# IRC Electrical Code for Grouping of Disconnects



## jar546 (Jul 9, 2013)

Discussion/Debate.

This question is specific to residential electrical where the IRC was adopted and enforced including the electrical section.  This is not an NEC question, this is specifically an IRC question so please reference the IRC for your opinion.

Scenario:

A homeowner has an existing 200A service with the main panel located in the basement of the single family residence.  They are adding an attached garage addition and would like to place a 200A panel there as they plan on installing some saws, and eventually a hot tub in the back of the garage.  The location of the garage will cause the meter base to be moved to a new location.

The electrician is planning the following:

Install a new 320 continuous load service & meter base on the side of the garage nearest the house.  From the new exterior service meter base, he wants to run conduit to feed the existing 200A panel in the basement.  In addition, he will be installing another main panel inside the garage, right behind the meter base.  There will be one main disconnect in the basement and one in the garage.

Is the lack of grouped disconnects a code violation under the IRC?

Reminder, this is not an NEC question.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 9, 2013)

Compliant.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 10, 2013)

Would you say this is a safety issue?


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Would you say this is a safety issue?


Sure, probably why it appears in the NEC, but OP stated NEC is not a player here. IRC only.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

So if it is not in the IRC but it is in the NEC which is referenced in the electrical code of the NEC, would it apply?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

*E3401.1 Applicability*. The provisions of Chapters 34 through

43 shall establish the general scope of the electrical system and

equipment requirements of this code. Chapters 34 through 43

cover those wiring methods and materials most commonly

encountered in the construction of one- and two-family dwellings

and structures regulated by this code. Other wiring methods,

materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are

also allowed by this code.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Other wiring methods,materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are
> 
> also allowed by this code.


Allowed means required???


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Allowed means required???


Great question.  I'll see if I can find any more verbiage.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

Under scope:



> _Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered in__these chapters shall comply with the applicable provisions of_
> 
> _the NFPA 70._


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

> _Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered _


Services are 'specifically covered' in chapter 36.

What else ya got?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

Key word "specifically"


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

I guess I don't read it the same way you do.  I would enforce the grouping issue.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

What year are you looking at? Just found the following in the 2009 which, hate to say it, makes your position the correct position. (eatin crow here)

*E3401.2 Scope.* Chapters 34 through 43  shall cover the installation of electrical systems, equipment and  components indoors and outdoors that are within the scope of this code,  including services, power distribution systems, fixtures, appliances,  devices and appurtenances. Services within the scope of this code shall  be limited to 120/240-volt, 0- to 400-ampere, single-phase systems.  These chapters specifically cover the equipment, fixtures, appliances,  wiring methods and materials that are most commonly used in the  construction or alteration of one- and two-family dwellings and  accessory structures regulated by this code. The omission from these  chapters of any material or method of construction provided for in the  referenced standard NFPA 70 shall not be construed as prohibiting the  use of such material or method of construction. Electrical systems,  equipment or components not specifically covered in these chapters shall  comply with the applicable provisions of the NFPA 70.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

I see you posted that in post 9, glanced over it, I stand corrected.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

No, please, don't use common sense, keep plugging away at me by all means.  I love the abuse.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

But,.........if you do agree.  Is this then a violation under the IRC since the IRC references the NEC?

So I guess this WOULD be a violation IF the NEC was the code?


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 10, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> But,.........if you do agree.  Is this then a violation under the IRC since the IRC references the NEC?So I guess this WOULD be a violation IF the NEC was the code?


I'm getting a headache.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2013)

I just want to know what kind of an idiot would make an installation like this in the first place?

I can just hear the excuses now:

"But it's for my aunt and she does not want 2 ugly disconnects outside on her new garage".  So lame.


----------



## BSSTG (Jul 11, 2013)

Greetings

We don't enforce the electric in the IRC in Tx so this is confusing to me. Is there not a provision for grouping of service disconnects in the IRC? Additionally, would there not be some requirement for OCP for taps off of the meter can within x amount of feet which would pertain to the panel in the basement?

BSSTG


----------



## jar546 (Jul 11, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> GreetingsWe don't enforce the electric in the IRC in Tx so this is confusing to me. Is there not a provision for grouping of service disconnects in the IRC? Additionally, would there not be some requirement for OCP for taps off of the meter can within x amount of feet which would pertain to the panel in the basement?
> 
> BSSTG


My point in this post is that the IRC has nothing concerning grouping of disconnects.  Luckily the NEC is referenced and can be used to enforce this requirement.  As far as your question concerning OCPD for "taps" off of the meter can, the meter is outside and the panel is directly at the point where the service conductors enter the building so it is not an issue.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 11, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> My point in this post is that the IRC has nothing concerning grouping of disconnects.


Could you clarify the following:

*E3601.6 Service disconnect required. *

Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service entrance conductors.

*E3601.6.1 Marking of service equipment and disconnects.* 

Service disconnects shall be permanently marked as a service disconnect.

*E3601.6.2 Service disconnect location.* 

The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms. Each occupant shall have access to the disconnect serving the dwelling unit in which they reside.

*E3601.7 Maximum number of disconnects.* 

The service disconnecting means shall consist of not more than six switches or six circuit breakers mounted in a single enclosure or in a group of separate enclosures.

Thanks

Francis


----------



## jar546 (Jul 11, 2013)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Could you clarify the following:*E3601.6 Service disconnect required. *
> 
> Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service entrance conductors.
> 
> ...


All of that is met in the the described situation for this thread.

There is a means to disconnect all service conductors.

It only takes 2 swipes of the hand in 2 different enclosures.

The problem is that the NEC for years has required service disconnects to be grouped in the same area and the IRC does not address that.  So with the example I used, the disconnects are on 2 different levels and not grouped together.

If you only know the IRC you think this is an acceptable installation.  If you know the NEC, then you realize that it is NOT and acceptable installation.

The IRC needs to address this.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 12, 2013)

I would not approve having two main disconnects on different levels just based on the language in the IRC.

Is the problem how AHJ interprets "group", "grouping" and "location" in the same way as having to determine what is "likely" to require examination or to be energized?

Perhaps both NFPA and ICC (IRC) could change the language to clarify and say grouped within sight.

Francis


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 12, 2013)

Francis,

IMO, the problem is that the grouping is not adddressed in the IRC as specific as the NEC, and

some AHJ's "hang their hats" on the IRC as being the only code book to use, versus adopting

and actually using the NEC.

To those AHJ's & inspectors out there that do not regularly read, re-read & re-read some more of

the NEC, it is a wholly different format of language and is somewhat harder to understand and

administer. Also, the print is a lot smaller and therer are no diagrams or illustrations.

The point being, that the NEC; and all of the NPFA standards, take a lot more effort and time

to understand.

On this side of the permit counter, we code officials are fighting an uphill battle already,

with a myriad of issues, ..the differences of the codes & standards being one of them.

.


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2013)

The layout that Jeff described is dangerous.  There isn't even a requirement for a sign that would warn about the two locations to kill the power.  I would not be willing to approve it. And then there's what BSSTG brought up about OCP for the conductors feeding the panels.

The more I hear about about the IRC electrical the less I like it.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 12, 2013)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> To those AHJ's & inspectors out there that do not regularly read, re-read & re-read some more of
> 
> the NEC, it is a wholly different format of language and is somewhat harder to understand and
> 
> administer.


Not true, I have been reading and rereading the NEC for 25 years and the table of contents is very clear IMO



> Also, the print is a lot smaller and therer are no diagrams or illustrations.


Also not true, couple pages in and there is a diagram in 90.3.


----------

