Service Conductors, limited or not?

Service Conductors, limited or not?

  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
iwire said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
1in?side
Pronunciation:
(ˌ)in-'sīd, 'in-ˌ
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century


1 a : an interior or internal part or place : the part within b : inward nature, thoughts, or feeling c : VISCERA, ENTRAILS ― usually used in plural
2 : an inner side or surface
3 a : a position of power, trust, or familiarity <only someone on the inside could have told> b : confidential information <has the inside on what happened at the convention>
4 : the area nearest a specified or implied point of reference: as a : the side of home plate nearest the batter b : the middle portion of a playing area c : the area near or underneath the basket in basketball


2inside
Function:
adverb
Date:
15th century


1 : on the inner side
2 : in or into the interior <stayed inside during the storm>
3 : to or on the inside
4 : in prison


3inside
Function:
adjective
Date:
1611


1 : of, relating to, or being on or near the inside <an inside pitch>
2 a : relating or known to a select group <inside information> b : BEHIND-THE-SCENES


4inside
Function:
preposition
Date:
1791


1 a : in or into or as if in or into the interior of <waited inside the church> b : on the inner side of <just inside the door>
2 : WITHIN <inside an hour>


inside (as used in expressions)
inside address
inside of
inside out
inside track
Inside Passage



? 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

I pretty much had assumed it would come down to having trouble with the question. :roll:



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.
Click to expand...


That to me is so far out there I cannot even respond.

I mean would you really try that line of reasoning with an inspector?
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
That to me is so far out there I cannot even respond.
Click to expand...
:D

I mean would you really try that line of reasoning with an inspector?
Click to expand...
Try, yes. Expect such to sway a contrary interpretation, no. Hope to sway a contrary interpretation, yes. Would there even be a possibility, not knowing how hardline the inspector is, yes. Would I do such an installation not knowing for certain it would pass inspection, no! ;)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
...
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.
Click to expand...


I like it, but don't think the NEC needs to define inside versus outside. "Inside", as used in that section, simply describes the location of the disconnect, not the conductors. The disconnect does not need to be installed within the exterior wall to comply. Your definition of "inside" can stand, though we might be better served to define "entrance".

Now we all know how hard it is to make reality fit words, and we can pick apart most sections to show that they do not require what we think. We can mount a disconnect within inches of the point the conductors emerge into the 'inside' of the building and we have compled with 230.70(A)(1). If we then run the wire around the whole basement, say to lower the fault current, we have still complied with the letter of the book, as far as I know.

That said, I read it as limiting the distance inside to as short as reasonably possible, and voted that way.
 
In 230.70(A) location. The explaintion in the workbook says " No maximum distance ....
It goes on to say that " the authority enforing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision on how far inside the building.

gus
 
While 230.70(A)(1) gives no numerical length for the service conductors, IMHO, the intent of the section is to limit the length of the service conductors, which for all intent and puroposes have no overcurrent protection, to the shortest possible distance.

Pete
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Smart,
If we take your position on what is inside, then why do we need 230.6(A)(1)?
Click to expand...
Well it's not my position per se. My comment is nothing more than one literal interpretation, without consideration of intent.

230.6 permits the disconnecting means location to be pratically anywhere interior to the structure, by requiring augmented physical protection of the service-entrance conductors. The location of the disconnecting means is still bound under the "inside nearest the point of entrance" stipulation of 230.70(A)(1). This is why 230.6 says the conductor shall be considered outside, being fully aware they are technically not.

That said, I don't see the reason for you bringing up 230.6...

...the question here is what criteria determines the inside-outside boundary.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pete m. said:
While 230.70(A)(1) gives no numerical length for the service conductors, IMHO, the intent of the section is to limit the length of the service conductors, which for all intent and puroposes have no overcurrent protection, to the shortest possible distance.

Pete
Click to expand...
I agree.

I continually fail to see why such requirements aren't written to convey intent more precisely, rather than dancing around the issue. The way 230.70(A)(1) is currently written, service-entrance conductors penetrating an outer wall for example could be run any amount of distance so long as they end up back at the service disconnecting means located nearest the point of entrance.

Practical? Definitely not.

Would it meet the letter of the code? Yes.

Would it meet the intent of the code? No.

Why not just write it up that service-entrance conductors inside a building or structure other than within the service disconnecting means enclosure is prohibited.
 
I voted ?No,? because there wasn?t a choice C: ?Neither, because the question does not explain the intended meaning of ?limit.? ? :D

Absent any local codes with specific numerical limits (WA State, for example, has a 15 foot limit), I believe an inspector cannot fail an installation with the basis, ?Well, the wires are 4 feet long, and that is too long, but if the wires had been only 3 feet long I would have passed it.? In this sense, the NEC does not impose a limit. I do not accept the notion that ?nearest? implies a default value of zero.

As to what is ?inside? and what is ?outside,? 230.6 gives us a list of what is considered ?outside.? I conclude, therefore, that if you have crossed the outer boundary of the outside wall or the outer boundary of the lowest floor level, and you didn?t use one of the methods on that list, then you are ?inside.?
 
pete m. said:
. . . IMHO, the intent of the section is to limit the length of the service conductors, which for all intent and puroposes have no overcurrent protection, to the shortest possible distance.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Smart $ said:
Why not just write it up that service-entrance conductors inside a building or structure other than within the service disconnecting means enclosure is prohibited.
Click to expand...
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.
 
charlie b said:
... I do not accept the notion that ?nearest? implies a default value of zero..
Click to expand...
Exactly what does "nearest" imply??? That of the service disconnecting means and two other [uncertain] item's the service disconnecting means is closest to the point of entrance. Perhaps I'll use Jupiter and Pluto as my other items to reference :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top