# SE Transfer Swith- NO OCPD



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Had a meeting last week and a local inspector brought up this question. Is the below install compliant. There is art. 230.91, 408.36(depending) , and anything else you know about. Actually the definition of service conductors also comes into play also. I will post later the IAEI response-- Not sure I agree with it. BTW the TS has a center off position



> Service Conductors. The conductors from the service point to the service disconnecting means.





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





> 408.36 Overcurrent Protection. In addition to the requirement of 408.30, a panelboard shall be protected by an overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater
> than that of the panelboard. This overcurrent protective device shall be located within or at any point on the supply side of the panelboard.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

I always thought that a transfer switch that was used in that manor had to have a OCPD. :blink:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

aftershockews said:


> I always thought that a transfer switch that was used in that manor had to have a OCPD. :blink:


Nope- look at 230.91


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

If it is a "service rated" ATS, it has it's own main breaker. Never mind I read manual, so it's essentially a double throw disconnect


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

dronai said:


> If it is a "service rated" ATS, it has it's own main breaker. Never mind I read manual, so it's essentially a double throw disconnect


That is correct and 230.91 allows the ocpd to be located adjacent to the service disconnect.

The problem is if the wires from the TS are service conductors, which by definition they are not, then the bonding would have to be in both the TS as well as the panel and the egc would not be installed. However 250.24(B) requires the bonding in the service disconnect.

The definition of service conductors states that they end in the service disconnect even though the panel many be part of the service equipment.

So now the wires technically are feeders then they need to be protected at the source by ocpd per 240.21.

This area is a mess and needs to be cleaned up IMO


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

One word.
"Ronk" :

http://www.ronkelectrical.com/meter_rite_gl.html


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jrannis said:


> One word.
> "Ronk" :
> 
> http://www.ronkelectrical.com/meter_rite_gl.html


How does that change anything


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

If it's a matter of an MBJ, what if the TS is nippled to the meter?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

pg 96, drawing 402 would be what we're expected to do here

not that our poco is anywhere near iaei caliber....

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> If it's a matter of an MBJ, what if the TS is nippled to the meter?
> 
> ~CS~


It is not just the mbj


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well then i don't grasp the problem ? 

Would it be the definition of service equip ....?

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

There are many issues in my eyes. I thought I mentioned them above but obviously I didn't do well explaining it. 

The definition of service conductors states that the conductors end at the service disconnect. The TS is the service disconnect since it is service rated and a disconnect. So if the TS is the service equipment then the wires to the panel would be considered feeders which means they would need overcurrent protective device at the source (it does not have it) 

230.91 however allows the service overcurrent protective device to be remotely located if it is adjacent to the disconnect. This would then IMO make the conductors to the panel service conductors. If they are service conductors then the panel should be bonded and no equipment grounding conductor run. But, 250.24(B) wants the bonding in the service disconnect-- so now we have service conductor but need an equipment grounding conductor which does not make sense. 

My point is this section is unclear and sloppy and some proposal needs to be made. I will try . I cannot really decide if this install is compliant although I think it is not really and issue in terms of safety but the wording does not support it.

FWIW the IAEI says it is compliant


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> > There are many issues in my eyes. I thought I mentioned them above but obviously I didn't do well explaining it.
> 
> 
> You do well explaining most things here Denny, but what you have seems to be more caught between definition(s) and theory, which can be hard to get across.
> ...


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I wrote aproposal to servive conductors to say service equipment rather than service disconnect and did the same over in 250.24(B). I think that will do it


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

bump for a GOOD thread, although old

I found myself in this same situation, and after over an hour of searching I found this and the same discussion at MH (http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=165357)

Meter -> Service rated 200A unfused manual transfer switch -> adjacent 200A main in a separate panel

Do I install the bonding jumper in both panels? It sure seems to me that even after the transfer switch, they are still service conductors and I only need 3 conductors between the transfer switch enclosure and breaker enclosure, bond in both panels.


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

Did you read 250.24(B)?


It makes no mention of an OCPD being required, only that the main bonding jumper be installed in the service disconnect enclosure. In your case, the service rated transfer switch.


Everything downstream, including the adjacent 200 amp main breaker panel would have neutrals and grounds isolated like a sub would.


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

What I have done in the past is install a 200 amp breaker enclosure and that becomes the service so to speak. Bond and ground and neutral there. Four conductors after that point. 
Next, a three pole transfer switch, which switches the two line conductors as well as the neutral. From there the load connection goes to the existing panel. Solves the switched neutral, bonded generator, whole panel GFCI problem, albeit expensively.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

aftershockews said:


> I always thought that a transfer switch that was used in that manor had to have a OCPD. :blink:


Hey buddy :sad:


----------

