Service conductors inside a building

Status
Not open for further replies.
from the handbook for the 2011 NEC...
'No maximum distance between the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means is specified by 230.71(A). The authority enforcing this Code or AHJ has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision on how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the service disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection. In the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials. '

So, according to the NEC there is no actual limit to the distance INSIDE the building the service conductors may travel, just that this must be kept to a minimum.

'However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. See also 230.6 and Exhibit 230.15 for conductors considered to be outside a building. '
 
Adamjamma said:
from the handbook for the 2011 NEC...
'No maximum distance between the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means is specified by 230.71(A). The authority enforcing this Code or AHJ has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision on how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the service disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection. In the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials. '

So, according to the NEC there is no actual limit to the distance INSIDE the building the service conductors may travel, just that this must be kept to a minimum.

'However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. See also 230.6 and Exhibit 230.15 for conductors considered to be outside a building. '
Click to expand...

Where is exhibit 230.15? I couldn't find it in my 2011 or 2014 code book.

As for the rest of your comment, I agree with it, but I think it is incomplete. Before I can explain why let me propose two scenarios to you which I've drawn. The house drawn has a steep pitched roof greater than 45 degrees. Assume for the sake of argument that the location of the service equipment drawn is the ONLY location acceptable to the AHJ in order to observe all clearances specifically relevant to meters, disconnects, and panelboards. Also assume that the AHJ has always accepted vertical masts and has not specified any maximum allowable distance inside a building. Now because of the steep pitch, the vertical mast is a little longer than most but is installed like any other. However, in the second drawing, running the mast horizontal and then vertical you have actually shortened the length of the SECs inside the building. Can you find anything wrong with either of those installs?
 

Attachments

  • Vert mast.jpg
    Vert mast.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Horizontal mast.jpg
    Horizontal mast.jpg
    56.6 KB · Views: 0
Adamjamma said:
from the handbook for the 2011 NEC...
'No maximum distance between the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means is specified by 230.71(A). The authority enforcing this Code or AHJ has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision on how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the service disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection. In the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials. '

So, according to the NEC there is no actual limit to the distance INSIDE the building the service conductors may travel, just that this must be kept to a minimum.

'However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. See also 230.6 and Exhibit 230.15 for conductors considered to be outside a building. '
Click to expand...

Well done Padawan. Cohesive, clear, and concise.
 
personally, I do not and if you have a tree or other obstacle in the yard or on the roof that stops you from moving the mast to over the new meter location, like my grandfathers old water tower did in El Cajon, then the AHJ might listen to you... but otherwise it is what he and you can work out because as my excerpts stated, according to the NEC you may be ok but it is always up to the AHJ to determine limits upon length inside the building.
 
Anon1 said:
Where is exhibit 230.15? I couldn't find it in my 2011 or 2014 code book.

As for the rest of your comment, I agree with it, but I think it is incomplete. Before I can explain why let me propose two scenarios to you which I've drawn. The house drawn has a steep pitched roof greater than 45 degrees. Assume for the sake of argument that the location of the service equipment drawn is the ONLY location acceptable to the AHJ in order to observe all clearances specifically relevant to meters, disconnects, and panelboards. Also assume that the AHJ has always accepted vertical masts and has not specified any maximum allowable distance inside a building. Now because of the steep pitch, the vertical mast is a little longer than most but is installed like any other. However, in the second drawing, running the mast horizontal and then vertical you have actually shortened the length of the SECs inside the building. Can you find anything wrong with either of those installs?
Click to expand...

Exhibits are in the HB only, not a regular NEC. I will look up and post it in a few minutes.

I have a 2011 HB.
 
Adamjamma said:
personally, I do not and if you have a tree or other obstacle in the yard or on the roof that stops you from moving the mast to over the new meter location, like my grandfathers old water tower did in El Cajon, then the AHJ might listen to you... but otherwise it is what he and you can work out because as my excerpts stated, according to the NEC you may be ok but it is always up to the AHJ to determine limits upon length inside the building.
Click to expand...

So let me put it this way: if the inspector has no issue with the 8' length of the vertical mast inside the building, then he CAN'T have an issue with the interior length of the 7' mast correct?
 
jumper said:
Um, yes....

PS. I have a lot of inspector friends on this forum, please do no include my comments towards you all.
Click to expand...

Haha, hold up... am I being trolled right now?
I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking you, but that position is completely indefensible. Your view of the power and authority that inspectors have is not grounded in reality. There is not a court in the country that would support your point of view.

If two persons were neighbors and were having identical panel upgrades done with identical length masts installed inside the walls and the same inspector approved one and then failed the other based on length of conductor inside the house and then the owner of the second home sued the city based on that decision there is no way ANY judge would not see the obvious violation of justice in it.
 
Anon1 said:
Haha, hold up... am I being trolled right now?
I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking you, but that position is completely indefensible. Your view of the power and authority that inspectors have is not grounded in reality. There is not a court in the country that would support your point of view.

If two persons were neighbors and were having identical panel upgrades done with identical length masts installed inside the walls and the same inspector approved one and then failed the other based on length of conductor inside the house and then the owner of the second home sued the city based on that decision there is no way ANY judge would not see the obvious violation of justice in it.
Click to expand...

Trolled, no. :(

I am quite offended d.:rant:

The definition of the first readily accessible space is arbitrary unless defined by local code.

How many feet of service conductors or how they enter the building is a local/state code interpretation usually.
 
Anon1 said:
If two persons were neighbors and were having identical panel upgrades done with identical length masts installed inside the walls and the same inspector approved one and then failed the other based on length of conductor inside the house and then the owner of the second home sued the city based on that decision there is no way ANY judge would not see the obvious violation of justice in it.
Click to expand...

Well, give it a try then come back and tell us how you made out.

Now, say the inspector said both of you were in violation, it would be time to accept it and bite the bullet, which is probably what you will have to do anyways.

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top