SE Conductors sharing wireways with feeders and BC

[Cleveland Apprentice]

Hello,

Is it permissible to run SE conductors with no ocp in wireways with other feeders or BC installed? I don't believe it's legal, but second guessing myself. Can anyone cite a code section? Thanks

 

[Smart $]

Hello,

Is it permissible to run SE conductors with no ocp in wireways with other feeders or BC installed? I don't believe it's legal, but second guessing myself. Can anyone cite a code section? Thanks

No...

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors
other than service conductors shall not be installed in
the same service raceway or service cable.

Exception No. 1: Grounding conductors and bonding
jumpers.

Exception No. 2: Load management control conductors
having overcurrent protection.

 

[Cleveland Apprentice]

Thank you Smart $

 

[TimK]

Is that correct?

Is that correct?

No...

I could be wrong, it has happened before, buuuut, are you not allowed to run all the different conductors in a wireway or am i thinking of a cable tray that it is allowed? I understand that when i did this that it fell within the POCO power plant which might be the exception, but i believe that 392.6 allows it.

 

[Smart $]

I could be wrong, it has happened before, buuuut, are you not allowed to run all the different conductors in a wireway or am i thinking of a cable tray that it is allowed? I understand that when i did this that it fell within the POCO power plant which might be the exception, but i believe that 392.6 allows it.

Three things here:

1) A wireway is a raceway.
2) Cable tray is a support system... not a raceway.
3) POCO power plants are an exception (though many construction and maintenance contracts spec the work to be performed to NEC)... but where would there ever be a service conductor in a utility power plant?

 

[TimK]

Uncle, Uncle!!

Uncle, Uncle!!

Okay, i can see the difference. :ashamed:When we did it at the power plant we had service conductors and medium voltage and branch circuits running to an elevated battery backup bldg, (trailer) that housed partial UPS and partial comm switch room.

 

[Smart $]

...but where would there ever be a service conductor in a utility power plant?

Okay, i can see the difference. :ashamed:When we did it at the power plant we had service conductors and medium voltage and branch circuits running to an elevated battery backup bldg, (trailer) that housed partial UPS and partial comm switch room.

I've worked at many power plants... and what you may have called [building] service conductors on site were likely feeders under NEC definitions.

 

[TimK]

????

????

I've worked at many power plants... and what you may have called [building] service conductors on site were likely feeders under NEC definitions.

Well, i guess i might be at a loss here. Let me think about this a minute. It has been 8 or 10 years, killed that brain cell. It did come out of a 480V transformer and went to a disconnect inside building and then transformer to 120/208, so am i wrong in calling the first run from outdoor 480V transformer to building disconnect the service entrance cables?:?

 

[Smart $]

Well, i guess i might be at a loss here. Let me think about this a minute. It has been 8 or 10 years, killed that brain cell. It did come out of a 480V transformer and went to a disconnect inside building and then transformer to 120/208, so am i wrong in calling the first run from outdoor 480V transformer to building disconnect the service entrance cables?:?

If the installation was entirely on the utility generation site, the installation is rarely under NEC purview, so NEC definitions technically do not apply. Regardless, such an installation is typically done in the same manner as an NEC-defined service, or separately-derived system (see Article 100 definitions).

If the installation was spec'd to meet the requirements of the NEC, then by definition it would not be a service (unless the power originated off-site, generated by another provider... and the chance of that is essentially non-existent). Under the NEC it would be a separately-derived system, and from the transformer to the building disconnect would be transformer secondary conductors [see 240.21(C)]... but the 'higher powers' may deem it a service, and thus it would be installed as such even though technically it is not.

 

[TimK]

Splittin' hairs?

Splittin' hairs?

If the installation was entirely on the utility generation site, the installation is rarely under NEC purview, so NEC definitions technically do not apply. Regardless, such an installation is typically done in the same manner as an NEC-defined service, or separately-derived system (see Article 100 definitions).

If the installation was spec'd to meet the requirements of the NEC, then by definition it would not be a service (unless the power originated off-site, generated by another provider... and the chance of that is essentially non-existent). Under the NEC it would be a separately-derived system, and from the transformer to the building disconnect would be transformer secondary conductors [see 240.21(C)]... but the 'higher powers' may deem it a service, and thus it would be installed as such even though technically it is not.

So why would it need to be supplied by another provider? Art 100 says "serving utility", if you are the serving utility and supplying power, i get the separately derived system and would not argue if you wanted to call it that, i just don't get that another provider. Sorry Smart$, not trying to waste your time, just make myself smarter than i was a few minutes ago.

 

[Smart $]

So why would it need to be supplied by another provider? Art 100 says "serving utility", if you are the serving utility and supplying power, i get the separately derived system and would not argue if you wanted to call it that, i just don't get that another provider. Sorry Smart$, not trying to waste your time, just make myself smarter than i was a few minutes ago.

Well it's not written in stone anywhere, per se... just a logical, practical deduction (IOW, JMO). The short of it is, an electric utility cannot provide an NEC-defined service to itself on the same premises which generates power. I'm not saying it's physically impossible... but rather a matter relegated by laws and regulations.

 

[TimK]

Well it's not written in stone anywhere, per se... just a logical, practical deduction (IOW, JMO). The short of it is, an electric utility cannot provide an NEC-defined service to itself on the same premises which generates power. I'm not saying it's physically impossible... but rather a matter relegated by laws and regulations.

I understand, thanks for making me a little smarter with the ways of the world.