Service Disconnect Switch Required

[JWCELECTRIC]

I have a 480v, 3-Phase 4w, 100 amp service to a meter socket on a meter pedestal, then from meter to a main breaker in a panel inside an underground booster pump station. Is a service disconnect required at the meter socket per NEC, or is that a POCO requierment where they want cold sequencing on the meter socket? Thanks

 

[barbeer]

I think it is probably the latter.(cold sequence) May be a specification of whomever the job is for. I think I would want a disco.

 

[cpal]

I have a 480v, 3-Phase 4w, 100 amp service to a meter socket on a meter pedestal, then from meter to a main breaker in a panel inside an underground booster pump station. Is a service disconnect required at the meter socket per NEC, or is that a POCO requierment where they want cold sequencing on the meter socket? Thanks

JW why are you asking this question has someone put a bug in your ear??

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

JW why are you asking this question has someone put a bug in your ear??

A question came up as to the accessibility of the service disconnect, and if the underground BPS were to get flooded then to turn the power off the meter would need to be pulled. Also the design intent is for a town where there is a small budget for the project.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Our POCO has requirements for cold metering of 480V services.

 

[augie47]

In this area if its a disconnect for POCO (cold sequence) they lock them so they can't be turned off except by POCO personnel so we don't consider them service disconnects. If thats the case with your power folks the disconnect would be of litttle use in the event of "flooding".

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

In this area if its a disconnect for POCO (cold sequence) they lock them so they can't be turned off except by POCO personnel so we don't consider them service disconnects. If thats the case with your power folks the disconnect would be of litttle use in the event of "flooding".

Good point on the locking of disconnect switch by POCO. I have seen where the Owner also has master key so they also have capability to open switch. The poco in this case does not require cold sequencing disconnect switch only a by-pass lever in the meter socket. I am asking if there is any where in the code aside from 230.70 (A)(1) where a service disconnect is required if there could be a potential hazard (i.e.flooding) in this case on the exterior of the structure.

 

[cpal]

Good point on the locking of disconnect switch by POCO. I have seen where the Owner also has master key so they also have capability to open switch. The poco in this case does not require cold sequencing disconnect switch only a by-pass lever in the meter socket. I am asking if there is any where in the code aside from 230.70 (A)(1) where a service disconnect is required if there could be a potential hazard (i.e.flooding) in this case on the exterior of the structure.

IMO
The MEC does not.

Disconnects (assuming without ocp) are only addressed where required by POCO.
In MA if the POCO disconnect is installed and field labled Meter Disconnect, IMO it is not to be considered as service equipment. and obviously the Service Eq needs to be installed at the structure. Note the 2008 amendment that requires a feeder disconnect at the structrue if the service equiment is not attached to the structure. The 10 foot requirement has be removed.

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

IMO
The MEC does not.

Disconnects (assuming without ocp) are only addressed where required by POCO.
In MA if the POCO disconnect is installed and field labled Meter Disconnect, IMO it is not to be considered as service equipment. and obviously the Service Eq needs to be installed at the structure. Note the 2008 amendment that requires a feeder disconnect at the structrue if the service equiment is not attached to the structure. The 10 foot requirement has be removed.

Sometimes I forget to double back on the MA amendments Thanks!, The MA amendment for 230.70(A)(1) say if the service disconnect is outside structure then it becomes a feeder disconnect under article 225.32. IMO that article is basically saying the same as 230.70 with some exceptions that lead to safe procedures, Vaults, and Intergrated systems. I could choose one and call it a day.