230-6 Conductors considered outside a building

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Electrick One

Member
Location
North Carolina
I'm going round and round with a local inspector about an application.
On a commercial application,I have proposed to run service entrance conductors,in parallel, from a meter base, thirty feet, along an outside wall, at a height of nine feet, entering the building, and terminating into a 600 amp MDP with a main, within five feet of entering the structure. Are the conductors still considered outside the building, or will overcurrent protection need to be provided at the meter location? The inspector thinks the later should apply. There is no mention of this condition in 230-6, however I have used this application in the past,without problem. Are there any exceptions that cover this application?
 
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I just don't understand why there is an issue here. 230.6 is all about "conductors considered outside the building." You don't need to read that section, in order to conclude that a conductor that is outside the building can be considered "outside the building." :?: :?: :?:
 
The inspector is stating that , because of the length of the of the service entrance conductors, the application does not meet the requirments of 230-6, and we must provide overcurrent protection directly after the meter.
 
Electrick One said:
The inspector is stating that since the application does not meet the requirments of 230-6 that we must provide overcurrent protection directly after the meter.
Click to expand...


What requirement aren't you meeting? Is it the 5' of conductors within the building?
 
I think the inspector is exceeding his authority. There is no limit to the length of service conductors on the outside of a building before they are disconnected and provided with overload protection.
 
I'm not sure, But the inspector is telling me we can't do it without overcurrent protection at the meter. I've never seen this before. There's an existing 200 amp single phase service on the space installed in the same manner that wer're upgrading. He states that it was installed under an outdated code and no longer applies to this application. I'm thinking this is a inexperienced inspector. :lol:
 
Tell the Inspector to read 230.6 again. It begins with "Conductors shall be considered outside of a building. . . ." It does not begin with "Conductors shall require overcurrent protection unless. . . ."

Clearly, that article only applies to conductors that are physically within the boundaries of the building, and that you wish to treat as being outside the building. Conductors that are physically outside the building do not need any rule to tell us that they can be treated as being outside the building.

But being inside or outside is not the issue, when it comes to the location of the overcurrent device. The rule about locating the overcurrent protection for service conductors, 230.91, tells me that your proposed layout is perfectly acceptable.
 
I agree with you charlie b. I've never seen an inspector interpert a code in this manner. I've built hundreds of services in this manner. I guess I was just questioning myself about something I may have been unaware of since NEC 2005 was released. Just looking for some input I guess.
 
Did he provide you with a section number. If not you should request a section number to help you comply with his request.
He will not be able to provide you with an accurate number, as there is no violation in what you have installed.
 
Maybe it is something local??
Outside is outside. If you were so inclined, you could run the conduit from the load side of the meter around the buiding then in on the opposite side of the meter. It is still outside.
Somebody will probably post the picture of the conduits that "blew up" that were on the outside of the building.
I think what you are doing complies with the NEC. Ask the inspector for a more detail specific explanation including NEC code citation.
 
Re: 230-6 Conductors considered outside a building

Electrick One said:
...entering the building, and terminating into a 600 amp MDP with a main, within five feet of entering the structure. Are the conductors still considered outside the building...?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not seeing things clearly, but I'm seeing a possible violation of 230.70(A)(1). If the conductors are four feet long, running inside the building, and then enter the MDP, then the inspector has a case.

Perhaps the inspector and the original poster are having a failure to communicate? 230.6 would be relevant, because you'd have to read 230.6 to accurately read 230.70(A)(1). But the correct citation would be .70, not .6, IMO.
 
Pierre, sometimes those conversations can be very abrupt. I could see the conversation going along the lines of...

"I'm gonna have to tag you for the conductors entering the building over there. If you look at 230.6, you'll see what I mean. Best bet would be to slap your disconnect in next to the meter over there."
"Wait, I..."
"Look, I'm late for the paintball championship. Slap that disconnect in over there, and call for a reinspect when you're done."
"But, I..."
(Car door slams, bluegrass music fills the neighborhood, complemented by the faint tinge of tire smoke...)

There's just a chance of miscommunication here, maybe. Just airing the idea. :D
 
We did a building not too long ago where the engineer place the service panels (three of them side by side with MCB's in each) in an electrical closet in the middle of the building (30 feet from the nearest exterior wall). We ran PVC conduit under the slab to the closet from the Utility Co. CT cabinet. Passed inspection and everybody was happy. Those conductors were considered outside until they turned up from under the slab!
 
After speaking with the inspectors supervisor this morning, the concern the inspection deprt has is based on a local fire code. Because we're using a Landis K-base, in the event of a fire in the structure of the strip mall, the fire deprt. would not be able to pull the disconnect on the space. My question is, why didn't the inspector explain it that way in the first place. I'm still not sure what he was thinking about. :roll:

My only other question is why the planning dept missed this, and approved the plans as they were submitted, without the disconnect

In response to George, the inspector didn't have a problem with the five feet of conductor inside the building since the conduits would be entering the MDP at four feet inside the structure and using a top feed interior . But the inspector pointed out that there would be more than five feet of conductor inside the building, but was willing to let that slide.
But no matter, because of the fire code, the disconnection device is going IN


GAWD,,,I love electrical contracting!!!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top