service disconnects not grouped together

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craigv said:
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, subtractions or additions to that model code.
Click to expand...

Or it could be something an inspector came up with on a whim that has no basis either in code or The Way Electricity Works that he managed to sneak into the local code document passed by the city council.
 
Craigv said:
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.
Click to expand...

And then he said this:

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.


JAP>
 
jap said:
And then he said this:

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.


JAP>
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post. Are you saying that what he is proposing is compliant or not compliant with the NEC?
 
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...
Oh man dare I dip my toe in this one. Can we get some photos please? Do we know what building code shade23 is under? Then we can define occupancy.
From what I know of the building code; the 'batting cage' seems like its actually a separate occupancy, if its really a separate structure and its usage is separate then you have a seperate occupant load under any of the states building codes. We agree its a physically a separate structure and use? I would head towards 230.40 Exception 1 and concr with Charlie's opinion along with the local AHJ. AHJ is correct in wanting the plaques.
Cheers
 
It almost sounds like it is an historical district... with loads of extra local codes not in the state or national building codes.
having experienced that crap in Virginia, world say to simply do what the AHJ wants done... tie to the meter, put disconnect on batting cage, and put sign on meter for the POCO and the firemen... done.
 
jap said:
And then he said this:

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.


JAP>
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I see no logical reason he even mentioned a second service. He is approved to do his original but non-NEC-compliant second disconnect by his AHJ and the utility. If he gets these approvals in writing, he can safely (from a liability stance) do as he originally planned.

If not, he should be able to get approval for a compliant second disconnect grouped with the first. But he seems to think it isn't physically possible due to "high dollar" wall material.

The way around THAT problem is to move both disconnects outside and re-feed to the interior with the original service entrance wire-way.

I don't see adding a separate service as remotely in play. Either do a compliant second disconnect or get written approval for the non-compliant disconnect....these are far more plausible solutions IMHO.
 
If the 400A capacity is not an issue, then couldn't a new WP 400A SER disconnect be added next to the meter and then that disco be double tapped to feed the existing panel and the new 70A feed? The conductors could go from the meter to the disco, back thru the meter and then thru the conduit to the existing panel. The new conductors could go straight down from the disco, UG to the cage.
 
MNWildcat said:
If the 400A capacity is not an issue, then couldn't a new WP 400A SER disconnect be added next to the meter and then that disco be double tapped to feed the existing panel and the new 70A feed? The conductors could go from the meter to the disco, back thru the meter and then thru the conduit to the existing panel. The new conductors could go straight down from the disco, UG to the cage.
Click to expand...

No.

That would be a code violation also.

JAP>
 
packersparky said:
I don't understand your post. Are you saying that what he is proposing is compliant or not compliant with the NEC?
Click to expand...

I was quoted in reference to the original post.

All I was getting at was in the 1st post he was talking about tapping the existing meter where by NEC those (2) disconnects would have to be grouped and not NEC compliant since with one inside and one outside they are technically not grouped.

It seems the AHJ have given him the ok for them not to be grouped as long as he installs a placard that said that the new disconnect was one of two.

Then, later on, he was talking about "IF" he had to install a whole separate service.

I'm still curious as to how there's spare lugs on a 400 amp meter. Generally you either get single 500mcm lugs, not lugs at all that you would have to provide, or double barrel lugs rated at most for 250 mcm.

The load side in my mind shouldn't have any spare lugs at all, and, if there are spare lugs on the line side due to the power company fudging on the feed to this 400 amp service, a new meter would have to be set.

Oh well, too many unknowns, if the lugs are available on the load side of the meter, use em, install you're disconnect, put up the placard and play ball.

JAP>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top