Building Service - What's wrong with this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

olc

Senior Member
What is wrong on following list (if anything)?

Property with two buildings (cemetery):

Pad Mount transformer (so far so good)
Meter on post next to transformer.
Service lateral (underground) from meter to Building A about 50 feet away (to panelboard with MCB) (I don't really have a question on Building A)
Disconnect next to meter connected to the same meter - non-fused serves Building B.
Underground service lateral (in conduit) to Building B about 150 feet away.
Conduit out of ground and up side of building to a box maybe 15 feet up.
Bare insulated conductors through a roof/attic space to just above the panelboard (maybe 30 feet).
Conduit from ceiling down to the panelboard which has a main circuit breaker.
 
The non-fuse disconnect may be a item of conversation. Most inspectors I know would not count it as service equipment due to the lack of overcurrent protection (230.91).
Regardless, the conductors to Building B are either service or feeders (depending on your view of the disconnect) and would need protection at the point they entered Building B
(230.70 for service..225.32 for feeders).
The conductors without a raceway would be a violation as that is only allowed in Art 398.
 
I have never even thought about conductors not in conduit before. I have always assumed that raceway (or cable assembly) is required.
Are there cases where it is not (other than in transformers vaults, outdoors)? Maybe some industrial situations?
 
If the disconnect at the transformer is considered the service:

Over current protection required at the disconnect - 90A max.
The wiring in the building needs to be in conduit (or cable).
Grounding required at the service disconnect (there is grounding at the building).(a)

What do you think?
(a) I am not sure about the grounding but currently there is none at the disconnect (or meter).

225.32 Exception 1 allows the disconnect in the building to be further in.
 
The service. The building is in the background. The second conduit from the meter to the ground goes to the other building (behind the picture taker).

service.jpg


Inside the disconnect:

disconnect.jpg
 
Is the disconnect on supply or load side of the meter?

Nothing wrong with switching the grounded conductor but the switch enclosure still needs to be bonded to the grounded conductor.

Is not a service disconnecting means (per NEC, though it may be convenient for disconnecting the service) if it doesn't have overcurent protection.
 
olc said:
The neutral in the middle (undersized) wires. No bonding and (as I said) no ground.
Click to expand...
No Equipment grounding conductor necessary for service conductors, you bond all enclosures, raceways, etc. to the grounded conductor on the supply side of service disconnecting means. Bonding jumpers may be necessary to ensure continuity between certain items though.
 
olc said:
The neutral in the middle (undersized) wires. No bonding and (as I said) no ground.
Click to expand...
The #2 AL is not undersized if it carries the entire load of the house...... TABLE 310.15(B) (7). It got all screwed up in the '14 code but the principle remains the same.

There really is no need for a green between the meter/safety switch and the house or out building, although current codes demand it.

The second set of conductors fed from the meter to the out building are legal if there are double lugs on the load side of the meter. They most likely are not, but we don't know that.

It is fine to switch the neutral if the ungrounded conductors are opened by the same switch.

There really should be a bond from the neutral to the can of the safety switch and some fuses to meet the letter of the law. Get rid of the switch and feed directly out of the meter to both structures and that problem goes away. I'll bet a paycheck that the neutral is bonded in the meter so all there is to worry about is fault current moving through another three feet of conductor at the speed of light.

Speaking of which....

The wires going to the house and the out building are all underground and if they come up and land in a main breaker panel with the neutral bonded at each structure then we don't have a serious problem here...... do we? I have seen a lot worse that's for sure.
 
ActionDave said:
The #2 AL is not undersized if it carries the entire load of the house...... TABLE 310.15(B) (7). It got all screwed up in the '14 code but the principle remains the same.
Click to expand...
Unless I missed something there is no dwelling unit here, 310.15(B)(7) doesn't apply and conductor must be #1 AL if protected by a 100 amp device.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top