one meterbase serving resi and 2 shops

[e57]

Was my preferred method also, but many utility guys still don't understand concept of grounded and grounding conductors. They would still think bonding of neutral to exposed metal on branch circuits is acceptable because this is how they do their work all the time.

I don't discount POCO guys that much - they might understand more than you think.... But there are some who detest grounding at all - as working in an enclosure for them - grounds and grounded surfaces are a hazard - but thankfully that is now considered old-school thinking....

But thankfully current flow, and electrodes are not a completely foreign concept - a simple conversation with someone who understands why the code changed and the difference between an EGC and the grounded circuit conductor and thier purposes should clear it up.

 

[LarryFine]

ran grounds with the supply feeders to both bldgs. did not plan on driving ground rods at each bldg.

Simply, each building's panel should be wired as if it was a service, complete with a main (or no more than 6 handles) disconnect and a full electrode system.

The only difference is that separate neutral and EGC's are run, and the neutral is isolated from the panel/EGC/GEC system, just as is done with any sub-panel.

 

[kwired]

The customer wanted a new panel outside his garage with breakers to both bldgs. The new 320a meter base feeds the new panel and the new panel feeds both separate shops. meterbase also feeds the home. 320a meter base with lugs on the load side to feed the home and the new panel outside the garage. He then added a panel at each bldg.

As I see it you have two services on one building and they are not grouped in one location.

As I mentioned in another post one of the services does not actually supply any part of the building it is attached to and is mounted on the exterior - this would be the only hope of complying with 230.2, 230.71 and 230.72 otherwise they must be grouped in one location some inspectors still may not let you do it the way you did it unless you put a disconnect for the house panel near the other panel, now this is the service to the house.

I still say the outside panel on house was not needed and run service conductors from meter to house panel and from meter to shop panel. Supply the third smaller building from either the house or the shop which ever is easiest.

 

[e57]

As I see it you have two services on one building and they are not grouped in one location.

It yes does sound that way - and that too is concerning.... One building might not be so much an issue - on two separate building might. The Service conductors should only have one disconnecting means on a property (atypical to a residential situation) in this case located at the building in which the meter is located - otherwise it rakes up more than a can of worms and IMO becomes a hazard for those unaware by signage of this unorthodox and multiple point service arrangement - specifically the fire dept. and/or the next electrician... For that matter anyone doing any work on the property without calling in a dig locator - who might miss it. And a utility rep would have a cow unless the install were completely covered by a substantiated code...

 

[eprice]

It yes does sound that way - and that too is concerning.... One building might not be so much an issue - on two separate building might. The Service conductors should only have one disconnecting means on a property (atypical to a residential situation) in this case located at the building in which the meter is located

230.40 exception 3 allows one service drop or lateral (with one meter) to supply one set of service entrance conductors to the house and one set to the shop. I think this is what the OP is describing. 230.71 then allows a separate service disconnect at each of the two locations.

 

[e57]

230.40 exception 3 allows one service drop or lateral (with one meter) to supply one set of service entrance conductors to the house and one set to the shop. I think this is what the OP is describing. 230.71 then allows a separate service disconnect at each of the two locations.

Note my use of the word "should". While the code does allow it - ease of means for the exceptions complicate the install. One property - 2-3 disconnects... One serving 1-2 others... Should there be a printed one-line diagram on a map to locate them??? :roll: