service conductors in same enclosure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ponchik

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
The over head service conductors for this panel are located behind the cover (called a tunnel kit) on the left side of the 12-2 cables

Do they really need to be behind the cover? or can the tunnel kit be removed?
View attachment 16126
 
edward said:
...
Do they really need to be behind the cover? or can the tunnel kit be removed?
Click to expand...
The NEC does not require a barrier...


...but the POCO may pursue legal action if you remove it. :happyyes:


PS: Hopefully you mean service entrance conductors. :blink:
 
Smart $ said:
The NEC does not require a barrier...


...but the POCO may pursue legal action if you remove it. :happyyes:


PS: Hopefully you mean service entrance conductors. :blink:
Click to expand...

Yes. service entrance conductors.

I will check with POCO and get their take on it.

It is already installed and I am not going to remove it. I just wanted to get feedback.

Thanks
 
shortcircuit2 said:
But inside a wall is a dry location?
Click to expand...

Of course it is, because is is inside (entered) the building.

You still have not really answered my question.

Here in MA would you pass inspection if you run the service cable or conduit inside the wall from the point of attachment down inside the wall?
 
iwire said:
Of course it is, because is is inside (entered) the building.
Click to expand...

This is debatable...

If we look at it from your view...then SE conductors passing through a hole in the wall are "inside the building" and the typical MA installation is a violation also.

You still have not really answered my question.

Here in MA would you pass inspection if you run the service cable or conduit inside the wall from the point of attachment down inside the wall?
Click to expand...

You're right...I've never seen it allowed in Mass...but I'm only familar with the area Southwest of Bawstin.

So does the original posters Code have an amendment allowing in the wall service entrance conductors...or do the AHJ's consider SE cable inside a wall as not entered the building?
 
IMHO, NEC 220.12 tells us that inside the exterior walls of a building is the interior of the building.

Roger
 
shortcircuit2 said:
This is debatable...
Click to expand...

No, I do not think it is.

If we look at it from your view...then SE conductors passing through a hole in the wall are "inside the building" and the typical MA installation is a violation also.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are inside the building with the disconnecting means located close to that penetration as practical.

So does the original posters Code have an amendment allowing in the wall service entrance conductors...or do the AHJ's consider SE cable inside a wall as not entered the building?
Click to expand...

This why I asked if it was CA, in CA a tyical method is to run an RMC up from a flush mounted service panel in an exterior wall, the RMC runs up inside the wall and up through the roof to become a mast for the service. Mechanically a very strong and practical installation, it just takes an AHJ to agree that is nearest the point of entrance.

In CA they do, I do not believe they would here. Not saying one place is right or one place is wrong, just different in their approach. The NEC has left it pretty vague and open to local area customs.

One of our mods was a Salt lake city area inspector and they do not let service conductors enter a building at all. If I recall they allow a back to back (meter outside, panel directly inside) installation with a pipe nipple but no more. It was a while ago so I may have forgotten the details.
 
iwire said:
Yes, those are inside the building with the disconnecting means located close to that penetration as practical.
Click to expand...

Yes this is what is generally allowed in my area...

One of our mods was a Salt lake city area inspector and they do not let service conductors enter a building at all. If I recall they allow a back to back (meter outside, panel directly inside) installation with a pipe nipple but no more. It was a while ago so I may have forgotten the details.
Click to expand...

And this would be the strictest interpretation of what the Code actually says.
 
roger said:
IMHO, NEC 220.12 tells us that inside the exterior walls of a building is the interior of the building.

Roger
Click to expand...
Just to stir the pot a little :angel:, it appears a mast in an exterior wall is permitted in Washington State....

20130606b66bf0180ec740eab34fb4b1d9ccc5a3.png


Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-46B&full=true
Search page for "E101." The illustration is between two instances.
 
I am in CA.

Local major POCO allows installing the service conduit between the outside wall and the inside wall (the cavity). It has to be IMC or RMC sometimes EMT is allowed.

I don't think between the walls is considered "Inside the building"

AFAIK, my local POCO does not allow service cable.

It looks like per NEC 230.6(5) it is OK to install the service conductors inside the wall as long as the service conduit is IMC or RMC.
 
Last edited:
edward said:
I am in CA.

Local major POCO allows installing the service conduit between the outside wall and the inside wall (the cavity). It has to be IMC or RMC sometimes EMT is allowed.

I don't think between the walls is considered "Inside the building"

AFAIK, my local POCO does not allow service cable.

It looks like per NEC 230.6(5) it is OK to install the service conductors inside the wall as long as the service conduit is IMC or RMC.
Click to expand...

If in PG&E territory their Greenbook does not list SE cable as a allowed method, been told it's the same for SCE, Southern California Edison, may be OK by the NEC, but still has to allowed by the serving PoCo. PG&E's territory covers about 2/3rds of the State of California, minus a few municipal utilities here and there.

For residential semi-flush panels are normal, makes for a easy install, just a pain when time to replace with a existing odd design panel in stucco. :lol:

Fo
 
edward said:
I am in CA.

Local major POCO allows installing the service conduit between the outside wall and the inside wall (the cavity). It has to be IMC or RMC sometimes EMT is allowed.

I don't think between the walls is considered "Inside the building"

AFAIK, my local POCO does not allow service cable.

It looks like per NEC 230.6(5) it is OK to install the service conductors inside the wall as long as the service conduit is IMC or RMC.
Click to expand...
That only applies to conduits run through an eave. It does not let you run the conduit up the wall under the outer wall covering. In fact part of the substantiation for that code section was that anything inside the outer building surface is inside the building and the code making panel agreed.
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Well that depends if he interprets "in the wall" as "entered the building"...
Click to expand...

don_resqcapt19 said:
That only applies to conduits run through an eave. It does not let you run the conduit up the wall under the outer wall covering. In fact part of the substantiation for that code section was that anything inside the outer building surface is inside the building and the code making panel agreed.
Click to expand...


As I was saying SC2, inside the wall is inside the building.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That only applies to conduits run through an eave. It does not let you run the conduit up the wall under the outer wall covering. In fact part of the substantiation for that code section was that anything inside the outer building surface is inside the building and the code making panel agreed.
Click to expand...
Well...I'll debate this a little further...

Yes, I see your point related to the added language in the 2014 NEC 230.6(5)...

But, inside outer building surfaces constructed similar to this that comply with 230.6(2) would allow any service conductors suitable such as RMC, IMC, EMT, ENT, SE, MC, PVC...to be routed through the exterior wall envelope of a building.

insulated_cavity_wall (172x230).jpg
Also note that 230.6(5) only applies to installations to accommodate the overhead clearance rules of 230.24
 

Attachments

  • insulated_cavity_wall.jpg
    insulated_cavity_wall.jpg
    112.5 KB · Views: 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top