Service and branch circuit conductors

Status
Not open for further replies.

M. D.

Senior Member
This is a snippet from an article written by Mike Holt for EC&M mag.

Once you've established whether service conductors are inside or outside a structure, do you need to install separate raceways for them? Yes-in 230.7, we see that you cannot install service conductors in the same raceway or cable with feeder (or branch-circuit) conductors (Figure 230-5). This rule does not prohibit the mixing of service, feeder, and branch-circuit conductors in the same service equipment enclosure.

This separation maintains the integrity of your fault protection. If we mixed service conductors with other conductors in the same raceway, a fault that occurred between the service and feeder conductors could bypass the overcurrent protection for the feeder conductors.

IMO you have a raceway I would think it would violate NEC Art 230.7
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
M. D. said:
...insight
That Q&A refers to gutter space. Should we consider auxiliary gutter space an equivalent? I certainly don't know, and I don't see any provisions in the code that makes it so.

The reference to 250.92 concerning auxiliary gutters mentioned earlier by RB1 is regarding the bonding of such. 230.7 makes exception to grounding conductors and bonding jumpers. So we're back to square one on this issue AFAIC.

One thing is for certain: the 2" nipples connecting the panels to the "auxiliary gutter/wireway" are most definitely raceways and not an auxiliary gutter. So the branch circuit wiring most defintely cannot be run through those nipples.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Smart$ forgive me, I was simply trying to give the original poster a bit of information.
I said it is my opinion that the service entrance conductors are in a raceway and that I would consider this a violation of 230.7 . There are places where the service entrance condutors can occupy the same space as other than service conductors.
 

RB1

Senior Member
If there are no splices in the "trough" I would consider it being used as a wireway rather than an auxiliary gutter. I wonder how CMP-4 would respond to a proposal to add auxiliary gutters to the requirements of 230.7?
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
M. D. said:
Smart$ forgive me, I was simply trying to give the original poster a bit of information.
I said it is my opinion that the service entrance conductors are in a raceway and that I would consider this a violation of 230.7 . There are places where the service entrance condutors can occupy the same space as other than service conductors.
Forgiving is not necessary (or you are forgiven... take your pick :grin: ), because that Q&A provides provides some perspective to how gutter space differs from auxiliary gutter space. I was just pointing out that, as far as I can tell, there is no code provision giving auxiliary gutter space an equivalent status to that of equipment gutter space. I do realize these spaces serve a near-identical purpose, but they are distinguishable from each other.
 

e2me

Member
Location
South Dakota
try this

try this

:cool:
Smart $ said:
You will have to cut the trough completely into two "custom-length" sections and add two end caps. Your post reads as though you are thinking of using an end cap as a divider/barrier... but as long as the wireway is one section, or joined sections, it is still one and the same wireway. I do think it is a bit overkill to make separate raceways, but I don't see any other compliant way to do it.

FWIW, divider/barriers are permitted in cable tray to separate service and non-service conductors... but there is no such provision for wireways.


Add a disconnect between the meter and the trough and then your fine the service entrance conductors become feeders and you can have other conductors in with feeders other wise no 230 applies
 

big vic

Senior Member
400 amp raintight disconnect $600

I talked to the AHJ and he likes the idea of separating the trough sections with an end cap
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
big vic said:
I talked to the AHJ and he likes the idea of separating the trough sections with an end cap
Did he "like the idea" in writing? ...or are you guys buddy-up enough where word is good?
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
e2me said:
:cool:
Add a disconnect between the meter and the trough and then your fine the service entrance conductors become feeders and you can have other conductors in with feeders other wise no 230 applies
Had considered and dismissed without posting such for the very reason big vic presented...

How many sections did you want that trough cut into? :grin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top