TOOL_5150
Senior Member
- Location
- bay area, ca
enclosed service mast
- Thread starter insparks
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Not worth my time, the section is clear, I understand CA allows it, the NEC does not.
Now Bob, don't be grumpy. :grin:
There is NOTHING in the entire section 230 that states in any way that service conductors are prohibited inside the building. In fact they allow open conductors according to that Section.
I do agree with your statement and reference on the service disconnect, but we're talking about the riser not the disco.
This makes me wonder where this whole thought process comes from..I recall that there were discussions on this forum in regards to "what does the nearest practical point for the disconnect mean in terms of length of conductors allowed inside the building" as the Code did not specify a hard distance.
I maintain that a riser inside a wall is NOT a Code violation and most certainly is not the huge fire hazard that some may think it is.
As for theft of service issues brought up by TOOL_5150, that is a POCO problem and design issue not enforceable by the NEC.
If there is any other Section/Article that prohibits the riser in the wall then I'd love to know of it, as would my AHJ friend.
One-eyed Jack
Senior Member
- Location
- Scotland Neck, NC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39f2pd4y8Ac&feature=related
Watch this video and tell me it isn't a fire hazard. In NC we accept the fact that SE is allowed inside in very short lengths before going disco. We also work with the POCO to provide a safe install. You and your AHJ may consider it safe. I DON'T. Guess what,I am the AHJ in this little corner. For NEC ref. call it subject to approval.
- Location
- Massachusetts
You really caught me at a bad time because if there was a stress ball in front of me I would crush it.
So be prepared for blunt answers. :grin:
YOU ARE WRONG! (Blunt huh)
230.70.(A)(1) prohibits service conductors inside the building.
230.70(A)(1) requires the disconnecting means to be nearest the point of entrance. Once the conductors reach the disconnecting means they are no longer service conductors they are feeders and can run as far as you want.
Up to the disconecting means which is required to be where the SCs enter the building.
It makes no difference.
YOU ARE WRONG (blunt again)
It is both a code violation and a hazard.
Dude you really blow my mind, you get all upset about an unsecured EMT but have no problem with unfused conductors in a wall. It make no sense and I think it is ... well ... stupid to even say it is not more of a hazard then having it outside the building per 230.6
230.70(A)(1) in 49 states, get over what you are used to and read the section. :roll:
Now I have to go beat a wall until I break a hand.
Well surprise, I live and work in the Bay Area, and we ARE allowed to put service risers INSIDE the wall for overhead services. The only limitation is that RGS is used. What city is not allowing it ?
TOOL_5150
Senior Member
- Location
- bay area, ca
PG&E does not allow OH services any more - unless you are in an area that only has OH service, which, really, who the hell is building right now - especially in older neighborhoods.
every time I have pulled a permit to swap out an OH service, PG&E said that the mast/riser has to be outside the building. Which I think is stupid, because all new homes are built with the UG riser IN the [usually garage] wall.
But in all reality, just dealing with PG&E is hit or miss, Ive been told from different employees that i can do my own disconnects and reconnects to I cannot, and if I do I will recieve a huge fine. :roll: I hate that company.
~Matt
electricguy61
Senior Member
I do a lot of service changes in the Bay Area, most with PG&E, a few with Santa Clara & Palo Alto, which have there own generation & distribution. Palo Alto has probably the strictest inspectors I've dealt with, yet I've never been failed for an inside riser.
I've never seen in writing, nor had a job failed, because I replaced a mast inside a wall.
I'm not saying others haven't.
And though this only happens occasionally, I disagree with Iwire/Bob. Don't see how the disconnect becomes the riser.
Somehow, all the electrical manufacturers (GE, Murray, CH, Square D) must have screwy business plans, because they all make semi-flush panels that can only be installed with the riser in the wall. Someone please explain this fact for me.
I've never seen in writing, nor had a job failed, because I replaced a mast inside a wall.
I'm not saying others haven't.
And though this only happens occasionally, I disagree with Iwire/Bob. Don't see how the disconnect becomes the riser.
Somehow, all the electrical manufacturers (GE, Murray, CH, Square D) must have screwy business plans, because they all make semi-flush panels that can only be installed with the riser in the wall. Someone please explain this fact for me.
- Location
- Massachusetts
The fact items are manufactured has nothing to do with the item being used code compliantly. To me that is like saying a NEMA 1 box can be used in any location just because it is manufactured and listed.
With the semi flush service panel the inspector could make you concrete encase the riser etc.
electricguy61
Senior Member
Your example doesn't fit the situation. Of course equipment can be installed in a non-compliant way, but these panels are made to be installed in a way that you feel is non-compliant.
Aren't the manufacturers some of the major contributors (as in writing) to the NEC?
If all these panels were non-compliant, why would they make them?
As I said, I almost always agree with your views Bob, but me thinks you chose the wrong battle on this one.:grin:
One-eyed Jack
Senior Member
- Location
- Scotland Neck, NC
I am totaly with you on this one. I hated those semi flush meter enclosures anyway. POCO will NOT hook them up in this area.
david
Senior Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
The only limitation is that RGS is used
Rigid Metal conduit is allowed as one of the wiring methods for service entrance conductors, but not the required method.
My question would be why the requirement.
Is the answer that its because these are service entrance conductors installed in the building prior to the service disconnect.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I have no idea where you are getting this from but PG&E definitely allows overhead services. I have and installed many of them this year. PG&E would prefer you stay with overhead services if the distribution in the area is overhead. They charge a premium for underground services in overhead areas. PG&E allows flush mounted panels for both overhead and underground services. Its pretty hard to install an underground panel flush unless you fir the wall out to allow for the minimum 3" raceway. Structural engineers are disallowing semi-flush panels on many projects since they don't want the hole cut into their sheer wall. Some local jurisdictions such as Woodside and Portola valley want all new service to be underground but that has nothing to do with PG&E.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I agree that the NEC does not permit this installation but it has been standard practice in CA for many years. The funny part is we are not allowed to run exposed SE cable that most of the country accepts.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
As a manufacturer, who makes non-listed LFMC (a product that has been required to be listed since the 1996 code), explained to me one day when I asked about the product...there is no violation in selling the product...the violation only comes when you install it.
TOOL_5150
Senior Member
- Location
- bay area, ca
Weather PG&E actually does allow it, or not, in certain cities or not - it is against code. I use surface mounted panels on all my OH service upgrades.
~Matt
~Matt
Again, as I stated with my posts earlier that got Bob riled up, I have read the ENTIRE Section 230 and there is NOT ONE THING that says a service riser is not Code-Compliant!! The disconnect requirement has some grey area and I think we can all agree how absurd it would be to mount a disco on the weatherhead (Not to mention it would now be at a height that is most definitely a Code violation.)
As anal as the California Codes are, I cannot and will not believe that they would have permitted (and still permit) service risers in the wall for going on 70+ years if there was a Code Section/Article that forbade the practice!!
One-eyed Jack, as for the video link you posted, true that was a very bad event, but:
1: It was a commercial, 3-phase riser and my position and this discussion is dealing with residential. (I'm also willing to bet that was a 480/277y service);
2: Based on the forklift and other stuff in the background, I'm willing to bet that fault started because the service and/or riser got hit by something;
3: A RGS riser inside a wall is MUCH better protected than one run in the open, even you should be able to agree with that. :grin:
And as for Bob, I guess sir this is another thing you and I will never agree on.
Just as California will NOT permit the use of SE/SER cable, your area will not permit a riser inside a wall. And as for the conduit run/riser point you made, a conduit run in trusses is a LOT more exposed to potential physical movement/damage than a RGS riser enclosed in a wall. :grin:
In fact, if we want to talk about dumb practices, here we can have PVC underground risers..and we live in earthquake country! AFAIK there is NO provision made/required for allowing for excess ground movement either. And quakes or not, PVC does NOT provide the same level of physical protection to conductors as RGS or even EMT.
But I do agree with Bob on one point: from the vague position of the Code, yes I could see where it could be argued that one should encase the riser in the wall with concrete. But that argument was already hashed out here in L.A. County and guess what was decided? RGS riser OK in wall with NO concrete fill required. This from L.A. County Inspector's Office via 3 engineers I know.
Again, I want to see a Code Section that SPECIFICALLY states that a service riser in a wall is prohibited.
Final point: Isn't the Code considered a "permissive" document, i.e. if it is not spelled out as prohibited then the practice is allowable?
I would LOVE to see someone suggest a proposal to specifically ban service risers in wall and see what happens. I won't do it because I don't agree with the position that it is/should be prohibited.
I'm in the California bay area and I recently had an inspector suggest to me that I use the existing enclosed service mast on an upgrade I was doing. I had been planning on surface mounting a new panel, but he said I could just use the existing recessed cabinet area that held the old 100 amp panel. I called PG&E, they came out to the home to take a look, and said I could go ahead and use it. I was limited to 150 amp because the size of the old conduit, but other than that, it was fine.
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Location
- Massachusetts
Last edited:
- Status