Additional disconnects required?

[kbsparky]

....how ever 702.5 says to goto artilce 705= 705.20 and 705.21 i think makes this not legal..

Article 705 (and 702.5 which refers to it) are dealing with interconnected systems, and is not applicable to this situation.

 

[kbsparky]

702.11 was 2008 the same for 2011 is 702.12...

No argument here. 702.11 has to do with grounding and bonding of portable units, which is not applicable. 702.12 has to do with outdoor generator units, and is applicable here.

The question that has been raised is whether the built-in disconnect is "suitable for use as service equipment" or not. Usually, this means that the disconnecting means can be configured for the neutral to be bonded to the ground to earn such a rating. I'm not sure about whether the unit qualifies to meet this requirement, this is something that needs to be investigated.

But then the question comes to mind IF an outside disconnect is required to be "suitable for use as service equipment" BUT since it's controlling a FEEDER which can NOT have its neutral bonded again, isn't this a conflict of requirements?

...As long as the transfer switch has a UL 1008 it would be compliant

I did manage to discover that the transfer switch is UL 1008 listed.

 

[copper chopper]

how

how

sorry

 

[kwired]

My house is like that, with a disconnect on the house, 25 feet away from a garage with no additional disconnect in there.

Like you said, it's "outside" and "within sight" of the garage, and the AHJ did not require anything further.

So if there is qualifying grounding electrodes present at the garage you would have to run the GEC to the disconnect on the house, not saying it can't be done. Not all AHJ are going to accept the disconnect 25 feet away on another structure.
There is no clear language that I am aware of stating that "within sight" is acceptable or for that matter not acceptable for this circumstance.