ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues 230.70(A)(3)

Service Equipment - Disconnecting Means
230.70(A)(3)Remote Control. Where a remote control device(s) is used to actuate the service disconnecting means, the service disconnecting means shall be located in accordance with 230.70(A)(1) (Readily Accessible Location)

This seems like it should be talking about location for the remote control, Is the remote control considered the service disconnect in this case?

Bill

Bill,

I think that the service disconnect must be readily accessible in all installations even when there is a remote control. The remote control can be anywhere & does not neccessarily need to be readily accessible and in fact could be part of equipment that is not readily accessible.

I don't see any exception to 230.70(A)(1). The reference in 230.70(A)(3) just reinforces the requirement that the service diconnecting means must be readily accessible even if a remote control is installed.

Tom

Tom,

I guess my question is if a shunt-trip pushbutton that is used to open the service disconnecting means is, or can be, considered as the service disconnecting means?

Bill

Bill: I believe that the answer to your last question should be NO, see Article 100, Definition of a "Remote-Control Circuit. Any electric circuit that controls any other circuit through a relay or an equivalent device."

I like Joe's answer, but let's toss out a couple more items for consideration.

The pushbutton does not provide the required indication. 230.77 Pretty weak, I admit.

This one is stronger "the service disconnecting means for ungrounded service conductors shall consist of either (1) a manually operated switch or circuit breaker ... (2) a power operated switch or circuit breaker, provided the switch or circuit breaker can be opened by hand in the event of power supply failure." 230.76 The pushbutton is neither one of these.

Good question though.

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 04-01-2002).]

Thanks Tom, Joe,

I think this could be clearer. Perhaps a "shall not be considered as" should be put in there.

Do you think that the last sentence of 230.71(A) pertains to this?
It seems to pertain only to the number of disconnects.

Bill