wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
California has not amended 230.70(A)(1).
Cheers, Wayne
Cheers, Wayne
Service conductors inside a building
- Thread starter Anon1
- Start date
- Status
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
I figured. Local custom allows it.
SF has wierd customs also. Meters are typically inside the garage. Never been to any other place that does that.
Regarding 230.6, it is a misconception that the NEC requires service conductors to be outside of a building. Please see this post:
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=194178&p=1949378#post1949378all
If 230.6 were to mean that all service conductors must be outside, then 230.70 would not implicitly allow them by regulating how long they can run through the inside of a building. Why would 230.70 exist in its current form? It would be regulating a situation that is already forbidden by 230.6. Additionally, 230.6 is under "I. General" and applies to ALL service conductors. It makes no distinction between overhead and underground service conductors. But section 230.32 says
"[Underground] Service conductors entering a building or other structure shall be installed in accordance with 230.6 or protected by a raceway wiring method identified in 230.43."
The "or" makes it clear that you are allowed to install underground fed service conductors, in a raceway like EMT (as per 230.43) without concrete encapsulation after they enter a building. If this is the case, then 230.6 cannot mean that all service conductors must be outside.
Regarding 230.70, I've explained in these two posts that this code section does not forbid a mast running horizontal inside of a building
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=194172&p=1949272#post1949272
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=194172&p=1949471#post1949471
Basically what I'm saying is this. The code does not forbid service conductors from entering a building, it doesn't forbid service conductors from running horizontally through a building, and it doesn't specify a maximum length of run when inside. It is not a "California custom", it is allowed by the code. All I'm asking is that someone actually show me how my reasoning in any of these posts is flawed.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Anon, when everyone around you is saying you are incorrect-you may wish to maybe ponder that it may be true. I understand your argument, as others have here, and you have not received any support. Think about it....
This the premier NEC forum in the USA, lotsa smart guys.
You are correct that service conductors may enter a building, but the first readily accessible space is a AHJ call and length also unless defined by local code.
In a nutshell, you are SOL.
Ps.Your 230.32 reference does not apply. That is specifically for underground installs and 230.70 still applies. You gotta come up and straight into a disco/panel/ etc or start encasing in concrete.
Last edited:
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Ran out of edit time.
Again I want to state that it is a bit of BS on the inspector’s part IMO since your install is just as good as a straight vertical mast. One is not better or worse than the other.
I blame the CEC and undefined local custom.
Again I want to state that it is a bit of BS on the inspector’s part IMO since your install is just as good as a straight vertical mast. One is not better or worse than the other.
I blame the CEC and undefined local custom.
Yes I have considered that I'm not correct. I'm not unreasonable.
It would be a fallacy to think that a lack of support is equivalent to being wrong.
By the same token, I also have had few if any arguments that actually counter my arguments (with the notable exception of your comment about 230.32, which I'll get to)
"the first readily accessible space is a AHJ call and length also unless defined by local code". Although this is technically correct, you need to recognize that the way you are applying you reasoning creates a situation where it is actually impossible for one to know from the publicly adopted code that their install is compliant. No matter how one might install a mast or riser, any inspector in lieu of a defined maximum length could determine unilaterally that even 1" is too far. And by your reasoning you would have no recourse. A reasonably short lengthmust be allowed so that you can place your disconnect in a place that observes all codes, including those of the utility. In my case, there was literally one place the meter panel could go and one place the mast could stub out of the roof and they were 4' apart horizontally. Assuming that to be true, any reasonable person reading 230.70 would conclude that, without a locally defined maximum length, a slightly longer run to accommodate all the relevant clearances is justified. Also I will mention that the inspector did not fail it siting 230.70, only 230.6. Forum members brought up 230.70.
"Ps.Your 230.32 reference does not apply. That is specifically for underground installs" The fact that my reference applies to underground service conductors does not mean it doesn't apply to the argument that I made. Read it carefully. It uses contradiction and induction to prove that the interpretation that 230.6 states thatALL service conductors must be concrete encapsulated when they enter a building is wrong. 230.6 applies to ALL service conductors. If you can demonstrate the the interpretation doesn't apply for one type of service conductors (underground) then it cannot apply to ANY (including overhead) and the interpretation must be incorrect.
"gotta come up and straight into a disco/panel/ etc or start encasing in concrete" 230.32 specifically gives you an alternate to concrete encapsulation. There is no way to read 230.32 and still conclude that you must use concrete. If there is some maximum interior length in a particular AHJ, then that's a different story and yes you can encapsulate so as to shorten the length that is "inside" the building, but for reasons I've mentioned before, being "nearest the point of entrance" cannot be interpreted literally to an extreme. You admit as much when you say that it has to come straight up into the disco. The disco wouldn't be sitting on the ground would it? Of course not, it's elevated off the ground and the unencapsulated pipe runs up into the bottom of it.
I know that this sounds like it's getting heated, and that's not my intent. I appreciate the feedback. And really, the discussions on 230.70 are just side tracks. I'm really trying to get at 230.6. It does not mean that all service conductors must be outside.
It would be a fallacy to think that a lack of support is equivalent to being wrong.
By the same token, I also have had few if any arguments that actually counter my arguments (with the notable exception of your comment about 230.32, which I'll get to)
"the first readily accessible space is a AHJ call and length also unless defined by local code". Although this is technically correct, you need to recognize that the way you are applying you reasoning creates a situation where it is actually impossible for one to know from the publicly adopted code that their install is compliant. No matter how one might install a mast or riser, any inspector in lieu of a defined maximum length could determine unilaterally that even 1" is too far. And by your reasoning you would have no recourse. A reasonably short lengthmust be allowed so that you can place your disconnect in a place that observes all codes, including those of the utility. In my case, there was literally one place the meter panel could go and one place the mast could stub out of the roof and they were 4' apart horizontally. Assuming that to be true, any reasonable person reading 230.70 would conclude that, without a locally defined maximum length, a slightly longer run to accommodate all the relevant clearances is justified. Also I will mention that the inspector did not fail it siting 230.70, only 230.6. Forum members brought up 230.70.
"Ps.Your 230.32 reference does not apply. That is specifically for underground installs" The fact that my reference applies to underground service conductors does not mean it doesn't apply to the argument that I made. Read it carefully. It uses contradiction and induction to prove that the interpretation that 230.6 states thatALL service conductors must be concrete encapsulated when they enter a building is wrong. 230.6 applies to ALL service conductors. If you can demonstrate the the interpretation doesn't apply for one type of service conductors (underground) then it cannot apply to ANY (including overhead) and the interpretation must be incorrect.
"gotta come up and straight into a disco/panel/ etc or start encasing in concrete" 230.32 specifically gives you an alternate to concrete encapsulation. There is no way to read 230.32 and still conclude that you must use concrete. If there is some maximum interior length in a particular AHJ, then that's a different story and yes you can encapsulate so as to shorten the length that is "inside" the building, but for reasons I've mentioned before, being "nearest the point of entrance" cannot be interpreted literally to an extreme. You admit as much when you say that it has to come straight up into the disco. The disco wouldn't be sitting on the ground would it? Of course not, it's elevated off the ground and the unencapsulated pipe runs up into the bottom of it.
I know that this sounds like it's getting heated, and that's not my intent. I appreciate the feedback. And really, the discussions on 230.70 are just side tracks. I'm really trying to get at 230.6. It does not mean that all service conductors must be outside.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Anon, I will address your last posts tomorrow.
Good discussion is always welcome.
Good discussion is always welcome.
packersparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- Inspector
It can be interpreted to an extreme by an AHJ. Since "nearest the point of entrance" does not mention a length, it can be interpreted in almost any way by the AHJ.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Correct.
So if you have a conduit with service entrance conductors coming up out of the footing of a house inside an exterior wall for 30" and then it enters the bottom of a flush mount meter combo panel and an inspector turns it down, not on the grounds that it is inside the building, but because it is not "nearest the point of entrance" you say that inspector is adhering to the intent of the code?
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Incorrect, the crawl space is not readily accessible, so if the pipe goes through/under a footing and immediately turns up into a panel/disco inside a wall and terminates in there, the NEC is satisfied.
Can you clarify? I didn't mention a crawlspace. Perhaps in your area most homes are raised floors with crawlspaces underneath? I'm speaking about a home built directly atop a concrete slab, no crawlspace underneath. The conduit riser comes up vertically through the footing, through the bottom plate of the wall, runs for 30" in the wall, then terminates in the bottom of the meter panel. I've attached a drawing showing what I'm talking about.
Attachments
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
It can't do that. It needs to come up outside the wall or be wrapped in concrete. California is the only place in the country where service conductors are allowed to be installed inside a wall.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
That install would be legal.
packersparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- Inspector
The AHJ, in this case, gets to determine what the intent of the code is. It's the same way for "subject to physical damage", the definition of which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In the case that you describe I can see it playing out this way:
Inspector: "You can't install the service conductors through the crawlspace. The disconnect is not located outside or nearest the point of entrance to the building."
Electrician: "But I can't install the disconnect in the crawlspace as it would not be readily accessible."
Inspector: "That is correct. You could encase the service conductors in 2 inches of concrete in the crawlspace up to the floor. They would then be considered outside of the building in accordance with 230.6. I would accept 4 feet of service cable or raceway before it enters the service disconnect above the floor."
Or the inspector may just decide that the disconnect is nearest the point of entrance and allow the situation you describe. It is up to the inspector unless local amendments apply.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Um, no.
So my question to you would be, if an inspector quoted 230.70 and said that the disco was not "nearest point of entrance" because the pipe runs for 30" inside the wall before terminating he would not be within his rights? He would be wrong?
@ActionDave - Although it might be true that this is only allowed in California, it is not because California has a special allowance, but rather because AHJs elsewhere have prohibited it by addendum or local custom, or the Utility prohibits it. California follows the NEC, which does not actually prohibit this type of install. I think a lot of the conflict around this stems from the fact that you can't do it this way in most places and so it's easy to assume that doing it this way would be a violation of the NEC instead of being a violation of local custom/code. Have you had a chance to look at some of my other posts in this thread? I would love to hear what you have to say about the arguments I made concerning the relevant code sections.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Agree, the disco would be in the first readily accessible space in this scenario IMO.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Yes, for the last scenario you posted. The service conductors are underground, outside the building, and then terminate in in a panel that is is the first reasonable readily accessible point.
No problem. Does not have to be an exterior wall as long as it is a straight shot from underground to panel.
- Status