230.85(3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epalmateer

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
Occupation
Electrician
In Michigan we are still in 2017 code cycle, but eventually we are going to move to 2020, and the Michigan amendments will probably include 230.85. I have been talking to a lot of inspectors out here and most of them are saying that even if you choose 230.85(3), you still have to sub feed your house. I 100% disagree, and was wondering if anyone has or knows of any literature from the cmp that was in charge of that change, that specifies their reasoning behind the the third option?
 
Well, in advance of the 2020 NEC and this section, work with your AHJ, and review this forum. Locally I am seeing meter main disconnects labeled to use with this section.
 
Epalmateer said:
In Michigan we are still in 2017 code cycle, but eventually we are going to move to 2020, and the Michigan amendments will probably include 230.85. I have been talking to a lot of inspectors out here and most of them are saying that even if you choose 230.85(3), you still have to sub feed your house. I 100% disagree, and was wondering if anyone has or knows of any literature from the cmp that was in charge of that change, that specifies their reasoning behind the the third option?
Click to expand...
#3 was adopted to help out with existing installs where one can install the emergency disconnect outside and label it an "emergency disconnect-not service equipment" and not have to change to 4 wires into the interior panel.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
#3 was adopted to help out with existing installs where one can install the emergency disconnect outside and label it an "emergency disconnect-not service equipment" and not have to change to 4 wires into the interior panel.
Click to expand...
Yea that's what I was thinking. What about 250.6? I could see an inspector failing an installation with metal between emergency disconnect and service disconnect. I would understand if they only allowed option 3 if you ran pvc or se between the enclosures.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
#3 was adopted to help out with existing installs where one can install the emergency disconnect outside and label it an "emergency disconnect-not service equipment" and not have to change to 4 wires into the interior panel.
Click to expand...
Also, do you know of any literature from the cmp responsible for this section? Like their intent of option 3?
 
Epalmateer said:
Yea that's what I was thinking. What about 250.6? I could see an inspector failing an installation with metal between emergency disconnect and service disconnect. I would understand if they only allowed option 3 if you ran pvc or se between the enclosures.
Click to expand...

I don't know why but that has always been allowed. An inspector may try to fail it but they would not be correct.

I don't have the cmp reason but it must be in the reports.
 
Epalmateer said:
Yea that's what I was thinking. What about 250.6? I could see an inspector failing an installation with metal between emergency disconnect and service disconnect. I would understand if they only allowed option 3 if you ran pvc or se between the enclosures.
Click to expand...
Not necessary. The service neutral and any metallic raceway or enclosure are considered to be the same conductor. The separation is only required after the service disconnect, where the premises EGC system starts.
 
LarryFine said:
Not necessary. The service neutral and any metallic raceway or enclosure are considered to be the same conductor. The separation is only required after the service disconnect, where the premises EGC system starts.
Click to expand...

They may be considered the same but a metal raceway creates a parallel path which goes against 230.6. IMO
 
LarryFine said:
Not necessary. The service neutral and any metallic raceway or enclosure are considered to be the same conductor. The separation is only required after the service disconnect, where the premises EGC system s
Dennis Alwon said:
They may be considered the same but a metal raceway creates a parallel path which goes against 230.6. IMO
Click to expand...
I see it this way too. This is where interpretation comes into play. I would agree with an inspector who let you use option 3 as long as there are no metallic raceways between any of the equipment, and the ED is right by the meter.
Click to expand...
 
tom baker said:
Go to NFPA.org, look for NFPA 70 previous edition, find public inputs.
you will need to sign up for a free account.
Click to expand...
I found a public input where one guys is defending the fact that it says service conductors must "terminate" in an emergency disconnect, and says that they need to clear up the fact that the conductors.leaving the emergency disconnect are now.feeders. Is there anyway to see what the cmp said about it?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
They may be considered the same but a metal raceway creates a parallel path which goes against 230.6. IMO
Click to expand...
My NEC says "230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building."

Mayhaps you meant "250.6 Objectionable Current."

What would you do if a metal conduit was required (code or spec) between the meter and the service disconnect, both of which must be bonded to the neutral?

In my opinion, neutral current in/on service equipment is not "objectionable current" but rather is expected to occur. All of the metallic equipment "is" the neutral.
 
LarryFine said:
My NEC says "230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building."

Mayhaps you meant "250.6 Objectionable Current."

What would you do if a metal conduit was required (code or spec) between the meter and the service disconnect, both of which must be bonded to the neutral?

In my opinion, neutral current in/on service equipment is not "objectionable current" but rather is expected to occur. All of the metallic equipment "is" the ne
Click to expand...

LarryFine said:
My NEC says "230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building."

Mayhaps you meant "250.6 Objectionable Current."

What would you do if a metal conduit was required (code or spec) between the meter and the service disconnect, both of which must be bonded to the neutral?

In my opinion, neutral current in/on service equipment is not "objectionable current" but rather is expected to occur. All of the metallic equipment "is" the neutral.
Click to expand...
With this only applying to one and two family dwellings, I would imagine if the electrical inspector in charge of plan review was in the boat of it being objectional current, he would call it out and have it addressed.
 
LarryFine said:
My NEC says "230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building."

Mayhaps you meant "250.6 Objectionable Current."

What would you do if a metal conduit was required (code or spec) between the meter and the service disconnect, both of which must be bonded to the neutral?

In my opinion, neutral current in/on service equipment is not "objectionable current" but rather is expected to occur. All of the metallic equipment "is" the neutral.
Click to expand...
What code would require metal raceway between the meter and emergency disconnect?
 
LarryFine said:
My NEC says "230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building."

Mayhaps you meant "250.6 Objectionable Current."

What would you do if a metal conduit was required (code or spec) between the meter and the service disconnect, both of which must be bonded to the neutral?

In my opinion, neutral current in/on service equipment is not "objectionable current" but rather is expected to occur. All of the metallic equipment "is" the neutral.
Click to expand...
Reading your post again, I realize that you might not be talking about the emergency disconnect, but services in general.
 
Epalmateer said:
With this only applying to one and two family dwellings, I would imagine if the electrical inspector in charge of plan review was in the boat of it being objectional current, he would call it out and have it addressed.
Click to expand...
As would the NEC itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top