enclosed service mast
- Thread starter insparks
- Start date
- Status
jbelectric777
Senior Member
- Location
- NJ/PA
The service conductors are no longer considered as "outside of building". If there was a fault on the line side of the meter it could cause a contained arc blast that would catch the wall of the home on fire, or with enough pressure blow the bricks out which is also dangerous. They dont know whats behind the brick but 99.9 says its wood which is of course combustible material, best fix is cut it out and run them a new line side cable.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
I did similar on a house for myself. Inspector said nothing and it got hooked up. That was allmost 30 years ago. Rather dought it woul fly anymore and to be honest was a real pain in the a.
As for if it shorted i don't see it much differant than coming up underground in a slab in middle of house and that would been in pvc.
As for if it shorted i don't see it much differant than coming up underground in a slab in middle of house and that would been in pvc.
One-eyed Jack
Senior Member
- Location
- Scotland Neck, NC
It would be outside until it exited the slab. Go straight to disco and your done.
Your right 30 years ago that was the rage in this area. I hated it but with no code enforcement it was the game. It won't fly today.
Big whoop...my apt. building has had the service riser inside the wall since it was built in 1940. It is right inside my bedroom wall and I don't even give it a second thought.
Unless you want to mount the disco on the roof with the weatherhead directly on top you're not going to avoid running a line side riser down to a meter.
Even if it is external on a stucco wall (like my building), if it faults it WILL set the building on fire.
I would be more concerned with the gutter inside the old all-wood doghouse in my case.
As some have argued here, show me the data on service riser faults that mandated the Code change.
In order to be Code-Compliant, a riser like mine would have to be centered in a six-inch thick cavity filled with concrete.
Now if the OP's situation is that the riser/SE cable was external and the bricks were added on top, yeah that is an issue I can agree needs to be fixed.
Unless you want to mount the disco on the roof with the weatherhead directly on top you're not going to avoid running a line side riser down to a meter.
Even if it is external on a stucco wall (like my building), if it faults it WILL set the building on fire.
I would be more concerned with the gutter inside the old all-wood doghouse in my case.
As some have argued here, show me the data on service riser faults that mandated the Code change.
In order to be Code-Compliant, a riser like mine would have to be centered in a six-inch thick cavity filled with concrete.
Now if the OP's situation is that the riser/SE cable was external and the bricks were added on top, yeah that is an issue I can agree needs to be fixed.
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Regardless of how you feel about it it is an NEC violation.
As is often the case you seem to feel the code is only right when you agree with it.:roll:
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
There are many houses in NC with the riser inside the wall. I hate having to upgrade them but I have done a few. The weatherhead on this one seems to be non existent.
Exactly. And seems a lot of others feel the same way. :grin:
I employ common sense in evaluating a hazard, and sorry but I don't think a service riser is a hazard.
Can you cite the specific sections prohibiting it?
Just look at how many on here find SE cable absurd and dangerous, (I for the record don't) and is it not common practice in your area? How many failures have you seen?
Literally millions of homes here in So. Cal are wired with in-wall risers as my apartment is, and even as little as a few years ago a riser within a wall will pass inspection here. I'll check with my inspector friend (seeing him tomorrow at Ren Fest) and see if it is still accepted practice here.
In fact I have the SCE Handbook for services and risers in the wall are still accepted by them.
Other than a few dramatic videos on YouTube, I and my inspector friend have never seen a riser failure, and that's over a combined 60+ years of experience.
The Code has a lot of things right, (In fact I will say a good 99+%) but there are the few things that are either dead wrong or simply absurd. (Like conductor requirements for film projectors.)
To put it another way, I feel about this issue as you feel about panels in bedrooms, which is to say it's not an issue.
We will agree to disagree on this one I guess. :grin:
Last edited:
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
In the jurisdictions I do my work, one cannot bury the riser in the wall, . . . today.
However, there has been a long history of the riser being buried with AHJ and PoCo blessing. 99.999+% is metal encased, that is, thinwall, IMC or RMC.
The exception (to metal raceway) that stands out in my memory, a 20 Amp 120/240 volt single phase K&T dwelling service entrance that went into the wall and dropped two stories (all concealed #12 rubber insulated conductor on porcelain knobs) til arriving at the fused service disconnect switch . . . about 21 feet.
However, there has been a long history of the riser being buried with AHJ and PoCo blessing. 99.999+% is metal encased, that is, thinwall, IMC or RMC.
The exception (to metal raceway) that stands out in my memory, a 20 Amp 120/240 volt single phase K&T dwelling service entrance that went into the wall and dropped two stories (all concealed #12 rubber insulated conductor on porcelain knobs) til arriving at the fused service disconnect switch . . . about 21 feet.
What is the service riser, RGS, EMT, SER, etc ?
It is common practice on the west coast to run RGS in the wall as a service riser. View attachment 4777
TOOL_5150
Senior Member
- Location
- bay area, ca
We are not alowed to run it in the wall any more. If its a service upgrade and its in the wall, it has to be put on the outside and a new roof jack installed, overhead service of course. I fully agree with this code. It makes sence for the safety and protection of theft of service. As far as the newer underground services, they are in the wall in the garage usually.
~Matt
~Matt
Must be SFO, because it is acceptible south of there.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
230.70(a)(1)
RGS is the standard method here. PVC was once acceptable in wall for overhead but has fallen out of use, except fro underground risers.
Thank you Don. I don't have a 2008 here (we're on 2005 and I lost my CD) so could you be so kind as to cut and paste the text to this thread?
- Location
- Massachusetts
I know in CA that many risers are in fact run down inside the wall, in the rest of the country I think you will find inspectors failing that installation.
I guess it would be OK if you located the service disconnecting means at the top of the riser. :grin:
Now that would be interesting. :grin:
Now to be a royal pain in the behind, I submit the position that the referenced Code Section refers to the Disconnecting Means, and not necessarily the riser or the conductors within per se.
The main argument to support the issue is whether or not the conductors contained within the riser are considered as "within the building" by being in an exterior wall cavity. :grin:
Looking at my 1999 NEC (latest book I have on hand right now) Sec. 230-6 defines the conditions which make the conductors defined as "outside the Building" which includes the following:
(2) "Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 2 in. (50.8mm) thick."
So unless the raceway is encased in concrete or brick not less than 2" thick then it would be considered as "inside the building." Reasonable enough.
But here's the kicker: After reading the entire Section for services 600v nominal or less, nowhere in that Section 230 is a prohibition of Service Conductors inside the building.
In fact , Section 230-52 says the following: "Where individual open conductors enter a building or other structure, they shall enter through roof bushings or through the wall in an upward slant through individual, noncombustible, non absorbent insulating tubes. Drip loops shall be formed on the conductors before they enter the tubes."
Again, this is from the 1999 book I have right now, and I concede that there is perhaps another Section that spells out the prohibition or that later Code cycles did indeed change that Section.
So next reference please. :grin:
Last edited:
TOOL_5150
Senior Member
- Location
- bay area, ca
No, I do not do work at the airport. Please read my post again:
"We are not alowed to run it in the wall any more. If its a service upgrade and its in the wall, it has to be put on the outside and a new roof jack installed, overhead service of course. I fully agree with this code. It makes sence for the safety and protection of theft of service. As far as the newer underground services, they are in the wall in the garage usually."
~Matt
- Status