Service conductors inside a building

[Anon1]

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.

Friend, that doesn't address what I said. Please tell me how I'm wrong in my last post by supplying some argument to support your reasoning instead of just saying "you're wrong". Also, please do not say that this post of yours I'm quoting does provide an argument against my last post because it does not. My last post already assumes the truth of what you are saying in your post I'm quoting regarding length of service conductors.

(Also as a side not "The definition of the first readily accessible space is arbitrary..." is also not true. The code clearly defines what readily accessible means. An AHJ may extend or overrule the NEC's definition by printed addendum, but it is not arbitrary. It is already well defined in lieu of a definition by the AHJ.)

 

[jumper]

Friend, that doesn't address what I said. Please tell me how I'm wrong in my last post by supplying some argument to support your reasoning instead of just saying "you're wrong". Also, please do not say that this post of yours I'm quoting does provide an argument against my last post because it does not. My last post already assumes the truth of what you are saying in your post I'm quoting regarding length of service conductors.

(Also as a side not "The definition of the first readily accessible space is arbitrary..." is also not true. The code clearly defines what readily accessible means. An AHJ may extend or overrule the NEC's definition by printed addendum, but it is not arbitrary. It is already well defined in lieu of a definition by the AHJ.)

Good luck. Bye.

 

[Anon1]

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

That was a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. It's a thought experiment. You don't have to actually perform the thought experiment necessarily in order to draw relevant conclusions from it. This is super common logical debate stuff. And you didn't actually comment on it. I'd like to hear your take.

Asking what if the inspector had failed both is the setup for another separate hypothetical argument. It isn't relevant to the argument I made. The conclusions drawn from each argument are relevant to each other, but the arguments themselves have no bearing on each other.

I have to say I'm surprised at the response I'm getting here. Has no one ever challenged an inspector? Has no one ever gone over their head to the head inspector, or the head inspector's boss? It's a really common thing in the industry and I've seen it successful often.

Inspectors aren't any different from construction workers. Some are good at their jobs and others are screw ups. They are fallible.

 

[wwhitney]

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?

A few comments on 230.70(A)(1):

(1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors

(1) The meaning of this is obviously subject to interpretation.
(2) This can be read as two separate requirements: (a) readily accessible and (b) if inside, nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. I favor this reading.
(3) Alternatively, this could be read as (a) if inside, the readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors; and (b) if outside, any readily accessible location.
(4) If read as (3), then it is perfectly logical to allow an 8' long strictly vertical interior segment and not allow a 7' long partly vertical and partly horizontal interior segment. Because in the latter case, eliminating the horizontal segment and moving the service disconnecting means would get the service disconnecting means closer to the point of entrance of the service conductors.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

PS The language in 240.21(B)(5) "Outside Taps of Unlimited Length" is similar and a lot clearer than 230.70(A)(1).

I think the intention is that 230.70(A)(1) has the same meaning as 240.21(B)(5) plus 240.21(B)(5)(4), but 230.70(A)(1) lacks 240.21(B)(5)'s explicit language of "the conductors are located outdoors of a building or structure, except at the point of load termination." So 230.70(A)(1) could be taken to mean that the service conductors can enter a building en route to an exterior service disconnect, even though that is not how it is commonly interpreted.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Little Bill]

I don't make a habit of it or even look forward to it, but I have challenged inspectors before. However, it's usually more of a "black and white" type thing. I have to be sure I am correct (or at least think I am, I have been shown I'm wrong)
The situation the OP is presenting is not a "black and white" question. The distance SE conductors are allowed inside a building unprotected is not given in the NEC. It's generally up to the inspector and/or the AHJ. It's akin to the "subject to physical damage" rule as there is no direct interpretation.

So asking if an inspector is correct on these subjects only gets you opinions. In my experience most of my inspectors are fairly consistent with there rulings/findings, meaning consistent with their own rulings/findings. It is when some inspectors differ from each other on the same scenario that I have a problem with.

But there are exceptions when they can differ from their own previous interpretation. For example, 8' of SE conductors might be allowed inside unprotected in a noncombustible area with no traffic, whereas 7' is too much in an area with traffic surrounded by combustible material. So IMO, it's up to the inspector/AHJ on the length of SE conductors allowed inside unprotected and not, in general, something you can definitely say an inspector is wrong about. Your opinion may be different but you won't win the argument in most cases.

 

[Anon1]

Good luck. Bye.

Ah that's a bummer. He was the most active contributor to the thread. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, just trying to get him to support his statements.

I don't make a habit of it or even look forward to it, but I have challenged inspectors before. However, it's usually more of a "black and white" type thing. I have to be sure I am correct (or at least think I am, I have been shown I'm wrong)
The situation the OP is presenting is not a "black and white" question. The distance SE conductors are allowed inside a building unprotected is not given in the NEC. It's generally up to the inspector and/or the AHJ. It's akin to the "subject to physical damage" rule as there is no direct interpretation.

To be fair, the original issue was that the inspector said that NO service conductors were ever allowed inside a building and quoted 230.6 as his source. In this instance it is black and white. That isn't at all what that section says and he is wrong. He never said anything about cable length inside the building. All the stuff about 230.70 was brought up by others later in the thread. That's not to say that I didn't follow them down the 230.70 rabbit hole too, cuz I did. I just enjoy the debate.

 

[LarryFine]

Has no one ever challenged an inspector? Has no one ever gone over their head to the head inspector, or the head inspector's boss?

I have, three times now, and "won" all three times. Like Little Bill, I make sure I'm right before I make a challenge, but I never take the adversarial stance, as I believe we and inspectors share the same goal: a safe, legal, and properly-performing electrical installation. One can argue without being argumentative.

The first one, I used shallow Wiremold boxes with blank plates to enclose connections of 120v under-cabinet lights that had 18-2 lamp cord to the 14-2 NM poking through the drywall. The only concession was that I add protection to the openings, so I split 1/8" ID rubber hose to cover the edges of the box KO's.

The second one, the job being a complete kitchen remodel, the inspector insisted that a pre-existing built-in desk in the far corner "could" be used as a counter-top, and thus the two receptacles serving it required GFCI protection. They happened to be on two separate circuits and would need two GFCI's, so no.

The third, a recent one, involved a service upgrade to add a second 200a panel to supply a new tankless water heater that required four 40a circuits. I ran 4-0 SE cable from the new exterior disconnect to the new inside ML panel. He insisted "all" feeders require SER, even though there were no neutral loads.

 

[Craigv]

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the inspector can inconsistently enforce the code?

jumper said yes, and I agree with him. Your view on this is based on logic and reason. His (and mine) are based on reality and experience. Should all codes be enforced equally by the same AHJ? Yes, or course. Are all codes enforced equally by the same AHJ? Nope. Until you've had it happen you might not believe it. After you've had it happen you probably still won't believe it. But it does happen.

And yes, you can obviously follow the legal appeals process. Hopefully the principle is worth the legal costs, aggravation, and lost time. Keep in mind that even if you win, you lose, unless you're certain this is the last job you'll do in that jurisdiction.

This is why my job estimates always include wording that the scope of work is subject to changes required by the AHJ, and that additional costs may be incurred as a result of such requirements. Above all else, we work to earn money. Arguing code with an official has a zero profit margin. Winning these arguments may or may not recover the lost time.

 

[jap]

For my 2 cents worth, it looks like the install actually turns out as a "Semi-Flush" installation, and, the final look is not near worth arguing about how far the Service Conductors could travel inside the structure.

If it were me, I'd either install the service mast and combo meter main on the outside of the house where there'd be no question about it , or, I'd call the AHJ prior to each install and get his take on what he would allow or not before I ever even got started on it.


JAP>

 

[david]

Ah that's a bummer. He was the most active contributor to the thread. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, just trying to get him to support his statements.



To be fair, the original issue was that the inspector said that NO service conductors were ever allowed inside a building and quoted 230.6 as his source. In this instance it is black and white. That isn't at all what that section says and he is wrong. He never said anything about cable length inside the building. All the stuff about 230.70 was brought up by others later in the thread. That's not to say that I didn't follow them down the 230.70 rabbit hole too, cuz I did. I just enjoy the debate.

I would measure the length of the service conductors in question, and then measure the shortest length they could have been run.

The reasonable length of the service conductors falls between those two measurements and is a judgement call from the authority. The inspector has the authority to determine what is reasonable based on site conditions. The inspector made that determination. And has a code bases to say the length of the service conductors inside of a building need to be limited to less than you thought was reasonable in his/her judgement

As a rule of thumb around here we say 3 to 5 feet. And have the authority to allow a different length under consideration of specific site conditions

 

[Adamjamma]

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?

No matter where you are at in this world there is unfortunately one factor to remember... Inspectors have all the authority their bosses give to them and when you make them mad everything you do, no matter how correct, is wrong to them.
So, you cannot say to the inspector that he is wrong... you can however ask him to explain to you how you can change it, given the circumstances, to make him happy.
I mean, I was once given a traffic ticket by a police officer who in court admitted that he saw my light quit working and pulled me over more for where I had pulled out from than for the light, but the light gave him an excuse to search my vehicle... I still lost, because, believe it or not, I changed the light at the spot he pulled me over at, from my toolbox in the trunk... so therefore according to the judge I must know I had a problem with the vehicle... the fact I had just been fixing the lights on a friends vehicle and had the spare bulb in the box did not matter to the judge who just about charged me with contempt of court... Dinwiddie almost had themselves a visitor for a few days that day...lol

Anyway, like I showed you, the NEC may agree to there not being a violation yet the local POCO and the local AHJ decide that there is, because their local codes have something against it, or it just does not look right. So, it is unfortunately, as the handbook said, up to the AHJ, not us!

 

[electrofelon]

No matter where you are at in this world there is unfortunately one factor to remember... Inspectors have all the authority their bosses give to them and when you make them mad everything you do, no matter how correct, is wrong to them.
So, you cannot say to the inspector that he is wrong... you can however ask him to explain to you how you can change it, given the circumstances, to make him happy.
I mean, I was once given a traffic ticket by a police officer who in court admitted that he saw my light quit working and pulled me over more for where I had pulled out from than for the light, but the light gave him an excuse to search my vehicle... I still lost, because, believe it or not, I changed the light at the spot he pulled me over at, from my toolbox in the trunk... so therefore according to the judge I must know I had a problem with the vehicle... the fact I had just been fixing the lights on a friends vehicle and had the spare bulb in the box did not matter to the judge who just about charged me with contempt of court... Dinwiddie almost had themselves a visitor for a few days that day...lol

Anyway, like I showed you, the NEC may agree to there not being a violation yet the local POCO and the local AHJ decide that there is, because their local codes have something against it, or it just does not look right. So, it is unfortunately, as the handbook said, up to the AHJ, not us!

The AHJ and the inspector are not the same thing fyi.

 

[kwired]

If I was a CA inspector I wouldn’t hesitate to pass your install

That would be before your employer brainwashes you of common sense

 

[Adamjamma]

The AHJ and the inspector are not the same thing fyi.

If the inspector works for the AHJ, then isn’t it then basically the same? You mY be able to go over his or her head but what happens the next time you need inspections there?
I mean, I am pretty sure he is not arguing with a home 8nspector for a real estate company...lol

 

[roger]

If the inspector works for the AHJ, then isn’t it then basically the same?

Not in every instance, a police officer does not make the laws, he inforces them, the same as an inspector inforces the rules made by the AHJ.

Roger

 

[Skokian]

Service Conductors inside of a building.

Service Conductors inside of a building.

This is a very, very common occurance.

Namely the power fed to electric fire pumps is very often service entrance.