# Nec 230.72



## chris kennedy (Jul 12, 2011)

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)












 Reply With Quote 



                                                                                                                                                                        Today 06:18 PM                                                                                                                                                                                                     #2


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 13, 2011)

What the GC and the passerby think is not relevant.  It's what the inspector thinks.


----------



## north star (Jul 13, 2011)

** * * **

Agree with 480sparky!......IMO, "grouped together" does not mean ' ...some inside

and some outside '!.....Was the picture of the installation shown, the one drawn

on the "passed" plans review?







Chris,



For us electrical novices, please explain the "fusible disco" install outside.

Which Articles are applicable? Thanks!



** * * **


----------



## Bryan Holland (Jul 13, 2011)

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 can be 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.


----------



## VillageInspector (Jul 13, 2011)

I would be real reluctant to deviate from the letter of the code in this instance.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 13, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> ** * * **For us electrical novices, please explain the "fusible disco" install outside.
> 
> Which Articles are applicable? Thanks!


I don't understanding what you are asking here. The new fusable disco is 230.70 compliant.???



			
				Bryan Holland said:
			
		

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


I thank you sir, that was very nice.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 18, 2011)

Update

I had the EI out today to look at this, I didn't bring up 230.72 during our conversation. He told me to wire it up, call him back and he would release it to POCO.

FWIW, here is a pic of the breaker enclosure changed out to the fusible disco as per revision 3.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Jul 19, 2011)

Just keep these two administrative provisions in mind:



> 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. *Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.*





> 110.1 General. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. *Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.* It shall be the duty of the permit applicant to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection.


In short, the building department / inspectors do not have the authority to overlook ANY provision of the code.  In the event a code violation results in a hazard or accident, the building department / inspectors can't & won't be found liable.  The contractor, however, can & will...



> 104.8 Liability. The building official, member of the board of appeals or employee charged with the enforcement of this code, while acting for the jurisdiction in good faith and without malice in the discharge of the duties required by this code or other pertinent law or ordinance, shall not thereby be rendered liable personally and is hereby relieved from personal liability for any damage accruing to persons or property as a result of any act or by reason of an act or omission in the discharge of official duties. Any suit instituted against an officer or employee because of an act performed by that officer or employee in the lawful discharge of duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended by legal representative of the jurisdiction until the final termination of the proceedings. The building official or any subordinate shall not be liable for cost in any action, suit or proceeding that is instituted in pursuance of the provisions of this code.


----------

