Service OCPD location

jaggedben

Senior Member
I have a site with a 400A switch at the service, unfused I believe.

The conductors from this switch go through a utility CT cabinet and then into a gutter where they are spliced into two sets of conductors that feed (2) 200A panels. These panels do not have main breakers, which is an obvious code violation if the switch is unfused. But I'm looking at adding main breakers to make this compliant. We'd also add a third disconnect (fused) for a solar system. The latter would all be grouped, and only 4-5ft from the 400A switch.

Do you think this would be code compliant? I believe code says that service overload protection must be in or immediately adjacent to the disconnecting means, but I don't have code handy. Does this qualify?

Or do I argue that the switch is not the service disconnecting means? I guess I might have to move N-G bonding.

Opinions wanted.
 

jap

Senior Member
We'd have to know how many "Movements of the Hand" there are total in both panels prior to labeling this as a code violation.


JAP>
 

electrofelon

Senior Member
I have a site with a 400A switch at the service, unfused I believe.

The conductors from this switch go through a utility CT cabinet and then into a gutter where they are spliced into two sets of conductors that feed (2) 200A panels. These panels do not have main breakers, which is an obvious code violation if the switch is unfused. But I'm looking at adding main breakers to make this compliant. We'd also add a third disconnect (fused) for a solar system. The latter would all be grouped, and only 4-5ft from the 400A switch.

Do you think this would be code compliant? I believe code says that service overload protection must be in or immediately adjacent to the disconnecting means, but I don't have code handy. Does this qualify?

Or do I argue that the switch is not the service disconnecting means? I guess I might have to move N-G bonding.

Opinions wanted.
you are correct, 230.91. We have that "immediately adjcent thereto" clause . IMO that would not be met. Perhaps the disconnect could be called a meter disconnect switch?
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
It is an inspectors call. Personally I can't see why 5 feet away is an issue... especially if it is labelled.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
We'd have to know how many "Movements of the Hand" there are total in both panels prior to labeling this as a code violation.
JAP>
They are both 40 space panels full of branch breakers. So they need mains regardless.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
you are correct, 230.91. We have that "immediately adjcent thereto" clause . IMO that would not be met. Perhaps the disconnect could be called a meter disconnect switch?
It is an inspectors call. Personally I can't see why 5 feet away is an issue... especially if it is labelled.
Thanks for the replies. Hoping I don't have to go ask the AHJ on this but maybe there's no other way.
 

electrofelon

Senior Member
It is an inspectors call. Personally I can't see why 5 feet away is an issue... especially if it is labelled.
Thanks for the replies. Hoping I don't have to go ask the AHJ on this but maybe there's no other way.
Certainly agree ask the AHJ. What I think doesn't matter, but.....IMO there isn't much wiggle room with "immediately adjacent thereto". If you have a cabinet in between, then that cabinet is what, 'even more immediately adjacent thereto' than the cabinet that is 'immediately adjacent thereto' ?
 
Top