- Location
- Massachusetts
enclosed service mast
- Thread starter insparks
- Start date
- Status
jwjrw
Senior Member
Ok you have a "riser" that goes into a meter which has conductors that connect to the line side of the meter can. The meter and riser are not the service disconnect. The load side of the meter conductors go to a service disconnect. I don't see 230.70 (a) violation.
- Location
- Massachusetts
In this case the riser from weatherhead to combination semi flush meter socket panel board is inside the wall. That is IMO a direct violation of 230.70(A)(1).
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
If the "riser" you speak of is entering the "inside" of the building and the service disconnect is not located nearest that point, we have not complied with 230.70(A).
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
We've seen one of those too, but this guy was only drilling a hole with a 1/4 inch bit. How was he going to tie into the service drop?
quote=iwire;1213721]I do not think anyone has disputed it is a very common method in CA.
[/quote]
Good, and since CA is a leader, you must do as we do or we will boycott you. You see the lesson we've taught AZ. :grin:
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
mivey
Senior Member
Most, but not all:
but I think slick & volta are wearing him down:
mivey
Senior Member
He thought it would work the same as one of the DIY ice-maker kits you get for the fridge.
mivey
Senior Member
Maybe no horror but just a widdle bit scawy: :grin:
Don't know why I felt the urge to pick on you, but I mean it in a light-hearted way.
mivey
Senior Member
That I would agree with. How long has that section been in place because I have seen a bunch of it in old locations?
- Location
- Massachusetts
mivey, at least put the correct posts together if you are going to post my superposed responses to them. :roll:
And as far as horror stories I still see none.
I see a guy that was a bit to up front about his day, sorry if that was a problem for you.
And as far as horror stories I still see none.
I see a guy that was a bit to up front about his day, sorry if that was a problem for you.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Interesting, as far as I knew that has been the topic of this thread all along.
mivey
Senior Member
No problem for me. I'm worse on a bad day, but I'm happy at the moment.
As for the posts, I might have got them out of order. There was a lot of jumping back & to from service conductors to risers. Besides, I had to pick the most horror-laden posts I could find to make it fit.
mivey
Senior Member
I only have back to 1978 (my newbie days) where it was in the grouping section 230.72(c) and said basically the same thing as the current code.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
What's the quote from Gunsmoke? "I went to bed mean and I woke up meaner."
That was kind of my day Thursday and I let everyone know that I woke up grumpy and people were going out of their way to see if they could make me grumpier.
Article 220 has already defined what the inside building space consists of and inside of a wall cavity is within the building
If the building was only considered within the interior walls it would be stated.
Roger
jwjrw
Senior Member
I'm with you now. The service entrance conductors start at the service point.
It would depend on your AHJ interpertation of where it enters the building.
And there's where I totally disagree with you on one point (your Art.220 reference which is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.) That reference is speaking of a area calculation, not a specific definition. By that logic one can sell a home based on interior square footage (the normal accepted way), the area including all dividing walls and wall cavities, or the area measured from exterior, outside surface to exterior outside surface. AFAIK commerce laws would prohibit the latter two measurements for a listing or taxation purposes.
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "inside".
However, since NEC Article 100 does NOT contain a definition of the NEC's intent for the word "inside" I am in total agreement with your statement of:
Roger said:
I think that pretty much is the main problem here. The NEC in Art. 100 DOES NOT clearly define what it considers to be "inside" and that leads to the interperative (?) issues brought up in this discussion.
To make all the arguements in this and the other thread on the topic valid, we need the NEC to add something like this to Art. 100:
New Art 100 entry said:
Since the Code doesn't say that (yet) I call a riser as being outside.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Good definition. I vote Slick for code change of the day.
- Location
- Massachusetts
So if you have rats in the space in the stud bays you would not worry about it because they are outside the home?:grin:
Clearly a conduit inside the stud bay is inside.
Would the conduit need WP fittings inside the wall? no .... because it is inside.
I think it is down right comical you that you want us to believe a conduit inside the walls is outside the building,:grin:
Stick with the fact the AHJ has some leeway about how far from the point of entrance and at least that would make sense.
- Status