Building Service - What's wrong with this?

[jap]

My first thought when I seen this was, its on a wooden backboard (Not that that matters) but, I didn't see an GEC coming out of the meter, no ground rod, then the neutral was switched in the disconnect, and the disconnect wasn't bonded to the Grounded Conductor since it seemed to all be in PVC.

It just didn't add up to me.


JAP>

 

[olc]

I have been assuming the disconnect at the meter is the main building disconnect.
If we just call this the service lateral and have the main disconnect at the building:
1. Is it OK to have this other disconnect (un-fused) in the service lateral?
2. Does the disconnect need to be bonded?

(This scenario would require changes at the building.)

 

[ActionDave]

I have been assuming the disconnect at the meter is the main building disconnect.
If we just call this the service lateral and have the main disconnect at the building:
1. Is it OK to have this other disconnect (un-fused) in the service lateral?
2. Does the disconnect need to be bonded?

(This scenario would require changes at the building.)

The disconnect should be bonded. Once that is done the switch is the only difference between it and millions of service laterals in the US.

Think about it this way....get rid of the switch and you have a compliant installation. Add a bond jumper and it's just as safe.

 

[kwired]

I have been assuming the disconnect at the meter is the main building disconnect.
If we just call this the service lateral and have the main disconnect at the building:
1. Is it OK to have this other disconnect (un-fused) in the service lateral?
2. Does the disconnect need to be bonded?

(This scenario would require changes at the building.)

Consider what is mentioned in 230.91:

230.91 Location. The service overcurrent device shall be
an integral part of the service disconnecting means or shall
be located immediately adjacent thereto.

As well as art 100 definition of service equipment:

Service Equipment. The necessary equipment, usually consisting
of a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and
their accessories, connected to the load end of service conductors
to a building or other structure, or an otherwise designated
area, and intended to constitute the main control and cutoff of
the supply.

Without overcurrent protection this is not the "service disconnecting means", and any conductors on load side of this switch are still service conductors IMO. Also if you read 230.82(3) a disconnect ahead of a meter used primarily for disconnecting the meter and in accordance with other requirements of that section is really about the only time we can put an unfused switch in the service conductors. If POCO supplies a switch - they often do on the farms and other rural places - it is usually ahead of service point and isn't covered by NEC, so you still have "service conductors" at wherever the service point is.

The main disconnect for the building, whether supply is service conductors or feeder conductors still needs to be in or on the building.

The disconnect enclosure does need to be bonded, whether it be to the grounded conductor or an equipment grounding conductor depends on if the supply is service conductors or feeder/branch circuit conductors, but it definitely can not be left "floating" like it is.

 

[meternerd]

POCO opinion....I see two conduits coming out of the bottom of the meter enclosure...one must be input from the transformer and one must be out to a panel. The disconnect shown has no OCD and also switches the neutral, so it could not be considered a service disconnect and would not be allowed. I'd likely shoot it down and require a service disconnect (OCD) at the meter (that means a GEC, ground rods and MBJ also at the meter) , then anything downstream would be up to the local AHJ and not the POCO. Most utilities have their own requirements that may exceed the NEC minimums. EUSERC does not allow a disconnect ahead of a single meter, and disconnects ahead of 2 to 6 meters is up to each utility that uses EUSERC as its requirements. One other reason we'd like it done our way is that we would not be responsible for the service wires from the meter to any remote service disconnects. I'd check with them. If all that is old news...never mind.

 

[kwired]

POCO opinion....I see two conduits coming out of the bottom of the meter enclosure...one must be input from the transformer and one must be out to a panel. The disconnect shown has no OCD and also switches the neutral, so it could not be considered a service disconnect and would not be allowed. I'd likely shoot it down and require a service disconnect (OCD) at the meter (that means a GEC, ground rods and MBJ also at the meter) , then anything downstream would be up to the local AHJ and not the POCO. Most utilities have their own requirements that may exceed the NEC minimums. EUSERC does not allow a disconnect ahead of a single meter, and disconnects ahead of 2 to 6 meters is up to each utility that uses EUSERC as its requirements. One other reason we'd like it done our way is that we would not be responsible for the service wires from the meter to any remote service disconnects. I'd check with them. If all that is old news...never mind.

If I understand OP correctly, one conduit into meter is supply, one feeds building A, then the disconnect was added and feeds building B.

POCO requirements do sometimes trump NEC - like when they want a service disconnecting means in a certain location. Some POCO's may be satisfied with a disconnect even if it isn't suitable for use as service equipment or otherwise meets NEC - that is when you need to make both the POCO happy as well as the NEC authority.

NEC alone this install would be just fine with one input to meter and "service conductors" leaving it to two different buildings in many instances. Each building would require properly applied service disconnecting means though. Throwing that disconnect in there as is pictured kind of like "throwing a wrench into the gears". Seems to be more wrongs then rights with it - and seems to be the biggest thing that may be right would be if it were on the supply side of the meter, and available fault current were within it's interrupt rating.