230.72

[chris kennedy]

I have an issue thats bugging me. I'm installing a new service disco that has been through 3 revisions and 2 plans reviews. First set of plans had a 400A shunt trip main as this disco is outside directly behind 2 existing 600A mains inside. I would have placed the EPO between the two 600's inside.

Latest approved set of plans now has me installing a 400A fusible main outside. This morning I was telling the GC he would be receiving an E-mail from me explaining that this is a violation of 230.72. He is questioning this so I pull out the book and read this aloud. A lay-man standing with us points to the corner of the building and says, "Whats the problem, they are all grouped on that corner of the building?".

I believe most of us here would agree that even having to walk a dozen steps outside to open the 3rd disco in not grouped, just throwing this out there as it did pass plans review.

The following is a pic of the service. The two existing 600a mains are directly behind what you see here. (The breaker enclosure is coming down tomorrow and being replaced with the fusible disco)

 

[iwire]

A lay-man standing with us points to the corner of the building and says, "Whats the problem, they are all grouped on that corner of the building?".

I believe most of us here would agree that even having to walk a dozen steps outside to open the 3rd disco in not grouped,

This will not answer your question but ...

210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for
Personnel.

(A) Dwelling Units.

(7) Laundry, utility, and wet bar sinks ? where the receptacles
are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink

So if I have laundry with a laundry sink sharing a wall with say the living room, does a living room receptacle that backs up to the sink have to be GFCI protected?


IMO your disconnects may be grouped by common terminology but not NEC terminology.

 

[Smart $]

Hmmm... no service drop yet. Is this going to be a separate service? If so, I believe it is not a violation as the requirement for grouping is per service.

 

[chris kennedy]

IMO your disconnects may be grouped by common terminology but not NEC terminology.

Show me the NEC def of grouped.

Hmmm... no service drop yet. Is this going to be a separate service? If so, I believe it is not a violation as the requirement for grouping is per service.

I believe as per the Art. def of "Service" all three disco are one service. It will be connected to the existing drop.

 

[iwire]

Show me the NEC def of grouped.

:?

You know as well as I do there is not one, but you also know like I do what they are trying to accomplish which the layperson may not.

 

[Smart $]

...

I believe as per the Art. def of "Service" all three disco are one service. It will be connected to the existing drop.

Please refer to 230.71(A). Note the use of "each" and "per" therein.

 

[chris kennedy]

:?

You know as well as I do there is not one, but you also know like I do what they are trying to accomplish which the layperson may not.

I just found what the layperson said to be quite interesting. Did that same mind set get this through the 2nd plan review? Bottom line is the Fire Marshall has final say as to whether we get CO or not. Fixing to fire of an RFI tonight and just wanted to know if any of you had a similar situation in the past and how that was handled.

Thanks again for your attention to this matter.

 

[augie47]

(1) outside with (2) inside would not fly here unless the new one met one of the 230.2 special conditions.

 

[jumper]

After spending 30 mins looking at ROP's, I can say that I think that the CMP does not wish to define distance and leaves that to the AHJ.

BS in part: yes; Necessary: maybe. Do I agree: no.

!@#$%^&* NEC :rant:

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

:?

You know as well as I do there is not one, but you also know like I do what they are trying to accomplish which the layperson may not.

I have to agree with this... the spirit of the law...the intent here seems obvious... to keep the disconnects close. I don't buy the inside/outside situation as being compliant.

 

[bphgravity]

Let me first say this work is extremely neat & workmanlike. You positively have the skills of a true electrical professional.

I too do not believe this particular arrangement would be considered "grouped". That being said, it may be possible to get special permission for this installation if considerable substaniation or circumstance could be explianed as to why this arrangement is necessary and made safe.

For example, lets say the electrical room simply has no more room for new equipment. If the occupancy in question is under single management with qualified in-house employees & permanent placards are placed on the service enclosures identifying the location of the other service disconnecting means, then maybe, just maybe this could be approved.

If the only reason for this arrangement is beacuse it is easier to install or the engineer doesn't know what he is doing, then I would likely hold to the letter of the code.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

My dictionary defines group: noun 1) any collection or assemblage of persons or or things; cluster; aggregate. These panels do not seem to be clustered together to me. I would not approve this installation.

 

[chris kennedy]

Let me first say this work is extremely neat & workmanlike. You positively have the skills of a true electrical professional.

Thanks man, that's nice to hear. You know what the owner of my company had to say about this install? He told me that if I used an LB on the load side entering the building and the disco I could have saved about 16' of 600. So I say using LB's on 3? of this size would be a violation of 314.28 and 110.3(B). After explaining what that means he tells me that 99 out of 100 inspectors wouldn't know that. This guy has put up with me for 8 years now, frickin miracle.

I too do not believe this particular arrangement would be considered "grouped". That being said, it may be possible to get special permission for this installation if considerable substaniation or circumstance could be explianed as to why this arrangement is necessary and made safe.

For example, lets say the electrical room simply has no more room for new equipment.

This is the case here.

If the occupancy in question is under single management with qualified in-house employees & permanent placards are placed on the service enclosures identifying the location of the other service disconnecting means, then maybe, just maybe this could be approved.

Defiantly not the case here.

My dictionary defines group: noun 1) any collection or assemblage of persons or or things; cluster; aggregate. These panels do not seem to be clustered together to me. I would not approve this installation.

Firefighters come to the scene in groups, 2 inside and 1 outside, whats the problem?:lol:

 

[USMC1302]

I like the clean, neat work too. Nice. Now, as a firefighter, I would prefer not to have to deal with multiple locations, but I also don't believe it is always practical. If adequate signage is in place, I believe our inspector would not have an issue with it. More in the "layman's" view and not from a code standpoint, who would need to operate the disconnecting means anyway? If they were all inside, a firefighter would have to know where to go. Our truck company is supposed to arrive on scene and "secure" utilities on every working fire. We are also supposed to "pre-plan" all commercial structures and walk-thru annually to note changes. All that sometimes is out the window at 2 AM, I'll walk around the building and look. Will be interested to hear what the Fire Marshal says.

 

[chris kennedy]

We are also supposed to "pre-plan" all commercial structures and walk-thru annually to note changes. All that sometimes is out the window at 2 AM, I'll walk around the building and look. Will be interested to hear what the Fire Marshal says.

This is SOP here also and I will let you know how this effects CO.