
Click to expand...

After reading back,I think he was implying that IF he had to supply a separate power source.

Sounds like he's trying not to have to do that.

JAP>
 
I agree with the get-it-in-writing group and then go with the original idea.

A CH panel should be able to accept tandems unless we're talking about bolt-ins.

Can a sub-panel be added inside, with just enough existing load moved to the new sub-panel to make room for its breaker and feeder?
 
jap said:
After reading back,I think he was implying that IF he had to supply a separate power source.

Sounds like he's trying not to have to do that.

JAP>
Click to expand...



Here's what he wrote:
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.
 
Come out of the meter the second time and install the disconnect at the separate structure. There is no need for one on the main building.
 
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...
But you do not need to turn off more than one disconnect to shut down the building nor do you need to turn off anything in the building to disconnect the batting cage. They are serving two different things and like Charlie said they would not be required to be grouped.
 
cowboyjwc said:
But you do not need to turn off more than one disconnect to shut down the building nor do you need to turn off anything in the building to disconnect the batting cage. They are serving two different things and like Charlie said they would not be required to be grouped.
Click to expand...

230.72 does not mention anything about what the service disconnect serves. It does state that the two to six service disconnecting means permitted by 230.71(A) have to be grouped. Unless you meet 230.40 exceptions 1, 3, 4, or 5 (I don't believe any of the exceptions apply in this case) the disconnects have to be grouped.
 
Dennis is suggesting mounting the new disco at/on the batting cage, and not at the meter. This would eliminate the need to group discos, since they would then be on separate structures.
 
LarryFine said:
Dennis is suggesting mounting the new disco at/on the batting cage, and not at the meter. This would eliminate the need to group discos, since they would then be on separate structures.
Click to expand...

How does that argument get past 230.72(A)?

I don't see where it says they don't have to be grouped just because it's feeding a separate outdoor batting cage????
 
Cow said:
How does that argument get past 230.72(A)?

I don't see where it says they don't have to be grouped just because it's feeding a separate outdoor batting cage????
Click to expand...
Because the new disco would not be mounted on the existing structure. A second conduit would leave the meter, and the building itself, and be mounted at or on the batting cage. Same thing as supplying an out-building from a dual-lug meter without a disco at the meter, but instead located at the out-building.
 
LarryFine said:
Because the new disco would not be mounted on the existing structure. A second conduit would leave the meter, and the building itself, and be mounted at or on the batting cage. Same thing as supplying an out-building from a dual-lug meter without a disco at the meter, but instead located at the out-building.
Click to expand...

What you describe would be allowed for one family dwellings per 230.40 Ex. No. 3, but would not be allowed in this situation IMO.
 
LarryFine said:
Because the new disco would not be mounted on the existing structure. A second conduit would leave the meter, and the building itself, and be mounted at or on the batting cage. Same thing as supplying an out-building from a dual-lug meter without a disco at the meter, but instead located at the out-building.
Click to expand...

I'm with packersparky, how does this apply here???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top