Service Conductors, limited or not?

[Smart $]

I sorta thought the same way, briefly. Then I remembered that the device upon which the service conductors are terminated need only be a disconnecting means. It does not have to have overcurrent protection.

Don't know if I'm reading that the way it was meant to read...

A service disconnecting means is required to provide overcurrent protection as the disconnecting device, within the enclosure of the disconnecting device, or immediately adjacent thereto.

Are you referring only to the fact that the service disconnecting means can consist of more than one device and enclosure?

 

[Smart $]

Because I want to be able to run the conductors under the slab to the location of the main electrical room, then penetrate the slab from below (at which point I am now "inside" the building), and have the freedom to run some short amount of distance to where the main board or panel is located. That is, I don't want my only choice to be that I have to enter the main board/panel from below, with that board/panel having to be floor mounted.

I knew someone was going to bring this up in some manner. I say express the intent concisely, then except or otherwise permit "shades of gray" issues.

 

[charlie b]

Exactly what does "nearest" imply???

That's easy! The CMP's use of the word "nearest" implies that they do not choose to establish a number - any number. They do not choose to establish "0 feet" as the number, nor "1 foot," nor "15 feet," nor any other number. They could have said "0 feet," but they did not. So I need not accept "0 feet" as the intended meaning, nor the code requirement.

 

[charlie b]

Are you referring only to the fact that the service disconnecting means can consist of more than one device and enclosure?

No, I was just isolating two separate discussions, "for clarity." The rule about the location of the point of termination of the service conductors says nothing about overcurrent protection. The requirement to which you refer is located a bit deeper into the book.

 

[pete m.]

I say express the intent concisely, then except or otherwise permit "shades of gray" issues.

Agreed.

I also agree with Charlie in that the CMP did intentionally not specify a finite distance only for the simple reason that construction types and designs of buildings differ to the point that one specific distance would not fit all situations.

With the verbiage the way it is it fortunately (or unfortunately in some cases i.e. "4 feet is too long but 3 feet would be fine") gives the AHJ the authority to determine that the intent of the section is met.

And, as the great orator Mr. Gump would say "That's all I have to say about that."

Pete

 

[Smart $]

That's easy! The CMP's use of the word "nearest" implies that they do not choose to establish a number - any number. They do not choose to establish "0 feet" as the number, nor "1 foot," nor "15 feet," nor any other number. They could have said "0 feet," but they did not. So I need not accept "0 feet" as the intended meaning, nor the code requirement.

I understand that. What I'm referring to is using the superlative of near. The superlative use implies the disconnecting means be the closest to the point of entrance when contrasted to the nearness of two or more other, unspecified items. On the other side of the building is nearest the point of entrance if I reference Jupiter and Pluto as the contrasted items.

 

[charlie b]

The superlative can also be interpreted as meaning "as near as practical" or "as near as is practicable." It could mean "the nearest you can get, within reason," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without having to locate the panel at an operationally inconvenient location," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without making it look ugly." We just don't know.

 

[mxslick]

Bet you can't guess which way I voted. :grin: (And no fair using your mod squad powers to peek Bob. :grin: )

Smart $ summarized my position quite well in post #3 and like I said in the other thread California has the most stringent codes and would NEVER, EVER allow the practice if there was a SPECIFIC prohibition.

This topic has always been a hot-button one based on this poll, the current thread that inspired this poll, and several other threads in the past.

 

[Smart $]

The superlative can also be interpreted as meaning "as near as practical" or "as near as is practicable." It could mean "the nearest you can get, within reason," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without having to locate the panel at an operationally inconvenient location," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without making it look ugly." We just don't know.

Exactly... we just don't know. The word "nearest" is both a comparative and relative term. Its use in this regard is definitely ambiguous without other clarifying text.

 

[iwire]

Bet you can't guess which way I voted. :grin: (And no fair using your mod squad powers to peek Bob. :grin: )

It is a public poll we can all peek.

Smart $ summarized my position quite well in post #3 and like I said in the other thread

Which part, the part where he takes issue with the wording of my question or the par where he tries to call 'inside' outside? :roll:

California has the most stringent codes and would NEVER, EVER allow the practice if there was a SPECIFIC prohibition.

Without a doubt in my mind they are not following the NEC rules.

So answer this.

Based on you 'no limit theory' how far can I run unfused service conductors inside the structure?

Picture a two story home with an overheard drop, what prohibits me from running SE up from the basement service panel up the inside of the walls in and out the back of a meter socket continue up inside the walls across the attic and out the eve to connect to the drop?

 

[iwire]

what about a rigid conduit that penetrates exterior wall, then runs 25' inside a poured concrete foundation wall, and then penetrates interior of concrete wall into panel?

230.6 directly allows that installation.

 

[mxslick]

Bob, to answer your question, nothing stops you from doing what you propose.

I like what Charlie posted:

The superlative can also be interpreted as meaning "as near as practical" or "as near as is practicable." It could mean "the nearest you can get, within reason," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without having to locate the panel at an operationally inconvenient location," or perhaps "the nearest you can get, without making it look ugly." We just don't know.

The Code does not go into specifics of what constitutes "as near as practicable". For all we know in the example you posited, that is the ONLY way to route that SE cable. :grin:

If there is a shorter, more direct path then you could be tasked to follow that shorter path.

 

[iwire]

I
So answer this.

Based on you 'no limit theory' how far can I run unfused service conductors inside the structure?

Picture a two story home with an overheard drop, what prohibits me from running SE up from the basement service panel up the inside of the walls in and out the back of a meter socket continue up inside the walls across the attic and out the eve to connect to the drop?

Bob, to answer your question nothing stops you from doing what you propose.

That is literally the most ridiculous comment I have read in ages. Really, I know of not one inspector that would agree with you.

I have to bail out for now cause I am going to type things I should not.

The Code does not go into specifics of what constitutes "as near as practicable". For all we know in the example you posited, that is the ONLY way to route that SE cable. :grin:

If there is a shorter, more direct path then you could be tasked to follow that shorter path.

So 230.6 means what to you.

 

[charlie b]

As I mentioned earlier, my state has imposed a limit of 15 feet. But why did they bother? Was it, perhaps, because they thought the NEC language would have allowed an "as long as I want" installation, and because they thought a specific numerical limit was needed? Or was it, perhaps, to avoid multiple interpretations, and to avoid discussions of the nature going on in this thread? My guess is the later.

 

[pete m.]

As I mentioned earlier, my state has imposed a limit of 15 feet. But why did they bother? Was it, perhaps, because they thought the NEC language would have allowed an "as long as I want" installation, and because they thought a specific numerical limit was needed? Or was it, perhaps, to avoid multiple interpretations, and to avoid discussions of the nature going on in this thread? My guess is the later.

Charlie,

It's been a while now since I lived and worked in WA and I can't recall if the WAC also gave particular wiring methods along with the allowance of the 15 feet. Not that I think it matters as far as the NEC is concerned but I am curious.

Thanks, Pete

 

[raider1]

Yes there is a section that limits the length and that limit is for all practical purposes zero. The disconnect is required to be "nearest the point of entrance" and to me that meas the disconnect must be installed at the point where the conductors actually enter the building.

As far as the point of entrance, to me, that is the point where they penetrate the outer surface of the building.

I agree with Don's reasoning.

Chris

 

[iwire]

Or was it, perhaps, to avoid multiple interpretations, and to avoid discussions of the nature going on in this thread? My guess is the later.

My guess as well. Were I am we have no number at all just a rough idea of what the inspector of wires will accept which of course leads to problems when your used to one guys allowance and you hit anothers tighter reading.

If for instance we were in Salt Lake city they read it like Don, they will allow a meter outside back to back with service disconnect inside but not a inch further.

 

[charlie b]

. . . I can't recall if the WAC also gave particular wiring methods along with the allowance of the 15 feet.

Here is what it has to say:

043 Wiring methods for 600 volts, nominal or less.

(7) The installation of service conductors not exceeding 600 volts, nominal, within a building or structure is limited to the following methods: Galvanized or aluminum rigid metal conduit; galvanized intermediate metal conduit; wireways; busways; auxiliary gutters; minimum schedule 40 rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit; cablebus; or mineral-insulated, metal-sheathed cable (type MI).

(8) Electrical metallic tubing must not be installed as the wiring method for service entrance conductors inside a building. Existing electrical metallic tubing, installed prior to October 1984, which is properly grounded and used for service entrance conductors may be permitted to remain if the conduit is installed in a nonaccessible location and is the proper size for the installed conductors.

(9) In addition to methods allowed in the NEC, the grounded service conductor is permitted to be identified with a yellow jacket or with one or more yellow stripes.

And a short way below that stuff, we have,

Inside location: When the service disconnecting means is installed inside the building or structure, it must be located so that the service raceway extends no more than fifteen feet inside the building/structure.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

No, but your question asks specifically about length. With length there is a numerical value and a distance unit of measure involved. There is no "length" stipulation regarding this matter in the NEC. My poll response is based entirely on this technicality

Let me throw this out there regarding the matter that prompted your poll. The actual requirement is "inside nearest the point of entrance". The Code does not define inside versus outside, TTBOMK. Structurally, any point to the inner side of a structure's exterior surface is inside. Personel-wise, inside is any point to the inner side of the outermost structural barrier's inner surface. My personel interpretation of inside appears to correspond with Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which I believe is the recommended reference for undefined NEC terms. Going by such definition, service conductors within an outside wall are not inside the structure. Additionally, having no part on the inside, they have yet to enter the structure so there is yet to be a point of entrance.

Smart,
You can use Webster to literally twist/interpret to say what you think it means and you only have your opinion as I have mine. The line between inside and outside can be as fine as the line that separates life and death. At this point by vote or not most realize that the intent was to minimize the lenght of unfused cable inside the building. Once you break the surface or skin".00001 of an inch" of the building you are no longer totally outside. Mxslick, even if you are between the brick veneer and the OSB siding you are still NOT totally outside nor do you meet any of the def. of outside defined by the NEC. If you ain't outside and inside is the only other place you can be where are you????? If CA allows it ,fine. Bring it to NC and you will have to learn to live without utility power. POCO or local AHJ will stop it even if you can do a double back flip in the Governors office and land in your pants. That is just the way it is.

 

[jusme123]

OK smart I see you voted no. :grin:

You know I have to ask why?

Can I run my service conductors into my attic, run them down through the walls and into a service disconnect in the basement?

can u run wires into the attic and then down inside wall to a panal
4' away?
3' away?
2' away?
1' away?
6" away?