SEU from outdoor meter main

[wc86]

So if you had an installation this way with the SEU running inside from the outdoor "emergency disconnect" would it be legal to install the ground rods outside and terminate them in the emergency disconnect?

 

[wc86]

Oh i forgot to meantion while the ground rod GEC would be installed outside and the water main GEC installed on the inside main breaker panel

 

[Steve16]

So if you had an installation this way with the SEU running inside from the outdoor "emergency disconnect" would it be legal to install the ground rods outside and terminate them in the emergency disconnect?

Yes. The main GEC can terminate anywhere from the load end of the overhead service conductors to the service disconnect, and if they're supplemental they can terminate to any grounded service enclosure.

 

[Fred B]

So if you had an installation this way with the SEU running inside from the outdoor "emergency disconnect" would it be legal to install the ground rods outside and terminate them in the emergency disconnect?

Yes. The main GEC can terminate anywhere from the load end of the overhead service conductors to the service disconnect, and if they're supplemental they can terminate to any grounded service enclosure.

So long as your NG bonding takes place within your Service panel not the Emergency Disconnect, (or so marked ED). Does seem counter intuitive with all the efforts over the years to now allow a simple signage to change the bonding location. But what it does allow is the ED to be labeled as such even though by "appearances" to have an overcurrent device and need to have the bonding, to not have the N/G bond there.
Would say the conductors between the ED and service panel are now an "unprotected" conductors and Limited length should be considered and fall within the discretion for the AHJ as to how far into a building the unprotected conductors can enter.

 

[electrofelon]

So long as your NG bonding takes place within your Service panel not the Emergency Disconnect, (or so marked ED). .

That is not correct Fred. Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is bonded to neutral, doesn't matter what it is or if there is an ED involved.

 

[electrofelon]

Yes. The main GEC can terminate anywhere from the load end of the overhead service conductors to the service disconnect, and if they're supplemental they can terminate to any grounded service enclosure.

Just a slight correction Steve, I think you mean "load end of the service drop". Overhead service conductors are customer conductors and a gec could terminate on those.

 

[wwhitney]

That is not correct Fred. Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is bonded to neutral, doesn't matter what it is or if there is an ED involved.

Pretty sure Fred meant MBJ by "NG bonding". Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is just bonded to N, there's no G involved.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Fred B]

Pretty sure Fred meant MBJ by "NG bonding". Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is just bonded to N, there's no G involved.

Cheers, Wayne

You're right, sorry, Thinking of the usually big green screw or the offset bond from the neutral bus to the panel cabinet. (Having a visual image to word disconnect.)

 

[electrofelon]

Pretty sure Fred meant MBJ by "NG bonding". Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is just bonded to N, there's no G involved.

Cheers, Wayne

Okay, but does that really make any difference? Everything on the line side of the service disconnect effectively has a main bonding jumper it's just not called that.

 

[wwhitney]

Okay, but does that really make any difference?

Sure, if you edit post 24 and put in MBJ for "NG bonding", then it's correct. The MBJ has to be in the service disconnect, but GECs can connect to the service grounded conductor anywhere between the service point and the service disconnect.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[electrofelon]

Sure, if you edit post 24 and put in MBJ for "NG bonding", then it's correct. The MBJ has to be in the service disconnect, but GECs can connect to the service grounded conductor anywhere between the service point and the service disconnect.

Cheers, Wayne

Could I still install the (typical) green screw/main bonding jumper in the ED, call it a SSBJ, and call and label the ED "emergency disconnect not service equipment", and run three wire to my service disconnect?

 

[wwhitney]

Could I still install the (typical) green screw/main bonding jumper in the ED, call it a SSBJ, and call and label the ED "emergency disconnect not service equipment", and run three wire to my service disconnect?

Sure, and if your ED doesn't otherwise have the case bonded to its neutral, then you're required to do that bonding.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Fred B]

Sure, and if your ED doesn't otherwise have the case bonded to its neutral, then you're required to do that bonding.

Cheers, Wayne

Not sure that the rules had been changed so that it allows you to make the bonding in both the ED and a separate Service Equipment on the load side of the ED.
Generally the Bonding is in the Service Equipment, and any panel subsequent to is is a sub-panel and must have the Neutral and grounds separated and must have a separate N and G conductor from the service equipment. my understanding was this new requirement allowed the wiring from the newly required ED to still be service conductors (typical single phase 3 wire).
The conditions or allowances are new to 2020 and have 3 conditions for the newly required emergency disconnect.
NEC 2023- 230.85(B) Disconnects.
Each disconnect shall be one of the following:

• (1) Service disconnect (typical of a "main breaker panel" If install outside of building)
• (2) A meter disconnect integral to the meter mounting equipment not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment installed in accordance with 230.82
• (3) Other listed disconnect switch or circuit breaker that is marked suitable for use as service equipment, but not marked as suitable only for use as service equipment, installed on the supply side of each service disconnect

The Equipment that is used "ONLY" as service equipment is, or has a, permanent N/G bonding, and can't be used as a "sub-panel". This section (new for 2020) allows for the down stream equipment to be the Service Equipment and the conductors from the emergency disconnect to the second panel, and are still service conductors, not feeder, per the informational note 1 from 230.85(B)
Informational Note 1:
Conductors between the emergency disconnect and the service disconnect in 230.85(2) and 230.85(3) are service conductors.

If Bonding done or can be done at both the ED and the Service panel Why would they have the conditional requirement in #2 and #3?

 

[electrofelon]

Not sure that the rules had been changed so that it allows you to make the bonding in both the ED and a separate Service Equipment on the load side of the ED.
Generally the Bonding is in the Service Equipment,?

Fred, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "the bonding". Everything on the line side of the service disconnect is bonded to neutral. Yes there is technically only one main bonding jumper, but there are other bonding jumpers on the line side of the service disconnect that are doing the exact same thing, they're just called a different name.

 

[wwhitney]

Not sure that the rules had been changed so that it allows you to make the bonding in both the ED and a separate Service Equipment on the load side of the ED.

There's two different types of bonding we are now discussing: (1) bonding a piece of equipment not on the load side of the service disconnect to the service grounded conductor to provide a fault clearing path, and (2) installing a main bonding jumper which serves as the origination point of an EGC system, and for which downstream (away from the utility) the EGC and the grounded conductor are always kept separate.

(1) must be done in every piece of equipment not downstream of the service disconnect. (2) may only be done in the service disconnect itself and must be done there.

A green screw can serve either purpose; for equipment upstream of the service disconnect, such as some emergency disconnects, it is only serving the purpose (1).

And BTW, the portions of 230.85(B) which you highlighted are in my mind totally misguided. They are based on a linguistic conflict that is not a technical conflict. In order to get around the idea that the service disconnect is supposed to be the upstream-most OCPD, but to facilitate retrofit of an exterior emergency disconnect on a residence where the existing service disconnect is inside, the writers of 230.85 invented this magic label of "not service equipment."

The wording of that conflicts with the pre-existing wording from UL 67 (IIRC) that "suitable for use as service equipment" means "provisions present for bonding the grounded conductor to the case, or not" (along with a loose sticker that says "service disconnect") and "suitable for use only as service equipment" means "the terminal intended for the grounded conductor is permanently bonded to the case" (along with a permanent label of "service disconnect").

If the UL terms had been, say, "bondable grounded conductor" and "permanently bonded grounded conductor," instead of SUSE and SOUSE, there there would have been no linguistic conflict. Or more appropriately, since the UL terms came first, if the writers of 230.85 had come up with a different wording for their magic label, e.g. "Not Primary Service Disconnect," there would have been no linguistic conflict. And the sections of 230.85 you highlighted would not be there.

The upshot is that the highlighted prohibitions are stupid, and that safety wise there is no reason not to ignore them and just cover up any permanent "Service Disconnect" labels on SOUSE equipment with the required "Emergency Disconnect, Not Service Equipment" label.

Cheers, Wayne