SEC Fed Through Panel

[George Stolz]

I would start with 230.7 but others say it is not a service raceway.

Since the panel is not a raceway how do you comply with 230.32? 230.32 takes you to 300.5(D).

Does 300.5 make the panel an enclosure? Yes. So we are OK with 300.5.

Now back to 230.32. 230.42 does not apply since we said it is not a raceway.

All that is left is 230.6. It does not meet 230.6 so the conductors must be considered inside.

So 230.70(A)(1) applies.

You can not run unfused conductors passed the disconnect. So I say no to this installation.

I'm not seeing the relevance of any of that.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I'm not seeing the relevance of any of that.

Did not see the 'mast' in a later post.

 

[shepelec]

If this panel is a raceway, in violation of 230.7, then passing through the meter first will not change that. A meter does not provide disconnection, or overcurrent protection, it is not a service disconnect.

Service conductors come into a meter, and the conductors that exit the load side are also service conductors. Throwing a cash register anywhere does not change the nature of the conductors.

If this service is in violation of 230.7, then IMO there is not a service on the planet that complies. By necessity, service conductors must enter the panel to be disconnected and protected.

Of course, I could not be convinced otherwise four years ago either.

The difference is on a normal install the SEC terminates in the panel. In this case they do not therefore the panel is being used as a race way. The meter in this case irrevelent.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The difference is on a normal install the SEC terminates in the panel. In this case they do not therefore the panel is being used as a race way. The meter in this case irrevelent.

I agree the meter is irrelevant but do you call every junction box a raceway simply because the wire passes thru. If you do then you are mistaken, IMO.