Post defined by Oregon Chief as a "Structure"

[JCB]

I recently installed a 400amp meter on a post from which we went underground with two two inch conduits, one feeding a church, the other to a post feeding a manufactured unit being used as a youth center. I placed a 200 Amp service rated disconnect on each building and am being told by the local inspector whose decision i have appealed and by Dennis Clements chief electrical inspector for the state of oregon that the post I mounted the meter on is a structure and therefore I must provide disconnects at the post as well and feed the buildings with four wire. I will be appealing the chiefs decision as well as soon as he puts it in writing, this is all based on his defining a post as a structure. I am considering putting a door knob on the post and telling him the disconnects are located inside the structure.

 

[iwire]

I recently installed a 400amp meter on a post from which we went underground with two two inch conduits, one feeding a church, the other to a post feeding a manufactured unit being used as a youth center. I placed a 200 Amp service rated disconnect on each building and am being told by the local inspector whose decision i have appealed and by xxxxxxxxxxx chief electrical inspector for the state of oregon that the post I mounted the meter on is a structure and therefore I must provide disconnects at the post as well and feed the buildings with four wire. I will be appealing the chiefs decision as well as soon as he puts it in writing, this is all based on his defining a post as a structure. I am considering putting a door knob on the post and telling him the disconnects are located inside the structure.

The inspector is correct, per NEC definition it is a structure.

 

[JCB]

NEC definition of a structure, "that which can be built or constructed"

 

[jumper]

The inspector is correct, per NEC definition it is a structure.

Yep, sure is.

For the OP:

Per Article 100 definitions:

Structure. That which is built or constructed.

 

[infinity]

Although I believe that the NEC definition is from the building code IMO it's a lousy, vague definition when the object is merely used a support for a piece of equipment.

 

[iwire]

Although I believe that the NEC definition is from the building code IMO it's a lousy, vague definition when the object is merely used a support for a piece of equipment.

Maybe that is exactly the intent.

If not they could leave the word struture out of 'buildings and structures'.

 

[jumper]

Although I believe that the NEC definition is from the building code IMO it's a lousy, vague definition when the object is merely used a support for a piece of equipment.

How else would we define it it? Size, material, or purpose would be somewhat limiting I imagine.

 

[RUWired]

I recently installed a 400amp meter on a post from which we went underground with two two inch conduits, one feeding a church, the other to a post feeding a manufactured unit being used as a youth center. I placed a 200 Amp service rated disconnect on each building and am being told by the local inspector whose decision i have appealed and by Dennis Clements chief electrical inspector for the state of oregon that the post I mounted the meter on is a structure and therefore I must provide disconnects at the post as well and feed the buildings with four wire. I will be appealing the chiefs decision as well as soon as he puts it in writing, this is all based on his defining a post as a structure. I am considering putting a door knob on the post and telling him the disconnects are located inside the structure.

Is the inspector asking for a disconnect before or after the meter. If before, then it would be a poco requirement. If after, it makes no sense because the structure is being served by service conductors. The disconnects after the meter are serving the out buildings , not the structure.

 

[George Stolz]

I agree with RUwired. 230.70 does not require a disconnect at the pole. While it is a structure, the term "structure" does not appear in 230.70. Contrast this wording with 225.31 - an outside feeder or branch circuit would require a disconnect, but service conductors do not.

Edit to add: it may likely be a POCO requirement either way - I've attempted to install a meter socket remotely from a service disconnect before and been shot down by the POCO.

Edit x 2: At the time, I drafted a very sarcastic letter to the engineer at the POCO, telling him that after I left his office on the drive home I saw no less than 13 meters without service disconnects and that these hooligans needed to have their power disconnected before someone went on a trenching spree - he replied that the route I took home was not his utility's territory and to check with each utility prior to installing a service that didn't match their stupid drawing. Your mileage may vary.

Edit x 3: I was reading 230.70 before my first cup of coffee. The key was the word "in" in 230.70, not the absence of "structure" which is there. Hopefully edit 3 gets in before I get the dope slap.

 

[cowboyjwc]

While the inspector is correct, and I don't remember where I saw it, they did had to show that it wasn't intended that a disconnect be put on every light pole in a parking lot, even though they meet the definition of a "structure". I also don't require a ground rod at each sub-pole on a temp power system, again even though they meet the definition of a structure, but I know some inspectors that do.

 

[hillbilly1]

If the POCO will do it, have them CT the service at the pad mount or pole mount transformer, problem solved.

 

[iwire]

While the inspector is correct, and I don't remember where I saw it, they did had to show that it wasn't intended that a disconnect be put on every light pole in a parking lot, even though they meet the definition of a "structure". I also don't require a ground rod at each sub-pole on a temp power system, again even though they meet the definition of a structure, but I know some inspectors that do.

John, there is a specific exception to the disconnect rule for light standards in part II of 225.

The exception is needed as light poles are structures

 

[Gregg Harris]

John, there is a specific exception to the disconnect rule for light standards in part II of 225.

The exception is needed as light poles are structures

225.31 Disconnecting Means. Means shall be provided for disconnecting all ungrounded conductors that supply or pass through the building or structure.
225.32 Location. The disconnecting means shall be installed either inside or outside of the building or structure served or where the conductors pass through the building or structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. For the purposes of this section, the requirements in 230.6 shall be utilized.
Exception No. 1: For installations under single management, where documented safe switching procedures are established and maintained for disconnection, and where the installation is monitored by qualified individuals, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 2: For buildings or other structures qualifying under the provisions of Article 685, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 3: For towers or poles used as lighting standards, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 4: For poles or similar structures used only for support of signs installed in accordance with Article 600, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

225.31 Disconnecting Means. Means shall be provided for disconnecting all ungrounded conductors that supply or pass through the building or structure.
225.32 Location. The disconnecting means shall be installed either inside or outside of the building or structure served or where the conductors pass through the building or structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. For the purposes of this section, the requirements in 230.6 shall be utilized.
Exception No. 1: For installations under single management, where documented safe switching procedures are established and maintained for disconnection, and where the installation is monitored by qualified individuals, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 2: For buildings or other structures qualifying under the provisions of Article 685, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 3: For towers or poles used as lighting standards, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.
Exception No. 4: For poles or similar structures used only for support of signs installed in accordance with Article 600, the disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located elsewhere on the premises.

What I get from this thread is
that if you are going to get dinged you can at least ask,
"How is the ultimate purpose of safety served by this rule in my particular case?"
Have the guy step you through the convoluted path from safety through the rule to your particular case.

For exception #1 . . ."monitoring". . ., should this be done as often as GFCI outlets should be tested?

The paradox in writing the NEC may be that as it gets more specific it also excludes more situations that should be included. Doubling the page count of the NEC will not solve this.
I guess that's why lawyers have to read 3000 or so cases, the caselaw.

 

[steve66]

John, there is a specific exception to the disconnect rule for light standards in part II of 225.

The exception is needed as light poles are structures

Just for the sake or argument, if a light was installed on this "Structure", would that mean the disconnects are no longer required?

I'm not seeing any useful purpose to putting the disconnects at the pole. It seems like they may have left the definition of "structure" a little vauge to give the AHJ some descrition.

 

[iwire]

Just for the sake or argument, if a light was installed on this "Structure", would that mean the disconnects are no longer required?

I'm not seeing any useful purpose to putting the disconnects at the pole. It seems like they may have left the definition of "structure" a little vauge to give the AHJ some descrition.

I am not fallowing you.

A pole is a structure, normally that would require a disconnecting means but it seems like you and I, the CMP could not find any value in having a disconnect at each pole so they put the exception in.

Of course now with 70E in the mix we might actuality see disconnects at the poles, many pole fixtures come with internal ballast disconnect for servicing.

 

[iwire]

What I get from this thread is
that if you are going to get dinged you can at least ask,
"How is the ultimate purpose of safety served by this rule in my particular case?"

We could ask many questions but it says what it says and if I was the inspector I would stick with what it says. Call it self preservation.

For exception #1 . . ."monitoring". . ., should this be done as often as GFCI outlets should be tested?

Yes, which means never.

 

[steve66]

I am not fallowing you.

A pole is a structure, normally that would require a disconnecting means but it seems like you and I, the CMP could not find any value in having a disconnect at each pole so they put the exception in.

Of course now with 70E in the mix we might actuality see disconnects at the poles, many pole fixtures come with internal ballast disconnect for servicing.

I'm thinking if a light is mounted on the post, it becomes a light pole and meets the exception for a light pole.

Again, just for the sake or argument.

 

[hurk27]

I have to agree with George in post 9

If these are service conductors and they do not enter the structure the NEC does not require a disconect, 230.70

VI. Service Equipment — Disconnecting Means
230.70 General. Means shall be provided to disconnect all
conductors in a building or other structure from the service entrance
conductors.

Sorry inspector that is what the code says not me:roll:

 

[mjf]

Just for the sake or argument, if a light was installed on this "Structure", would that mean the disconnects are no longer required?



I believe it would then require some type of OCP between the meter and the luminaire.

In a code class I took over the summer we discussed the fact that a 4 x 4 is considered a structure.