230.40 Exception 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
physis

physis

Senior Member
From the 2002:

230.40 Number of Service-Enterance Conductor Sets. Each service drop or lateral shall supply only one set of service-enterance conductors.

Ok, Fine.

So what in tarnation does exception 2 exist for if it's read as "you can have only one set of service enterance condutors"?

The language clearly smells really bad. Not CMP 2 in this case.

Any opinions on what 230.40 Ex.2 is supposed to convey?
 
I don't read it as "you can have only one set of service conductors." I read it as something along the following lines:
  • A building has two main service panels (e.g., strip mall with only two stores).
  • Each main service panel is fed via a disconnect on the outside wall.
  • The two disconnects are in separate enclosures, side by side.
  • Each disconnect is fed by its own set of service conductors from the utility transformer across the street.
  • The two sets of service conductors travel together in the same drop (or lateral)

Am I missing something in the language of this exception?
 
Each disconnect is fed by its own set of service conductors from the utility transformer across the street.
Click to expand...

Well, more specifically, there's one "drop" and two "service enterance conductor sets" terminating in seperate disconnect panels.

The two sets of service conductors travel together in the same drop (or lateral)
Click to expand...

The "service drop" conductors are a single three conductor set off the pole. There aren't two sets from the utility, just one.

My question is, what is 230.40 Ex. 2 for if it's interpreted to mean exactly the same thing as 230.40?

Again, the language explitives.

And further, why does the proposal process ignore concerns, like this one, where the only concern is interpretational.
 
Sam,

The ex.#2 , allows a service drop,for example,to supply up to six sets of service entrance conductors under the stated conditions.

230.40 as a general code states,one service drop,one set of SEC. that's how I see it.
 
"what in tarnation does exception 2 exist for" is more than I'd care to try. The NEC language can cost me days perplexed about something simple. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but may be able to show at least one application. Recently, a buddy's tenant decided they didn't want to rent both floors of their building and moved into the first floor. The top left shows the assumed 80' UG to the electrical room. The second floor was instantly snapped up for office space. Then, tenant 1 started complaining about electric bills.
So Edison was called, and their solution was two sets of service entrance conductors. Top right, is the 'first' SCE proposal. As you can see, re-trenching and moving the switchgear out of the electrical room to the outside of the building, new switchgear, etc. Two $40,000 estimates just for the EC part of it.
Without 230.40.2, it would have been difficult to stand firm with the utility about replacing the existing UG. Two days ago the latest is that tenant 1 is in negotiations for selling their business, in which case the management company will want to bid for buying the property. It's going to be a long weekend. :cry:
 
By Frank:

230.40 as a general code states,one service drop,one set of SEC. that's how I see it.
Click to expand...

230.40 is essentially a list of allowed practices identified through it's exceptions. Not a code writing method I'm in love with, but it is what it is.

By Charlie:

Each disconnect is fed by its own set of service conductors from the utility transformer across the street.
Click to expand...

Service Entrance Conductors begin where the drop or lateral terminates to the SEC's.

I hope I'm not getting too wound up in menutia here, but once again, what is Ex. 2 for if it means the same thing as 230.40?

I've talked with the Building Dept's lead guy and he's been cool enough to take an interested look at my questions on this and has pretty much gone both directions on it. What's also cool is that after talking again he's given me the thumb up on it, but, leaving me with the burden of getting the utility to connect (PG&E).

That wouldn't have been any big deal in the past, but now, the PG&E seems to have been mutated into something resembling our Ca. Dept of Motor Vehicles. An aversion to answering the phone. A slow call return time. An unknowledgeable person when you get one. An inability to be clear or commit to anything.
 
I thought a set of service entrance conductors is everything to complete one disconnect. So several such sets inside one drop would be a violation of the main rule of 230.40. The exception allows for several such sets of conductors under certain rules.

I'm about ready to fall asleep (late night), but I can't understand the question. :)

Night, all. :lol:
 
Well, what I'm trying to know is whether or not I can have two seperate meter combos with their own risers connected at one service drop.

I just can't figure it out from reading the code. I don't know if it's saying I can or I can't. And I'm not alone.
 
For the example above, there's an existing 400A disco/ dist unit to the right of the UG pull/ metering section. It's RSE equipment. They sent back a diagram with the same switchgear, except the disco/dist portion is replaced by two 200A meter/disco/dist panelboards, so the answer was yes. We needed to look at this possibility, due to clearance issues; full depth switchgear was okay then, now it's too deep.

In any case, as I see it, you'll need to either get blue stamped drawings or go through a distributor. Someone who is knowledgeable about all the EUSERC drawings or your local Service Requirements. I don't think that quoting an NEC article does much for how utilities run their programs. SCE right over the phone told me, 'As long as you're within the ratings of the main switchgear,' so they're not fussy and very helpful. I don't see PG&E, which in my view is absolutely predatory, as much help.
 
peteo: PG&E's already cleared it, sort of, if you know what I mean, guy on the phone, no "real" deal.

Hi Pierre, I figure that 230.40 Ex.2 is permitting it too. My problem is, the last times I've looked at it, I just have no #@$%&*@ idea what it says or means. The only reason I can figure it out at all is because it's an exception to the section so it probably says I can because 230.40 says I can't.

The building department here had the same problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top