NM @ services

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
NM conductors brought down exterior wall and entering back of main panel (located outside) through 2 - 2" metallic nipples with bushings.

violation, per 2002 NEC?

if so, what section?

what would be some alternative methods for achieving compliance?
 
Re: NM @ services

hi.

the main panel is surface mounted to the exterior of the structure.

the 2 nipples penetrate the exterior sheathing (building envelope) and enter the back of the main panel.

all of the NM conductors (branch circuits) are run through the 2 - 2" metallic nipples (approximately 6 inches long each).

312.5 (C)?

what would be an alternative method for compliance?

thanks!
 
Re: NM @ services

I do believe you are in violation of 312.5(C) by your description.

An option may be to build a chase enclosure at the bottom or top of the panel cabinet as to allow each cable to be inserted through a connector, receive AHJ approval for the installation as stated above, or install the loadcenter on the inside of the building to avoid the issue in total. :confused:
 
Re: NM @ services

The installation you described, is a common way of installing outdoor panels, the NM must be secured when exiting the nipple.
 
Re: NM @ services

When exiting the nipple ???????
 
Re: NM @ services

Satcom: The only place in the NEC that allows something close to this only allows the nipples to enter the panel through the top of the panel only.

Read "2002" NEC 312.5(C) exception and you will see that these nipples running into the panel through the back is a violation.
 
Re: NM @ services

i agree with hurk. no chase nipples(or similar), need connectors. if entering gutter, before entering panel, need connectors at gutter. at first it seemed as if psaddle was saying romex was exposed on exterior.

I have seen variations of posted description allowed in different areas, but it is not to code as i understand it.

paul
 
Re: NM @ services

actually, here, in california, it has become very stringent in many areas. There are broad ranges from area to area, where some "old style" unprotected service drops penetrate unprotected.

Around me, SF Bay area, it is quite stringent. Some areas did not have very good inspectors until the last few years. SF has had its own electrical inspectors for decades and they want it their way. period. Mostly good.

This requirement changed since I became a real electrician in the 70's. We used to use chase nipples all the time for dwelling construction. Pipe nipples that had a protective bushing were also common. But that stopped around 14 years ago, and connectors were required.

But there are regional differences that are obvcious reading this site. Not all areas have adopted recent NEC editions, and what is adopted in a jurisdiction is what is legal.

Your reference to service drop inside wall is not correct for California unless mentioned that it is in rigid or intermediate conduit. We do not allow unprotected service drops, or unprotected runs from meters to disconnect. Disconnect cannot be locked inside house, although distribution panel may be interior.

Where did you get that idea? :(

paul
 
Re: NM @ services

I should clarify that where i have seen unprotected service drops is unchanged old services, rural, 30 plus years old. I have not actually seen anyone install an unprotected service drop to fused protection in any jurisdiction around me.
 
Re: NM @ services

Your reference to service drop inside wall is not correct for California unless mentioned that it is in rigid or intermediate conduit.
Click to expand...
Paul some of us feel that the rigid pipe down the inside of the wall from the service point to the meter / panel is a violation of NEC 230.6.

Here in MA, RI, CT it would be an instant failure. This is not my opinon this is how it is here, many homeowners would be very happy to be able to hide the riser in the wall.

It would have to be encased in 2" of cement.

This is just one of those regional differences, and as long as you know the interpretation in the area you work it is all good. :)

Bob
 
Re: NM @ services

iwire: without disputing this point, did we not have a discussion in which you said that in your area you ran from the meter to the interior panel in service entrance cable and that it was run in the framing, not in conduit. If I am wrong please correct me about what I thought you said. This is a a practice that would not be allowed in California as the cable is unprotected.

as an aside, I read 230.6 as a definition of "outside", not as a mandate to have service entrance conduit outside. The key word being "considered".
 
Re: NM @ services

Paul you remember correctly and I am not trying to convince anyone that one area does it better than another, just differently. :)

We do not have houses burning down from SE failures any more than CA houses are burning from service wires being in the wall.

Here we can go inside the building five or six feet SE or raceway to the service disconnect, further than that and we have to enclose a raceway in concrete.

Where Ryan inspects they can not be in the wall as you can and they can not go in the building as I can. :)

We all do it different. :D

Bob
 
Re: NM @ services

SE Nm whats the difference it has to be run in accordance with NEC articles,unless there are local addendums. Protected on penetrations,1 1/4 rule,supported or secured,not over fused they are both cable raceways.And as used as a subpanel feed it is a branch circuit.This is residential SFR.
 
Re: NM @ services

Paul what I was referring to was, there was a few threads sometime back that a few electrican's from California stated that they were allowed to run SE cable from the service drop down through the outside wall to the meter/main combo. and this was quiet shocking to me when I heard this. as I have seen what happens when even in RMC when a fault occurs in the service wires. and it an't pretty. We had one house that had the service RMC running under the concrete basement floor and the only thing that saved the house from catching on fire was the carpeting was fire retardant. as the heat from the service wires arcing caused the 2" of concrete to explode as it burned it's way across the basement, Then the service drop wires finely burned free. The transformer was sized to feed 5 houses 3 had 200 amp services including this one. The T fuse didn't open
 
Re: NM @ services

hurk: I don't know where those electricians were, but not around me. I forget that I can drive through several east coast states before I can get out of California, it's about 10 and 12 hour trips from my house to the two eastern corners of California. There are a few extremely rural areas that do not have the demand for busy building depaartments.

I don't know if it's true but I heard a builder tell a story about a friend who built in Montana. He went to the building department and after the minimal paperwork, he asked about inspections. They laughed and said, "It's your house, if you don't want to build it well, that's your problem."

Also, i don't understand the difference between being "in" the wall as oppossed to passing through the wall. Isn't a conduit that passes through the wall "in" the wall as well

On a side note relevant to discussion, I have used gutters backed to the panel, nippled, into garages, as a junction box for new services and was never called on it. I have used them outside with Myers hubs in SF area with no problem. Getting all the romex to work with a new panel, often leaves many short, and most inspectors dislike any junctions in panels (40% rule, I think).

Also I am not clear how 230.6 actually is interpreted to disallow feeds, adequately protected, from being in a wall. I could find no other language in the service section that would support that interp, but it wouldn't be the first time I was corrected. Maybe it's in the handbook. I'll look later.

gotta run, paul
 
Re: NM @ services

thanks hurk, for the thread. That's what I was saying (which "that", the one where bennie says Ca has the best method).

paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top