Service conductors inside a building

[Anon1]

I have an inspector telling me that service conductors can NEVER be inside a building and he quotes NEC (or rather CEC, but same thing) 230.6 item (2) as his justification

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building.
Conductors shall be considered outside of a building orother structure under any of the following conditions:
...
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in araceway that is encased in concrete or brick not lessthan 50 mm (2 in.) thick

I say its clear that he is misinterpreting that code. It does not say that service conductors shall be outside of buildings but rather that they can be considered as being outside a building if encased in concrete. If you read the preceding section, 230.3, its clear that 230.6, among other things, is a remedy for the situation mention in 230.3

230.3 One Building or Other Structure Not to Be SuppliedThrough Another.
Service conductors supplying abuilding or other structure shall not pass through the interiorof another building or other structure

Let me explain the situation. I'm dealing with a new overhead service installation. New flush mount meter panel on a garage wall 5 feet away from the original meter panel location. For reasons that would take a long time to explain I had to stub the mast up out of the roof 4 feet away horizontally from the new meter panel location. I ran the mast through the garage wall by putting a ninety out the top of the panel to a short length of pipe to another ninety pointing up to a 5 foot piece of pipe stubbed out of the roof. He says the service conductors are inside the building (which they are) and that that violates code. I asked him what about a completely vertical mast inside the wall straight up out of the panel and out of the roof (which is admittedly how most flush mount overhead services are done). He said that in that case the conductors would not be considered as being inside the building but once they run horizontal they are then considered to be inside. I know there is no basis for that distinction in the code.
I have other reasons explaining why I think he's wrong but I'd like to hear from the forum what they think.

 

[charlie b]

I don't do installations, so I am having a hard time envisioning your installation. Specifically, I don't understand the difference in your two suggestions, with one being called "inside" and the other being called "not inside."

But as to the code requirements, every building needs a disconnecting means. For a service, per 230.70(A)(1), the disconnecting means must be either outside or "inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors." So if you allow the conductors to be inside the garage, then that is the place you must install the service disconnecting means. The service conductors terminate there, the N-G bond goes there, and the wires to the main house become feeder conductors.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[jap]

He's probably got you by 230.70 (A)1. by not being the nearest point of entrance.


JAP>

 

[jap]

I can see where a "Flush Mount" Meter/Main could leave a lot of room for the AHJ to rule on "Nearest point of Entry" of the service conductors.

Not so much with a "Surface Mount" meter on the outside that feeds to a panel inside.

Around here the Max distance they allow for Service Conductors to travel inside before hitting the first means of overcurrent protection is 3' to a max of 5'.

Your install wouldn't fly in our area either.

JAP>

 

[Chamuit]

230.70.A.1 seems to allow a bit of interpretation by the AHJ. Does your AHJ have a written policy on this scenario?

Question. Why didn't you nipple out of the back of the panel to an LB then over to the riser? Seems like that might have satisfied the requirement.

 

[jap]

230.70.A.1 seems to allow a bit of interpretation by the AHJ. Does your AHJ have a written policy on this scenario?

Question. Why didn't you nipple out of the back of the panel to an LB then over to the riser? Seems like that might have satisfied the requirement.

I'm not sure how they allow the meter inside in the first place,

but,

If his unit is actually a Meter/Main inside, that type of install wouldn't fly in our area either.

The cover on the LB would give access to unmetered power on the customer's side.

JAP>

 

[jap]

As you can see, the "Flush Mount" portion of this is causing all of the problems.

I can say I've never personally installed a Flush Mount Meter or Meter/Panel as your describing, and don't know why I ever would.

Is this a combo unit?

I'm hoping you can expand on this somewhat to clarify what is meant by a "Flush Mount Meter/Panel".

Most combo Meter/Mains I've ever seen have the meter and the panel with the distribution facing the same direction.

If that's the case, and the Panel is facing the inside of the garage, is the meter not on the inside of the garage also?

Confusing.

If this is actuall a combo meter/main that was meant to be installed surface mount, and, was somehow installed "In" the wall flush mount pointing to the outside of the garage, then we have bigger fish to fry.

JAP>

 

[Anon1]

Thanks for your replies, I'll try to address all of them.

The new meter panel is your typical side by side 200 amp panel. The left side of it contains the meter socket and the service entrance conductors and their terminals, the left side contains the main 200 amp disconnect and bussing for breakers. The meter and the breakers all face the outside, nothing faces inside. The panel is flush mounted and is manufactured with a flashing flange for that purpose, ie. the panel sits between two studs and extends out past the stucco by about an inch.

An LB is typically, although not always, acceptable for use in running service conductors as they cannot be sealed by the utility. Such is the case with our utility company SDG&E

The AHJ here does not have a policy regarding acceptable length of service conductors after entering a building.

Regarding 230.70(A)(1) it is true that the disconnect should be as close as possible to the point of entry to the building. However, I feel that this obviously allows some small reasonable amount of leeway soas to observe various clearances. For example, if you interpret it very literally and take it to a ridiculous extreme you could say that the meter main with service disconnect should be mounted at the very top of the wall soas to be as close as possible to the point of entrance. However there is a limit in the code book to how high a breaker can be installed (I don't know the code section off the top of my head) and thus obviously the panel must be installed at a reasonable height. I know that is a ludicrous example, just illustrating a point. 230.70 may require the disconnect to be near the point of entrance but must also allow for reasonable variance to observe other codes.

On the installation I'm dealing with there a several different clearances and dimensions that I have to observe simultaneously. The only way I could do so was by having the mast stub out of the roof 4 feet away horizontally down the wall from the meter main panel. A bird's eye view of the wall looks like this:

______________________________________________________________
|____O_______________________|__________|_____________________| <--Wall
Mast <------------4'-------------> Meter Panel

If you would like an explanation of all the different clearances and dimensions I have to observe I'd be happy to give it, but FYI it will be long and complicated.

 

[infinity]

So the mast penetrated the roof and runs inside of the garage? If so the inspector is correct. Sorry to say but for me this fails 100 out of 100 times. AHJ's will allow some leeway on the service conductors coming out of the meter into an indoor panel but not like what you've described. I get your argument that in both cases there are SEC's run inside of the structure.

 

[jap]

So the mast penetrated the roof and runs inside of the garage? If so the inspector is correct. Sorry to say but for me this fails 100 out of 100 times. AHJ's will allow some leeway on the service conductors coming out of the meter into an indoor panel but not like what you've described. I get your argument that in both cases there are SEC's run inside of the structure.

I agree.

And,

Also makes me wonder how an inspector would ever pass a Flush Mount Meter installation such as this.

JAP>

 

[Adamjamma]

isnt this a case of either the mast has to move or the panel has to move? If it is a meter/panel combo like my grandfather had on his home in El Cajon, then you cannot just put in a disconnect because it would be before the meter. So, either a Meter and Disconnect right below the mast in the old position which then could have the wires run in conduit to the new panel location, or move the mast so it comes straight into the panel... or, and even more expensive probably, trench underground to the service pole, to the panel location.

Again, not seeing your overhang problems, that is the solutions that I know of... Not sure but think if the mast was moved so conduits ran on outside of the wall then it would be allowed as sits but the big drawback is the fact it runs inside the wall. Which I believ the only way around is to fill around the conduit with at least two inch cover of cement... as they do not consider it to be run inside if it is in a raceway that is covered with at least two inches of cement.
Just throwing ideas out there.

 

[Craigv]

isnt this a case of either the mast has to move or the panel has to move? If it is a meter/panel combo like my grandfather had on his home in El Cajon, then you cannot just put in a disconnect because it would be before the meter. So, either a Meter and Disconnect right below the mast in the old position which then could have the wires run in conduit to the new panel location, or move the mast so it comes straight into the panel... or, and even more expensive probably, trench underground to the service pole, to the panel location.

Again, not seeing your overhang problems, that is the solutions that I know of... Not sure but think if the mast was moved so conduits ran on outside of the wall then it would be allowed as sits but the big drawback is the fact it runs inside the wall. Which I believ the only way around is to fill around the conduit with at least two inch cover of cement... as they do not consider it to be run inside if it is in a raceway that is covered with at least two inches of cement.
Just throwing ideas out there.

I think the mast must be moved outside. It fails from both the AHJ and the utility...they don't want unmetered power inside the building.

 

[Anon1]

Okay so I think there still might be some confusion here.

I don't know if it's clear in the photo but I'll explain. In my region and in many others this is the normal way that an overhead service is installed and is accepted by the AHJ. Notice the flush mounted meter main and that the mast is inside the wall. I'm going to assume that in a lot of regions they do not allow the masts inside the walls at all. Is that correct?

 

[Adamjamma]

But what is the material of the wall? Because they allow the straight run, since they can see it is not tampered with but, a run that turns more than once, unless run underground, that becomes a problem and I know Virginia would not allow back in 1975... we had to switch it to underground because the building would not allow us to move the mast to over the new meter location. Again, this was in 1975, and my dad wanted the meter moved so he could later add a garage to the building, which never happened... but he did rewire the house..lol...

 

[jumper]

Okay so I think there still might be some confusion here.
View attachment 21357
I don't know if it's clear in the photo but I'll explain. In my region and in many others this is the normal way that an overhead service is installed and is accepted by the AHJ. Notice the flush mounted meter main and that the mast is inside the wall. I'm going to assume that in a lot of regions they do not allow the masts inside the walls at all. Is that correct?

Yes, it is a regional thing. Allowed in CA, but a technical NEC violation.

Now,

By going horizontal instead of a straight vertical mast, you increased the length of the service conductors from what would’ve been the minimum needed. The length added is really negligible and the install is just as safe as a normal CA mast and meter/combo set up IMO.

It is a bit of small BS, but inspector has a basis. Even by screwy CA rules, you did not go straight to the first readily accessible location.

 

[Anon1]

Yes, it is a regional thing. Allowed in CA, but a technical NEC violation.

Now,

By going horizontal instead of a straight vertical mast, you increased the length of the service conductors from what would’ve been the minimum needed. The length added is really negligible and the install is just as safe as a normal CA mast and meter/combo set up IMO.

It is a bit of small BS, but inspector has a basis. Even by screwy CA rules, you did not go straight to the first readily accessible location.

I assume you are referring to 230.70 correct? I have a post earlier in this thread, post #8, that deals with that topic. I disagree with the reasoning that anything but a straight vertical riser violates the service disconnect being "nearest the point of entry". There are actually scenarios where a vertical riser would lengthen the run inside the building vs. running it horizontally to a different location.

Aside from that, consider this: if that code requires as short of a run as possible inside the wall, then why doesn't the mast just ninety out of the wall right above the meter? Obviously because there are additional codes that have to be observed, in this instance clearance to ground of the overhead conductors. Another example would be of a service mast and meter panel on a gable end of a home, so the wall would look like this:
/\
/ \
|_|

I know it looks like garbage but bear with me. According to your reasoning the panel would have to be placed at one of the corners of the wall because the closer toward the peak, the longer the mast is inside the building. But what if there is an obstruction at the corner, like a gas meter. The panel couldn't be placed there because it would violate the safe working clearance required for panels with breakers (30" wide, 36" deep, flat level area free of obstructions). I think it is obvious that 230.70 would allow for the run inside the building to be lengthened in order to adhere to the other relevant codes, especially because doing so doesn't violate the wording of 230.70. It would be reasonable to say that the implied meaning of 230.70(A)(1) is

(1) Readily Accessible Location.
The service disconnectingmeans shall be installed at a readily accessible locationeither outside of a building or structure or inside nearest thepoint of entrance of the service conductors at a location that also complies with the other requirements of this code (NEC). [italicized text added]

 

[Anon1]

That ascii house was terrible, the slash characters don't play nice with spaces during posting, probably because of the markup tags. Hopefully it's clear what I was trying to do. We all know what a gable end of a house looks like right?

 

[jumper]

That ascii house was terrible, the slash characters don't play nice with spaces during posting, probably because of the markup tags. Hopefully it's clear what I was trying to do. We all know what a gable end of a house looks like right?

If you were anywhere else the install would fail. However, since CA allows this type of install, I answered with that in mind.

In CA they allow service conductors inside the building under certain conditions. The conditions are somewhat vague and open to interpretation. The inspector is interpreting that only straight vertical masts are allowed, but no horizontal pipe.

As I said, in reality, your install is just as good as a straight vertical mast, but your inspector says no. You really have no recourse IMO, since both installs are actually NEC violations.

Your inspector is just not letting you use the CA allowance.

 

[Anon1]

If you were anywhere else the install would fail. However, since CA allows this type of install, I answered with that in mind.

In CA they allow service conductors inside the building under certain conditions. The conditions are somewhat vague and open to interpretation. The inspector is interpreting that only straight vertical masts are allowed, but no horizontal pipe.

As I said, in reality, your install is just as good as a straight vertical mast, but your inspector says no. You really have no recourse IMO, since both installs are actually NEC violations.

Your inspector is just not letting you use the CA allowance.

What I'm getting at is that you are asserting that either install is a violation of the NEC and I presented an argument explaining that they are not. I'm not saying that California has special allowances in this scenario, because they don't. I'm saying that even though many AHJs don't allow service conductors in a building, that doesn't mean that they are forbidden by the NEC. AHJ are allowed to publish any addendum or amendment to the code they want, but that doesn't change what the NEC says. I was hoping you could present an articulated argument based on the NEC that attempts to refute mine instead of just reasserting that those installs are in violation of the code.

 

[jumper]

What I'm getting at is that you are asserting that either install is a violation of the NEC and I presented an argument explaining that they are not. I'm not saying that California has special allowances in this scenario, because they don't. I'm saying that even though many AHJs don't allow service conductors in a building, that doesn't mean that they are forbidden by the NEC. AHJ are allowed to publish any addendum or amendment to the code they want, but that doesn't change what the NEC says. I was hoping you could present an articulated argument based on the NEC that attempts to refute mine instead of just reasserting that those installs are in violation of the code.

Can you tell me the CEC section that allows this or is basically a CA custom?

Most places that allow service conductors beyond the first readily accessible place have a defined length.

The NEC definition of outside concerning service conductors was already given, 230.6.

I sympathize dude, but I see no way that your argument will prevails. Sorry.