"Service Disconnect ?? "

Status
Not open for further replies.

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
How do you guys view this:
Customer has a service pole in a parking lot with power supplied by POCO from overhead. On that pole he has a meter socket and below the socket a 100 amp NON-fuse disconnect.
From that point the conductors run underground to a building where the conduit turns up, penetrates the wall and feeds a 100 amp main breaker panel.
Is the non fuse switch on the pole considered a service disconnect ?
There is no integral or adjacent overcurrent protection.
Would an equipment ground be required from the pole disconnect to the building "service" panel ?
 

jumper

Senior Member
Is it SUSE rated? 250.66.

OCPD not immediately adjacent. Violation of 230.91

250.24 GES established and separate neutrals at building, EGC from disco to building, etc.

250.32 GES at building.

Now that I have uselessly told you what you already know......?
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
How do you guys view this:
Customer has a service pole in a parking lot with power supplied by POCO from overhead. On that pole he has a meter socket and below the socket a 100 amp NON-fuse disconnect.
From that point the conductors run underground to a building where the conduit turns up, penetrates the wall and feeds a 100 amp main breaker panel.
Is the non fuse switch on the pole considered a service disconnect ?
There is no integral or adjacent overcurrent protection.
Would an equipment ground be required from the pole disconnect to the building "service" panel ?
As it is, the disconnect is not the service disconnecting means because the ocp is not integral or immediately adjacent thereto. Consequences aside, the violation is ultimately attributed to 230.82, equipment permitted to be connected to the supply side of service disconnect.
 

jumper

Senior Member
As it is, the disconnect is not the service disconnecting means because the ocp is not integral or immediately adjacent thereto.

So, if the disconnect and wiring met all the conditions as the service disconnecting means, but not the OCPD conditions in 230.91- it would not be the service disconnect because of a Part VII. Service Equipment ? Overcurrent Protection violation?
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
I hate to look at it as a violation. If the property owner decides he wants a disconnecting means roadside for whatever reason
(in this case I think it was contractor error) it does not seem like it should be a violation to have one there.
Without the OCP, it does not seem to me to be considered as the "service equipment" and I don't really see a requirement for an equipment grounding conductor.
However, if we don't consider it as a service disconnect, as Smart$ noted, it may technically be a violation of 230.82.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
So, if the disconnect and wiring met all the conditions as the service disconnecting means, but not the OCPD conditions in 230.91- it would not be the service disconnect because of a Part VII. Service Equipment ? Overcurrent Protection violation?
Yep.

I always get a chuckle at how Part VII starts with 230.90 title being "Where Required" and no "required" statements preceding it... :blink:
 
Last edited:

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I hate to look at it as a violation. If the property owner decides he wants a disconnecting means roadside for whatever reason
(in this case I think it was contractor error) it does not seem like it should be a violation to have one there.
Without the OCP, it does not seem to me to be considered as the "service equipment" and I don't really see a requirement for an equipment grounding conductor.
However, if we don't consider it as a service disconnect, as Smart$ noted, it may technically be a violation of 230.82.
If owner wants roadside disconnect, simply replace non-fused with [fused] SUSE disconnect... but then you have the GES and EGC requirements to meet.
 

jumper

Senior Member
I hate to look at it as a violation. If the property owner decides he wants a disconnecting means roadside for whatever reason
(in this case I think it was contractor error) it does not seem like it should be a violation to have one there.
Without the OCP, it does not seem to me to be considered as the "service equipment" and I don't really see a requirement for an equipment grounding conductor.
However, if we don't consider it as a service disconnect, as Smart$ noted, it may technically be a violation of 230.82.

Okay, now you question makes sense - you wanna pass it.

As long as the HO is satisfied that he does not have a legal service disconnect and is satisfied, you could ignore it for now, but what happens if he wishes to add something to the disco down the road?
 

suemarkp

Senior Member
Location
Kent, WA
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Can't you change the order -- switch first then meter? Then it would be a legal "meter disconnect switch". Also, that line side of the building supply may be under the purview of the POCO. If so, the NEC may not apply and the power company can tell you whether they allow a switch after a meter or not.
 

jumper

Senior Member
Can't you change the order -- switch first then meter? Then it would be a legal "meter disconnect switch". Also, that line side of the building supply may be under the purview of the POCO. If so, the NEC may not apply and the power company can tell you whether they allow a switch after a meter or not.

I believe that POCOs say in any NEC matter ends at the meter.
 

hurk27

Senior Member
I would have a hard time rejecting a disconnect at remote pole also as long as it does have a rating of safely being opened under the load that it might see, and from a choice of removing a meter under load verses being able to turn off this disconnect even though it doesn't remove the voltage from the meter, I would say it does give the POCO employee a little more safety then if it wasn't there at all, and the fact that 230.82 does allow a meter disconnect ahead of the meter.

I can see this the same as the bypass type of meter sockets that have a set of contacts to bypass the load on the meter so the meter can safely be removed then they can be opened to remove the power to the building, 230.82 doesn't list this type of disconnect either but we install them with no problems.
 
Last edited:

hurk27

Senior Member
If owner wants roadside disconnect, simply replace non-fused with [fused] SUSE disconnect... but then you have the GES and EGC requirements to meet.

Not sure what is meant by the GES requirement? but only a local GES at the pole would be required as the house GES is a separate GES system and is most likely already bonded to the service rated disconnect at the house that is the required disconnect as per 225.32 if the pole disconnect was service rated, yes the EGC between the house breaker panel and the pole service would be required, but there is no requirement to bring another GEC between the two as these are two separate GES similar to a non-attached garage or out building and house.

The only time grounding electrodes are required to be bonded together is if they serve the same structure.
 

jumper

Senior Member
I would have a hard time rejecting a disconnect at remote pole also as long as it does have a rating of safely being opened under the load that it might see, and from a choice of removing a meter under load verses being able to turn off this disconnect even though it doesn't remove the voltage from the meter, I would say it does give the POCO employee a little more safety then if it wasn't there at all, and the fact that 230.82 does allow a meter disconnect ahead of the meter.

I can see this the same as the bypass type of meter sockets that have a set of contacts to bypass the load on the meter so the meter can safely be removed then they can be opened to remove the power to the building, 230.82 doesn't list this type of disconnect either but we install them with no problems.

I agree, once Gus stated that he really did not want reject this.

As I stated, as long as the customer understands the problem, I would just pass/ignore it. The 3W feed is not a big deal.

Yes, the install is not 100% kosher.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
I hate to look at it as a violation.

I don't follow why, but there is another out. Ask the POCO if they will consider the service point the terminals of the service disconnect at the house. Then the pole and the service conductors are owned by the utility, and they will be responsible for the light, which they will likely balk at.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Most all rural services in my area have a disconnect on pole, some have overcurrent protection, some do not. They are often combination units with a meter socket, but not always. They are usually installed by POCO although they are charged to customer and are considered customer owned.

General rule here is to treat them as though they are utility owned equipment, and load side terminals are the service point. If it goes bad or gets upgraded, it will likely be done by POCO and the replacement may or may not contain overcurrent device regardless of what it replaced.
 

qcroanoke

Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
Location
Roanoke, VA.
Occupation
Sorta retired........
I would have a hard time rejecting a disconnect at remote pole also as long as it does have a rating of safely being opened under the load that it might see, and from a choice of removing a meter under load verses being able to turn off this disconnect even though it doesn't remove the voltage from the meter, I would say it does give the POCO employee a little more safety then if it wasn't there at all, and the fact that 230.82 does allow a meter disconnect ahead of the meter.

I can see this the same as the bypass type of meter sockets that have a set of contacts to bypass the load on the meter so the meter can safely be removed then they can be opened to remove the power to the building, 230.82 doesn't list this type of disconnect either but we install them with no problems.

Wouldn't this all go away if Gus told them to remove the disconnect dig up the service lateral, splice it back together per 230-33 and 110-14.b extend it into the meter and connect it? Or is it not a service lateral since the meter is there?
Just asking.
 
Last edited:

RB1

Senior Member
The problem is not opening the no fuse under load, but closing it on a fault. Here is the scenario: Homeowner turns the disconnect off to make repairs, loses the panel cover screws and replaces them with sheet metal screws. Sheet metal screw penetrates insulation of ungrounded conductor, homeowner goes out and closes switch and BOOM. Now you are at fault. Homeowner suddenly develops amnesia and doesn't remember any of his pleas for you to pass the installation. The only thing he remembers is that you passed it.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Wouldn't this all go away if Gus told them to remove the disconnect dig up the service lateral, splice it back together per 230-33 and 110-14.b extend it into the meter and connect it? Or is it not a service lateral since the meter is there?
Just asking.

2011 change to art 100 definition of "service lateral" says the lateral ends at the "service point". If the meter is the service point then it would not be a service lateral, but would still be "service conductors".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top