To paraphrase Jerry McGuire, "Show me the Specific language." :grin:
You bet your bippy I did. :grin:
enclosed service mast
- Thread starter insparks
- Start date
- Status
To paraphrase Jerry McGuire, "Show me the Specific language." :grin:
You bet your bippy I did. :grin:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I already did a number of times.:roll:
Your grinning but I may have to bail out of this one as this is the most ridiculous argument I have had the displeasure of being a part of.
I am stupefied that you think I can run service conductors an unlimited distance inside a structure without complying with 230.6 I am literally shocked that you of all people do not see any hazard in doing so. You make me question your commonsense.
Sorry you feel that way Bob but I am surrounded by literally millions of installations that totally disagree with your position, in one of the most restrictive code enforcement jurisdictions in the country so regardless of what you (or I for that matter) feel about this issue is is a permitted practice and NO one has been able to produce the proper language in the Code to make all of those millions of installs Code violations.
As you have told others (and as you have told me in the past in fact) if the discussion bothers you that much then don't bother reading it anymore. :roll:
Others in this thread have also disagreed with your position and I don't see you questioning their common sense. :roll:
Like I said before this will be another topic that you and I can agree to disagree on. I can live with that.
As you have told others (and as you have told me in the past in fact) if the discussion bothers you that much then don't bother reading it anymore. :roll:
Others in this thread have also disagreed with your position and I don't see you questioning their common sense. :roll:
Like I said before this will be another topic that you and I can agree to disagree on.
I can live with that.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Whatever, keep your blinders on :roll:
You sure seem to have an angry tone to many of your posts, where you are not in agreement with others. As a "moderator" shouldn't yours be a NON- combative voice ?
They say petting a dog can help calm stress, maybe you need two dogs.
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Assuming this riser is "inside", why wouldn't you accept 230.71(A)(1)?
Do you actually think that this is the "nearest" the disconnect can be installed to the point of entrance?
To me, that can be the only argument.
Agreed, the is no outright prohibition, but there are restrictions.
IMO, the biggest is the actual requirement that the disconnect be located at the nearest point to the entrance of the conductors. The implication is that we actually connect the conductors to the disconnect at that point, without long loops first. Not written well, but pretty clear just the same.
That picture looked as if a lateral could easily be brought in the bottom of the meter section outside the structure. Am I wrong?
Otherwise, I think Don summed it up pretty well.
No, it doesn't.
How's your hand :roll:?
Exactly.
To recap and paraphrase: The disconnect, if not outside, is required to be installed nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. 230.71(A)(1).
As far as I can tell, there are only three ways to go.
We can debate "inside".
We can debate whether or not the service conductors are required to be brought directly to the disconnect.
We can debate what "nearest" means in this section.
We cannot debate the relative location of the disconnect. If inside, it is required to be nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.
Last edited:
Volta, Precisely because there seems to be no agreement that the riser is technically inside the building. For example, since there is a wall separating the riser in my apartment from the inside of my bedroom, that would by definition make the riser outside of my bedroom, and by default, outside the building as far as I am concerned.
And for an overhead service, at the bottom of the mast is the "nearest practical point" of installation for a disconnect or the meter/main combo.
There are several commercial properties down the road from me where the service drop attaches to the FRONT of the building, and the service wiring proceeds to the REAR of the building (a run of 50-60 feet depending on the building) in RGS, exposed and anchored in the roof trusses before hitting the main disconnect and switchgear there. This practice again is very common, but, for the record, even though it would still pass here, the POCO itself is going to underground on ALL new commercial installs here. So it may be said that the POCO is mandating a change..but if the property is rebuilt (as was a motor repair shop with that same style service) they ARE allowed to rebuild as original. ( The motor shop burned down when the varnish dipping vat overheated and caught fire.)
My point from the beginning is that there are NO OUTRIGHT PROHIBITIONS, and the AHJ (or POCO) has latitude in what is and is not acceptable, but the CODE is not clear or explicit in this case. Not written well is a huge understatement in this case.
As for the picture of the semi-flush, no you cannot get a lateral or riser externally, the shadows make an optical illusion, it only projects out from the wall by about 2" or less.
Exactly. And all this acrimony centers around the locations of the disconnect, not the service conductors that feed it. The topic is the service conductors, NOT the disconnect. That's why I refuse to accept 230.71(A)(1) as a valid prohibition in this discussion.
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
I hope there is never a fire in the lobby to change your mind.
I know that we do have to use a little practicality here, but no one is forced to install the riser other than on the surface. Therefore the bottom of the riser is a fine place for a disconnect, and the service conductors can remain completely outside of the building envelope too. That is just as practical, and absolutely meets 230.71(A)(1), instead of maybe complies.
But neither 'done a lot', nor allowed by the local POCO, nor allowed by CA has anything to do with compliance with the NEC.
Huge? All I see as unwritten is the requirement to actually connect the entering conductors to the disconnect where they enter. But I see no way to claim that the intent of doing so is unclear.
Tell me what other meaning that section could possibly have.
Maybe so, but are there provisions for entry in that bottom? Maybe they are designed and intended for use with a thinner siding.
The topic very well includes the disconnect, as that is by definition the load end of the service conductors. 230.71(A)(1) remains perfectly valid.
- Location
- Massachusetts
iwire said:
Well played. :roll:
Can I enter the service conductors for a 10 store building in the basement without regard for 230.6 run the conductors up to the tenth floor to the service disconnect?
No
What stops me from doing so?
230.70(A)(1)
So 230.70(A)(1) while not specifically stating a length prohibits service conductors from running lets say 'unrestricted' in the building.
Fine thanks for asking, my real job can be extremely stressful at times and sometimes when people try to tell me the sky is green and the grass is blue I get kind of uppity.:grin:
iwire said:
(Bolds added by me.)
That's exactly my point Bob..The average length of conductors in a single story riser that would fall inside a wall is 3 feet or less depending on construction. In the case of my apartment building which is two stories that length is closer to 10-12 feet.
In your jurisdiction, where I believe SE cable is common, if you have the meter base outside and the panel/disconnect inside, what is the length of SE allowed to join the two? Does your jurisdiction specify a specific maximum? Or is it as the Code is worded "nearest practical point"?
If service conductors were specifically prohibited in a building then EVERY service would then be forced to be a back-to-back with the meter base and the panel/disconnect. From all the photos and discussions on this site and others we know that to NOT be true. Can we at least agree on this point of the discussion?
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Or something like that
.Nope. If service conductors were specifically prohibited in a building, then any installation with the disconnect inside would be a violation. Back-to-back would not be allowed.
But I think most us agree that they can enter the building. If so, the only words we can play with are "inside", and "nearest".
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
As far as I know, our area will generally accept up to ten feet. But I don't know if that was properly ammended or not.
I don't feel that the NEC allows ten feet. From a strict reading, it seems obvious. With an even stricter reading, the conductors don't need to be connected to the disconnect nearest the point of entrance, just that we must mount the disconnect there. With a more resonable reading, in my opinion, I can accept an implied practicality, and feel that longer distances could be contemplated. But the words don't actually state that. They say "nearest".
I don't feel that the NEC allows ten feet. From a strict reading, it seems obvious. With an even stricter reading, the conductors don't need to be connected to the disconnect nearest the point of entrance, just that we must mount the disconnect there. With a more resonable reading, in my opinion, I can accept an implied practicality, and feel that longer distances could be contemplated. But the words don't actually state that. They say "nearest".
jwjrw
Senior Member
Before this thread I had never even heard of a riser being in a wall. Now you tell me they are in NC ! :grin: Different areas do different things I guess.
mivey
Senior Member
That is why it is such a slippery slope. I have seen inspectors say "6 feet" "same stud space" "do what you can". It appears to be written that way to leave it up to the AHJ but we all know that can be inconsistent as all get-out.
Personally, if they are not back-to-back, I would rather see a disconnect outside.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That is the exactly the case for some jurisdictions where the code wording is strictly enforced. Many others have local rules that specify an maximum length. For my area that is 10'. Other areas have unwritten rules that limit the length to "x" feet. Still others have taken it a bit farther and require the means of disconnect to be outside of the building.
This all implies that indeed the Code wording is flawed and that there is NO specific prohibition as there is latitude that varies depending on jurisdiction.
From the strictest safety standpoint, I can agree that unfused conductors inside (or attached to for that matter) ANY structure can be a fire hazard....but history and statistical data has NOT shown it to be the horror show that some are making it out to be.
What would be safest? Easy. Make the POCO provide a fused disconnect at the pole or install fuse blocks on the pole to protect the drop. We all know the odds of that happening. :roll:
All the houses/apartments I have lived in (with the exception on my homes in Ohio) have all had overhead services with enclosed risers. I have never given them a second thought. And they are still allowed to be installed here.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Please point out the 'horror stories' that 'some are making it out to be'.
All I have said is it ridiculous to think that unused service conductors in a wall are as safe as outside the building.
No horror stories, no smoldering wreckage.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
As Slick said, here we do it all the time. The POCO's all want RMC.
The only accident I have ever seen was when a guy drilled into it, but then he drilled into it on purpose trying to steal power. We never could figure out what he thought he was going to do once he got the hole drilled.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I do not think anyone has disputed it is a very common method in CA.
Maybe he thought it was like tapping a tree and he would just hang a bucket under it. :grin:
Maybe he thought it was like tapping a tree and he would just hang a bucket under it. :grin:
mivey
Senior Member
We had a case in Georgia where the service ran through the attic ahead of the meter. A home-owner tapped the line and put in a relay system that would drop the tapped load when the meter was pulled. It was not found until the house was sold and the new owner wanted to know what the contraption in the attic was for. As you might imagine, drops through attics are frowned upon now-a-days.I do not think anyone has disputed it is a very common method in CA.
Maybe he thought it was like tapping a tree and he would just hang a bucket under it. :grin:
- Status