# "grouped"? here we go again



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

a double residential building, split left/right (vertically), overhead service drop (one). The units are divided perfectly (no doors, basement and attic totally separated, ground to roof). Both units' panels are in the basement, near the rear wall/center. 

Do I need disconnects outside, grouped? 

As far as I can tell, the "no" depends on the definition of "firewall." Which, around here, not only varies from one town to another, but from one inspector to another.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Not if there are separate service drops.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

I've heard the firewall argument as well.

I just don't see how it applies.

The "logic" is that the firewall somehow makes one building into two.

I believe the intent behind the grouping rule is to allow for quick disconnection of all power in the event of an emergency.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Each occupancy is permitted to have its own set of service entrance conductors, and those conductors must terminate in the service disconnect. There is no requirement that these service disconnects be grouped together at the meters. As long as the service equipment is inside "nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors" you are in compliance with the code. It is common to see strip malls around here like that. A group of meters on the outside, with exterior conduits to each occupancy and interior service disconnects.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

I'd say as long as there are two service drops no grouped disconnects are required but it really depends on the rules in the location the building sits. You'd need to check with the AHJ.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Each occupancy is permitted to have its own set of service entrance conductors, and those conductors must terminate in the service disconnect. There is no requirement that these service disconnects be grouped together at the meters. As long as the service equipment is inside "nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors" you are in compliance with the code. It is common to see strip malls around here like that. A group of meters on the outside, with exterior conduits to each occupancy and interior service disconnects.




So where does 230.72 come into play for you?

I realize the meter location has nothing to do with the disconnect location, but they still have to be grouped together with access to all occupants. 



> 230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.
> (A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.
> Exception:  One of the two to six service disconnecting means permitted in 230.71, where used only for a water pump also intended to provide fire protection, shall be permitted to be located remote from the other disconnecting means. If remotely installed in accordance with this exception, a plaque shall be posted at the location of the remaining grouped disconnects denoting its location.
> (B) Additional Service Disconnecting Means. The one or more additional service disconnecting means for fire pumps, emergency systems, legally required standby, or optional standby services permitted by 230.2 shall be installed remote from the one to six service disconnecting means for normal service to minimize the possibility of simultaneous interruption of supply.
> ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Barjack said:


> So where does 230.72 come into play for you?
> 
> I realize the meter location has nothing to do with the disconnect location, but they still have to be grouped together with access to all occupants.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There is nothing there that says that the service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors have to be grouped with the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors. There is no requirement the occupants served by one set of service entrance conductors have access to the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There is nothing there that says that the service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors have to be grouped with the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors. There is no requirement the occupants served by one set of service entrance conductors have access to the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors.


Agreed!


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There is nothing there that says that the service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors have to be grouped with the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors. There is no requirement the occupants served by one set of service entrance conductors have access to the service disconnects for another set of service entrance conductors.


You are allowed multiple sets of service entrance conductors only if 230.2 applies and are given special permission to have multiple services.

OP said there was one overhead service drop.



> *230.2 Number of Services.* A building or other structure
> served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted
> in 230.2(A) through (D). For the purpose of 230.40, Exception
> No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and
> ...





> *230.40 Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets.*
> Each service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of
> service-entrance conductors.
> Exception No. 1: A building with more than one occupancy
> ...


Unless special permission is given and two services are allowed, the disconnects must be grouped together with accessibility to all occupants.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

I'm picturing streets in NYC filled with attached row houses. Each and every one has it's own separate distinct electric, gas, and water service.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I'm picturing streets in NYC filled with attached row houses. Each and every one has it's own separate distinct electric, gas, and water service.


Grandfathered in. :thumbsup:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Barjack said:


> You are allowed multiple sets of service entrance conductors only if 230.2 applies and are given special permission to have multiple services.
> 
> OP said there was one overhead service drop.
> 
> Unless special permission is given and two services are allowed, the disconnects must be grouped together with accessibility to all occupants.


You are confusing services with sets of service entrance conductors. Each occupancy (meter) has its own set of service entrance conductors. See 230.40 Exception #1.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Barjack said:


> You are allowed multiple sets of service entrance conductors only if 230.2 applies and are given special permission to have multiple services.
> 
> OP said there was one overhead service drop.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is one service, but there can be any number of sets of service entrance conductors. There is nothing in the NEC that requires the service disconnects for on set of service entrance conductors be grouped with those for another set of service entrance conductors and there is no way that the people in one occupancy are required to have access to the service disconnects for another occupancy.


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

[OP] job done. building had a brick/cement firewall, apparently basement to roof. Rolled the dice and skipped the grouped outdoor disconnects, went with standard panel w disconnect in each basement. AHJ approved it ... which I'm fine with, although my personal read of the code world have been more strict.


----------

