230.40 ????

[C3PO]

Say I have a 400A meterbase with parallel lugs on a house. I come out of the meterbase into the house with a 200A MB panel. Then I also come out of the meterbase, go underground to a detached shop and put a 200A MB panel.

Do you think this is ok per Section 230.40 Exception 3?

Has anyone done this or something similar?

 

[wbalsam1]

Say I have a 400A meterbase with parallel lugs on a house. I come out of the meterbase into the house with a 200A MB panel. Then I also come out of the meterbase, go underground to a detached shop and put a 200A MB panel.

Do you think this is ok per Section 230.40 Exception 3?

Has anyone done this or something similar?

OK, I'll say it: "I have a 400A meterbase with parallel lugs on a house".

Seriously, though, this is done a lot around here. The neutral is regrounded at the res auto garage/shop as per 250.32. Grouping of the main service CB's are not required in this example. :smile:

 

[C3PO]

I have never seen this done around here and I have wanted to do this a few times and was always told by the POCO that I could not do it. I was just wanting to know what some other people thought about it and if this was done in other areas. Even some ECs I have talked to around here about this look at me like I am crazy.

 

[stickboy1375]

Say I have a 400A meterbase with parallel lugs on a house. I come out of the meterbase into the house with a 200A MB panel. Then I also come out of the meterbase, go underground to a detached shop and put a 200A MB panel.

Do you think this is ok per Section 230.40 Exception 3?

Has anyone done this or something similar?

Of course its fine.... why would it not be? I would love to do this also, but since I only get paid from the neck down it never happens...

 

[acrwc10]

The only thing that may effect exception (3) is,
230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.

This I could see as "arguable". Because it talks about grouping of disconnects.

 

[augie47]

Been accepted in most areas with which I'm acquainted as Code compliant.
Presently, where I inspect, POCO won't allow..no idea why.

 

[wbalsam1]

The only thing that may effect exception (3) is,
230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects.
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.

This I could see as "arguable". Because it talks about grouping of disconnects.

Reference 230-71(a) in 1999.....See the 1996 NEC at 230-40, Exception 3. This was added in order to permit an additional set of service entrance conductors to supply a separate structure in addition to a single-family dwelling. The revision clarified that up to six disconnects could be located at the separate structure and also clarified the elimination of a literal requirement to "group" the disconnects for the separate structure with the service disconnects for the dwelling. :smile:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Say I have a 400A meterbase with parallel lugs on a house. I come out of the meterbase into the house with a 200A MB panel. Then I also come out of the meterbase, go underground to a detached shop and put a 200A MB panel.

Do you think this is ok per Section 230.40 Exception 3?

Has anyone done this or something similar?

Just add 2 feed thru 8 cir. panels on the exterior and no one can have issues with it.

 

[RUWired]

Just add 2 feed thru 8 cir. panels on the exterior and no one can have issues with it.

Article 230.40 exception # 3 allows this w/o the added expense of the panel

Exception No. 3: A single-family dwelling unit and a separate structure shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors run to each from a single service drop or lateral.


Each set of service-drop or service-lateral conductors is allowed to supply only one set of service-entrance conductors. However, if a service drop or a service lateral supplies a building with more than one occupancy, such as multifamily dwellings, strip malls, and office buildings, each service drop or service lateral is allowed to supply more than one set of service-entrance conductors, provided they are run to each occupancy or group of occupancies, according to Exception No. 2.
Exception No. 3 to 230.40 allows a second set of service-entrance conductors supplied by a single service drop or lateral at a single-family dwelling unit to also supply another building on the premises, such as a garage or storage shed.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The op was saying the poco would not allow it--not sure why they are involved in it after the meter but if they have authority then I would add the panels.

This issue came up before and was argued quite a bit about the legality of the install. The thread in question was started by Mike Whitt

Here is the thread.

 

[RUWired]

I'm not sure why the poco would have a say. They only hook up to the drop after the inspection. Seems to me the inspector has the misunderstanding.

 

[C3PO]

The op was saying the poco would not allow it--not sure why they are involved in it after the meter but if they have authority then I would add the panels.

This issue came up before and was argued quite a bit about the legality of the install. The thread in question was started by Mike Whitt

Here is the thread.

Thanks for the link Dennis.

 

[C3PO]

Been accepted in most areas with which I'm acquainted as Code compliant.
Presently, where I inspect, POCO won't allow..no idea why.

The most recent place I wanted to do this was with the same POCO, but not in your inspection area. :wink: I asked why, they wouldn't tell me.

 

[acrwc10]

The most recent place I wanted to do this was with the same POCO, but not in your inspection area. :wink: I asked why, they wouldn't tell me.

I told you it was "arguable" They must feel information is given on a need to know basis, the problem they don't think you need to know.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

If you are coming out of the meter more than 2 times (there are 3 KOs in the Trans S/A meterpans the we see), I believe you are going to have a listing issue [110.3(B)].

The listing/labeling of the meterpan does not permit altering the meterpan itself.

As seen here there are only 3 KOs

If one wants to supply more than 2 panels load side of the meterpan, then trough/wireway would need to be installed with taping occuring there.

 

[wbalsam1]

If you are coming out of the meter more than 2 times (there are 3 KOs in the Trans S/A meterpans the we see), I believe you are going to have a listing issue [110.3(B)].

The listing/labeling of the meterpan does not permit altering the meterpan itself.

As seen here there are only 3 KOs

If one wants to supply more than 2 panels load side of the meterpan, then trough/wireway would need to be installed with taping occuring there.

I have a question. Wouldn't 250.92(A)(2) & (B)(4) apply to the galvanized conduit in the bottom center? I'm saying to bond past the concentric in this equipment....yes....no...? :smile:

 

[M. D.]

something,.. like this perhaps

 

[C3PO]

I told you it was "arguable" They must feel information is given on a need to know basis, the problem they don't think you need to know.

Apparently so. I tried to push them on it and all I could get was "you can't that here."