Service Disconnect
- Thread starter quantum
- Start date
- Status
rc/retired
Senior Member
- Location
- Bellvue, Colorado
- Occupation
- Master Electrician/Inspector retired
What code are you under? 2020 NEC 230.85 is a new section & section 230.82 was new in 2017, I think.
2017 section addresses meter disconnects & the 2020 section emergency disconnects.
2017 section addresses meter disconnects & the 2020 section emergency disconnects.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
If the disconnect is upstream of the meter wouldn't it be locked by the POCO? How would the fuses be accessible to the customer?
rc/retired
Senior Member
- Location
- Bellvue, Colorado
- Occupation
- Master Electrician/Inspector retired
Good point & I can't remember what POCO did after I approved the install.
Seekthetruth
Member
- Location
- Florida
- Occupation
- Electrical
A metal service gutter feeding 2 disconnects with pvc nipples with two sets of service conductors 3/0 from meter. What is the best way to bond the gutter?
rc/retired
Senior Member
- Location
- Bellvue, Colorado
- Occupation
- Master Electrician/Inspector retired
I think you should post this in grounding & bonding
Seekthetruth
Member
- Location
- Florida
- Occupation
- Electrical
thanks will try
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Please don't ask the same question in two different threads. Please respond to this question here:
service gutter bonding
A metal service gutter feeding 2 disconnects with pvc nipples with two sets of service conductors 3/0 from meter. What is the best way to bond the gutter?
forums.mikeholt.com
rc/retired
Senior Member
- Location
- Bellvue, Colorado
- Occupation
- Master Electrician/Inspector retired
My bad. The question was asked in this thread & I felt it should go to grounding & bonding & sent him there.
Ron
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
No problem, that question is better in its own thread since it's a bit off topic for this one.
That's my concern as well. How can the utility disconnect be considered the service disconnect? Let me give the BROAD picture:
We have Disconnect A (Utility owned, fused, on the line side of the meter), Disconnect B (Customer owned, fused, load side of the mter). Their design calls for us to add a "non-fused" disconnect on this same post, let's call it Disconnect C, and energize it from the line side of Disconnect B.
My argument back to engineering is that this disconnect does not disconnect the meter, and therefor, should not be installed in this manner. I'm also arguing that the fused transfer switch it feeds is not located directly adjacent to it (20 feet away underground). I've asked them to consider wiring this to the load side of the disconnect or changing it to a fused disconnect. They keep shooting me down because they consider Disconnect A to be the service disconnect.
I'm think they are wrong, but I can't find anything int he code to assert that Disc B, not A, in this scenario is the service disconnect.
Last edited:
Look at my previous post just above here, I do not believe it meets any of the requirements of 230.82.
A service disconnect has to be readily accessible correct? What if the utility company does indeed lock it out? There are just so many things I see wrong with this install design. Not to count their misplacement of EGC's on this service side install (that they consider feeders apparently).
Last edited:
To answer my own question here, a locked enclosure requiring keys can still be considered readily accessible (Definitions). If the utility company possesses the keys, however, is this still readily accessible?
Regardless of readily accessible, I don't think the power company will allow access to unmetered power.
At least I know ours wont.
JAP>
- Status