Post defined by Oregon Chief as a "Structure"

[JCB]

sorry for not getting back on here sooner, to answer a few of the questions i have read in the posts everyone has provided......the inspector is requiring disconnects at the post on the load side of the meter (2 @ 200amp service rated) as well as 4 wire feeds, there is already a 200amp service rated disconnect mounted at each building on the exterior prior to entrance of the conductors, he has decided that the post is a structure per nec definition which is a stretch in my opinion (how many of us have built or constructed a 6"x8" pt post) and on the inspection report he has actually labeled it as a "support structure", 230.70 (A)(1) is what he cites as the code violation, I personally delivered my appeal to chief clements and notified him that i intend to appeal his decision as well as i already know his opionion, I call it an opinion as he has made no written inperpretation although on one of my initial conversations he informed me that I was the only person who believed this to be a compliant installation, and in my last conversation he informed me that he had dealt with this same situation at least a dozen times in the last 7 years (over a dozen times in the past 7 years to me would indicate a problem which should have been resolved in writing, this makes me seriously question his ablility to do the job he has). I have also spoken the the senior electrical inspector in three jurisdictions who have all agreed that the installation meets code requirements , and have submitted voluntary plan reviews in each jurisdiction which have been approved.

 

[George Stolz]

Well, at least he got the code reference wrong. 230.70(A)(1) would only be violated if you already installed a disconnect, and managed to mount it either in a non-readily accessible location or too far inside the post from the entry of the service conductors.

A missing service disconnect would be 230.70, and that is open to interpretation. I happen to disagree with his. There is nothing served at the post, it is a wide spot in the conduit for the utility to install a cash register. Honestly, the way 230.70 is written, it does not require a service disconnect on a post, because there is no wiring in the post that you're disconnecting the service conductors from. 230.70 really needs an "or on" added after "in".

Is there any chance that the utility owns the conductors you are installing after the meter? As far as code is concerned, the conductors do not exist if they are owned by the utility, 90.2(B)(5)(a).

Edit to add: Heck, 90.2(C) is also sitting there telling the AHJ in this case to lighten up.

 

[iwire]

A missing service disconnect would be 230.70, and that is open to interpretation. I happen to disagree with his. There is nothing served at the post, it is a wide spot in the conduit for the utility to install a cash register. Honestly, the way 230.70 is written, it does not require a service disconnect on a post, because there is no wiring in the post that you're disconnecting the service conductors from. 230.70 really needs an "or on" added after "in".

Maybe you answered and I missed it but consider a temp service pole at a job site.

No disconnect needed as it is not 'in' the pole?

 

[George Stolz]

Maybe you answered and I missed it but consider a temp service pole at a job site.

No disconnect needed as it is not 'in' the pole?

I skipped it at the time, needed to mull it over on the drive to work. It's a tricky one.

I think 230.70 needs some work done.

I'd say technically, although I acknowledge it is stupid, I would say that 230.70 would not require a service disconnect at the pole you present. However, the absence of said disconnect would likely create an entire ecosystem of code violations in 110, 210, 240 and 590 (and would be tricky for anyone with five minutes training to accidentally execute) such that 230.70 not doing it's job wouldn't matter much. That would require a bit of research that I am unwilling to commit to at this time.

How's that for an answer?

 

[iwire]

How's that for an answer?

Pretty much where I am at.

I think our main remaining difference is that I feel the intent is to have a disconnecting means and I believe you do not see one as needed.

 

[kwired]

Maybe you answered and I missed it but consider a temp service pole at a job site.

No disconnect needed as it is not 'in' the pole?

most of the time there are receptacle outlets installed on the temporary pole, so there is loads being served on that structure. If the temp pole only has a meter socket and no served outlets then there shouldn't need to be a disconnect.

If you are supplying a mobile home, office, or other similar structure that requires service disconnect ahead of that structure it is convenient to place it on the meter pole, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be located on the meter pole.

 

[George Stolz]

Pretty much where I am at.

I think our main remaining difference is that I feel the intent is to have a disconnecting means and I believe you do not see one as needed.

"Not needed" might not represent my view quite right. More like "not supported adequately by current text."

The PITA is getting the language right to cover the temp pole but exempt the meter that's simply there because burying it is impractical.

 

[iwire]

"Not needed" might not represent my view quite right. More like "not supported adequately by current text."

The PITA is getting the language right to cover the temp pole but exempt the meter that's simply there because burying it is impractical.

But I do think there should be a disco ahead of the meter. 70e makes it needed more than ever.

 

[George Stolz]

But I do think there should be a disco ahead of the meter. 70e makes it needed more than ever.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance (which I am prone to)...

Why? :huh:

 

[iwire]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance (which I am prone to)...

Why? :huh:

To kill the power so the meter socket or the panel supplied from it can be shut down to be worked on in compliance with the current OSHA requiments without having to have the poco pull the cut outs.

 

[iwire]

most of the time there are receptacle outlets installed on the temporary pole, so there is loads being served on that structure. If the temp pole only has a meter socket and no served outlets then there shouldn't need to be a disconnect.

We are going to remain in disagreement on that bolded section.

 

[kwired]

We are going to remain in disagreement on that bolded section.

I don't see anything in art 590 that says a temp meter pole needs a disconnect.

590.2 (A) says if not modified by 590, then all other articles of NEC apply. Not much in 590 modifies anything related to service equipment and 230 still is the section that applies.

In fact 590.4(A) says services shall comply with art 230. So service equipment for temp services still falls under same rules as permanent services.

 

[iwire]

I don't see anything in art 590 that says a temp meter pole needs a disconnect.

590.2 (A) says if not modified by 590, then all other articles of NEC apply. Not much in 590 modifies anything related to service equipment and 230 still is the section that applies.

In fact 590.4(A) says services shall comply with art 230. So service equipment for temp services still falls under same rules as permanent services.

And here I thought I was pretty clear that we would not agree on it.

 

[mivey]

To kill the power so the meter socket or the panel supplied from it can be shut down to be worked on in compliance with the current OSHA requiments without having to have the poco pull the cut outs.

So where do you put the disconnect_2 to kill the power to the disconnect_1 so you can work on it?

 

[hurk27]

---

So where do you put the disconnect_2 to kill the power to the disconnect_1 so you can work on it?

That one can go on to infinity:blink:

Oh wait he's our chief Mod:angel:

 

[TimK]

I guess I don't get the confusion, how many times have we planted a meter socket with disconnect built in at a HO property line and ran the wire to the house? Whether it be an OH or UG? They make the 320A PED with breakers that you can come out of, has a hasp (for locking out) and run your wires right to the sub panel(s) wherever they may be?

 

[ptonsparky]

No confusion if you want to put a disconnect there, only if you don't want to and/or feel it is a waste of time and money with no real benifit. Other than $$$$.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I guess I don't get the confusion, how many times have we planted a meter socket with disconnect built in at a HO property line and ran the wire to the house? Whether it be an OH or UG? They make the 320A PED with breakers that you can come out of, has a hasp (for locking out) and run your wires right to the sub panel(s) wherever they may be?

Never

 

[JCB]

I guess I don't get the confusion, how many times have we planted a meter socket with disconnect built in at a HO property line and ran the wire to the house? Whether it be an OH or UG? They make the 320A PED with breakers that you can come out of, has a hasp (for locking out) and run your wires right to the sub panel(s) wherever they may be?

You still need disconnects where you enter the structure even with the disconnects at the meter main which is not attached to the structure being served. The confusion is why would you need disconnects at the remotely set meter, even if he terms the post to be a structure it is not entering nor is it being served. You can set a meter on a residence fed underground come back out of the meter go underground any distance come back up and LB into the back of the panel and meet code so what's the difference in that installation, your conductors are still unfused untilthey hit the main in the panel nearest point of entry.

 

[realolman]

You still need disconnects where you enter the structure even with the disconnects at the meter main which is not attached to the structure being served. The confusion is why would you need disconnects at the remotely set meter, even if he terms the post to be a structure it is not entering nor is it being served. You can set a meter on a residence fed underground come back out of the meter go underground any distance come back up and LB into the back of the panel and meet code so what's the difference in that installation, your conductors are still unfused untilthey hit the main in the panel nearest point of entry.

I'd be interested if someone started a poll to see how many think the OP should have a disconnect or not.

Does the 400 A to the meter base, and then branching off with 2 200 A circuits make any difference?