Line Side tap Conductors "outside the building" or EMT OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TrickleCharge

Member
Location
CA
I have a PV system in a commercial building where they are doing a line side tap. They come out of the top of the switchgear with EMT and run overhead on a unitstrut trapeze with EMT (approximately 20 feet) to an AC disconnect. My understanding is that these conductors are required to be protected from physical damage per 230.32. This references raceways installed "outside the building" per 230.6 and the use of an approved raceway per 230.43. My questions is, can they install this as described or should it be "outside the building"?

Thanks
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
EMT is an approved raceway for service conductors under 230.43 (unless there's a local amendment to the contrary). So I guess I don't understand the question.
 

TrickleCharge

Member
Location
CA
EMT is an approved raceway for service conductors under 230.43 (unless there's a local amendment to the contrary). So I guess I don't understand the question.


Typically, the intent is to have the ac disconnect nearest the point of entrance in a building. The piece that goes from underground and transitions to an approved raceway is very short to the ac disconnect. In this application, they are running over 20 feet of EMT conduit overhead that is unprotected service conductors over to the AC disconnect. There would be no issue if the AC disconnect for the service conductors was shorter and right next to the switchgear. That is where protecting it from physical damage comes in to play per 230.6.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
230.6 just defines certain methods as 'outside the building'. 230.32 says the service conductors can be protected with those methods or 230.42. They have met 230.42; they do not need to also meet 230.6. There's no requirement to be 'outside the building' here.

If you are looking for a reason not to approve this installation I think you should find another code section. Maybe 230.70(A)(1).

FWIW, next year, the California code will require the disconnect to be within 10ft of the tap. (Article 705 of the 2014 NEC.) But we're not on that code yet.
 

TrickleCharge

Member
Location
CA
230.6 just defines certain methods as 'outside the building'. 230.32 says the service conductors can be protected with those methods or 230.42. They have met 230.42; they do not need to also meet 230.6. There's no requirement to be 'outside the building' here.

If you are looking for a reason not to approve this installation I think you should find another code section. Maybe 230.70(A)(1).

FWIW, next year, the California code will require the disconnect to be within 10ft of the tap. (Article 705 of the 2014 NEC.) But we're not on that code yet.



I don't think we ever look for a reason to disapprove something. The idea behind being a code official is so facilitate a safe and compliant installation. I think in terms of lengthy service conductors inside of a building, I really consider first responder safety. Although the service main may be disconnected, there is a raceway with over 20 feet of live conductors inside the building. That's the only reasoning I can think of why "outside the building" is so important OR nearest the point of entrance which limits this length.

Thanks for the input!
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
I don't think we ever look for a reason to disapprove something. The idea behind being a code official is so facilitate a safe and compliant installation. I think in terms of lengthy service conductors inside of a building, I really consider first responder safety. Although the service main may be disconnected, there is a raceway with over 20 feet of live conductors inside the building. That's the only reasoning I can think of why "outside the building" is so important OR nearest the point of entrance which limits this length.

Thanks for the input!

I got the feeling you thought the install was unsafe. I don't think there's anything wrong with reviewing relevant sections of the code when you feel that way. :cool:

I feel like your description of the install keeps evolving, but it also sounds like you can reasonably say it violates 230.70(A)(1).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top