2020 NEC : GEC and bonding screw with “emergency disconnect, service equipment”

hbiss said:
For some reason my downloaded pdf copy of the 2023 code stops at 230.84 so I was wondering what you were talking about. I had to go back to the 2020 for 230.85. Not sure if anything changed but I'm not seeing anything that would prevent a disconnect switch after the meter. Just the normal bonding of service equipment. The neutral would carry through to the main panel and land on the neutral bar.

Better yet, like I said above incorporate it into the meter enclosure. Then it is out of the NECs jurisdiction. We have bypass meter enclosures with switch contacts, what's the problem?

-Hal
Click to expand...
The permission to mark the outside disconnect as "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" is what triggered all of the issues. Multiple bonding points are permitted on the line side of the service equipment.
Anything that is not the service disconnect, will permit those multiple bonding points.

Putting it into the meter enclosure would take the cooperation of the utilities. Most utilities have a list of meter enclosures that they will accept. Also, what authority could require this disconnect to be part of the meter enclosure?
A lever bypass meter enclosure does not have switch contacts that will cut off the supply of the power. They do two things, loosen the grip of the meter socket to the meter blades, and to bypass the meter...that is let the power flow when the meter is removed.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The permission to mark the outside disconnect as "emergency disconnect, not service equipment" is what triggered all of the issues. Multiple bonding points are permitted on the line side of the service equipment.
Anything that is not the service disconnect, will permit those multiple bonding points.
Click to expand...
The only thing that would need to be bonded is the disconnect enclosure, just like the meter enclosure.
don_resqcapt19 said:
Also, what authority could require this disconnect to be part of the meter enclosure?
Click to expand...
If this is such an important issue for firefighters, I would think it would be voluntary on the part of the utilities. It wouldn't cost them anything if they aren't supplying the meter enclosures. Firefighter unions and organizations should lobby their state to require it just like they lobbied the NEC.

I'm thinking also that there could be an adapter made that goes between the meter and meter socket that contains a disconnect. That would provide a quick solution especially for existing dwellings.

And don't forget that "smart meters" already have the ability to turn on and off power remotely. Utilities here don't send anybody out to pull meters anymore to turn power off and on for non-pays or move outs. What would be the problem with enhancing that system to allow immediate emergency use?

There are other and better alternatives. Anytime the NEC gets involved with something it always turns into a can of worms.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
The only thing that would need to be bonded is the disconnect enclosure, just like the meter enclosure.
Click to expand...
Would the conductors between the "disconnect" and the next panel be service conductors or feeders"
hbiss said:
I'm thinking also that there could be an adapter made that goes between the meter and meter socket that contains a disconnect. That would provide a quick solution especially for existing dwellings.
Click to expand...
There is already equipment such as solar connection points and meter mounted transfer switches that install between the meter socket and the meter. A lot of utilities do not permit such equipment. One objection that our utility is because they have temperature sensors on the blades of their meters to detect excessive temperature and kill the power. Any plug in device would add an connection without the temperature sensing. The other reason, which would not likely to be an issue with a plug in transfer switch, is that the solar adapters and meter mounted transfer switches require a neutral connection to the neutral terminal in the meter socket. Since our utility requires a GEC connection in the meter socket, there is no terminal space to connect this neutral.
hbiss said:
And don't forget that "smart meters" already have the ability to turn on and off power remotely. Utilities here don't send anybody out to pull meters anymore to turn power off and on for non-pays or move outs. What would be the problem with enhancing that system to allow immediate emergency use?
Click to expand...
Yes, some utilities do use that means of disconnect when requested by emergency responders, but it still takes significantly longer than the first responder operating a physical disconnect.
hbiss said:
There are other and better alternatives. Anytime the NEC gets involved with something it always turns into a can of worms.
Click to expand...
We are not going to agree on this
hbiss said:
If this is such an important issue for firefighters, I would think it would be voluntary on the part of the utilities. It wouldn't cost them anything if they aren't supplying the meter enclosures. Firefighter unions and organizations should lobby their state to require it just like they lobbied the NEC.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how much authority the state electrical utility commissions have to require something like this.
 
hbiss said:
Service conductors.

-Hal
Click to expand...
Then we still have the same issue as with 230.85....grounding electrode conductors connected at multiple points. The whole purpose of making the outside disconnect the service disconnect is to require feeder conductors to the panel and limit the GEC connections to within or on the line side of the service disconnect.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Then we still have the same issue as with 230.85....grounding electrode conductors connected at multiple points. The whole purpose of making the outside disconnect the service disconnect is to require feeder conductors to the panel and limit the GEC connections to within or on the line side of the service disconnect.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my bootleg code book is missing 230.85 so I went on line to see the sorry excuse NFPA org has for their free version. Can hardly read it but squinting as hard as I can I don't see what you are talking about. Besides, New York is still on the 2017 until the end of December (I believe) when the 2026 kicks in.

-Hal
 
I just don't see the big deal about installing a switch before the service equipment. The neutral to earth connection rules don't change nor does the Main Bonding Jumper at the service disconnect.
 
wwhitney said:
But 250.64(C) and (D) speak to the GEC, not to a bonding jumper. And 250.53(C), which covers bonding jumpers, refers to compliance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E), explicitly excluding (C) and (D). So I don't see how 250.64(C) and (D) are relevant to where a bonding jumper may terminate.


Say we have two ground rods, that's it, and we have two places on the grounded service conductor where we may connect, the meter and the separate service disconnect. Possible arrangements are:

(1) One GEC at one location goes to one ground rod. The other ground rod is connected via a jumper to the first ground rod, or to that GEC. This certainly complies with Article 250.

(2) Two GECs, one at one location to one ground rod, one at the other location to the other ground rod. Each piece of wire satisfies the rules for a GEC, i.e. is continuous. This is OK?

(3) A GEC at one location to one ground rod, a spliced bonding jumper at the other location to the other ground rod. I gather this is what you are saying does not comply with Article 250?

I guess I'm having trouble finding text in Article 250 that would differentiate (1) from (3) and says (1) is allowed, but (3) is not. It seems like there's nothing that says exactly where a bonding jumper may terminate.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
#2 is an issue because you are using a normal current carrying conductor (neutral) as your grounding electrode conductor, or visa versa.
#3 your continuous GEC is only required from the NG bond location to the first GE all others can be a spliced connection to that first.
1 and 3 are correct as long as you are not using the grounded conductor (neutral) as your GEC.

#2 only works if you have separate structures, (a separate pedestal and the house one GES for each).

roger said:
I just don't see the big deal about installing a switch before the service equipment. The neutral to earth connection rules don't change nor does the Main Bonding Jumper at the service disconnect.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Meter cans are permanently bonded. I think the confusion comes from allowing a breaker type emergency disconnect ahead of the service disconnect and then just labeling it differently depending on if you want to have a 3 wire or 4 wire to the inside panel.

Now as to the OP question seems a huge not able to resolve question in that 230.85(B)(2,3) both seem to indicate by the wording that you cannot have the NG bond in the emergency disconnect by the prohibition of using equipment "suitable only for us as service equipment". That equipment by it's design is a permanently bonded NG. But then if you use the unbonded equipment the enclosure is ungrounded.

230.85(B)"(2) A meter disconnect integral to the meter mounting equipment not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment installed in accordance with 230.82"
230.85(B)"(3)Other listed disconnect switch or circuit breaker that is marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment, installed on the supply side of each service disconnect."

So which safety issue is less, the ungrounded enclosure or the neutral current on the EGC.
The safest solution would seem to be to eliminate the allowance to have the 3 wire feeder from the emergency disconnect to the main panel inside and force a repair to the long time noncompliant stove and dryer that was using the EGC as a neutral.
 
electrofelon said:
Code reference?
Click to expand...
250.24(B), 250.142(B) restricts and limits the usage of the grounding conductor from acting as the grounded or visa versa. Range and dryer exception is only unmodified preexisting installation prior to 1996 code, but must meet the all criteria of 250.140(B). Most that I have seen do not meet these minimums.
 
Fred B said:
#2 is an issue because you are using a normal current carrying conductor (neutral) as your grounding electrode conductor, or visa versa.
#3 your continuous GEC is only required from the NG bond location to the first GE all others can be a spliced connection to that first.
1 and 3 are correct as long as you are not using the grounded conductor (neutral) as your GEC.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. The only difference between #2 and #3 is that #3 has an extra splice. If #3 is compliant, #2 is compliant too. We can just call one of the two GECs a bonding jumper.

Fred B said:
250.24(B), 250.142(B)
Click to expand...
250.24(B) is not applicable, as the only conductors in question are the grounded service condutor and the GEC or electrode bonding jumper. The MBJ is a separate matter.

250.142(B) is not applicable, as everything we are discussing is on the line side of the service disconnecting means.

Cheers, Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top