Generator question

[bullheimer]

I'M back just to say the above is just a local rule but you can check art. 230.43 for what the 2005 nec has to say-that emt or flex under 6' long is ok-.(my edit option doesnt seem to be wanting to work). i really oughtta get me a 2008 codebook ome o'these daze. see ya next year.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I'm getting a foggy picture of your comment.

I was of the impression augie was talking about putting a DT disonnect ahead of the [original?] service disconnect. The DT switch is the transfer switch... and due to its placement would be required to be service equipment rated. If there is no ocpd associated with the DT switch, as in integral or located immediately adjacent thereto, it would not be the service disconnect and thus relocation of the earth bonding would not be required. At this point I'm not even certain such would be compliant, but cannot think of any prohibition offhand. Regardless, I would never suggest such an installation. My preference is to just replace the service disconnect with a service-entrance-rated transfer switch, or a non-service-entrance-rated one somewhere "downstream".

I see a violation of 230.94 if the DT switch is not the service disconnect.

Also if the DT disconnect is like a standard non-fusible disconnect, it may not be suitable for the available fault current at that location in the circuit.